Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 568: Line 568:


:::Found it. Someone decided that it was appropriate to post a DYK about [[Gemma McCluskie]]'s body being found in a canal - three weeks after she was killed. See the ANI thread: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive743#Inappropriate_DYK_on_main_page] That one got onto the main page. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 22:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
:::Found it. Someone decided that it was appropriate to post a DYK about [[Gemma McCluskie]]'s body being found in a canal - three weeks after she was killed. See the ANI thread: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive743#Inappropriate_DYK_on_main_page] That one got onto the main page. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 22:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
::::How funny when it's the wife who assisted in killing our poor Ayakannu Marimuthu. I mean, suspected of. ☯ [[User:Bonkers The Clown|<font color = "Jade" face="Arial">'''Bonkers''' ''The Clown''</font>]] '''\(^_^)/''' '''[[User talk:Bonkers The Clown| Nonsensical Babble]]''' ☯ 06:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


== DYK is almost overdue ==
== DYK is almost overdue ==

Revision as of 06:04, 14 November 2013

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut


This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. Proposals for changing how Did You Know works were being discussed at Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.

Hidden text

There's some hidden text in the prep areas that seems to date from a time when DYK entries didn't have to go through a nomination process. It's completely redundant nowadays, and potentially confusing – should it be removed? DoctorKubla (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are are referring to the following text in Prep 1:

STOP! BEFORE YOU ADD A NEW ITEM, PLEASE READ THESE NOTES:

  • This is NOT a general trivia section.
  • This section is only for items that have been listed on "NEW PAGES" in the last 120 hours
  • The title of the new article should be BOLD and placed on TOP as the FIRST ITEM.
  • Generally limited to eight items, but whatever the case – just make sure it fits whatever else is on the page at that time. Use your common sense.
  • NO STUBS (moreover, try to find new articles that are 1,500+ bytes in size)
  • Try to pick articles that are ORIGINAL to Wikipedia (not 1911 or other data sources) and that are INTERESTING.
  • The "Did you know?" fact must be mentioned in the article.
  • Images should be sized to 100px or SMALLER.
  • Do not use fair-use images. Instead, find a related free image (PD, GFDL, CC etc.) as an alternative.
I agree that it's outdated! Rather than completing deleting it, though, I suggest that we replace it with an edit notice containing new text that describes the current protocol (so clueless people won't innocently add hooks to prep areas). Do you have some text in mind? --Orlady (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if an edit notice is necessary – has there ever been a problem with clueless people adding unapproved hooks? I suspect it's quite hard to find your way to a prep area if you're ignorant of the process. (The text is in all four prep areas, by the way, not just Prep 1.) DoctorKubla (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, clueless people have added their own hooks to a prep area, or added hooks they just reviewed to a prep area. Honest mistakes, and rare, but I think it would be worth it to have some sort of warning to help prevent such occurrences. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More common seems to be people adding the originally nominated hook, when the approved hook is different. Defiitely worth encouraging people to check (since the tick is generally followed by "approve alt2", it should be simple). MChesterMC (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, I'll remove the hidden text, since I think we're in agreement about that. Whether there should be an edit notice, and what it should say, is a separate issue. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created a strawman edit notice to replace this text. See it at Prep 4 (if you open that prep in the edit window, you will see the notice). Comments, anyone??? --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I'd make the font a bit bigger, and add something like "To submit an item for review, see T:TDYK#Instructions for nominators." DoctorKubla (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestions. I revised the edit notice and placed it on all 4 prep areas. --Orlady (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wildlife of Chad

Having attracted this rather devastating critique on a blogsite, this nom, currently lead in Queue 4, should be held back until the problems are sorted. Template:Did you know nominations/Wildlife of Chad - a Blofeld/Rosiestep etc effort. Johnbod (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with the lead from P2; I refuse to use the lead from P1, which has the jaw-droppingly boring "* ... that the North and South State Street Historic Districts (pictured) in Belvidere, Illinois were intended to form one large historic district, but had to be split?" That's a lead hook?
And as for the Wildlife in Chad article, how in the world did this get passed? How many "x of country" articles written by this team have these problems? They have over 1000 DYK credits.
Soul-searching needed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything to do with the DYK process. Have long stated that it isn't essential but a number of reviewers started wondering why I'd stopped being credited for them when the others were nominating them. Rather, I encourage collaboration as a group on topics which I believe are poorly covered and need a lot of work even if they're not DYKs. I still think the work we do together is important but occasionally they may not be ready for DYK because of the fact that it is a collaborative effort and almost impossible to keep track of what content and sources have been added. I'm well aware that sometimes problems may creep in, but there's no need to be so snotty Ed about it. Some people just love to moan and take swipes at others on wikipedia, otherwise the author of that blog would have helped correct the article... It's pointless moaning about the lack of scientific expertise wikipedia has to offer when wikipedia offers nothing to experts to write them. I actually do have a Bachelor of Science degree in geography, and one of the other authors is an experienced river management professional of some 50 years experience, but has he considered that editors don't have the time to check each and every source everybody adds to wikipedia? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • There have been a number of problematic nominations from this editing team in the past. It's getting to the stage that I'm thinking of proposing an extra level of scrutiny, such as for double reviews as we did with the Gibraltar noms. All three of these editors are highly experienced and there can be no excuse whatever for sourcing article content to a project by "sixth graders". This is just the kind of thing that brings the DYK project into disrepute. I think it's time we started taking a harder line with this group of nominators. Gatoclass (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think people would still bother with DYK if that was the case?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fine, don't bother if you can't be bothered doing due diligence on your submissions. It would certainly mean less work and worry for everyone else. Gatoclass (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well they're not my submissions anyway. I guess it's up to the others to decide whether they still think it's worth running the gauntlet for. I could pick holes in 90% of the articles which go through DYK, even if I generally appreciate the effort people have made in writing them. The process will always be flawed and editors will always create errors regardless of DYK.. That you think that we're the sole cause of problems and somehow detrimental to DYK's reputation (as if anybody ever took it seriously aside from you lot anyway) shows your own personal bias on the issue. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is your submission if you put your name down for a credit, as you appear to have done here. You don't take DYK seriously? Well, why are you bothering to participate here? Why put your name down for a DYK credit if DYK is just a joke? No, I don't think you really mean that. Regardless, comments of this kind are hardly likely to inspire the confidence of reviewers. Gatoclass (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean do I think DYK is a seriously flawed process which has long been in need of reform, do I think it is run by certain people who take themselves too seriously and seem unwilling to accept the flaws that the process has, and do I think that the majority of wikipedia readers/editors ignore DYK or consider the hooks appearing in them uninteresting or even a joke that they're meant to be interesting"? Absolutely I mean that. There is a difference between taking DYK seriously and taking article content/accuracy seriously. But I often thank article creators for articles on the front page hitting the thank button for articles which I think are decent because they're editing in the spirit of wikipedia, even if I found the hook uninspiring. I bet a lot of people reading this now have been thanked by me and probably have by few others for their work. It's the people who put in the effort to write decent content I respect, not the fact that it happened to be a DYK.

I'd rather the articles which I write or even collaborate on were free of errors but wikipedia being a collaborative project we can't be held responsible for content in every article each one of us happens to edit. Unless one editor is an expert and seriously puts a lot of time into one article double checking everything you're always going to get errors creeping in occasionally. And some sources aren't always obviously "sixth grade work". There is a reason why our group collaborate, and it's central to what the spirit of editing is supposed to be about. We don't have to nominate articles for DYK, but if you did have a close monitoring system of content and sources for each one and the articles that anybody produces, then perhaps this would be a positive thing as it would mean more errors get identified, providing that it isn't too anti-editor and picky.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that on an article on which you've collaborated with others, you can't expect to be held responsible for every mistake in it, as nobody has the time to check every single fact. But when you get a situation when a particular collaboration is resulting in frequent errors and substandard content, then obviously those articles are going to need closer scrutiny. I've been bothered by the standard of some of these articles for a long time and intend to be giving them closer scrutiny in future, and whether my suggestion for adopting the double review system for these noms gets support or not, I will certainly be encouraging other reviewers to take a similar approach. Gatoclass (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I often don't have time to even read the articles going through before they are nommed, perhaps a process which involves the checking of every source of our articles which go through would be a productive thing and help prevent too many errors creeping in. I'm sure you'll agree that the content being added is done in good faith and you appreciate at least why they are being produced but you're not happy to see misrepresentations of sourcing and bad sources used. The only way I guess to eliminate this would be to set a limit on how many articles we produce and for each one to be strictly monitored. None of us deserve a hard time over errors and to have to deal with petty reviews, but if there are genuine errors and problems with articles I would strongly hope that they could be identified before an article hits the main page. That is, if editors feel that strongly about the quality of our work going through to put in the effort to check the sourcing and content. I think it largely comes down to sheer number of articles though, a limit might at least give us more time to check over our articles ourselves. But it is unfair of you all to assume that all of our work is bad because of errors such as this, and I doubt we're responsible for more errors than several of the other contributors here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The blog is scathing, and identifies dumb errors in two articles. But it is hard to think that a team of very experienced editors would repeatedly make mistakes, as Gatoclass suggests. If there is a systemic problem, I am not sure that a double review is the answer. But is there evidence of a systemic problem? Diffs? Aymatth2 (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed something which might help the problem here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass. Orlady and co, we've begun a new auditing process in light of the concerns at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rosblofnari/Audit. We hope to eventually go through all of our DYKs and ensure that they're up to scratch and won't nominate any articles for DYK now unless they've gone through the auditing process. It will be done gradually. Hope this answers your concerns. The reality is that Rosie and myself often don't have time to make the edits and checks and even additions which are needed because articles were always nominated after 5 days because of the deadline. The Wildlife of Chad article I put enough time into it just condensing to the relevant points and copyediting and naturally didn't have the time to check each source, trusting that the information written was correct. The only way we can keep track of things is to significantly reduce group output and a vigorous auditing process in sandboxes. Hope you're pleased with the effort we're making.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm very pleased with it, indeed your response has gone well beyond my expectations, thank you for taking our concerns seriously. I'm looking forward to seeing the results in practice. Gatoclass (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry much further what this blogger has to say. From what I gather she's upset with how she's been treated on wikipedia which if she was a good editor it's understandable that she walked away from the project in disgust and is using the blog as a way to vent her frustration. I see she's picked on Mourdi Depression which if you actually read it and check the sources it is fine. If the source mentioning the barchans only says they exist in the depression how can you possibly elaborate without going into original research? The article says its a depression in the desert of northern Chad and depression is clearly defined in that article, not my fault she doesn't realize what it is. You can see the feature on the last notch of google maps, that's how important the feature is. I wrote most of the article and it's a decent starter article, whatever she thinks of it. I'm sure others here cannot see anything seriously wrong with it either. The flaws with the others are surely exaggerated too, but it's the articles I didn't write and do actually have problems I'm more concerned with, so it has at least made us reconsider how we edit on here and show more responsiblity for our own work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admin needed

As part of the above replacement, the hook moved from Prep 2 to Queue 4 was moved without its DYKmake template. Will an admin please insert the following template into Q4? (Or, since there's about 35 minutes left to do so, take care of the DYK credit if the template isn't added in time?)

Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Alex ShihTalk 15:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Byrd Spilman Dewey

Why is Byrd Spilman Dewey not listed at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/September in accordance with the DYK notice on the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cline (talk • contribs) 23:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)‎[reply]

Thank you for these replies. Is it a bug that we can fix which caused the incorrect link to post on the article's talk page?—John Cline (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether it's fixable. The problem would be that the link on the article's talk page is posted when the hook is placed on the main page, but the destination isn't actually determined until it the hook is removed to the archive. Indeed, for hooks that get pulled from the main page due to errors, they never are archived, so they won't be at the link regardless. It also isn't possible to predict unexpected events, like a set staying on the main page past its usual six, eight, or twelve hours, for long enough that it lasts until the next month even though it wasn't scheduled to. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset. You are very well informed in your counsel; greatly benefiting this discussion—as with so many other discussions where I have observed your insight. I asked Shubinator[1] to consider this thread; as perhaps a bot tasking will be a possible fix; even perhaps categorization parsed into {{DYK talk}} to show articles where a statement doesn't match an #ifexists or #ifeq condition. I did look at the template's code and recognized its complexity—I feel it's worth the price of an endeavor to consider if a solution exists. Above all; Thank you for considering this question so well as to append such a thoughtful reply. —John Cline (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a known oddity of DYKUpdateBot; as BlueMoonset referred to, it's because talk pages are tagged when the DYK is posted to the Main Page, but the hooks are archived when they come off of the Main Page. Three solutions come to mind. The first is to archive hooks when they're posted. The archive then wouldn't reflect tweaks made while the hooks were on the Main Page. The second is to update the talk page postings when the hooks come off the Main Page. This would result in a lot of noise, and folks wouldn't be happy about the extra edits to their talk page. The third is to place the archive based on when the hooks were placed on the Main Page. This is the best option, but it would make our "new" archives inconsistent with the "old" archives. It's also technically difficult since there are plenty of edge cases. Shubinator (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User notifications are not generated for edits in Template space

I've noticed that a lot of links to user pages are being included in replies, queries, and other communications on nominations pages, apparently attempting to trigger the user notification system. But everyone should be aware that notifications are not generated by edits in Template space, even though nomination pages are transcluded to a Template talk page. If you want to specifically notify someone that you've responded, or are waiting for their response, or whatever, you'll have to leave a note on their user talk page.

Taking a quick look at the main nominations page, I found many instances, taking various forms such as: <userpage>, User:<userpage>, @<userpage>, and <userpage> (talk · contribs). In most cases, the specified user edited after the mention (probably because they'd watchlisted the page). But I did come across some in which they didn't:

There certainly may be others that I missed. Some users may have already seen these and chosen not to respond; I'm just carrying out the spirit of the attempted notification, not trying to elicit any action. Also, I only checked for subsequent user response and didn't read through these, so some may not require further user input. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Count me among those who had reasons for not responding. Thanks for checking, though. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unreviewed Halloween noms

There are several hooks (one of which, to be honest, is a nomination of mine) that have been suggested for Halloween that no one has reviewed yet, and we've only got a couple of days to go:

Together with what's already been approved this would make about 15 hooks total; enough, perhaps, for two full sets. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

uBLP

Would this come under the definition of unreferenced BLP? If so, I've done a 2x expansion. Schwede66 18:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The old version had some external links. I think those qualified as references, but others may disagree. --Orlady (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. External links are not inline citations. I would be happy to nominate this for DYK. Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have had more than one occasion when the matter has been raised here; for the most recent one I can remember, the conclusion was that an External link was sufficient to disqualify the 2x expansion exception, and the nomination was rejected. 5x is always a possibility, of course (it's at just under 2.5x now, 861 to 1963). BlueMoonset (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I won't bother with further extension, unless others here are keen and want to make it a joint project. Just start editing and I'll chip in; the article is on my watchlist. Schwede66 21:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the next time this question pops up, I'll add that I agree with Orlady and BlueMoonset. This is the standard used for BLPPROD, and it's reasonable to apply it here, especially since the 2x rule is really quite a generous exception for specific circumstances. According to WP:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people, "the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Yoninah (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a close call, which I would personally give the benefit of the doubt in the interest of improving BLPs. I wouldn't find external links to be disqualifying if they were unreliable sources. The sources in question are self-published and so they fall into the grey area of self-published sources which provide information about the person or organization who is publishing them (WP:SELFSOURCE). While these self-published sources can be used to verify some information about the publisher, the guideline points out that they shouldn't be the sole source for an article. One of my articles (Justina Vail Evans) got approved as a 2x BLP expansion having an unreliable external link (IMDB), but the external link wasn't published by the subject. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should Copyvio Check be in the DYK toolbox

I have become increasingly convinced that the Copyvio Check should not be in the DYK toolbox. It's listed first, which makes it look like a primary tool, and the checks it does clearly ignore the actual sources used in the article, since it hasn't yet highlighted close paraphrasing from them in my experience.

The tool of choice for copyvios and close paraphrasing is Duplication Detector; it isn't perfect, but it points out long and short identical strings of words, which is a useful indication that further investigation may be warranted.

I've recently run across DYK and GA reviews where the reviewer's presumption was that due diligence had been satisfied with a Copyvio Check, yet very severe close paraphrasing and copying was found. I believe we need to call a halt to this misguided application of Copyvio Check's capabilities. If this tool has been useful in DYK reviews because it has found copyvios on pages other than cited sources, I'd like to know about it—maybe it should be a supplemental check. But it seems to be used to check something it is not capable of checking, and it's compromising the DYK review process. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a problem with the Copyvio Detector. In fact, the problem was serious enough for me to try to get earwig@toolserver.org to fix it, but to no avail. Sometimes our new Wikipedia article is copy-pasted after the fact by another fan website. The mirror then gets picked up by the Detector unintentionally as a copyvio "in reverse". I thought, by excluding that one URL address, I could than repeat the search again. But earwig@toolserver.org declined my offer and refused to include an exclusion box in their layout.
Please see it for yourself. No such option there. Poeticbent talk 22:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've had the opposite result actually - I've had some very useful results from copyviocheck, while I've found duplication detector to be almost useless. Having said that, the last few times I've tried to use copyviocheck it hasn't been working, but that may just be coincidental. Gatoclass (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removing potentially useful tools because there is a small chance they could be misused or they because don't perform every possible task seems counterproductive. IronGargoyle (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A general comment about Copyvio Check. In DYK nominations I did in the past, and non-DYK work I edit, I have become increasingly concerned about the accuracy of that tool. The Davy Crockett copyvio check is the most recent example I can give you. It is my opinion that most of the prose in this article is lifted from one source or another. I ran this tool on the article earlier in the month before I cleaned up the Ancestry section, and it said there was no copyvio. As I checked my own sources, not those that were listed in the article, that entire section was copyvio from one place or another. And as I'm starting to check the other sections against my own sources, I keep finding copyvio. And, yet, Copyvio Check says there is no issue. — Maile (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has been my experience; it claims to check for Copyvios, so by its very name the expectation is that you've done due diligence for DYK article copyvios by running it. It's presented first in the list of tools that DYK nomination template editors see, which gives it an imprimatur and preference I don't think is warranted by its placement. My point to IronGargoyle would be that the tool currently misrepresents itself, so it's more likely to be a false assurance than anything else. Do you know what it checks? So far as I know, there is nowhere that DYK explains what the various tools do and how they should be used, except possibly Duplication Detector. When it's an undefined beta tool like Copyvio Check, misuse seems inevitable because there's no information on what it does check and what its limitations are. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see a couple of my posts in July: Here, and Here. I was having my misgivings when I was more active on DYK - seems too good to be true, in a way - but I guess I thought if I brought it up here at Talk, it might be discussed, but nothing would happen, either. On Sept 11, 2013, I posted that Copyvio check moved to labs, yet the nom template has not been corrected - it still directs to Toolserver. Not that it makes a difference in accuracy. For the Davy Crockett article, I was using the Labs version of Copyvio Check. Right now, I would say that I could run this on many articles I work on, and they would come up clean of copyvio. I've never known what it checks for, and it never occurred to me to ask. But now that you mention it...I think it's valid to ask what it checks for. — Maile (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Copyvio lab version does have the following explanation (and it uses the EarwigBot).— Maile (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"This tool attempts to detect copyright violations in articles. Simply give the title of the page or ID of the revision you want to check and hit Submit. The tool will search for similar content elsewhere on the web and display a report if a match is found. If you also provide a URL, it will not query any search engines and instead display a report comparing the article to that particular webpage, like the Duplication Detector. Check out the FAQ for more information and technical details. Note: The tool is still in beta. You are completely welcome to use it and provide feedback, but be aware that it may produce strange or broken results."
User:EarwigBot/Copyvios/FAQ is light on technical details of how the tool operates, but does specify that it uses Yahoo! Search BOSS for its backend search engine. There was a change to the Google terms of service several years ago that forced a copyright violation detection bot that used to scan all newly created articles to cease operation. Choice of search engines is thus limited. While a Yahoo! backend should be fine for someone checking to see if a new article was copied from some other website as part of new page patrol, it is less useful for areas of Wikipedia requiring more rigorous checks. The reason for this is that the Yahoo! backend appears to not search the Google Books archive, a commonly used resource for Wikipedians that create articles containing basic referencing. --Allen3 talk 22:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bottom line here is that nobody should be relying exclusively on either copyvio check or duplication detector to check articles. I personally have found duplication detector to be surprisingly useless when confronted with even the most obvious examples of close paraphrasing, so I only use them as a quick method of looking for issues, if they find none I continue with a manual check. Gatoclass (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Saeltzer

Hi, this is a new article. It does include a lot of material from existing articles on the architect's work. I think it would make an interesting DYK if someone wants to nominate it. His work includes what is described as the oldest existing synagogue in NYC, in a building actually designed as a synagogue. And he has several other surviving buildings that are quite ntoable and historic. I would also appreciate any help editing the article. Thank you. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it contains too much text from existing articles. It needs at least 1500 characters of original prose to be eligible for DYK. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thanks for having a look. Candleabracadabra (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

As to the first hook in Prep 2 -- that suggests that street food vendors are restaurants. Which I don't think is the case.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Fat Duck is a restaurant. Burger King is a restaurant. Street food stalls are restaurants too. Don't skew your mindset into thinking of just high end restaurants. That is shallow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonkers The Clown (talk • contribs) 14:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hook change

It has been a while since I submitted an article here, but I was surprised to see that the hook that was approved at Template:Did you know nominations/Tomás Menéndez Márquez was changed when it was moved to the queue without any notice to me or any comment on the nomination. I would have expected that if there were any objection to the wording of the hook, that it would have been brought up at the nomination. I had specifically chosen to use "Indians" in the hook because of the stereotype-bending of "Indians rescue rancher". I feel that the change ('Indians' -> 'Native Americans') lessened the impact of the hook. -- Donald Albury 13:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was changed sometime after it moved to the prep areas. I saw the "Indians" wording when it was in the prep area. --Orlady (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nikkimaria changed that wording while the hook was in the prep area. Perhaps she can explain her thinking. Mandarax also edited it. --Orlady (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indian is understood by most worldwide to refer to people from India; many of those who do apply it in the American context see it as a pejorative term, and one that was unnecessary in this case. Native American is the term preferred for that population on Wikipedia. Now that you've explained it I get where you were going with the stereotype-bending, but it was not at all clear from just looking at the hook, was not neutral, and was far more likely to cause confusion and/or offence. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for speeding up DYK error correction and process generally

Whilst reading Wikipedia:Template editor, I noticed that the criteria of implementing changes on protected templates would apply to the DYK queues, which often need to be changed quickly but due to lack of available administrators either aren't or are changed by someone unfamiliar with the process, making mistakes (typically, missing or duplicate credit giving templates). Therefore I would propose that the DYK queues be changed to "template-protected" and DYK regulars apply for the template editor right on this basis. This will allow more oversight on the hooks we put on the main page, and allow errors to be corrected much more quickly.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of the fairly simple templates (like the DYK templates) wasn't the primary reason for creating the template editor permission. The permission, which is described at Wikipedia:Template editor, was intended for coders. Having said that, I agree that it could be helpful for some capable non-admin DYK regulars to have permissions to edit the queues to fix errors, etc., and this proposal would do that. However, a change in the level of protection for the DYK queues would make it possible for non-admins to "approve" a set of hooks for promotion to the main page, thus reducing the level of protection (whether real or perceived) for the content of main page. IMO, since this proposal would have the effect of allowing non-admin editing of main-page content, it would need to be discussed and approved on a central community noticeboard (not just WT:DYK). --Orlady (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent: Queue 4 hook needs to be swapped out

There is currently a hook in Queue 4 about Dan Cohen that will go up on the Main Page very soon. However, at the nomination page, it was agreed that this hook should wait until after November 5 to run because Cohen is currently a candidate in the 2013 Minneapolis mayoral election which is to occur on November 5. If anyone sees this before it hits the Main Page, would you mind swapping the Cohen hook out and reverting the promotion edit at the nom page? Thanks! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 15:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

*October 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Comet Ping Pong

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1 problem

There's a problem with a hook in Queue 1: one hook ends in ?M (remove the errant 'M'). Chris857 (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Allen3 talk 14:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another plea for review and accountability

@Allen3: @BDD: @Jinkinson: @Gatoclass: and Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Ashwood

I appreciate that this issue came to attention because of DYK, as the problems might have otherwise gone unnoticed. That is the good news. But ...

I have many times asked, begged, cajoled, implored reviewers here to please take care when reviewing BLPs, and please take care when reviewing medical topics, and asked that there be some accountability for the admins who are responsible for BLP or faulty medical information going on Wikipedia's mainpage. The particular combination of our policies and guidelines on BLPs and sourcing of medical content require considerable care and expertise in creating content, and many editors at Wikiproject Medicine are available to help-- you only need ask. Please do!

These two discussions illustrate the concern, that is, that DYK in one article put on our mainpage dubious medical sources, a hook about a medical claim based on a press release from the subject's employer (not independent and not MEDRS), and potentially impugned a man who possibly has done nothing but be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Discussion at BDD talk and discussion at the Medicine Project.

I would be interested in hearing feedback from Allen3, as that editor passed this hook to the mainpage, and BDD, as he reviewed this article and even mentioned the Wakefield connection in the DYK review, and I hope everyone active at DYK will review the links above to understand the issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, the vast majority of the WP:VOLUNTEERs helping at DYK are not subject matter experts in the topic of the articles nominated. As a result, it is not surprising that people here are unfamiliar with various individuals within the medical profession or how the PR practices within the medical field differ from those practiced in academia or other industries. These volunteers also have limited time and resources available to dedicate to Wikipedia. As a result, your offer of specialists able to provide timely assistance on medical related topics is a wonderful offer and an initial list of nominations needing a review is available at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Calling a bluff. I am looking forward to finally seeing some assistance in achieving the standards to which you wish to hold DYK instead of just the asking, begging, cajoling, imploring, and pillorying of the past. --Allen3 talk 19:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that is the case, the reviewer in this case is an admin, and we are not talking about medical specialty content. We are talking about core policies of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and using primary sources to create a WP:BLP problem. If DYK is too busy to check for core policies, then DYK might need to slow down submissions by changing the rules.

I've gone through all of the list you provided (thanks), except I'm not touching Sex-selective abortion. (Abortion is a contentious topic, that one should be thoroughly checked by someone more knowledgeable than I, and I hope someone else does so.)

I am sorry if the "cajoling, begging" etc troubles folks here, but this is the first and best place to educate new (and some established, even some admins) editors on core policies before the bad habits become entrenched. I will continue to raise the issue if I continue to encounter it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should the hook on Template:Did you know nominations/The Marshall Mathers LP 2 be promoted on Prep 3 today?

I worry about giving the appearance that someone is using Wikipedia's MainPage for "frontpage advertising" to promote commercial products, esp. on the first day the product is available for purchase. My bedtime is approaching. I'll let someone finish the hook set on P3. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I do a book, movie, or TV show the same concern arises. WP:DYK attempts to be in keeping with pop culture by including content that is current. If the hook advertises the pop culture thing like "...that today you can go buy the new Eminem album "The Marshall Mathers LP 2" that you may have seen advertised over the last six weeks?" or something that is blatant advertising it should not go on the main page. However, if it is in interesting fact that gives no indication that there is some current event making the hook date relevant, it is suppose to be O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spinning off articles from sections of existing articles

I'm seeking some input from other users about spinning off articles from sections of existing articles.

This issue came up in Template:Did you know nominations/Twilight Zone tragedy. Only one person, who approved the nomination, commented in agreement with the nominator on this issue, while the dissenting opinions of User:FormerIP, User:George Ho, User:Johnbod, and myself were basically dismissed.

It's possible that users were reluctant to comment in opposition because they were intimidated by the belligerence, bullying, and belittling by User:Piotrus, but I hope some users are brave enough to speak up now.

That this was allowed to pass through and appear on the front page as a "new" article made a mockery of DYK and could set an undesirable precedent, whereby any topic, regardless of how long the topic has already been covered in an existing article, could be spun off into a "new" article eligible for DYK.

Piotrus talked about "a simple logic that expansion requires previously existing text to be expanded from; when content is new, there's no expansion". This is very obviously false. If it were true, anyone could take any article, rewrite it as a "new" 1500-character article, and claim it as a new article acceptable for DYK.

At Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 98#Experienced reviewer needed, Johnbod pointed out that the new article "is actually shorter than the section in the film article". (This is no longer the case.) Piotrus responded to Johnbod, who did not mention the quality of the existing article, by bringing up the quality of the existing article, then complaining "For the n-th time" that he doesn't "understand what the quality of the main article has to do with this nom". Piotrus is the only one who brought up the subject of quality, but he is correct that the quality of the original material doesn't matter.

Piotrus acknowledged that "little content was directly moved", but even if he hadn't copied any, this should have still have been considered an expansion.

Supplementary guideline A4 says: "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it".

This rule in the very strictest sense may not technically address this exact specific situation, but that's because when the rules were written, no one anticipated that someone would take an existing section of an article, rewrite it, and try to pass it off as a new article for DYK. The intention of the rule is very clear. Some common sense is required in the application of existing rules to new situations. If a topic is covered in a previously existing article, then any "new" article should be treated as an expansion of the section(s) covering that topic, whether any of the existing prose was used or not.

I would like to get the opinions of other users. Since the opinions of four people were ignored in favor of the one person agreeing with the nominator, it would be good to get consensus here to prevent this from happening again. Agolib 22:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it can fairly be said that "the opinions of four people were ignored" in the DYK debate, because most of those users did not outright oppose promotion. However, I've had similar issues with noms in the past and I agree this is an issue that may need clarification. On the face of it, your proposal to treat a section of an existing article as the original text requiring fivefold expansion in a spin-off article sounds consistent with the overall principle of the DYK expansion rule. Gatoclass (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"belligerence, bullying, and belittling"... somebody's here like personal attacks, and I daresay it's the editor who lost an argument before and failed to torpedo a certain DYK. Anyway, on to the discussion of the issue, rather than editors.
1) "no matter whether you kept any of it" is a bad rule, and should be removed. If an article was to be deleted, we would not require that a new content counts the previously deleted garbage. If a content is removed during a rewrite, it's the same logic. If somebody adds a bunch of garbage of so low quality it cannot be rescued, holding future editors responsible for this is simply unfair. Out of curiosity, if an existing article was twice the current length some time ago, but was shortened before the expansion, should be use the old, larger size for 5x? Should we add the clause "reviewers should check whether the expanded article was larger at any point in the past, and use the largest possible revision history for 5x calculations"? Of course not. It's an idiotic, through logical, extension of the current rule (if I cannot remove garbage from the article I am expanding for a DYK without it counting for a 5x, why shouldn't the garbage someone else removed few days earlier not count?). I therefore suggest we remove the phrase from DYK rules, it's poorly thought out, and unfair.
2) "If a topic is covered in a previously existing article, then any "new" article should be treated as an expansion of the section(s) covering that topic, whether any of the existing prose was used or not." I find it really hard to comment on this without comments that could be personal attacks... sigh, I'll try. There are so many things wrong with this, I am not sure where to start. First, four and half millions of Wikipedia articles cover, in some degree, millions of other non-yet-written-about topics. We are not, I hope suggesting that a reviewer has to hunt through all, linked or unlinked, mentions of the content, add (?) the lenght or relevant sections/paragraphs/sentences together to calculate something for 5x? Right... So, are we talking only about when a clearly marked section or pragraph is split from an article? Well, in that case the 5x rule applies... if any content was copied. That's called rewriting and expanding. If the original content was of such poor quality that it wasn't reusable, again, holding an editor who created the new article, without reusing previous garbage content, responsible for it, would be unfair. In this situation we are clearly dealing with a new article; existence of prior garbage should not be a factor here. "Some common sense is required in the application of existing rules to new situations." Here, I totally agree with Agolib... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time is tight. Can some admin check on the hook-set on Prep 2 and load it on queue, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moved - preps now empty. have alot on my plate. If some folks chack and load some preps I can move later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done But we need someone to put together some more updates. Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of *mp

The documentation at Wikipedia:Did_you_know#The_hook still asks for the template {{*mp}}, although the documentation for that template says it has been deprecated. Should the instruction be removed? RockMagnetist (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be modified to note that the line with the hook needs to start with an asterisk so it will start with bullet on the main page, rather than deleted entirely. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to get a DYK for a 2x expansion of a very short article

You can still get a DYK for only a 2x expansion of a very short article. Why is this? Well, the DYK rules still say that 'Former unsourced BLPs that have been thoroughly sourced and in which the prose portion has been expanded twofold or more within the past five days are also acceptable as "new" articles'.

And the category in question is apparently up to over 1300! So needs some attention!

So you have lots to choose from... if you're lost for thought on what would make a good DYK, why not give it a try?

I did one of these, expanding this into this. Why not try it, you might have fun and also help out a problem area! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lend a hand!

As I write this there are 275 articles nominated for DYK and just 16 approved hooks. If everyone who reads this posting did one or two extra reviews, it would help reduce the backlog a little. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Ritvo is approved but no one has promoted it yet. (my article, so I can't promote...) Montanabw(talk) 00:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What just happened?

I raised 2 issues on my review of Template:Did you know nominations/Amplify Tablet. Neither one was addressed by the nominator; another editor just approved the new hook and off it went to Prep 4. I suggest that the nomination be returned to the queue until the issues are resolved. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, sorry for not noticing that your issues hadn't been adressed. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas DYK Task Force Assemble!

You know me, I love a DYK theme. Next year should be interesting because it's Olympics time again, and we have the WWI Centenary. But before we get to that, we are approaching the Christmas start time for DYK once again. Normally I'd post a couple of days before the 25th November, but I've given some extra leeway this time because we have the potential for taking articles to GA and have them qualify for DYK that way. So previously out of touch articles - say for instance, Santa Claus - could yet be possible for DYK.

So use this section to suggest Christmas themed articles both for the usual expansion/creation for DYK, and potentially for tidying up and taking through GA to qualify for DYK that way. I'll start my yearly trawl for expansions now and post ideas for them as I come across them. Miyagawa (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's a few suggestions to get people started:
Expansion: A Christmas Carol (1908 film), Christmas (The Middle), Christmas beer, Christmas beetle, Christmas Canon, Christmas Frigatebird, Christmas Imperial Pigeon, Christmas Island (Tasmania), Christmas Island shrew, Christmas Memories, Church of la Natividad de Nuestra Señora (San Martín de la Vega), Church of la Natividad de Nuestra Señora, Valdetorres de Jarama, Church of the Nativity, Tiraspol, Episcopal Church of the Nativity (Rosedale, Louisiana), Episcopal Church of the Nativity (Union, South Carolina), Nativity Church, Căuşeni, Santa Claus Is Coming to Town, Holy Family and donors (Carpaccio), Home Alone (2006 video game), Santa Claus (1898 film), What Child Is This?, We Wish You a Merry Christmas, We Three Kings, Once in Royal David's City
Creation: Santa's List - a 2003 Cliff Richard song (it isn't Christmas without Cliff Richard)
Good article expansion: Alfred Anderson (veteran), Angraecum sesquipedale, The Christmas Invasion, Merry Xmas Everybody, Moroccan Christmas.
Feel free to add any as you go along and find them! Miyagawa (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning to get either Santa Claus Conquers the Martians or Santa Claus (1959 film) to GA because of my MST3K love. So those could be a good start. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd quite like to give Merry Xmas Everybody a go, since the song is more or less as old as me. The article is a former FA nom, but looking at the sources I wouldn't even pass it through GA at present.
Expansion : Bernard and the Genie, Mikulás
Retrofit with sources and take to GA : Dongzhi Festival, Saint Nicholas Day, Sinterklaas (I'm thinking of Drmies specifically for that last one) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I get the time and motivation to write an article or more related to Christmas in Norway. A suggestion for others, with knowledge in German/music interest: the song Ich steh' an deiner Krippen hier by Paul Gerhardt and J.S. Bach. Possible sources: one, two. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The last list is now way up the page, so I've compiled a new set of three dozen nominations that need reviewing. We have 273 total nominations, of which only 33 are approved. Thank you for your reviews.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, what do we do with some of these old nominations that seem to have languishing or inactive reviews? Do they get failed and removed or just sit forever? (I'll try to help here a little...) Montanabw(talk) 06:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Montanabw. I've just done the appropriate pinging for the oldest ones (September and early October) to try to move things along. Sometimes it takes a lot of iterations before a nomination is finally ready, or to get to the point where it's very clear it can't be improved sufficiently. Nothing sits forever, although I have seen a couple go for over three months before being resolved. Things aren't quite that bad at the moment, though far from great. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New rule proposal

It seems that there should be some sort of rule regarding commercial subjects. I have nominated books on their release dates, tv shows for their premier dates, movies for their premier dates and albums on their release dates at DYK. Each time there has been all kinds of confusion on what is appropriate. In most cases after timeconsuming debate, I have been able to convince people that if the hook is not promotional of the subject it is appropriate. Most recently, the hook did not run on the desired date due to this concern. Can I or someone else write a rule so that we can refer to it in the future?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Error, or misleading wording anyway, in Prep 1

I reviewed and ticked Did_you_know_nominations/Nell_Truman earlier, and it's now in Prep 1. Its first reviewer had expressed concern about the subject really being first winners of an open tennis event, but I clearly missed their point: that "an open tennis event" isn't the same thing as "a tennis event in the Open Era", which is what it's supposed to mean.

In the article, the word "open" is wikilinked to the Open Era article section, but in the hook it isn't. Suggest changing the hook wording for clarity and precision, either to "a tennis event in the Open Era", or at least to wikilink the word "open" to History of tennis#Open Era as it is in the article. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ayakannu Marithamuthu DYK

Please see the thread I've started at WP:ANI: [2] The DYK is asserting as fact matters which have never been determined in court - and accordingly, the DYK needs removing from the list as a matter of urgency. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Ayakannu Marithamuthu

This article, currently in prep 2, has come to notice at the BLP noticeboard: Wikipedia:Blpn#Murder_of_Ayakannu_Marithamuthu. AndyTheGrump believes the hook is in violation of the BLP rule. Should it be pulled until the issue is resolved? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See above (we seem to have been posting at the same time). We have no choice but to pull the DYK as a gross WP:BLP violation. We cannot possibly assert as fact something entirely reliant on the supposed word of a single suspect, where not only has there been no conviction, but those suspected of the crime have been released on grounds of lack of evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also came across this article through the lurid hook at Prep 2. I'm shocked that the page was approved in the condition it's in. It reads like a news release, not an encyclopedia entry. I tagged the article. Yoninah (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Moishe Rosenbaum has now done a fair bit of work on the article - though there are still problems with accessing sources. The 'curry' claim was being cited to what seems to be a food blog in Yahoo! entertainment [3] which certainly isn't an appropriate source, even for an allegation. Which leaves the DYK not only violating WP:BLP as it stands, but lacking a credible source for the hook, even if we were to reword it. There almost certainly are better sources making the same claim, but for now, we can't find them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The DKY has now been deleted from Prep area 2. Kablammo (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The DYK was correctly pulled from the prep area, and both the nominator and reviewer should probably take a good look at what went wrong. But there is another angle here which hasn't so far been discussed (AFAIK). Just imagine for a moment that the article was correctly sourced and that the hook was factually acceptable and ran on the main page. Then try to imagine that you are the wife, parents, children... of Ayakannu Marithamuthu, and that this tragic case graces the main page of Wikipedia in the most sensationalist and callous way possible, years after it made headlines as "news": "that Ayakannu Marithamuthu was butchered at a church, made into curry, and distributed into waste bins around Singapore in plastic bags". That we aren't censored means that we don't hide information because it may be shocking, distasteful, offensive; it doesn't mean that we can't use some dignity and humanity on what we decide to put on the main page, and especially how we do this. Using such a hook doesn't make Wikipedia any better, more complete, more neutral, ..., it only turns it into the tabloid version of an encyclopedia. Please consider not suing such hooks and codifying that in the DYK rules somehow. Fram (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. I wholeheartedly agree. -Zanhe (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I seem to recall having to kick up a stink previously about a sensationalist DYK concerning a murder. I'll see if I can locate it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. Someone decided that it was appropriate to post a DYK about Gemma McCluskie's body being found in a canal - three weeks after she was killed. See the ANI thread: [4] That one got onto the main page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How funny when it's the wife who assisted in killing our poor Ayakannu Marimuthu. I mean, suspected of. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Execution of Gary Glitter

The blurb, "that after The Execution of Gary Glitter, a 2009 mockumentary showing Gary Glitter being hanged, the subject's complaint to Ofcom was turned down? seems to have word(s) missing: after it aired? after it was shown? after a complaint was made? As it stands, "after" is left dangling. Awien (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Awien (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=581589768"