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 00:19, 28 May 2011

Error reports

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

What should happen before a brilliant bot-maker does this?

Our DYK bot already posts on a DYK article's talk page after its DYK shows up on the front page--and that's a great feature! W:User:OhioStandard has proposed an earlier notification on an article's talk page.

Such a notice would be triggered when the article is nominated for DYK. The notification could be something like:

"This article Name of Article has been nominated to be linked to from Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column using the hook "Did you know ... (text of hook proposed?" The DYK discussion will be here (a link to article's discussion at DYK)."

Would this be a difficult project for a bot-creator? Do others support the idea of such notification? For most articles, it would just be a friendly notice that the DYK nomination had successfully registered. For contentious articles it would avoid the situation where some editors are prepping the page to showcase their favored version at DYK in the very near future but some other editors are in the dark about any timeline for moving toward NPOV. betsythedevine (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that would be necessary. As far as I know, in the vast majority of DYK noms there's only one editor working on the article and this message would just be telling the editor something he/she already knows. For the exceptions, maybe we could just have an expectation that people should notify other editors if the article is contentious, or reviewers should check the talk page and invite other editors to comment if the nominator has not already done so. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not necessary most of the time, but very helpful in a few cases and not harmful in any. It would also be a real benefit to new authors/nominators. I know it took me a while to figure out how to find "my" article's discussion section -- I would go to T:DYK, search for my sig, and check to see if anybody had said anything yet, pro or con. But I think Rjanac's other suggestions are very good, especially if nobody wants to bot-ify notification. betsythedevine (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the creation of such a bot. We do need to consider how and when such a notification would be removed (or if it would just stay on the talk page until archived). cmadler (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea sounds good, but the bot that delivers it also needs to be coded to remove it once the actual DYK notice has been posted on the article's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 06:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support a DYKNomAlertBot (for non self-noms) because it will alert page creators that their page has had some traffic, and will have more interest soon (time to tidy up, cite sources, add that image or graphic they've been meaning to add & such). If the notification message is small (just 2 lines, with no ==header==) there'll be no need to delete it afterwards. --Lexein (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is anything happening with this? cmadler (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<--I hear consensus for a small notice on an article talk page at the time it is posted to DYK. I proposed simple wording, above, which nobody objected to. Shubinator is the person in charge of the DYKUpdtateBot, so I will post a message on his talk page pointing to this discussion and asking his advice on creating such a bot. Because I am traveling for the next week-plus, my internet access may be chancy some days. betsythedevine (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! I will add that, while the proposed wording is fine, I disagree with Lexein's suggestion that it should not get its own section heading. I'd suggest a section heading of ==DYK nomination== cmadler (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the small header would not be intrusive. Surely the notice could be left on the article talk page if nobody cares about it, or removed to its archives manually if anybody cares to do so. I don't think getting the notice removed afterward is something that needs to be coded into a notice-leaving bot before it begins. betsythedevine (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A header is essential. There might already be talk page traffic. Adding some text without a header might look like adding to the latest discussion. Schwede66 17:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

←A bot for this is feasible. The way I see it, the bot would add a notice (with its own header, and therefore its own section) on the talk page. The notice wouldn't be removed from the talk page later. There's one piece that's still niggling at me though: how will users interpret the bot not placing a notice on the talk page? Will they assume it's a bug in the bot, or a problem with the syntax of the nomination? I'm also concerned about users using the talk page notice as "proof" that the nomination is syntactically correct (but I don't foresee this being much of a problem). Shubinator (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Use common sense here, and please avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. "

Proposed simple change, based on discussion above, to relevant DYK policy H2, which currently reads "You are not allowed to approve your own hook or article."

A revision that would answer some of the concerns raised above about DYKs for articles in contentious areas:

You are not allowed to approve your own hook or article. DYK novices are strongly discouraged from confirming articles that have been flagged as subject to active arbitration remedies, as are editors active in those areas. Use common sense here, and please avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. A valid DYK nomination will readily be confirmed by a neutral editor.

The "appearance of conflict of interest" quote is from the DYK rule for selecting nominated hooks, and I think it is good advice worth repeating. betsythedevine (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is interesting. An editor who is involved could decline an article but an editor involved from the opposite side cannot confirm it. Really?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An involved editor can never block a good DYK, as witness recent tag-warfare on contended articles. A DYK can be rejected or questioned by one editor but then marked good to go by a different editor. [1] [2][3] :

You are not allowed to approve your own hook or article. DYK novices are strongly discouraged from confirming or rejecting articles that have been flagged as subject to active arbitration remedies, as are editors active in those areas. Use common sense here, and please avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. A valid DYK nomination will readily be confirmed by a neutral editor.

Does that mean, with this change, you will support the proposal? betsythedevine (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we need to add the "or rejection" clause. I don't see much of a problem with any user adding a rejection icon, given that in almost all cases it will not be taken at face value but will be contested and discussed. This is not the case, unfortunately, with the approval icon, which is why there needs to be a tightening of the rules in regards to its use. Gatoclass (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<--I agree, but treating the two cases even-handedly sounds fair. The proposed rule change will not prevent anybody from leaving comments of caution or praise. betsythedevine (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's still a solution looking for a problem. We haven't had a problem with people leaving reject icons on articles before, so what problem will this addition solve? On the other hand, we've had a longstanding problem with COI editors attempting to approve articles, so I think we should stick to addressing that. If we start getting problematic rejections, we can always address that at a later date, but it just isn't necessary right now. Gatoclass (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with either formulation of Betsy's proposal, which seems common sense and effective. Khazar (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added betsy's original proposed text to H2 on the basis that I think it's a completely uncontroversial and common sense addition. Consensus has yet to be established on the "or rejection" clause and so I have omitted that, and will continue to oppose any proposal to include it as I think it unnecessary and unhelpful. Gatoclass (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Competition redux

It's been almost three years since I suggested a competition looking for candidates for broader hooks. Might be worth thinking about again in the face of comments about esoteric or boring hooks. If folks can scour a few areas and list a few areas where there are still stubs of less than, say, 150 words of text (or possibly bigger but are really an easy 5x expand). Shall I relist the categories again for thinking about? Okay then....(NB: Some of the old candidates are still unexpanded - as before, maybe leave off expanding to just get a feel for hwat is actually out there....)Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. I'm going to add a category and suggest that we also include redlinks here. cmadler (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And look, I've been on wikipedia for five years and I'd never seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks (!!!) - I suspect some exploring there will find some interesting tidbits. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Halloweeny-type things

Flies graveyard - moving here from food. Miyagawa (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, good call :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Ghost Frog Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thoricourt Castle - a haunted castle. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lake Galvė Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Talbot Hotel (Northamptonshire) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bastille Day (i.e. French things for the 14th July)

Take your pick and look at Category:Stub-Class France articles....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I slotted a spot for this one the suggestions page) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any other special occasion possibilities

Biggest city/town/suburb/hamlet/village (by population)

Aranui - one of the main suburbs of Christchurch - 30 words! Schwede66 23:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most prominent geographical feature

Mainland, Shetland - a wee stub at 76 words (cool name for a cool hook) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most notable public figure

Neil MacLean (coroner), first chief coroner of New Zealand, constantly in the media dealing with Pike River Mine disaster and 2011 Christchurch earthquake
Busby Babes - The famous Manchester United team of the 1960s, currently at 201 words, but completely uncited. Really surprised the article is that small! Miyagawa (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most notable writer

~~Jeanette Eaton~~ - four-time Newbery Medal receipient (retroactive) cmadler (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing this one now.BarkingMoon (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Genevieve Foster~~ - four-time Newbery Medal recipient (retroactive) cmadler (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do this one. BarkingMoon (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most important literary work

The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle - 147-word stub for a 300+ page book that won the Newberry Medal. (Aside: this book, published in 1922, is public domain, so a Wikipedia effort on the article might be partnered with a Wikisource effort.) cmadler (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, many of the most important(Newberry Medal-winning) children's novels are stubs. List here. cmadler (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes
The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes - Miyagawa (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most widely eaten food or culinary-type thing

Corn fritters - only a 53 word stub...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gözleme - 46 words. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Groaty pudding - great name, great alternate name too....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lemon juice - 115 words. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Low-fat diet - yeah I know it's bigger at 290 words but surely this is a straightforward 5x expand (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prawn cocktail - 36 wrods, bring on the 70's! Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vol-au-vent 57 words, ditto...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cumberland sauce 94 words...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fairy bread wow! 70 words...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan (apple) - pretty notable apple breed, and 159 words. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Kalamata (olive)~~ - I'll give this one a go for a change in topics. Miyagawa (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cabanossi
Spatchcock
Tomato soup - 151 words but pretty common recipe. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pumpkin soup
Celebrity chef - at a mere 42 words currently. Miyagawa (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
French Fancy
Chelsea bun
Back bacon - adding another. Miyagawa (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most important plant

Aiouea - any plant name this long with all vowels should have a good story...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ajuga - only 56 words. Importance genus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most notable animal

Blue-knobbed Curassow - you gotta laugh at the name...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Red-knobbed Imperial Pigeon ditto Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Screaming Hairy Armadillo~~- 93 words...just has a great name :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done AshLin (talk) 06:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha ha
Calponia harrisonfordi - Couple more uniquely named animals. Miyagawa (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Black Bishop and Yellow-crowned Bishop - funny names and nice pix. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Local time updates

Can someone set the local time update chart so that it meshes with the actual updates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bot was resyncing with 00:00 UTC, hence the discrepancy between the table and the actual updates. The bot has finished syncing, so the table should be accurate now. (And there's no good way for the chart to automatically predict the bot's syncs.) Shubinator (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request

I was wondering if someone well-versed in the subtleties of list-related DYK rules would mind having a quick look at Talk:Glossary of association football terms#DYK?. We know what further work needs to be done to the article itself before a DYK nom, but we're not quite sure what can and cannot be a hook. Would a listed item be eligible, or would it need to be incorporated into the lead? Would the hook need to directly relate to "glossary of association football terms", or would a(n original) glossary term be acceptable? That kind of thing. As an aside, the article is a great advert for collabourative editing, so I'd encourage people to take a quick peek in any case. Thanks in advance, —W F C— 03:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, an item doesn't need to be in the lede to be used for a hook, and you're free to use an interesting term rather rather than something about the whole article topic itself. I've often seen "list of..." articles go through with a hook that is about a single item from the list, rather than about the list in general. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rjanag is correct. The hook can come from any cited portion of the article. OCNative (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've weighed in on this at Talk:Glossary of association football terms#DYK?, but a second opinion would be helpful on whether the {{dynamic list}} tag would violate D7 of the Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules, which states, "There is a reasonable expectation that an article which is to appear on the front page, even a short one, should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress. Therefore, articles which include unexpanded headers are likely to be rejected..." For clarification, the {{dynamic list}} tag adds to the top of article. OCNative (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the help so far. Another thing that has struck me is that there isn't really a primary contributor to the list, and seven or eight people have done similar amounts of work. Is there any precident for crediting more than four authors? —W F C— 06:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template doesn't credit more than four users, but after you've made the nomination, you can go in to manually change it to credit all eight. This isn't a perfect analogy, but it shows what you basically need to do with the DYK make template and with the "created by" line: this monstrosity I nominated had seven users working on six different articles. No one user had worked on all six articles. When it was uploaded into the queue, it caused a very lengthy set of credit tags. OCNative (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think {{dynamic list}} shouldn't preclude a DYK appearance, as long as the list is reasonably thorough. I do think that each entry in the glossary probably needs an in-line citation. cmadler (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, and I agree citation wise. We went for a quantity first, quality later approach, which was clearly the right thing to do, and are now moving into the "later" phase. The list is less than 48 hours old, so I'm pretty confident it'll be up to scratch within the DYK time limit. Half of the inline citations would simply be an individual page reference in the laws of the game, so there should be less work involved than it might first appear. —W F C— 13:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above comment about notification, could someone please check that I have correctly credited people with this edit. I believe I've formatted it correctly, but only four names are showing up. —W F C— 05:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Hoffman & Julien Hoffmann

Assuming they both pass review for DYK, does anyone have any thoughts on whether Julien Hoffman and Julien Hoffmann should be posted as consecutive hooks in the same set, different sets separated by days, or something in between? (Hoffman is a South African-American cardiologist while Hoffmann was a Luxembourgian composer, and both articles were nominated on the same day.) OCNative (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If only there were enough for a whole set. Miyagawa (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a moot question, since Julien Hoffmann is currently at only 1389 characters. (I ran into a similar situation when I sorted out the people named Victor Gold -- I was only able to get one DYK from the group.) --Orlady (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is moot. By default it will be different sets separated by days since the cardiologist already appeared on the main page and the composer is still on the nominations page. OCNative (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK retention is pretty short. Proposal: an expandable box, or a buffer page

Current DYK retention times are either 8 or 6 hours. This means that 1/3 to 1/4 of the world has no chance to see some DYK notices, since a batch of DYKs are only up while they're sleeping. I propose two alternatives:

Make the DYK column dynamically resizable using CSS and a "expand/shrink" link at the bottom right. It will function as in {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and others. When expand is clicked, the box resizes, showing 24 hours (or 48) worth of DYK notices, and the shrink link. When shrink is clicked, the box returns to the standard coumn size.
Create a More Did You Know? page, automatically updated with 24 (or 48) hours of content. Link to this page from the current DYK column.

If this was already discussed, sorry. --Lexein (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a link to the DYK archives in the DYK section on the main page. I don't see the need for additional pages. Gatoclass (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's a very large page to load (>317KB at the moment), which confronts the user with a visually massive table of month and year links, when only the last day of actual DYK entries is what I was talking about.
Anyways, may I suggest renaming that "Archives" link "Recent", which better describes the target page (which happens to also link to archives)? --Lexein (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never much liked "Archives" myself, it sounds kind of unappealing. On the other hand, "Recent" sounds a bit vague - recent what? If someone can come up with an appropriate descriptor, it might be worth considering. Gatoclass (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Lame

Sorry to be a bore again, but on one of my rare visits to the main page today I saw this:

"Did you know ... that Gidleigh Park, a hotel-restaurant in Chagford, Devon, England, is located in a Tudor-style country house (pictured) set in 54 acres of gardens and woodlands?"

Well, I never ... how amazing.

It is a significant problem that the framing of DYK hooks is premised on the unusual, the surprising, the striking: "Hey, did you know ...?" Now, the fact that some hotel is a Tudor-style country house, and OMG more surprising, it's set in a large garden and woodland, might belong on a spin-doctored tourist brochure—where readers are apt to expect exaggeration to meet a commercially driven purpose to sell accommodation; but the main page of WP is quite different. There is nothing striking or unusual about the fact paraded as intrinsically unusual or noteworthy, and it is a let-down when the hook fails to live up to the theme.

If editors want to retain the narrow scope of new articles alone (why, I've never worked out), they need to bear the consequence that it's not easy to find a mass of suitable hooks in the frame that is currently used. Better to either (1) drop the expectant "Did you know?", which is what creates the expectation in the first place, and use "New articles" or "From our newest articles" or similar; or (2) ration the hooks to those that do work with such an expectation.

It wouldn't be The House of Lame if the expectation weren't set up. It's all wrong. Now bag me as much as you want for being a wet blanket, but I'm only telling you what the readers experience. Tony (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, it is no surprise to me that we promote boring hooks (I might have put this up to the queues, because the queues were empty). It would be more helpful if you posted such comments, in a brief form, for any hook you find boring on T:TDYK. Materialscientist (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Material Scientist, thanks, I might have posted it there, but I think this is a generic issue. It could be solved by promoting fewer and allowing slightly older articles to be the subject of hooks, too. I suppose people are wary of promoting fewer, because DYK might come under pressure to yield space on the main page. That problem could be managed by collaboration with whoever manages the whole page. I know these matters have come up before, and there has been no consensus to do anything about it. This is disappointing. Tony (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(i) The reality is a DYK nom is fired and is sitting, waiting for feedback; picking that nom "slower" or "later" doesn't solve the problem of proper reviewing. (ii) T:TDYK is wide open to everyone, even anons. If you see any way to promote its existence, add extra links somewhere, please do. Only emergency problems can be solved when the hook hits the main page. Materialscientist (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hear you. I note that the selection criteria include: "Try to pick articles that are ... interesting to a wide audience." Hmmm. For the record, here's my lame-index for the current display, from 1 (very lame) to 10 (highly suitable). Anything 6 or above passes the interest test, in my view:

... that according to Hindu mythology, the god-king Indra was cursed with having a thousand vagina marks on his body for having extra-marital sex with Ahalya (pictured)? [10]

... that after World War II the 8th (Midlands) Parachute Battalion had to deal with riots in Tel Aviv? [7]

... that the 10th or 11th-century Old Bulgarian Enina Apostle is the oldest Cyrillic manuscript currently part of a Bulgarian collection? [2 ... isn't there anything else that could explain why this is interesting?]

... that during his student days, working on spermatogenesis, UCSF Medical Center pediatric cardiologist Julien Hoffman developed a close relationship with Sydney Brenner and Phillip V. Tobias? [1 ... and these guys went on to produce something great??? At the moment, who cares?]

... that when the 5,800-seat Four Seasons Arena was built at Montana ExpoPark in 1979 it lacked air conditioning? [1 ... so it's a harsh climate or what? In the 70s, aircon wasn't nearly as common as now. I don't get it.]

... that Elastica's 1995 song "Waking Up" resulted in the band being sued for plagiarism? [7 ... could be a higher index is more info were given.]

... that the Classic Aircraft Aviation Museum in Hillsboro, Oregon, once bought a fighter jet from a car dealership? [10 ... nice. I'll go look at that article.]

I think editors should consider one or more of the following:

Push the interest bar higher: this is the overriding one. The interest criterion is not being met in too many hooks.
Bigger pool of articles to choose from ("New", Criterion 1, needs to be loosened up).
Fewer hooks at any one time.
Keep the good ones there for longer. (Nom page might specify longer and shorter durations.)
Allow some hooks to be longer, since many lame hooks might be acceptable with just a little more information. Tony (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing some hooks stay longer is not feasible, mostly for technical reasons (the bot swaps entire set and will likely mess up formatting if we design a system with individual timing for every hook). Fixed hook length urges concise formulation, and we can usually reformulate any long hook into less than 200 chars; when there is no easy way to do that we can (and do) allow longer hooks. Main page balance is a factor. We are flexible and the number of DYK hooks varies between 6 and 10 to keep that balance. Posting fewer hooks will inevitably reduce the variety of topics, which is important. Bigger nomination pool overloads reviewers and lowers the quality of selection. Some hooks are universally boring, like Julien Hoffman; for some we can't apply "I don't get it" arguments. For example, I believe many of our readers were not born yet in the 1970s and can't imagine a 4-season indoor sports arena without an aircon system. I'm not a specialist in Old Bulgaria, but I recall their alphabet was developed in the 9th century. Maybe writing was exotic then, and a 10th century manuscript is quite unique in this sense. There are many more factors which I either forgot or didn't mention. That said, I do agree that we should be tougher to boring hooks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that we should be tougher on boring hooks. But the problem is, as has been often mentioned here before, what's boring to some people can be very interesting to others. Until we can find a way of resolving this dichotomy, there will always be "boring" hooks. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a boring encyclopedia? And on the main page, the In the news section is full of boring bits? And the featured content is boring? There are indeed ways of ensuring that commonplace associations do not make it onto the main page. For example, "... that Marga T's novel, Badai Pasti Berlalu, spawned a critically acclaimed film, album, and song?" I mean, give me a break. This is one of thousands, isn't it? What is special about it? Could we start by seeing things from the readers' point of view? DYK is not for editors' gratification. Tony (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree some hooks are objectively substandard. Any hook which highlights an unexceptional, everyday fact instead of an unusual one is a prime candidate for rejection. Unfortunately, this project in general does not have enough oversight. Gatoclass (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it might require more inventiveness on the part of the nominator or reviewer or others. I am not sure I agree with Tony1's ratings of the above. I thought the aircon one was alright....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I've been in too many nice sports arenas or maybe it's because I was born in the 1980s, but I also liked the air conditioning hook. Maybe it's the history major in me, but I thought the Cyrillic manuscript hook was interesting. The Hoffman hook should have explained why the close relationship mattered. So I see the Hoffman hook as boring and the other six as interesting, so in the example set above 1 out of 7 hooks was boring. OCNative (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified of this discussion by Dahn, and given that one of my recent hooks was rated a 2 out of 10, I was prompted to express my opinion. Some people may find this disappointing, but it is not among the main goals of an encyclopedia to be interesting. Yes, some facts are boring and some articles consist solely of what many may consider boring facts. Yet, these articles may well be useful, encyclopedic and well-written.

As OCNative wrote above, another way to look at things is that different facts are interesting to different people. Like Dahn and OCNative, I honestly don't understand what's so terribly wrong with my hook about the Enina Apostle. In fact, I welcome anyone who feels they can extract a better hook from the article text to do this.

Perhaps Tony found it boring because he has little personal interest in Bulgaria, Balkan history and linguistics or Cyrillic religious manuscripts? For some readers, that is to be expected, but we cannot discard certain topics just because a fraction of all people do not like them. I don't really read much about maths and physics, does that mean new articles related to these topics should be discouraged because I personally find them boring by default? This is highly subjective.

I believe authors and nominators do their best to come up with an engaging hook: after all, who doesn't want their article to reach a broader audience via DYK? And let's not forget that reviewers are welcome to suggest revisions to the hook or a new hook altogether. There's nothing wrong with the DYK process as it currently is, and I believe Tony's points above are highly subjective. I'm not denying that some hooks may be poorly chosen and bland, but I do not think the process in any way promotes this. Or maybe I just have a vast variety of interests :) — Toдor Boжinov — 17:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would have given that hook a 5. It meets the unusual test, but just barely. However, I think for anyone interested in the topic it would be sufficient to pique interest, and that's another factor to be taken into consideration. Gatoclass (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that we have a lack of hooks, having to set the bar high will slow the DYK to a crawl. Now, I understand that some hooks, like mine indicated by Tony, are "objectively boring", but considering the fact that that was a 5 article hook, it can probably be overlooked. The Hall of Fame is full of those kinds of hooks. Personally, I think saving the "hookiest" hook for last is usually enough. Also, I must wonder about the rules for "misrepresentation". Some hooks just need a little creative phrasing to be interesting... Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the editors above who point out how subjective any rating of "lame" is. For example, the Badai Pasti Berlalu hook that Tony trashes above as being only for the editor's gratification is the only one of that batch that I clicked through to read, both because I'm interested in international literature, and because it struck me as rare to have a critically-acclaimed novel generate a critically-acclaimed song. ("One of thousands"? Seriously?) I also liked the Bulgarian one that got a "2" above. I rarely click on specialized astronomy, botany, or physics topics, but I don't think we should censor them, either; for me, the esoterica is half the fun. I see the point that some hooks are hooky-er than others to a general audience, but I don't see any practical way to enforce the Tony-scale short of asking Tony for a more thorough list of his personal interests that we could post for other editors. I vote to keep the system as is. Khazar (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side note: Although Tony's ratings up there were generally indicative of the response received (i.e. under 5, less than 1000 hits, over 5, more hits), they were not perfect. The parachute platoon (a 7) got 3,600 hits, compared to 2,900 for the aviation museum (a 10). I think this proves that the "lame factor" is truly subjective. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed that my ratings would be born out in the relative hits. They're only to an accuracy of ± 1, hee.

Crisco, why not aim to boost the average number of hits for DYK overall? What proportion of hits on the main page lead to a DYK link hit, I wonder? To me, one obvious improvement would be to have fewer DYKs and leave them there for longer: one or the other or both. And having, say, one hook fewer at any particular time would allow the pic to be just a little bit larger, which would be so much more effective in drawing the eye down to the section. Some of those pics are ruined by microscopic size (like the current 12 man nom: it's a great pic, but hey, give me a magnifying glass. DYK needs to be sold to the readers. It's too passive at the moment. Tony (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think something that should not be overlooked is the way in which DYK acts as an incentive for editors to write articles of a decent length and quality rather than leaving them as stubs. Making it harder to get an article to DYK by having fewer appear or throwing out the ones considered by some to be too boring won't help matters on that front. A better way would be to relax the rules on so called "misleading" hooks. In the past some of the hooks I've suggested, that have started off as sounding quite interesting, have become so watered down by the time they've reached the main page that I wouldn't even have read the articles myself. Take a look at this current nomination for example, the wording is quite correct in context but because it uses a common term in an unfamiliar way there are calls for it to be changed - Basement12 (T.C) 13:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q5

Death of Charlotte Shaw, which is going to be predominantly of interest to British readers, is currently in Queue 5 and scheduled to appear on the MP at 1AM tomorrow morning UK time. Would another admin (it's my hook, so I'm clearly INVOLVED) please move it to a queue (preferably 6 or 1) that'll be on the MP when most of the UK will at least be awake? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with first entry in Prep 1

The hook for Palaeochiropteryx in Prep 1 has a couple of issues. First it makes no sense to say "the extinct 48-million year old bats, Palaeochiropteryx, probably drowned...". The whole genus? A few individuals yes but not two or more species. Second the article does indicate even the few found were probably drowned after being knocked out by poisonous gasses; it instead says

The fossils recovered are usually of healthy adults with full stomachs, making the reasons why they ended up at the bottom of a lake a bit of a mystery.

Rightly I would say as it seems very unlikely this could be deduced from fossils.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? It's in Queue 4 now so will go live in about ten hours. As noted it's not just that the hook doesn't match the article but it asserts or implies a couple of things that just can't be deduced from fossils of animals that died tens of millions of years ago.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion? Those bats seemed to be restricted to that lake and those who analyzed the remains had their reasons to believe poisonous fumes (or something) was likely there. The hook is not about truth but about a hypothesis. (not that I'm defending it, but I see no reason to pull it off) Materialscientist (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your change have fixed the first issue, though I'd lose the definite article. For the second issue the following would be more correct, but adding all that in one sentence makes it seem a bit less encyclopaedic/a bit more conversational.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... that studied examples of the extinct 48-million year old bats, Palaeochiropteryx (life restoration pictured), were probably drowned in the Messel lake, maybe knocked out midair by poisonous volcanic gases?

My connection is not good at all. How about

... that studied examples of the extinct 48-million year old bats, Palaeochiropteryx (life restoration pictured), were suggested to have drowned in the Messel lake after being knocked out midair by poisonous volcanic gases? Materialscientist (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That works: it loses the 'probably drowned' but reads much better.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it an additonal tweak, as follows:

... that the many examples of extinct 48-million year old bat genus Palaeochiropteryx (life restoration pictured) found in the Messel lake may have drowned after being rendered unconscious in flight by poisonous volcanic gases? Gatoclass (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reads better to me. Materialscientist (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prep area 4 - nit picking

For the lead hook in current Prep area 4, shouldn't it be "that the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission is named for the only Holocaust survivor (pictured) ever to serve in the United States Congress?", rather than having the "pictured" at the end of the hook? It's not the US Congress that is pictured.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I've moved "(pictured)". Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My hook was approved..

..now what happens? I posted a DYK yesterday which was approved without any problems, should I take any further action (such as moving it into the queue myself) or just wait until bots and clerks sort it out? How long does this normally take? Thanks! (and sorry about the newb-ish questions) Bob House 884 (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Times vary enormously, it depends on whether it catches someone's eye when they're putting together a set. Generally older hooks get promoted before newer ones, but there is no rule about this. You should let someone else promote your hook to one of the prep areas and don't be concerned if it takes several days. Mikenorton (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for the help. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé 4

Can there really be an intention to put the phrase "planned to create her own music genre" on the main page of an encyclopaedia, when the artist herself said "I wouldn't say I'm inventing a new genre." Even if it were not denied, it would be a claim by the artiste and her promoters, not the response of respected reviewers, so it would be wp:POV and wp:peacock. Kevin McE (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to clarify. Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salter's Duck

The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform, not to mislead. It is not April Fools' Day any more, so there is no justification for deliberately misleading readers with the ambiguity of the word spine. Salter's duck is a generator, and the blurb should say so. Kevin McE (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to T:TDYK (via a horribly slow connection). Materialscientist (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2: Kenkoy

Hi, I just reviewed a similar Filipino comic book article, Hal Santiago, on the DYK talk page. For both articles, the main source is a blog; this one also sources IMDB and other blog pages. I think this should be sent back to the nominations page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Returning. Materialscientist (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dainton Connell

There is no citation that this self professed thug was a leader: the cited article says He has been described as a “main face” and “the top lad” amongst the ranks of Arsenal hooligans at the time. But these accounts have been contested, with Mr Connell concerned that he had been unfairly named. Kevin McE (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dainton Connell is currently in Prep 1. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know: that's why I'm flagging up an issue with it on the talk page for that area. Kevin McE (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) See this for why he had contested that. There is no strong reason to disbelieve he was a prominent member. Materialscientist (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"No reason to disbelieve that he was" is not an encyclopaedic standard, and prominent membership is not the claim. Nothing cited in the article makes the claim that he was "a leader". Requirement is The "Did you know?" fact must be mentioned in the article and cited with an inline citation Kevin McE (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read MatSci's link. (And note it's been added as a ref to the article.) Shubinator (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you: I already had, and would not reply without doing so. It does not affect the objection: no cited article says he was a leader, or even that such a gang has anything that can meaningfully be described as leadership: the contention that he was a prominent member was contested, and as such is not established as fact. Kevin McE (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MatSci's link explicitly says The undisputed leader of the gang (in reference to Connell). Shubinator (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is a local paper considered a Reliable Source, even when its contention is disputed? Kevin McE (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When it gives the most thorough account of said contention, including Connell's response (which doesn't rise to disputing the contention in my opinion)? Yes. Shubinator (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a local rag is the only thorough source of the contention makes it something that scarcely demands Front Page attention on a high profile encyclopaedia. I am at a loss as to how the phrase Accounts in the book have been contested and Mr Connell was reportedly concerned that he had been unfairly named leaves tenable the opinion that it doesn't rise to disputing the contention. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drymoreomys

The article does not say that this animal is usually found on the ground, it says that most specimens were collected in pitfall traps on the ground. That sounds more like evidence of relative effectiveness of traps than analysis of where the animal spends its time. Kevin McE (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read it, "usually found on the ground" → "usually found by humans on the ground" → "usually examined by humans on the ground" → "usually collected by humans on the ground" → "most specimens were collected in pitfall traps on the ground". Feel free to suggest less ambiguous wordings though. Shubinator (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would contend that that is making an interpretation of the claim that is inspired by knowledge of the true situation, not considering the truthfulness of the immediate impression made by the claim. Again, the claim is not what the citation says. Kevin McE (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the wording is ambiguous. Do you have a suggestion for a less ambiguous, but equally concise, wording for the hook? Shubinator (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin is right; it's ambiguous. I have changed "found" to "captured" to remove the ambiguity. Ucucha 06:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motocycle

False contradiction between motor and engine, exacerbated by fact that link on motor points to engine. What on Earth is an automobile without a motor: second half of the blurb is a truism. Kevin McE (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the last bit. Materialscientist (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Versace dress

Deliberately misleading hook. There is no evidence in the public domain to suggest that David Duchovny suffers from paranoia, so the phrasing is seeking to mislead the reader by associating that condition with the experience of an actor on a red carpet. Hook absent from article, no mention of Fox Mulder in cited material Kevin McE (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, also because it was defocusing the hook. Materialscientist (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Suns

Readers on the Main Page should not be left to guess what sport the Phoenix Suns play. No reason for capitalisation of president in that sentence, and the tenses are rather mixed. Kevin McE (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"President" should be capitalized here, as it is part of his official title, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Titles of people. The 1926 FA Cup Final hook from May 14 doesn't indicate that the 1926 FA Cup Final or Manchester City F.C. are from association football/soccer. The Tom Aggar hook from May 5 doesn't indicate that the Saracens F.C. is a rugby team. Clicking on the Phoenix Suns link explains it is a basketball team, just as clicking on the link to the 1926 FA Cup Final, Manchester City F.C., and Saracens F.C. explain that they're an association football/soccer championship game, an association football/soccer team, and a rugby team, respectively.
To address the tense concern, how about this ALT hook:
ALT1:... that Phoenix Suns President and CEO Rick Welts became the first prominent American sports executive to come out as gay when he did so in an interview with The New York Times on May 15, 2011?
If this is a big enough issue, we can send it back to T:TDYK for further discussion. OCNative (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better. Changed to ALT1. I wasn't (and still not) sure President should be capitalized there, as it is a complex and uncommon title. Materialscientist (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H10: Don't falsely assume that everyone worldwide knows what country or sport you're talking about. Examples of previous poor practice do not excuse it, per wp:otherstuff. Kevin McE (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular hook, it doesn't really mater what sport (obviously a team sport). Materialscientist (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First 6 googlehits on ""Phoenix Suns President" all use lower case: ESPN, CBS, NYMag, Huffington Post, ESPN again and Ball don't lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin McE (talk • contribs)

Looks like it - Phoenix Suns president is not that title which is capitalized. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not wedded to whether the "P" should be capitalized or not, so if someone feels that strongly about it, make it a lowercase "p" then. OCNative (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few hours earlier you were absolutely asserting it: I'm left to wonder what evidence you did so with... Kevin McE (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to bait OCNative? I can't see any other purpose for this comment, especially when OCNative laid out his reasoning fairly clearly above. Shubinator (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four queues are empty

Four queues have been empty for hours, c'mon admins.... BarkingMoon (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit to prep area 4, but have to go off now. Anyone is wlecome to finish that page up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.BarkingMoon (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So many headshots...

Queues 1, 2, and 3 all have headshots as pictures (a photo, a painting, and a statue, respectively). Could we swap other stuff in to cut down on the three consecutive headshot pictures? OCNative (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6 doesn't, and neither do prep areas 3 and 4. I am not familiar with queue order, but it might just be easiest to flip two queues with each other now and then another later when we complete the prep areas. I have not been active in organising DYK for a long time and it has changed alot...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Ward hook needs updated

At the time I wrote this hook, it said "is a contestant". Last night, 24 May, she won the contest and the show is over. I've updated the article. Since this is now in a queue, can an admin update it to say something like "Ward won season 11"? Thanks.BarkingMoon (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. Materialscientist (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! BarkingMoon (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utaawase

(currently in Prep 1)

It is by POV and by no means encyclopaedic to say that it is shocking for anyone to write poetry without knowing Genji; it is however, trua and appropriate to say Fujiwara Shunzei once opined that "it is shocking for anyone to write poetry without knowing Genji" Kevin McE (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and added Fujiwara Shunzei to the hook. Materialscientist (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hook(er) in Queue 5

The last hook of Queue 5 is:

... that according to the Parks and Recreation episode "Road Trip", actress Rashida Jones looks very good dressed like a prostitute?

That should say "the character played by actress Rashida Jones". I'm also not thrilled with the wording. The character said that she looks good wearing the outfit which was worn by Julia Roberts while portraying a prostitute. That's not really the same thing as saying she "looks very good dressed like a prostitute". There's no denying that the current wording is "hookier" than the alternatives, and I guess I could live with that wording, but at least let's not say that the actress looks good dressed as a prostitute. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. This hook is libelous. BarkingMoon (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, we could say that "actress Rashida Jones's character" looks good dressed as a prostitute, but I think it may be hand-wringing. I'm assuming she does not look horribly different in and out of character. I'm fine with adding "character", but I do have some concerns. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added "character". Assuming she does not look horribly different in and out of character is generally incorrect - actors often do. Materialscientist (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prep area 2

The bottom hook of prep area two (the travelling army one) had an image, but for some reason has been added without it. Could an admin please move it down to prep area 4, with the image? The image information can be found in this diff. Thanks in advance, —W F C— 10:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all pictures can be used with their hooks. There are too many of them and there's only one picture-slot per DYK set. The prep-loaders will feature pictures they find interesting at 100x100px, and will reject those they don't think are suitable at that resolution. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the bottom hook is a rather prime position - its often the quirky snappy hook at the bottom, and in my experience generates far more hits than being placed in the middle. Miyagawa (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this DYK itself is delayed until such a time the image can be associated with it. The image is essential to the hook making sense. Perhaps the "prep-loaders" didn't quite get that? (I think the point is that this article is a quintessential "old-school" example of what makes Wikipedia great, a dozen or so users contributing hundreds of edits in a few days to an article which is of interest to literally a billion people....) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support this.The image is vital to the hook and a collaborative effort of such a scale deserves top billing. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK rules require images to be "suitable, attractive, and interesting at a 100x100px resolution." This strongly implies the images are also recognizable at the indicated size. The image was not selected because at the resolution used for DYK it appears to be either a fire at a flag factory or the aftermath of an avalanche. This is rather confusing when paired with a hook that is clearly describing sports fans. It is not until the image is viewed at a much higher resolution than the 100x100px used by DYK that people become clearly visible, and the majority of these people are security personnel instead of the "traveling army" mentioned in the hook. The group people the image is supposed to be showing are hidden behind a thick smoke screen. Given how problematic this image is, one of the many other options was selected. --Allen3 ^talk 00:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 404: / Line 404: @@
 :::I suggest this DYK itself is delayed until such a time the image can be associated with it.  The image is essential to the hook making sense.  Perhaps the "prep-loaders" didn't quite get that?  (I think the point is that this article is a quintessential "old-school" example of what makes Wikipedia great, a dozen or so users contributing hundreds of edits in a few days to an article which is of interest to literally a billion people....) [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 ::::I fully support this.The image is vital to the hook and a collaborative effort of such a scale deserves top billing. [[User:Argyle 4 Life|<font style="color:#014421;">'''Argyle 4 Life'''</font>]][[User talk:Argyle 4 Life|<font style="color:#4863A0;"><sup>'''talk'''</sup></font>]] 00:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
+:::::The [[Wikipedia:Did you know#Images|DYK rules]] require images to be "suitable, attractive, and interesting at a 100x100px resolution."  This strongly implies the images are also recognizable at the indicated size.  The image was not selected because at the resolution used for DYK it appears to be either a fire at a flag factory or the aftermath of an avalanche.  This is rather confusing when paired with a hook that is clearly describing sports fans.  It is not until the image is viewed at a much higher resolution than the 100x100px used by DYK that people become clearly visible, and the majority of these people are security personnel instead of the "traveling army" mentioned in the hook.  The group people the image is supposed to be showing are hidden behind a thick smoke screen.  Given how problematic this image is, one of the many other options was selected. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]</sup> 00:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)