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. However, proposals for changing how Did You Know works are currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.

2011 DYK reform proposals

Numerous threads moved to the Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals subpage:

• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Good articles redux
• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Proposal - minimum character requirement increase from 1500 to 2500
• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Some thoughts from a semi-regular
• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Proposal to replace DYK with new Good article DYKs and demote the current system to a sub page
• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Multiple RFCs confusing, simply remove DYK from the mainpage
• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Brainstorming related to RFC

N.B. This list and the subpage are currently incomplete and other threads have been archived by the bot to the main archives.

Just to say

I think the DYK team are doing a fine job. I find that I continually return here to find the same people up to their OLD TRICKS of looking after the Wikipedia project. Why is it that I have to be only person who turns up here and notices that despite doing a tricky job to the best of your ability you are getting little respect or admiration. At Wikimania Jimmy was talking about retaining editors. DYK is still retaining editors - just. Well done. Some of us count your successes. I do admire your ability to perservere and I hope one day you will return to your previous productivity of encouraging new editors and articles. Victuallers (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you vic, I needed that. Wish more people left praise of the people who keep DYK running here instead of just complaints and pointing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I second Victuallers' comments. I just submitted my first DYK, and as I watch the process, it is apparent that a lot of important, but tedious work goes into the daily preparations. Editors that do that day in and day out are really doing some yeoman's work. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a logical problem there, Victuallers ... you know about the editors you've retained.(recorded in embarrassing detail). Do you remember those you've lost? Humor me ... name five of them. More to the point, do you think it's good for Wikipedia that at least a third of top DYKers are persons who have created hundreds of copyvios? Many folks have long felt that DYK should be a good training ground for new editors-- instead, it became a bad training ground for experienced editors. Recently, that has begun to turn around, but if history proves correct, the lesson doesn't stick long. With better accountability, hopefully it can become a place where new editors learn Wikipedia policy more quickly, egregiously offensive editors are detected before they create hundreds of copyvios, and embarrassing mainpage BLP debacles and displays of inaccurate information end. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea where you get your figure of 'at least a third' of top DKYers being responsible for 'hundreds of copyvios'. Looking at the top thirty, I find it pretty hard to believe that 10 or more of them are routinely producing large numbers of copyvios - apart from Billy Hathorn of course. If that's not what you mean, then what on earth do you mean? Mikenorton (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

As to Sandy's question about people we have lost (since July): BarkingMoon, Francium12, Khazar, Nvvchar, and Rd232 (reasons unrelated to DYK) have all left the project while Ericoides has announced that changes to DYK will cause him to no longer participate. Others that have not been seen at DYK for some time include Cmadler, Editorofthewiki, and Panyd (probably unrelated to anything on-Wiki). --Allen3 ^talk 00:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Lots of folks have left DYK, most of us more quietly than others. I've been much happier since ditching all this drama and returning to content creation and gnoming. I recently wrote an article where a radio station was kept off the air by killer bees and didn't once consider putting it up, just to avoid getting sucked back into the drama here. - Dravecky (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

A sad situation. DYK didn't used to be a venue for drama -- except the occasional excitement when an update was late or a 'bot quit working. I am aware of several additional contributors who have given up, although at this moment I don't remember who they are. --Orlady (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Chiming in to say thank you to all the people who keep this process moving. Writers, such as myself, do appreciate this a lot, even if we don't say it every time :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I owe some thanks, too. I can't be the easiest person to work with - I have very eclectic interests, many of them recondite, I think my articles tend to run long, and it takes me ages to do a quid pro quo review because I have limited time and want to do it well. And I still don't think of myself as a "regular" here for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that I don't do any of the heavy lifting. But others do, and those whose articles I review are almost unfailingly a delight to work with and I've actually "met" some nice people in this corner of Wikipedia. The articles are often fun to read, too. All I feel I can do is try to support DYK by continuing to submit an article from time to time, but those who do a lot more than that deserve gratitude. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

A nice chorus of thanks I like to be part of. Thanks to those who keep DYK running! Thanks to those who improved it by installing the review templates! Thanks that the bad weather we talked about seems more or less over, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If I was one who looked for consensus (and I am) then I'd say you have it here. Nearly everyone thinks that you do a great job. In my opinion the top DYKer is PFHLai with over 1,000 articles to his name (before he stopped counting). Now he has put over 1,000 articles on the front page, we ought to take his/her work as a model instead of listening to people who think they have something important to say. DYK was intended to highlight a variety of new articles and show what our new editors were creating. (As we see above we are having good new articles not even put forward to be seen by our 400m users) It wasn't intended to be a place where you came to get shouted at and told what a load of recidivists you are. There are lots of people who no longer make mistakes on this project, luckily a few sturdy editors are ploughing on. You should not feel you are part of Wikipedia's original sin (mistakes are an essential part of doing stuff) Very well done.... you should go to wiki-heaven Victuallers (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It's important to say thank you and we probably don't do it often enough. In case you don't know, Template:The DYK Medal is one way of thanking an individual DYK contributor. Schwede66 17:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. But one thing I like around DYK is how several users help each other and "teach" each other, without expecting any reward, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for expedited movement of hook

Hello everyone, TonyTheTiger has requested that the hook for his nomination The Litigators at Template:Did you know nominations/The Litigators be shown on the mainpage on 25 October. Could somebody give some feedback and if possible promote the hook? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've promoted this one to Prep 3. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a request for Template:Did you know nominations/City Mall, Christchurch to appear on Saturday, 29 October. There's still some work that can be done on the article (as outlined on the article's talk page, which I will work on before Saturday), but it's certainly mainpage ready. Schwede66 17:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that Saturday isn't that far away, could somebody please help out with a review? Schwede66 04:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Reviewed, minor questions. Hint: there is an unreviewed Bach cantata which should appear even before that Saturday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Much appreciated. Have tried to clarify your query. I hope that somebody will get onto that piece of music soon. :) Schwede66 07:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Pangani River (prep 3)

A reputation is normally associated with a qualitative or quantitative perception, not a medical concept. What does it mean to say that a settlement has a reputation for fevers? Did it have a reputation for healers who could cure fevers? Did it have a high incidence of fevers? Did it have specific, unique fevers? Was this reputation well founded? Has it been rebutted? The hook is uninformative, and the reader will remain uninformed by the article. Kevin McE (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the phrasing, and it's more neutral than calling the place fever-ridden, which is undoubtedly what was meant. However, when looking at the article (which I gave a little copyedit) I did notice one issue: Pangani the settlement is referred to in text and hook as a village, but in picture captions as a town. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If it is beyond doubt that it means fever-ridden (it seems most likely, but far from clear, to me), then it should be made clear. Perhaps had a high incidence of fevers, although that still leaves many questions that are unaddressed (Which fevers? When? How were they diminished?). Our article on the settlement describes it as a town, and there is a photo there from which you can draw your own conclusion as to the extent of the place: outside historical considerations specific to national definitions, there is no strict distinction. The unreferenced population figure given is 8,000. The article on the town/village says nothing about the fevers: it seems odd that an article that is only marginally about the place offers a claim absent on the subject's own page. Kevin McE (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The hook is referenced to an 1878 book, which estimates the population at 2,000. The reviewer suggested an alternate hook on grounds of interest: "... that the Pangani River (pictured) was probably Ptolemy's Rhaptus?" I see the interest as only marginally greater, but the alt emphasizes the target article and avoids the problem that the info is out of date and negative. I'm going to boldly make the change and change the mentions in the article to clarify it's now a town. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I can't, it's now a Queue. Will however change the article mentions. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a note left on my talk page so I'm adding a comment. IMHO, both hooks have an element of interest so whichever the promoter prefers is fine with me. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't wait for me

There are several nominations on the noms page that currently seem to be in suspense, apparently waiting for me to continue my review (or, rather, follow up on earlier reviews). I'm very preoccupied with real life right now, so please don't wait for me. Someone else should pick up the review. (And regardless of my current status, I contend that no one WP:OWNs a DYK review.) --Orlady (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If someone else could please pick up on the noms for Offshore aquaculture, Octopus aquaculture, Toni Leviste, Flagler Hospital, and Bill Smith (fell runner), both the nominators who are waiting for followup reviews and I would be grateful. At the moment, I can't pay attention long enough to finish a DYK review... --Orlady (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I did offshore aquaculture yesterday. I'll contact Epipelagic to get his/her feedback on the suggested hooks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Prep 3

... that boiling oil is one of the usable weapons in the upcoming video game Chivalry: Medieval Warfare? All phrases like "in the upcoming video game" imply an advert. I think we should avoid this on the main page. Materialscientist (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The article also is rather advert-like. Too bad -- I have always been a big fan of boiling oil... --Orlady (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I moved it back to the noms page for further consideration. --Orlady (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Page view statistics

Is there something wrong with the page view numbers for DYK? I had a DYK on 25 October (Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.4), and when I checked it, it had eight views that day. The lead hook Patriot's Park had 11 views. It's a similar story on 24 October. Is there a technical glitch somewhere? Manxruler (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The service has been up and down for a while now. Sometimes it's the pageview stats tool (http://stats.grok.se), sometimes it's the data source (http://dammit.lt/wikistats/). See User talk:Henrik. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Then I guess we shall never know the statistics for those days? Manxruler (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Often stats for missing days are recovered – keep checking every few days! —Bruce1ee^talk 12:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not working at all for some articles.[1] Unless you use this: [2] from the History page. AlbertBowes (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you guys. I'll check the statistics once in a while, just to see if the numbers have been recovered. Manxruler (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's been off for at least a week. My hook for Karet Bivak had 0 views on the main page, apparently. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Missing DYK submissions

I've submitted 7 DYKs, each with a matching review, since mid-September and can't find any of them in the archives or any queue, even the ones from only a week ago. What's going on here? I can provide the names of the nominations if necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you created the nominations but did not add them to Template talk:Did you know, since your last edit to Template talk:Did you know was on 7 September. The individual nomination templates need to be transcluded to that page, under the date when the article was created or expanded. If you have some good noms, I think we should make an exception to the 5-day rule for transcluding them. --Orlady (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC – removed my duplicated info) See step III of Template talk:Did you know#How to post a new nomination. None of the following, starting from August 31, were ever reviewed, because no one knew they were there:

• Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Kempenfelt (I18)
• Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Hereward (H93)
• Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Hero (H99)
• Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Havock (H43)
• Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Harvester (H19)
• Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Perseus (R51)
• Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Argus (I49)
• Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Anne (1915)
• Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Raven II
• As well as the current one, Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! OK, I feel like an idiot for not fully reading the instructions because of the template creating the new page for the nom. Yes, all the noms were good. Just let me know when I should move them over if y'all need to do something special for the oldest noms to accommodate them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You might as well withdraw the ones before HMS Anne; they are too old for DYK now. As for the new ones, you should complete all steps of the nomination as soon as possible if you want them to be reviewed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? They met the criteria at the time that they were submitted, and the fact that they did can still be verified from their histories. I screwed up, I admit it. But that doesn't mean that they can't still be reviewed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The nomination isn't completed until all steps are completed (including posting the nomination at T:TDYK). Thus, these nominations were completed today, making many of them more than a month old at "the time they were submitted" (they were not properly submitted until today).

Let me explain my point of view a little more. One of the DYK criteria is that articles must be "new" (which means recently created or expanded). There is a reason for this: the view of the community currently is that DYK shouldn't be a random collection of facts, it should be a showcase for new content. It has a meaning to readers (on the main page it says, "From Wikipedia's newest content"). Any time someone asks for an exception for their article, asks to add a new category of non-new things to DYK, etc., that meaning is undermined--from the reader's point of view, DYK becomes less and less a showcase of new content and more and more a collection of random stuff. I don't think DYK should be forced to undermine its mission and modify its own criteria every time someone fails to read the rules. I also don't think it's fair to ask reviewers to bend over backwards to accommodate a nominator's mistake.

I'm sorry you didn't complete the nomination properly, but that's not really the fault of anyone at DYK. You obviously found the instructions (since you started the nomination, and the box you filled in to create those nomination pages is part of the instructions). It's not anyone else's fault that you didn't read them and complete your nominations. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh, can't say that I've ever implied that it was anyone's fault but my own, much less anyone here at DYK, so there's no need to be defensive about that. If y'all (as a collective) want to be as legalistic as Rjanag is above, that's certainly your right. I just think that it's pretty stupid to deny my noms because I made an innocent mistake, but that's just me (and I am certainly biased in my own favor). A triumph of pettifoggery if you will.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I would accept the noms going at least as far back as "Harvester." Plenty of other noms from the same time frame are still active on the noms page. DYK has lost far too many contributors lately due to various forms of mostly-petty nitpickery; we need to get back in the mode of being tolerant of one another. --Orlady (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Orlady, it was just a mistake, nothing that needs punishment, and the content of the articles should be made known, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Honest mistake. We need more ship DYKs anyway. Manxruler (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Gerda, I was never suggesting "punishment"; like I said at length, the articles don't meet the DYK criteria anymore because the nominator didn't bother to follow the clear instructions. I'm glad I took all that time to explain my point of view, just to have people ignore my explanation and accuse me of being a pettifogger or trying to "punish" nominators. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I picked the wrong word. Please find a more suitable term for the disappointment of someone who worked hard on good information and reviews but just missed a point in the instructions. This might have happened to me easily. - Rules are useful, but I think we might be open for an exception here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Since we seem to have made the jump from discussion to voting, I should point out that another user has expressed concern about passing these nominations. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Was the concerned user aware of the special circumstances at play here? Manxruler (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What special circumstances? A nominator neglected his responsibility to read the instructions; this is no different than when people nominate articles that are ineligible because they haven't been expanded or things like that (again, it's people not reading and following the instructions). rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that the user did the transclusion of a few nominations correctly, including one on September 7. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

So it's not a problem with the system...the system obviously isn't too complicated, if he was able to figure it out then. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Mandarax's example does change the question somewhat. Manxruler (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll note that I created the nom pages themselves within the specified time limits, but failed to transclude them in a timely manner. So, in at least one sense, I did indeed meet the time limits. Y'all will have to decide which is more important, the date of transclusion or of creation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of including them "in line" at their original dates and see if you find a reviewer for one or the other who makes the exception? (I would - if only I knew a little bit about ships.) - I made the same mistake myself, but noticed. And I noticed at least one other making the same mistake. The system is good, the instructions are good, but the mind is so happy having assembled the template that the transclusion is easily forgotten. Perhaps a reminder at the end of the template would be a good idea? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

They are ineligible, so there's no point "including them". As for "a reminder", there is already one; in addition to the instructions (which the nominator is responsible for reading), there is this big pink notice at the top of every nomination. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

“Microalgae” (plural)

One item asks: “Did you know that microalgae is used widely in aquaculture and is now cultured itself in hatcheries?” The word “algae” is the plural form of the word “alga”, so the question should be “Did you know that micro algae are used widely in aquaculture and are now cultured themselves in hatcheries?”
—Wavelength (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The article uses "algae" as both a plural and a singular, in different places. While "algae" literally is a plural, in my experience it is often used as a singular too in everyday language (see, e.g., [3], [4]). Also, it seems to me that the hook (and most of the associated article) are referring to "microalgae" as a mass noun rather than as a collection of many individual alga, so I don't mind the way it's worded. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for speedy review

Could someone possibly review Jeruk Purut Cemetery in time for Halloween? Sorry for the rush; I just finished touching up the article yesterday. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Gerda. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Another speedy review request

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Morphsuits

Can anyone review the Morphsuits article? It's been unreviewed since I nominated it on October 21. They're oddball lycra costumes, one of the biggest selling costumes this Halloween season, apparently, having been popular for some time now, but now peaking into the mainstream in North America. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Another review request, for 2 Nov

I nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Valentina Babor as a homage to Liszt to appear close to his birthday, that is past. It occured to me that the hook might pay homage to the other composer mentioned, whose birthday is 2 November, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert Martensen (Prep 1)

The claim here is rather self-congratulatory, and is entirely based on the subject's own witness. No independent observers means only first-hand sources: not appropriate for a claim that promotes his professional cause. Kevin McE (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I've changed it to "... that Robert Martensen has received note for his criticism of end-of-life care in the United States?" and redirected discussion over here. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that the creator of the article is very active in this sort of subject, as evidenced by their userpage. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Why yes I am, thanks for noticing. I agree with the change though. Jesanj (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if this hook is better for All Souls' Day than for Halloween. --PFHLai (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree that it is better for All Souls' Day than for Halloween. With the approval of James Kidd (prospector) hook a suitable replacement is available so I have swapped the hooks. --Allen3 ^talk 22:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

On that Kidd hook, "Ghost Trial of the Century" was a saying in th press, but not the title of a work, so it should be in inverted commas rather than italics. Kevin McE (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want Martensen to be on All Souls' Day, that is Wednesday, so it would have to be in Prep 1 or Prep 2, not Prep 3, which is scheduled for Tuesday morning. Kevin McE (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just moved it back to P1. --PFHLai (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Halloween

Hey! Sorry if I'm being a little dense here, but are we using 2 Queues for Halloween or 3? I notice that it's Halloween in 3 queues in different countries but I don't know if we are. I'm sure there are some other articles we could add to a third queue (I've got a few up my sleeve and I'm sure others do too). Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I was looking to do 2 updates for the following reasons:

1. DYK has been running at 2 updates/day for the last few weeks. While it is not a difficult task to change the update frequency, it is generally best if the change is made only if there is need and reason.
2. Wikipedia utilizes Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). While it is true that there will be 3 updates where a part of the world will be entirely in October 31, and 2 others with fractional coverage of the date, only 2 updates will align with the time zone used by the project.
3. Despite Halloween hooks being collected in the special occasions holding area for close to two months, it required a search through the nominations page to find enough approved hooks to build the current 2 sets. Even if we assume availability of knowledgeable admins to move an additional set to the queues and to adjust the update frequency there is still just a little over 24 hours to create seven new articles, find reviewers to verify the hooks, and build another set. This seems to be a very optimistic schedule given DYK's current staffing levels.

If you have a couple of macabre hooks that would work for All Saint's Day, that would be an entirely different discussion. --Allen3 ^talk 20:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth would we have a complete set of Hallowe'en themed hooks? Did we do that for Christmas? Easter? America Independence? Diwali? Eid? Why does anyone feel the need to promote this "festival" to such an extent? Kevin McE (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey! I like Halloween! So shoot me :P

Sound reasoning Allen3. Will just keep plugging away over at the paranormal corner of WP and will submit when I've got something nice. No need to rush. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What Panyd neglected to mention is that she has an already-approved hook which would be appropriate: James Kidd (prospector). I would support adding this to one of the Halloween sets (we've had plenty of eight-hooks sets before) or replacing the Robert Martensen hook in Prep 1, which doesn't seem Halloween-y to me at all. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(Psst... Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Morphsuits still needs review for DYK. Pretty please? -- Zanimum (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

History: last year we had five sets of only Halloween hooks, four on one calendar day, the last one following, with one Bach cantata in between, and I was asked if I was aware of that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I wasn't aware of that either. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Grounds for Divorce (united states law)

I just wanted to let you know that all corrections were made on grounds for divorce (united states law)page. The citation box was removed.--Nas132 (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Accountability

Kudos to Found5dollar for recognizing and attempting to fix the main page error in DYK (it looks like a good faith mistake that we shouldn't expect to be picked up by DYK review [5]), but in looking further into this:

1. The documentation of the nompage parameter (name of the file) at {{DYK talk}} is incorrect (meaning it took me a long time to find the actual DYK subpage, via the usual tedious history search of the DYK nominations talk page).
2. Why was the nompage parameter dropped from the bot's talk page update? The idea was for anyone to be able to locate and review the nomination page without having to decipher the mess of pages at DYK.

Are we already moving backwards on the accountability improvements that were instituted recently? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

99% of the time the link to the nomination page shows up fine; the |nompage= parameter is only needed when the title of the nomination page is different from the title of the article itself (usually because someone misspelled the article name during nomination or moved the article after it was nominated—the former is what happened here). I don't know enough about bot coding to make sure the DYK bot carries over the |nompage= from the nomination page itself to {{DYK talk}}, and Shubinator has been very busy lately so I guess he hasn't gotten a chance to make it work yet.

In any case, this is not an intentional attempt to "hide" anything, as you suggested. It's very rude to make accusations like that, especially when you know nothing about how the bots and templates work. I would appreciate it if you stopped doing that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't know what you mean by "the documentation is incorrect". Are you referring to the description at Template:DYK talk/doc? rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer (trying to sort that one without speaking bot coding was impossible). By documentation incorrect, I meant that the file name for the DYK nomination subpage that I eventually found was not the same as the file name mentioned in the template documentation. BTW, a question is not an accusation: relax. Do you want me to continue to ask nice questions, or are you after a self-fulfilling prophecy (if we beat up enough on anyone who asks a question, we can guarantee rudeness will prevail here?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You can split hairs all you want about whether it was a "question" or "accusation"; you know as well as I it was a snarky comment with no justification. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must take at least partial blame for the link not appearing on the talk page. The subpage had the wrong case, which I corrected in three places, but I neglected to add the subpage parameter to {{DYKmake}}. I apologize for my oversight. I also reviewed the article. Thank you, Sandy, for pointing out that a reviewer shouldn't be expected to find such problems. As a matter of fact, I had added an existing source as inline refs immediately following the DYK facts. That source, from the highly respected William Safire, columnist for The New York Times and a witness to the events depicted, certainly seemed an extremely reliable source. I haven't seen the new source, but if it contradicts other sources, I'm not sure which should be believed. Whether Henry Wilson actually used the desk or not, the hook could be changed to:

... that Richard Nixon chose the Wilson desk as his Oval Office desk because he believed it was used by Woodrow Wilson, but he was later told that it was used by Henry Wilson, Vice President under Ulysses S. Grant?

Or it could be further altered to question the factuality of what Nixon was told. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

Is it allowed to have more than two DYKs nominated at a time? HurricaneFan25 17:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)