Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:56, 16 August 2010

Error reports

Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you.

DYK queue status

There are currently 3 filled queues. Admins, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!

Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 11:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 24 hours

Last updated: 11 hours ago(

)

Template:Archive box collapsible

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

Backlog

The noms page has a large backlog. Two ways to help:

1) reviewers focus more on the days in pink and red -- this is always a problem as people focus on the newer noms

2) we had a 9th hook til the backlog is cleared up. A few have already started doing this

— Rlevse • Talk • 21:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A 9th hook is certainly a good thing. If it affects balance, OTD can easily be lengthened. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add my support for 9th hook. Materialscientist (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been adding a 9th hook to updates scheduled for days with a shorter than average TFA blurb. Looking forward through scheduled TFAs shows August 6 (already added) and 9 as good candidates for this treatment, with August 7 a borderline case. With this tone of this discussion, I will be making additions for dates with borderline cases over the next week or two. --Allen3 ^talk 23:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, the number of noms has gone up lately, which is part of the reason for this. If reviewers could focus on pink and red hooks that'd help a lot too. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that having too many hooks on DYK per update is messing up the layout on MainPage. This is making POTD too far down the page. Adding more SA/OTD items is an easy way out and good for temporary relief, but it's against the policy there. Our backlog is our problem. We need another way to clear the backlog without messing with our neighbouring projects on MainPage. How about more frequent updates? Demand longer articles and better formatting and referencing? Shorter hooks if we are indeed having more hooks per update? I don't know what is the best solution, but we really should not keep marching 10 long hooks on MainPage. Right now DYK is taking up too much space on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a stat for "average number of hooks per day"? I figure it to be in the mid-to-low 30's but lets say we switch to 4 hour hour rotations, we get 48 hooks a day. If we switched to 6 hooks per 4 hours, we'd get 36 a day. I agree with the better referencing and formatting as well. Occasionally, hooks by creators/nominators could clearly be better written and the article could be in better shape. Sometimes, hooks are buried in the text, manipulated from the original reference or cited with bare urls. I understand there are new users getting motivated to edit, so it is expected to a degree. Some users make it easy to verify though by by providing comments to assist a verifier. And some hooks just aren't hooks but make it to the front page after a stale discussion. For regulars, there is room to take advantage of the fact that just about every hook makes it on the front page.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did 10 hooks come from? I've only seen 9 discussed and used that I noticed. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there's 10 on the main page right now, but I don't know where that came from and on my screen's resolution it's not out of balance with the rest of the main page. Suggest still staying with 9 for a few days. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also 10 hooks in Queue 3 now. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Only 5–6 events are posted at a time" on SA/OTD per rules there. There were 8 till I removed one a few minutes ago. The extras were added to maintain left-right balance on MainPage to match the long DYK update. ITN was also lengthened with previously removed stale, old news. This should not be done every day. POTD got push further and further down because multiple sections on MainPage got longer and longer. --PFHLai (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a simple solution to help trim the backlog: Get tighter on approving. If someone posts a hook 7 days after article creation, deny it; that's too late. If someone posts a hook for an article that's 1501 bytes of prose, tell them to expand it. Just doing that would start bringing the backlog back down to reasonable levels. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denying 7 day-old nominations is fine, althugh a little bureaucratic. I do have to wonder if denying hooks that technically meet all criteria, albeit barely, would consume more time and energy than the few hooks shorter it would make the backlog would be worth. If we want slightly longer articles, let's make the minimum 1,750 characters. Courcelles 18:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in tightening rules but denying a 1501 char article is inventing a rule not enforcing one. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is enforcing one per selection criteria #2: "In practice, articles longer than 1,500 characters may still be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting reviewers and administrators." Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a self-defeating rule. Either the minimum is 1500 or it's not. We can't have you telling people 1500 isn't enough and everyone else telling people it is. The two clauses need synch'd. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've always interpreted that rule as a way to weed out articles that are obviously incomplete (i.e. lots of empty sections). I don't think trying to enforce tighter standards than written-how much over 1,500 would be denied?- will lead to anything but drama, when just raising the number some would set objective criteria. Courcelles 18:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asking nominators of articles at just over 1500 characters to expand -- mostly they have, so it hasn't reduced the backlog, though it has improved the articles in question. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a DYK much (in an admin/reviewing sense) but I do have some suggestions. Firsly, I agree with declining articles posted late (that would definately help). The other thing is that every single verified hook seems to make the main page. The rules actually state the hook should be "short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article." Perhaps it is nostalgia messing with my recollection, but didn't DYK used to be more interesting (in a QI type style). Perhaps, there should be more flexibility to remove/reject dull hooks. The other question is how long should be give editors to respond to questions/comments. Does it need to be from the time it was made right to the bottom of the backlog. Perhaps this is just my incessant rambling but it might be worthy of posting and, if so, I'd be interested in others opinions. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I am looking at the hook statistics right now, 63 of the newer hooks have already been verified, while 62 of the older hooks are still waiting to be verified. It seems logical that we should somehow "force" reviewers to take care of the older nominations first. I'm wondering if there's any way you could lock the nominations page so that reviewers can only edit the older hooks? Or you could create two pages, one for all nominations and one which contains only "older" hooks for review (this could be updated manually each day). Yoninah (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the sheer number of noms, this is the biggest problem, I - and an all too few others - spend massive amounts of time trying to get these cleaned up. I'm not sure of the best way to deal with this. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To go back to an idea mentioned above, I'd actually get more dramatic, and require 2500 characters for noms. Raising it to 1750 is not going to do much to address the problem (as we'd say in economics, the elasticity of nominations with respect to character count is too low).radek (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declining noms that are submitted "too late" is one obvious measure that could help resolve this. Another is to become somewhat brutal in rejecting noms that have serious problems -- and hooks that are not very interesting. Additionally, however, it's worth remembering that the volume of nominations is highest when universities in North America and the UK are on holiday, and that the volume of submissions typically drops drastically during university examination periods. Accordingly, the current backlog might "magically" dissipate a few weeks from now, when students are back at school. --Orlady (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but there's trade offs here, which is why I think it's better to up the required standards for the noms (like increasing the character req to 2500, making sure every para has a inline source etc.) rather than to be pedantic about nomination date. Also, being a stickler on the vintage date could also decrease article quality as editors rush - and compromise quality - in order to meet the deadline. I would rather see a 7 day old nomination of a good article approved than a 1 day old nomination of a crappy one. (In interest of full disclosure, I freely admit that several of my favorite DYKs I nominated late). Up it to 2500 characters.radek (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on tougher standards and as I stated above, I believe some editors could do a better job on their noms/articles. Some would probably not put dull hooks on the page if they knew the standards were tighter. I have been working in this space for just a month and when I review hooks, I start at the bottom. Problem is that there are stale discussion where it seems that sometimes the nominator/creator doesn't make the effort to repair the issue. Also, there are times that hooks just look precarious or uninteresting so I pass over them. I try to hard to repair some with the nominator/creator and although it is usually successful, it becomes a timely process that could be avoided with simple effort. Maybe after a NOM is reviewed and comments provided, the nominator/creator has 7 days to fix the problem or it gets deleted? Or maybe even a separate page for "old discussions" can be created for these specific hooks as well, sort of like a nom for deletion (NFD).--NortyNort (Holla) 01:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the firm deadline, if your nom isn't fixed within say 5 days after it enters the pink zone (2nd day it's red is okay but when it turns 3rd red day), it's auto deleted. I think this best of all ideas so far. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the idea of imposing repair deadlines, and insisting that no nominations may be made more than 5 days after the article was created/expanded. But I think what would also help reduce the backlog is if we could reject "dull" hooks. The problem of course is that what is dull to one reviewer may be very interesting to another. I know this topic has been discussed here before, but perhaps it needs to be revisited. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: Dull hooks are making reviewers pass over them in favor of newer, more interesting hooks. Moreover, too many hooks read like topic sentences or summaries of the article. Perhaps we should lower the character count to 175 and see what people come up with?

I also agree with radek that minimum article character count should be raised to 2500. It's too easy to cobble together three paragraphs to reach the 1500-character threshold and call it an article. Yoninah (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rejecting dull hooks is way too subjective and will lead to massive inconsistencies. I think 2500 char is too high. Agree on late noms and firm repair deadlines. Looks like we have a consensus on this, or at least one forming. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imposing a repair deadline seems entirely fair and reasonable, but being strict about the nomination deadline seems to me somewhat problematic. Firstly, the guides do indicate that late isn't usually a disqualifying bright line. Secondly, isn't there a quality issue that's important here? Looking at my current nomination of Hans Freeman (which I readily admit gives me a bias here), I could have nominated this 7,329 byte version inside the 5 days and satisfied the 5x expansion from its 604 byte stub origin; instead, I waited until I had expanded it to this 22,770 byte article, that I consider a reasonably comprehensive biography. Which version is it the goals of the DYK process to encourage? Please don't take this as pleading for my nomination, but I suggest that the quality aim is better served by increasing the 1500 character requirement than it is by strictly enforcing the nomination timeframe. EdChem (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple solution to nominating before it's ready -- don't post to mainspace til it's ready, keep it in your sandbox til then. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a new article, yes -- but this was an expansion of an existing stub. EdChem (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy the stub to your sandbox then move it back when done. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you know far more about it than I do. I wouldn't have copied and pasted like that because I thought it raised licence issues, and I wouldn't have moved something I didn't create out of article space to my sandbox because it seems unseemly to me. No matter what, my basic point was that surely a higher quality and well-developed article that is a couple of days late in nomination is better than an in-time nomination of something of lesser quality. Further, I would imagine you wouldn't want editors to make a nomination and then use the few days of processing to expand and re-write, so a proper assessment only really becomes viable by the time the nomination is in the red zone. I know I am new to the DYK process (only two nominations, etc) but I really do think that the increased character requirement (possibly disregarding the lede as well, as suggested below) is a wiser approach to improving the quality of articles passed and simultaneously reducing the backlog. EdChem (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of neat hooks in shorter articles and as already mentioned, discounting the lead doesn't work for many articles as they aren't in sections. Towit, Edward_L._Rowan is less than 2500, and yet it was chock fully of juicy hooks. I'm not supporting 2500 char, but will repair deadline and nom deadlines. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best solution is to impose a repair deadline (should probably be 5 days, no less) and to increase the frequency of the updates. Frequency of updates is entirely within the purview of DYK, and doesn't require other projects (e.g., OTD) to change what they're doing. Frequency of the updates also doesn't leave us with a permanent rules change that may or may not be desirable in the long term; it's easy to change back at any time as needed. cmadler (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Cmadler above. We can temporarily increase the update frequency to every four hours instead of every six hours. I would not favor regularly increasing the number of hooks per update beyond eight, because at a certain point the section becomes unreadable with too many hooks. I also don't think it's a good idea to increase the minimum number of characters required per article, at least unless this backlog continues and grows for a few more months. –Grondemar 16:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's going to be a repair deadline, then it should be required that the reviewer notifies the author/nominator of the problem. I don't think a very short deadline (<3 days) would work well because people often don't edit for a couple of days. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More reason reviewers need to focus on the older noms. Some get to the red zone and haven't been reviewed - not the time to find a problem and wait several days. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not reasonable to penalise the creator becuase of delayed reviewing. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Regardless of how old a submission is, the nominator always should get a certain amount of time (say, 3-5 days) to respond to issues raised by a reviewer, unless there's absolutely no way an problem can be resolved. cmadler (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We need to be careful not to make it even more difficult for those outside the usual suspects to contribute. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

← Additional rule D9 pretty much said that about eight days are really allowed. In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, I've added "However, the five day rule may be strictly enforced, especially if there is a large backlog of hooks." MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Eight days" is great. I wikiedit mostly on weekends. The "five day rule" means I often can't nominate articles created on the previous weekend or the previous Monday. --PFHLai (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

14th August, 2010

Not sure if anyone noticed this: today's FA on MainPage is very short. If we want 10 hooks (or 12!), today is the day. If anyone is interested, you may want to add more hooks to Q6, Q1 & Q2. Feel free to undo this edit at OTD/SA at 6:00 UTC to maintain the left-right balance on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really think we're placing too many hooks in the Did you know updates. The density of the section makes it hard for users to read any individual entry, especially those in the middle. At a certain point the entire section becomes unreadable, and it fact dominates the entire Main Page. I really think that, no matter how bad the backlog becomes, we need to limit DYK to a maximum of eight articles per template. –Grondemar 04:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That's what I want to hear. I like 6 to 8 hooks at a time. I thought I was in the minority.... --PFHLai (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Listings

Have you ever considered a system similar to the one used on Wikipedia:Requests for feedback for the nomination listings? This way, the inputbox used to make a new entry would automatically do so on the current day's subpage, EX. "Template talk:Did you know/YEAR MONTH DAY" with a brief navbox at top of each page and those subpages are transcluded onto the main one based on whether there's anything left on them? It might make it easier to navigate and faster to load and it could be implemented without disrupting anything. シ ☏ 21:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_44#T:TDYK_and_Loading_Times and Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_49#T:DYKT_Page_too_big for some of the previous discussions. Shubinator (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Looks like we already have. シ ☏ 23:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK entry for 9 August: "Nanyang Style"

I note that a DYK hook on the "Nanyang Style" appears at "Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1". As it relates to Singapore, which is celebrating its National Day on 9 August, is this hook is going to appear on that date? I started a section at the special occasion holding area called "Template talk:Did you know#For 9 August, National Day of Singapore". — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is now in queue 4 and will appear on the main page beginning at 7am UTC 9 Aug. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Stefan Jaracz Theatre

Hi, not sure why this hook was removed from the nominations page. I reviewed this July 27th nomination on August 5 and posted a request to the creator's and nominator's talk pages to re-format the URLs. On August 6, when I was not at home, the nominator requested that I forward the request to another editor who helps with their WikiProject. It seems to me that 2 or 3 days can be allotted to fix up an otherwise eligible nomination, no? Yoninah (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked Wizardman (talk · contribs) about the edit? After all, there might have been some reason you don't know or maybe he simply didn't know what you know. Usually, some days should be allowed for fixes of course. Regards So Why 20:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I posted it on his talk page. Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did give it two days before I removed it; the article still has the problems I removed it for anyway, so while it may have been a little quick, it should've been fine. Formatting the refs takes about five minutes. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand. What other problems did it have, other than the bare URLs? Yoninah (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor suggestion about the way we count the 1500 characters

It strikes me as odd that we don't distinguish between the main text of the article and the lead, which in theory should simply be a summary of the main text and not contain any new information. An article with fewer than 1,500 characters in the body of the article should not creep over our threshold just because some of the information is repeated to make a lead. (Sheepishly admits that at least one of his shorter DYKs, Peulan, would have failed on this test...) It might help provide a painless way of getting rid of some of the shorter articles that add to the backlog, since if you can't write 1500 characters without repetition (let alone deviation or hesitation) then is it worth showcasing at DYK? If implemented, this would of course mean that the scripts used for checking character count would need to be adjusted, but that's a separate point. What do people think of the principle? Bencherlite ^Talk 06:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The major problem with that suggestion is that not all articles are organised into sections. How do you determine what portion of the text constitutes the lede in, (from from a random selection) Seisia, Queensland, Vienna Symphonic Library or Bizerte crisis? What if the creators *had* added random section breaks, but none of the information in the opening one was repeated elsewhere, such as in Robert Edward Chambliss? And if you suggest that section breaks should become a requirement of DYK, I suspect most here will cry instruction creep. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion a few sections above "backlog" which is discussing an overall character minimums which could help address this problem. A 2000 character limit might help as most intros are relatively short. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hooks w/ images backlog

In the July 29 section, there is a plethora of hooks with pictures. Common sense tells me that along with the backlog, everyone one of those hooks won't make it to the lead. Is it ok to make a judgment call and place some without their pictures? It's been done to my hooks before but I didn't want to be bold without asking here. --NortyNort (Holla) 08:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I pick them based on how well they look in the small DYK window, a variety of topics as the lead, and how interesting its hook is. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. May I suggest adding the following note under the image rules? "Not all images will accompany their hook if DYK is experiencing a backlog." --NortyNort (Holla) 10:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another criterion reviewers/queue composers may want to consider is the relevance of the image to both the hook and the article. cmadler (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some are very relevant and shouldn't be excluded. If the hook is on a house though but doesn't describe a feature of the house than there is a marginal need for the picture is DYK is backlogged. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how the picture of Mozart got to head queue 6, given we have a surplus of good images. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I had originally put those hooks in the prep area and after re-reading the rules today, the picture has to deal with the article being nom'd. I think it should be pulled out but I can't edit the queues. The hook can be bumped into a prep area. --NortyNort (Holla) 12:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks moot now. I don't see Mozart in the queues, someone took care of it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah too late, already on main page. Yep, should not have been the lead hook. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't updated DYK much since 2008, but I think the article quality and whether th picture works should be the main criteria for the pictured slot, that's how I did it anyway, I usually didn't give it to anything stubby YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Pete's sake, I fully understand that not every image I submit will be used. Many haven't been. The point of encouraging image submissions is to make sure we have a good pool to choose from, not to use every single one. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification for "real-world context" in DYK rules

I recently put an article I created, Urban Yeti!, up for a DYK nom. The hook reads, "... that in Urban Yeti!, the player controls a yeti who must get a job in order to pay a toll to cross a bridge?" User:DS objected that the hook did not have a real-world context and therefore, the hook was unacceptable ([1]). I noticed that this was not the only hook he objected to, and many of these objections were placed after the approval of another member of the community:

Itchy & Scratchy in Miniature Golf Madness [2] Objected to the first alt hook, because it talked about in-universe details that had no real-world context.
The Simpsons: Bart & the Beanstalk [3] Objected because the hook, which talked about the plot of a video game, had no real-world context.
Bart Simpson's Escape from Camp Deadly [4] Objected because the hook compared two works of fiction to another and lacked real-world context.
Glass Joe [5] Objected because the video game character's hook lacked real-world context.
Soda Popinski [6] Objected because the video game character's hook lacked real-world context.
Bartman Meets Radioactive Man [7] Objected because the article was about something fictional and lacked real-world context.

I think this sets a horrifying precedent, that fictional worlds cannot be discussed or mentioned in hooks. I think the point of the rule is to block people from saying things such as "Did you know that Bart Simpson flew over the Empire State Building?", as such a statement is misleading and untrue-- Bart Simpson is a fictional character and could not have flown over the Empire State Building. But as long as the hook indicates that the subject is fictional, such as "Did you know that Bart Simpson flew over the Empire State Building in the Simpsons episode Look How He Flew?" The latter obviously demonstrates that the Bart Simpson did it in an episode of a TV series and not in reality. The "real-world context" in the rule desperately needs clarification if we ever expect to allow another fictional hook. Nomader ^(Talk) 03:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion yet, but the original version of the rule is C6. The rule on WP:DYK was recently added by DS. Shubinator (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Nomader. I already brought this up with DS but he's not responded, see: User_talk:DragonflySixtyseven#Hmmm. I also did not realize this occurred so often. I think DS's implementation of this rule is out of synch with the rest of us. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to C6 pending consensus. For neutrality I won't express an opinion on the matter, except to say that I think it's good that it has resulted in a discussion. --W F C-- 14:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At what point to do overlook these objections and pass the hooks for DYK? I too think that DS is out of synch with the rest here. Dincher (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DS notified on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with Nomader's comment above - the clause was really only designed to prevent people from presenting fictional events as if they were real, there's no good reason why plot details and so on should not be used in a hook so long as it's made clear they are not real-world events. Gatoclass (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that assessment. If the reader can easily understand the context, there is no reason to make the hooks less interesting just because they do not contain a clear indication of the context. Also, I think it does not look very good if you change the rules first and then start declining nominations based on the change you recently made. He really should have discussed the change first, no matter what consensus we may reach regarding it. Regards So Why 20:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that these are not actual facts. These are things that were made up by someone. They were invented, not discovered or established. They don't exist outside of their fictional context. There's a reason we have {{in-universe}}. DS (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of "inuniverse" is articles that "need to differentiate between fact and fiction" as when if someone says something like "Pikachu loves Obama". One of the approved hooks you removed from a queue specifically said it was a short story, clearly not pretending it true. The way you're interpreting it Shakespeare's "Hamlet" would not qualify for DYK. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Shakespeare's Hamlet"? What about Shakespeare's 'Hamlet'? You have to come up with a hook. DYK that... Rosencrantz and Guildenstern get murdered? That is not acceptable, because it's wholly internal. DYK that... Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, bit characters from Hamlet, are used as the basis for Tom Stoppard's play "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead"? That's acceptable, because it goes beyond something that someone made up. DS (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it is clear in context that they are fictional I see no problem. In all the examples given it is obvious that they are fictional. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. with Josh and Rlevse. Dincher (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@DS "... that in the platform game Bartman Meets Radioactive Man, Bart Simpson ventures into a comic book universe to rescue his kidnapped idol, superhero Radioactive Man?" clearly says it's fictional (game and comic book) and you said it was unacceptable, just like in all the other cases cited above. Face it, you're taking this to an extreme and you're in a group of one. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DS's comment on Hamlet doesn't make sense to me. I think that the first hook about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern would be perfectly acceptable to DYK with the addition of in the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. Dincher (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we clarify what "the hook must involve the real world in some way" means? I think it'd be better if we could word it instead as, "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must demonstrate that its subject is fictional" or something to the like. That way there could be no confusion over its meaning. Nomader ^(Talk) 03:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, that's better. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more I've thought about this, the more I agree with DragonflySixtyseven's interpretation of the rule, though I think the implementation has been a bit off. I agree that a hook that takes the general form "... that in XXXX game/movie/book, YYYY happens?" should be avoided. Although it makes it clear that the YYYY event is fictional, it doesn't tie it back to the real world in any way. On the other hand, a hook that presents some analysis of fiction, or compares fictional works that are not directly related (e.g., comparing Harry Potter to The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is OK; comparing Harry Potter to Barry Trotter is probably not OK) is fine. cmadler (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think any game, book, etc can make an extraordinary hook because it can be based off of imagination and ultimately fiction. We indulge in this stuff because it is interesting so I see no reason why a hook can't be just as interesting. If it is in a hook, it is most likely on a notable work as well. --NortyNort (Holla) 12:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly why a hook about a fictional element is not good, because it's based purely on imagination, not reality. Did you know that in the novel Tau Zero, the universe comes to an end? Did you know that in the novel Breaking Dawn, Bella gives birth to a vampire-human crossbreed? So what? Simply stating that it's within a work of fiction does not tie it to the real world. cmadler (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought this over and find myself agreeing with Cmadler & DragonflySixtyseven. Things that take place in fiction are by nature "hooky", that is the nature of fiction -- it doesn't make them in any way extraordinary. Most works of fiction have some form of plot, and including a hook wholly based on this seems to me akin to saying "Barack Obama was born in 1961". There's also the problem of independent referencing -- most plot summaries are referenced to the work itself.

As a separate point, how did the hook on Wolf of Kabul currently at queue 1 get to read "that Chung, the Wolf of Kabul's sidekick, cracked heads with a cricket bat which he called "clicky-ba"?"? I thought the approved version included the source text. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a misunderstanding. When I verified it, I didn't put the check next to ALT1 which may have caused confusion. It should read "... that Chung, the Wolf of Kabul's sidekick in British story papers and comics, cracked heads with a cricket bat which he called "clicky-ba"?"

Per the above comments; they make sense and I tend to agree. But hooks are on Wikipedia articles, so I don't know why DYK shouldn't represent all Wikipedia material. Within reason of tastefulness of course. If the character or work is notable and an author created or expanded an article, they should be eligible to nominate a hook that applies real-world context along with conveying that it is fiction. --NortyNort (Holla) 14:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why articles on fiction shouldn't appear on DYK. However, the articles are held to WP:FICTION which states that "Coverage of fiction on Wikipedia needs to be more than a plot summary of the work. Notability of fictional works and elements within should be based on their impact in the real world as opposed to what occurs within the work." and I'm beginning to think that the hooks should represent this. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:FICTION is a proposed guideline; articles are not currently held to all its details. But the prohibition on plot-only descriptions is enshrined as policy in WP:NOT, under WP:PLOT, which says, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is usually appropriate as part of this coverage." cmadler (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Espresso and cmadler also have a good point, in fact I was going to suggest earlier that even if we accept hooks describing fictional events, they should still be discouraged because otherwise we will probably be encouraging substandard hooks. I'm not sure which way to jump on this, I'm not totally opposed to hooks about plotlines but I can also see it becoming problematic if we allow open slather. Gatoclass (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern with banning fictional hooks is that some works of fiction that don't garner much attention such as smaller video games and films will have extremely boring hooks without fictional ones. How would an article like Moto Racer 3 be able to have a hook in DYK? It would have to discuss its critical reception, because almost no development information exists. So the hook would read, "did you know that GameSpot's Gord Gable criticized Moto Racer 3 for its low frame rate, but praised the variety of events?" I understand everyone's concern, but I don't think DYK should be blocking interesting hooks from articles simply based on the fact that an article is mostly about something fictional. As long as the hook is neatly referenced and the hook makes it clear that the events are fictional, I think it should be allowed. Nomader ^(Talk) 16:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I very much doubt there is anything unusual about the plot of a game called "Moto Racer 3", so the hook you suggest would probably be an improvement in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be showcasing interesting new/expanded articles at DYK -- if there's no interesting hook then we shouldn't feature it. DYK is not a trophy for every >=1500 character new article, it's fundamentally intended to attract readers to interesting articles. I've created lots of articles I haven't bothered to suggest here because, while notable, referenced & significantly above the threshold length, there just wasn't anything particularly attention-grabbing to say about them. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good point, being 1500+ chars does not auto qualify a hook. We may need to clamp down on boring hooks. This would also noticeably help the backlog. The problem is going to be, what I think is boring is not what you think is boring. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, we did used to decline hooks as boring more frequently, a year or two back. It did lead to some disagreements, but if reviewer A labels a hook as dull & reviewer B disagrees, then reviewer C is at liberty to select it, if s/he finds it of interest. It does mean that people have to avoid reviewing classes of hooks that they find inherently dull -- very little will interest me in American sport, I fear, and I'm sure others are equally zoned out by English listed buildings. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please include DYK's regarding religion in this discussion. I find the subject exceedingly boring and it is my understanding that it is entirely fictitious. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where a big problem is going to come up. Religion is strictly a personal belief. To say that it is fact or fiction is totally based on the belief of the reader/user. Works like Hamlet and Nintendo games are clearly fictional. I believe that they have value on wikipedia and should not be excluded from inclusion on DYK. The series of hooks about video games are, to me, perfectly acceptable. Although the context of the video games is fictional and not real, the video games themselves are most certainly real as is the playing of the games. This goes for the plot of books, movies etc. It seems to me that there should not be a "rule" against including fiction based hooks on DYK. We should just filter out the "boring" hooks regardless of whether or not the subject is real or fiction. Dincher (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone who's a bit more neutral than I am to the discussion like to notify relevant WikiProjects about this discussion? I feel as though this could have a large impact on a wide variety of fictional hooks and they should probably be notified. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If hooks based on fictional events aren't contextualized then certainly the hook ultimately is less interesting. The definition of boring is subjective but there are a few standards that define what isn't boring. A hook that doesn't describe common events or deals with extraordinary events isn't boring. Based on such empirical criteria I think a policy could be created that would limit the number of uninteresting DYKs, increase the time of the main page publication of truly interesting ones and decrease the reviewers' work load and the backlog.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved content from this discussion into Meta under the request for comments section, here - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does meta have to do with a en.wiki dyk issue? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it here - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally opposed to seeing what the wider Wikipedia community has to say about this issue, but the RfC process has always kind of baffled me and I've never worked with it before... what happened to the request you posted? Nomader ^(Talk) 04:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - I had posted this in an area which was deleted, I've opened up an RfC for this here:

I apologize if my initial comment was not helpful, and I'm going to give an example for clarification:

...that Jesus Christ was crucified and came back from the dead?

or

...that God created everything?

I am not trying to argue beliefs. Beliefs are not fact. As supported by the article name "creation myth", this is in an encyclopedic context, not factual, and tacitly, fictional. That, I believe cannot be argued. And where can we stop then? Some people believe in withcraft, UFO's, Yeti's... I do not think I need to go further. We could say that no one disputes the existence of Hamlet, but what about Shakespeare? What about a fairly recent popular incarnation per Stephanie Myers.. vampires? My point is that the correct way to remedy this would be to make a simple addition to the hooks:

...that in Christianity, Jesus Christ was crucified and came back from the dead?

where the formula is loosely:

...that in this fictional thing, this happened?

And in that sense, we would keep the requirement of stating where the fiction is from, which I don't think anyone would dispute doing.

Regarding "boring" hooks, I think that this is of course subjective. I think the discussion regarding that has arose only because of the surge, and once this passes (and I'm hoping it does) we won't have to filter out "boring" hooks. Besides, I thought that another purpose of DYK was to give motivation to new users for writing articles, and a way to give a sense of accomplishment to them? I have a two proposals for this, if the surge becomes permanent:

Increasing required length for regular contributors, something like:
1. 0-24 Hooks: 1500
2. 25-49 Hooks: 2500
3. 50-100 Hooks: 3500
4. etc.
Raising the bar for everyone except for the new self noms. We could create an area for a new user, with higher tolerance for "boringness". I do not want to take away that reward for newcomers, and if we are going to be strict on hooks, lets be strict to those of us who are regulars. - Theornamentalist 01:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought before that increasing the standards for regulars would be a good idea. Here are the problems I forsee though:

1) A reviewer has another step to take when reviewing the hook; confirming how many DYKs the person has. As it is, some reviewers don't notify the editor if they commented on the nomination already.

2) It creates a "watershed" moment where the DYK records are then skewed.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1 fix

In hook 7 of Queue 1, Space Hawk needs to be italicized as per MOS:T. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYKmake probem

In the credits currently in Prep 1,

is rendering as

Theornamentalist – [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] (give) (tag)

Clearly DYKmake does not like the 1st parameter. Does anyone know how to fix this? —Bruce1ee^talk 05:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Shubinator says something, I would remove this credit and issue it manually. There are easy ways to fix the look of this string, but experience tells that the bot might crash upon issuing such "fixed" credit. Materialscientist (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, interesting. DYKUpdateBot should run fine with it as-is. It's the "=" that's causing the trouble. Replacing it with {{=}} would make the string look nice, but would almost certainly crash the bot. Replacing it with = (its HTML encoding) should display properly and the bot should run fine....but I'm not 100% sure. More like 70%. Shubinator (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the title and user fields are flipped. Shubinator (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to test the bot with your HTML encoding fix in a sandbox? Failing that, probably the safest option is to do what MS suggested above: remove the credit and issue it manually when the queue hits the Main Page. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding 1= and 2=

fixes the rendering:

Boys & Girls 1+1=3 – Theornamentalist (give) (tag)

and I would think that the bot would also handle it properly.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bot would fail with this method. It scrapes the wikitext directly from the queue and parses the wikitext on its own (which is why Mediawiki and DYKUpdateBot have slightly different behavior for non-standard titles/usernames). @Bruce1ee I'll try to do a test run tonight. It can't be in a sandbox because of the way the bot looks for associated talk pages, but I can test on the page itself and revert after. Shubinator (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a couple test runs, and the bot hangs with =. My suggestion: leave the credit as-is and the bot will deal with it properly. If the broken display is really bugging you, you can remove it and manually credit. Shubinator (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I see you've also adjusted Queue 1 (where it's currently sitting) – thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whale meat in Prep2

I haven't looked into the details/circumstances behind it (rather short of time tonight), but I just looked at this article (currently in Prep 2) and noticed a {{POV}} (neutrality) tag at the top. Others may like to check and see if any action is needed before moving to a Q. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it back to the suggestions page. Perhaps someone who knows something about the topic can address the neutrality tag. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a fairly healthy discussion going on on the article's talk page. I've solicited for an inclusive list of problems to be addressed in the hopes that we can see some movement before the nom expires. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input re issue with Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

There's an unresolved discussion on T:TDYK concerning the inclusion of Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which indisputably meets the DYK inclusion criteria but is being opposed by a few editors for exclusively political reasons (i.e. factors other than Wikipedia policy). Some input from uninvolved editors would be appreciated here. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special occasion

Please review August 14 and 15. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see comments. Thanks. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time and length per update

As discussed above in the "Backlog" section, could an admin: 1. Change the update schedule from 6 hours to 4 hours, and 2. Adjust all updates currently in queues/prep areas down to 8 hooks per (putting the removed hooks into a prep area so they aren't lost). Thanks, cmadler (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Small suggested change to a hook

Regarding my hook about Hans Freeman, presently in queue 2: Looking at it now, I realise I should have wikilinked the word "protein" after the name of the protein (plastocyanin) to the article protein about the class of molecules. Is it worth making that small addition? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red Baron

Queue 5 says: "... that Edwin Benbow, the only ace on the FE.8, evaded combat with the Red Baron, Manfred von Richthofen, on 23 January 1918, only to shoot him down on 6 March 1918?" But Manfred von Richtofen#Who fired the fatal shot? says: "Experts now generally agree that Richthofen was killed by someone on the ground." R4 says "If your article contradicts an existing article, the contradiction should be resolved one way or the other before your article is approved. Don't expect Did You Know regulars to resolve the contradiction for you." Art LaPella (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could change it to "...only to be involved in shooting him down...". If that doesn't put it over length, at least. Silverseren^C 22:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This shoot down date is not the one that killed him. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "shoot down" does not mean the pilot was necessarily injured or killed, only that the aircraft had to crash-land, which is what apparently happened to Richthofen on March 6, 1917. So there is no conflict which needs to be resolved. Crum375 (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. Art LaPella (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the dates in the queue which seemed wrong.[8] So assuming this is correct, it was a good thing this was brought up. Crum375 (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prep area 2, Hook 5

Hi, the hook about Eugene Anderson caught my eye and I read the article. The hook source doesn't say he was an orphan, but a son of a single mother who was frequently disabled; therefore he lived at times in orphanages and foster care. I changed the text in the article to reflect that, but something needs to be done about the hook. Personally, I think it's enough to say: "... that future insurance litigator Eugene Anderson got admitted to Harvard Law School with the help of an attorney he met while hitchhiking across the United States?" Yoninah (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took out "an orphan", that solves it too. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Negative articles, a rule change, and Howard Martin

A couple of days ago my 5x expansion of Howard Martin was rejected for DYK due to it being perceived as negative. Now, the exact wording in the rules is: "Articles on living individuals are carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Articles and hooks which focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided". This begs the question, when shouldn't it be avoided? The Martin article is about a doctor who was recently struck off for hastening the deaths of 18 patients. In the words of the BMA, "Dr Martin's actions were indicative of an autocratic attitude, in that he seemed always to consider that he was right and rejected, or did not seek, the views of others. He repeatedly broke the trust to which patients are entitled; this is unjustifiable." Martin has also admitted hastening the deaths of two patients, potentially illegally. Now, surely a NPOV article would naturally end up with a negative tone. Yet it would still be objectively neutral. Why shouldn't it be included in DYK? Surely such official sanctioning of a living person is acceptable in an article up for DYK? Why should it be rejected?

Lastly, if DYK exists to encourage editors to create and expand, do we want to remove any incentive to create and expand articles about living people whose biographies may include criticism? (I'm not suggesting WP exists to punish, of course not, but being NPOV means writing about every aspect of life. DYK should encourage editors to write about everything.) Surely it's time to stop automatically rejecting negative DYK nominations, or at least reject only in obviously POV cases. Views would be welcome. As would putting Howard Martin back up for a DYK if it's deemed appropriate by other editors. Thanks. Malick78 (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh .. there is so much positive to write about. Smile :-D .. Everybody will have their own answer why. One could be that wikipedia should not meddle with a legal battle which is inevitably associated with criminal claims and living people. No, DYK does not promote any topic, and it is not about censorship - articles are not censored - but about WP image. For example, we do not poke a nation in mourning and do not put graphical depictions of violence (against children), be it in images or words. Materialscientist (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for you response but I don't follow the relevance of it. I guess it was just light-hearted. I would like to hear some proper reasons for the rule and to get a consistent rule for what is and isn't allowed. I spent time on an article hoping people would read it and it was ruled out in a rather arbitrary way. Please try to understand my wish for clarity. Malick78 (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key is the "Do no harm" principle of WP:BLP. By featuring negative BLP articles on the Main Page, we are giving exposure to those negative articles, and thereby harming real people. Perhaps that is legitimate because these people really are notable only for the bad things they have done, but I don't find that argument altogether convincing. We are still potentially doing harm, after all, and it's better to be on the safe side. (Though note that the rule used to say that articles that focus unduly on negative aspects of BLPs were unnacceptable–don't know where that piece got lost. That formulation of the rule may not have led to the rejection of your article, though I haven't reviewed it in detail.)

DYK doesn't (and can't) provide an incentive for any form of content creation or improvement. I don't dispute that you have done good work on this article, and I commend you for that, but in general I dislike arguments of the form "someone has done good work on this, so it should be featured on DYK". What counts, to me at least, is whether policy and common sense suggests it is a good idea to feature an article on the Main Page. I believe we shouldn't put negative BLP hooks on the Main Page because of our BLP policy. Another consideration, which you also mention, is giving the right incentives to editors, and although I agree that is important, I think it should be secondary to core policies like BLP. On the other hand, I would favor a rule change allowing thoroughly cleaned up unreferenced or otherwise bad articles to be featured on DYK, if such a rule could be unambiguously formulated, since I think it would be a good incentive. Ucucha 20:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Malick (i) we can't set DYK rules for all possible cases, and can't set a plank for, say, what level of violence is acceptable on the main page - this is decided by consensus during the review. (ii) It is nice to get a reward as a surprise, isn't it. Most regulars look at rewards philosophically, i.e. thinking of the project rather than personal goals. In other words, the image of an editor on wikipedia, their attitude to editing, is more important than the number of stars. Materialscientist (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha - thank you for your response. a) "Do no harm" is surely inappropriate here since the subject gave newspaper interviews in June knowing full well the public's response. He was admitting and highlighting his potentially illegal activity. He was therefore inviting attention, and, in fact wanted to start a debate on the subject of death and medicine. He sought publicity and the article does little more than give this to him, while including the facts of his life. If there is an exception to the "negative article" DYK rule, this is arguably it. b)DYK only uses newly improved articles, hence it is a direct incentive to creation. Otherwise it would quote information from any article at all. Would it not? c) At the moment the rule I'm discussing is vague and arbitrarily applied, with the creator/expander unable to predict the response. This is inefficient, wastes time, and is unfair.
Materialscientist a) I'm trying to be constructive here, so I don't appreciate your patronising tone. I'm not looking for stars as such (and indeed, someone with a page like this should hardly insinuate such a thing), just I would like what I write to be read. Every single editor here does. DYK is great for getting people to read an article. That is the only reason I seek this 'star' for the article I wrote. b) We can set accurate, easily followable rules for DYK. If you feel unable to suggest any, I hope someone else can be more helpful. Malick78 (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My sincere apologies for "mentoring" and award insinuations. Yes, having your page read by many is great (BTW, that is a common technical procedure to track past DYKs erased from a talk page, I don't care, but don't bite others on that). One problem with your comment above is that we may not judge that "he was inviting attention" unless he explicitly states so, and even then, he would hardly state that about the WP main page. Materialscientist (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he didn't have WP in mind, but he did "speak out to call for reform of a system of care, which – he claims – takes the “soft” option of confining the terminally ill to hospitals and hospices rather than allowing them the “dignity” of dying at home with their loved ones". In the interviews he gave he admitted that "in two cases, he hastened the deaths of patients without their permission" and that this "confession put him at risk of “spending the rest of my life in prison”". He's therefore not trying to avoid publicity, even negative publicity. Why then should DYK avoid him in this case? Is the "Do know harm" policy really quite so relevant in the instance of a man courting publicity in this manner? Malick78 (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just make the hook more positive? "Did you know that Dr. Howard Martin claimed that there was a police vendetta against him?" Not as interesting but should go with the rule against negative hooks. Nomader ^(Talk) 22:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in Queue 2, Hook 6

Note: ... that although Citizen Cope's "Sideways" has never charted, it is has been covered by Santana, Sheryl Crow and Corey Taylor? Yoninah (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using Prosesize to count characters

I'd like to ask what might be a silly question. How does one use Prosesize to determine whether an article has at least 1,500 characters in it? I've installed the script and tried it out, and it only returns the "prose size (text only)" (or "readable prose size") in kilobytes and words. Does one have to multiply the figure in kilobytes by 1,024 to obtain the number of characters, or something like that? (It would be really great if Prosesize could also figure out the number of characters in an article automatically ...) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You use "Prose size (text only)". For small articles, it doesn't give kilobytes; for example, it says St. Leger is 6139 B. Ucucha 11:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so 6,139 bytes mean 6,139 characters? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I hope it's not 6139 kilobytes! Ucucha 12:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Just looked up the meaning of byte. I was getting it confused with bit (eight bits make a byte, and hence a character). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, in some computer languages 16 bits (2 bytes) make up a character (in case you weren't confused before :) ). Shubinator (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can also use, DYKcheck, which I prefer. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Will try it out. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schreker operas

Two Schreker operas in one queue (5, soon) - isn't that too much of a good thing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swapped one with a hook in queue 6. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation again

Following a discussion on Jimbo Wales' talk page, I've put forward a compromise proposal concerning the disputed DYK nomination for Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Briefly, this would involve passing the DYK now but deferring its appearance to January 1, 2011 to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the seal being first used. Please see T:TDYK#For January 1, 2011, Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for details. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bach cantata on Sunday if possible

The Bach cantata BWV 179 was nominated for Sunday, the word Sunday is mentioned in the hook. It is now in queue 1 for Monday. Is there a way to move it "up"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hook swapped and now in Q6. Now scheduled to run at 18:00 (UTC) on Sunday. --Allen3 ^talk 21:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hook too long

The hook for Cordoba House, currently in the partially constructed Prep 2, is 225 characters. Since DYK is already expanded to nine hooks, I think the hook size limit should be strictly enforced for all hooks. In this case, I would probably just eliminate the restaurant and bookstore, but I'll leave it to others to decide if and how to pare it down. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche, who expanded and nominated the article (but with a hook different from the extra long one), has taken care of it per the suggestion, and it's now an acceptable length. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Fink

The "today" in his hook in q3 is nice, but I don't understand the comma in "the 80th birthday of Walter Fink, is celebrated". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I. Removed. Materialscientist (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

other?

Picky again: reading once more in q6 "... that Bach used the music of the opening chorus of his Siehe zu, daß deine Gottesfurcht nicht Heuchelei sei, BWV 179, a cantata written for the eleventh Sunday after Trinity, in two other masses?" (the hook was not my idea, but ALT1.), I don't think "other" is correct because that would imply that the cantata is a mass which it isn't. Possible: "in two masses" or "in two of his masses" or "in two short masses". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, already on the main page. Materialscientist (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGF should not apply to references

I think we need to rethink this practice of accepting foreign-language and offline sources without looking at them on the basis of assuming good faith. It's not that we ask for references because we don't trust users or because we think they're making the info up; we insist on sources because it's necessary for having a reliable encyclopedia. You're not assuming bad faith by insisting on sources--there are plenty of ways a person can have an inaccuracy in an article while editing with good faith. And this stuff is going on the Main Page, so it makes sense to be extra careful. I think if you're checking these off you should find someone who can read it (for foreign language sources you can find someone using the language userspace templates) or you should not check it off as though you've verified it. At the very least, we can ask users to quote the passage they're using from an offline source, that way we can at least see if anything's been misinterpreted from that. delldot ∇. 21:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate hook

Did you know Queue 5 has two hooks for Cordoba House? Art LaPella (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced one of the occurrences. Courcelles 23:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The extra one appeared because NuclearWarfare was swapping it per Epeefleche's request, but forgot to remove the old one. Unfortunately, the old one is the one that remains, and there are now ten hooks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swapped hooks again. Courcelles 01:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2 picture error

For some reason, the picture for Queue 2 (1995 Airstan incident) appears above the hook, rather than alongside and below it as lead pictures normally do. 71.79.87.249 (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Queue/2, for admin's convenience. 71.79.87.249 (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 363: / Line 363: @@
 :Replaced one of the occurrences. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 23:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 ::The extra one appeared because NuclearWarfare was swapping it per Epeefleche's request, but forgot to remove the old one. Unfortunately, the old one is the one that remains, and there are now ten hooks. [[User:Mandarax|<font color="green">M<small>AN</small>d<small>ARAX</small></font>]]&nbsp;<font color="blue">•</font>&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandarax|<font color="999900"><small>XAЯA</small>b<small>ИA</small>M</font>]] 23:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
+:::Swapped hooks again.  [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 01:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 == Queue 2 picture error ==