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 23:40, 16 March 2012

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.

Shortcut

WT:DYK

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

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, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 07:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 24 hours

Last updated: 7 hours ago(

)

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

2011 DYK reform proposals

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

N.B. This list and the subpage are currently incomplete and other threads have been archived by the bot to the main archives.

Advertising (re-raised)

This point was archived recently but I feel the exposure has been too low and will continue to raise it until there has been additional discussion. As per 15 February:

Over the last few weeks I have noticed multiple 'Did you know?' items that I felt were borderline advertisements. In particular, product and company-related entries written in such as way as to place the focus on other aspects of the statement(s) whilst still mentioning (and linking to) said companies and products. I would like to know if anyone else has noticed this and/or feels that policy should be revised; my motion is that 'Did you know?' nominations should not include trivia regarding present day companies and their (present or historic) products.

Today's additional example:

"... that by acquiring the commercial division of the Norwegian Mapping Agency, the company now called Nordeca became a market leader in leisure maps in Norway?"

prat (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to find another interesting point in that article, which I would not have chosen to write - I managed to rescue it at AfD and so a new editor gets a DYK :-) (And I do consider it interesting that a commercial company bought the national map producer. Maybe I'm just easily amused . . . ) I also commented rather late on the previous thread, so I'll recap - unless we close DYK to articles on companies or their products, the "interest" part of DYK's remit is inevitably going to draw attention to a company that that company may well welcome. I don't see this as inherently problematic, any more than our exciting interest in anything else. I believe I understand your concern, but I don't share it. --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I agree there's a problem with the almost advertising nature, specifically the phrase "market leaders", as well as the "present" tense of the word "now". That all reads like a company press release, and while an interesting hook, it's not encyclopedic. Maybe they became the largest-selling leisure map making in Norway? I dunno exactly what, but adword-speak definitely is a problem here. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I think you've misread the hook, and I checked the article too, just in case. The word "now" refers to their current name. They made that acquisition a name or two ago. Maybe that helps? The article contains no original research and no statement about their current market share in the leisure maps field - I didn't find any such info in the reliable sources about it and it would be transitory anyway :-) The hook fact is simply that they went to the top of the market by taking over what had been a government service. (It probably didn't hurt that they subsequently bought a competitor, but again - the article doesn't analyze sales statistics. As a business writer, I am not very good :-) )

Even it its meant to establish the recent company name, its the "market leaders" - which are words bandied about by public relations editors to mean lots of things, even if it is meant sincerely and accurately here - that sparks the larger problem. As I can't read the articles that are used to source that point (via language), I don't know what other words or other ways to phrase that specific point. And of course, with it posted, I don't expect it to be changed. But this should highlight an issue that when one uses peacock terms in a hook for a commercial company or product, that sets off a lot of flags about promotional or advertising. Peacock terms should be changed to specific, non-biased statements, or qualified to defer that wikipedia itself is making said claim. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source says simply that: market leader. In reference to the past. I think what would be peacock would be attempting to rephrase that; in all its vagueness, that's the statement made. But as I say, maybe with fresh eyes someone can find a better hook? --Yngvadottir (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's too late to worry about the specific hook now. But its a point to consider for the future. Reliable sources can and will use peacock buzzwords in place of more substantial superlative terms ("the largest" or even "the third largest" reads much better than "market leader") that would be better in the hook. Because of the language barrier on the sources, I've no idea what to replace that current hook; nothing else from the article seems particularly hook-worthy, but addressing the size of the market in more concrete terms would be my first approach. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would have required original research. Also, I must admit I don't see the problem - a market leader is a modest claim, and even if the sources and thus the article had said the market leader, what would that mean? That the hook entices people to run out and buy a hiking map of Norway? Far worse if I'd paraphrased it as "dominant" or "leapfrogged the competition." It's sober and neutral and it doesn't say "best" or make any other qualitative judgment. Yes, this is going to come up with articles on companies - unless there's something interesting about them that's peripheral to their making money. Obviously it has to be judged on a case by case basis. But I honestly do not see either peacockery or free advertising here, except in the mere fact it's getting mentioned. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the States, "market leader" is a loaded term without numbers to back it up. I've seen a company by sales list themselves as a "market leader" despite being like 6th or 7th on the list, or when they have only 5% of the total market whereas other companies have 20+%. My point is that there's a DYK-appropriate fact here, but without ability to check more sources due to the language, I don't know what the change is. Let's say, for example, that they became the second largest seller of leisure maps in the country. That is a better phrasing than "market leader", even if being 2nd isn't normally all that great. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So here's another from today that I don't agree with (quite aside from the fact that it's something entirely fictional with questionable significance or conceptual relevance to other works of art) regarding a very current and modern product.

.. that Toby Litt's novel Journey into Space takes place on board a generation ship?

I really think we need some more rules here. This is far too close to advertising for comfort. prat (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So here's another from today. This one is so obviously advertising a service that it's ridiculous.

... that the developer of Volunia, a potential competitor to Google, has said it may represent the "search engine of the future"?

We need more rules here: Page view stats prat (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's nothing: it got through the nominations procedure and was listed without even acknowledging that it was a vested interest who made the claim, and without acknowledging the qualified nature of the claim. People who like products/bands/films etc write articles and propose them for DYK (that is natural enough), and will have, at least subconsciously, a propensity to write favourably about them. The review process (largely because of its you scratch my back... nature) is not rigorous enough to stall many of these. Kevin McE (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take exception to the assumptions here. For one thing, I very much doubt I'm the only one who puts up for DYK articles to which we came by circuitous routes - often, in my case, having run across the article and often the topic at AfD. Some people look for new editors' articles and nominate them. Neither of these is fannish; I assume there are other non-fannish motives I'm not thinking of. For another, we're admonished to avoid negative hooks about BLP's, and that's a good rule of thumb anyway; who wants to see a DYK section full of snide digs at people and things? I believe there's a general bias toward the good, or at least the harmless, among both nominators and reviewers. Thirdly, I have said here often enough that I loathe the quid pro quo requirement, but it most definitely is not a mutual backscratching society. More like a circling of the wagons - the incentive is to do a good job reviewing the article, and help the reviewer/writer out where necessary, lest DYK suffer another hurt and embarrassment from a hook being pulled. (or lest one develop a reputation as one of those "hasty reviewers" we keep reading about, because that's the quickest way to get people microscopically examining one's articles for commensurate carelessness in writing - since the critics forget that not everyone is good at being an examiner). At base, I think the issue is that the poster sees interest drawn to a company as a bad thing. I've pointed out before that I disagree and see it as no more of an inherently bad thing than interest being drawn to a sports team, a location where people might conceivably spend tourist dollars, or a citizen of any specific country. (By the way, Nordeca got 462 views on its day being linked at DYK. Supporting my point about being the subject of a DYK hook hardly constituting effective publicity even if one does for some reason think seeing that hook would predispose people to rushing out to buy hiking maps of chunks of Norway.) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get the views per day stats? It'd be interesting to see what the stats are on the other DYK's identified as iffy. prat (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratyeka: From what I understand, the rules that already exist aren't being followed. I've worked for places that reacted to situations like this by adding ever more minute rules. The result tended to be company failure, lay-offs, etc. Usually they would have done better if they'd educated people on what the real goals/problems were, and then relied on their initiative, intelligence, and good faith. Instead they institute a bureaucracy's worth of rules, apparently in the hopes that a few would be followed - and got no one left to follow the rules except a bunch of human robots. The intelligent and non-depressed quit. The stupid, lazy, and depressed stayed - and stopped using their brains.

OK, well perhaps if there's more rules it's not a good thing. But if there's no rule prohibiting this kind of borderline advertising then I think a quick statement could be considered. I don't like huge numbers of rules either, but if there's no rule then anything goes even when people raise queries like these... prat (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now in the case of DYK it's worse - there seems to be a lack of agreement on the goals. I'm not sure if agreement can be reached - it seems as if the atmosphere has gotten too adversarial for any kind of agreement to be easy. But more rules won't help that either.

My take, without ever having read the actual DYK page, is that right now it sounds like there are dual goals. The first is to draw people in to the breadth of wikipedia through showing them a cross-section of random trivia. The second seems to be rewarding contributors to new or expanded articles with warm-fuzzies. Both seem reasonable to me. I just don't see where anything advertising-like is justified, from any perspective. prat (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the issue of "advertising" - it looks like it's another case where either there's no agreement, or there's a working consensus now being challenged. Personally it feels like a tempest in a tea pot - I'd rather focus on lack of contributions, departure of existing contributors, failure of the quid-pro-quo requirement, etc. Kobnach (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a lack of contributions, why not look at making it easier for people to make suggestions? This could be a button that people could make visible in their preferences that allowed them to select an article or a fact to nominate for DYK. I'm sure there's some coders who wouldn't mind implementing such. prat (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--For page view stats, see the links grouped near the top of the History page for the article. There's also a link to the stats for the appropriate time-span in the templated message that appears on the creator's and nominator's talk pages and the one that appears on the article's talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think this one really illustrates my point... Volunia page view stats. prat (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the trailing seven day traffic volume for the site, you don't see a Wikipedia bump in traffic that would make DYK worth while for a company to get main page views that translate into page views for their site, which in turn translates into "new customers." That said, the article barely crawled over the line length wise, and the NPOV nature of the hook and the text could have been challenged in the process if the guidelines were followed (I've tagged at least one DYK Double Fine Adventure I reviewed that way, said it was a concern and left it up to those moving into the prep areas because while it can be difficult to find balance when reviewing as there are conflicting opinions on how things should work. You can get slammed coming and going.) --LauraHale (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa is a very poor measure of real world traffic. In addition, the branding exposure on the Wikipedia page is undeniably a significant asset for a startup company in and of itself. In my view it really seems difficult to attempt to argue that posting Volunia on the front page of Wikipedia did not benefit the company. prat (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suspect a bump in traffic anyway if the traffic was a sizable portion was from Wikipedia on the day. (And I'm aware of how Alexa works. I've probably got two or three pages discussing it total in my dissertation.) I see no correlating date. Getting a mention on a DYK on the front page is nice, but it is a one time opportunity and not recurring. The best option for utilizing Wikipedia isn't actually through DYK for a commercial corporation, but in getting external links to their site on other pages of Wikipedia because Google favours those links. (And there is SEO consensus Google is not transparent in how they evaluate links, so this is an issue.) It is why GLAM projects like the British Museum like links, plus all those links on multiple articles do drive some traffic... en masse and when they are on highly visible pages. A company page is also valuable because it implies credibility about a company in other ways. I've yet to see very many conversations with marketers talking about the value of going through the DYK process for front page appearance, but I have seen and discussed with a few marketing industry people about the value of a page existing and keeping it neutral. Just not sold on this. The stats do no bear out this being a problem. --LauraHale (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example of a DYK from today that I feel should be excluded on 'is a current commercial product' grounds:

... that Kaytek the Wizard, the second of the novels by Polish author and pedagogue Janusz Korczak to be translated into English, has often been compared to Harry Potter? prat (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same text in multiple articles?

Revolt_(network), El_Rey_(network) and Aspire_(network), which share a hook currently in Prep 4, also share a nearly identical paragraph, without which at least two (and possibly the third) would be too short to be eligible. I had thought repeating content in this way was not allowed? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating content is fine, but such content should only count towards the length of the first of them to be created. Mikenorton (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I'd say 2/3 of those articles don't meet the length requirement. If the author doesn't want to expand them, only one should run. The Interior (Talk) 00:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revolt_(network) is the original (and also the longest), and should be the one to run. The other two were posted after, and share the same outline and History section with it. Since the History section alone is 536 characters (excluding 15 characters for footnote numbers; should those be included? If so, 551), that takes Aspire down to 1005 even before other similar phrases are eliminated, and El Rey down to 1061. I agree with the above: only Revolt is eligible, barring 40%-50% expansion unique to another article to bring its original material length up to 1500 characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had approved similarly for three articles, two were bolded, I reduced it to one for the reason above. When it appeared, the bold White Goat Wilderness Area received 773 hits, the other Ghost River Wilderness Area 543 hits, and the third (only mentioned and linked in the nom) Siffleur Wilderness Area 298 hits, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should have contacted me. We could have taken these out of the queue and I could have fixed them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I approved the three under the impression that it was allowed to repeat the text if it's appropriate; it was my first multiples review, and I'm sorry for my mistake on that one. poroubalous (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prep3

I have just loaded three hooks into Prep3. Would someone like to check to see if I have done it correctly as this is my first attempt at doing it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good for the most part but I did spot one small concern. When completing a set of hooks it is helpful to remove any remaining placeholders from the credits section (e.g. *{{DYKmake|Example|Editor}} and *{{DYKnom|Example|Editor}} lines for article "Example" and user "Editor"). --Allen3 ^talk 10:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I note what you say about the credit section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3, Cornish mine

There seems to be no evident reason why we are displaying wolfram rather than the IUPAC name of the element, and home of the article linked, tungsten. Kevin McE (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be the wording used in the source, however, I agree that it should be changed as the use of the word Wolfram unambiguously refers to tungsten.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 19:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They mined wolframite at Great Wheal Fortune, not wolfram (or tungsten), so that it was what was probably being recovered - I'll try to check that and update the article. Mikenorton (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tungsten does not occur as a native metal and wolframite is found at Great Wheal Fortune according to this (page 371). I've asked the creator of the article to check what the source actually says, but I think that it should be changed to wolframite anyway. Mikenorton (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the source says 'wolfram', which must be wrong as explained above. So it looks like we need another hook. Mikenorton (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A check with the Mindat.org page on "Wolfram" here shows that while wolfram is the German name for Tungsten, it is also an English language synonym for Wolframite. A check with the mindat.org page on the Great Wheal Fortune page [[1]] shows Wolframite in the mineral list.--Kev min § 01:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on Talk:Tungsten suggests the opposite: that tungsten can refer to mineral forms, but that wolfram invariably means the pure metal, but that contributor might have as much specialist knowledge as I have (ie none). Assuming that my near namesake's research above is accurate, the link should be to wolframite, not tungsten. Given that A) it is a chemical impossibility that this mine-scavenger was sourcing pure tungsten, B) the term wolfram clearly could have meant wolframite in the source, and C) it is not a direct quote, so we are not obliged to use the exact words of the source; I would argue that the hook should explicitly say, and link to, wolframite. Now on MP, so I've posted at WP:ERRORS in the hope of getting admin attention. Kevin McE (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Returned the hook to T:TDYK. Materialscientist (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A second talk page?

This talk page seems to have two very different purposes:

As the talk page for Wikipedia:Did you know it deals with issues or principle, policy and practice, that probably ought to remain visible for some time and should be archived.
As the talk page for Template:Did you know/Queue, and all ten templates that feed into that, it carries short term items akin to those on WP:ERRORS that could be deleted as quickly as they are resolved.

Would it be sensible for the queues to have their own talk page, which could be transcluded here, as wp:errors is transcluded onto Talk:Main Page? Kevin McE (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3 "The Well-Worn Lock"

The hook on this item is simply not accurate. It seems to be criticizing actor Paul Dooley for a preposterous portrayal, when the reviewer, VanDerWerff, is criticizing the character, Joe Bangs, who goes from horrifying to preposterous in that episode. This hook either needs a major overhaul, or a completely new version. I can't come up with anything on the fly; if no one else can, the nomination should be withdrawn until a new hook can be crafted and approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just came up with an adequate, accurate substitute. It's a little longer and omits Paul Dooley, but I don't see how you can retain him and be true to the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] Excellent observation. I edited it. See if it works for you. --Orlady (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing I caught this in my watchlist. As the original nominator, here's a few alts of my own (don't like not having some input when this happens):

Alt1 ... that the Millennium episode "The Well-Worn Lock" "tries some interesting things" with the series' formula?

Alt2 ... that the villain in Millennium's "The Well-Worn Lock" has been called "preposterous"?

Alt3 ... that one critic found scenes in Millennium's "The Well-Worn Lock" to be as horrifying as anything he had seen on television?

GRAPPLE X 23:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three, I think ALT3 is the most effective, and more so than the one there now. (Edited all three Alts to add proper bolding.) I would add "several" before "scenes", though. Also, is "critic" or "reviewer" preferred for DYK, or are they equally accepted? I like the latter myself, but that's no reason to change unless there's a general usage preference. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used "critic" as it's shorter, but if "reviewer" seems better than that's fine by me. GRAPPLE X 23:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "several" and changing "critic" to "reviewer" still uses only 134 characters, so it's fine with a longer word. I'll make the change now. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS to Orlady: I hadn't realized until just now that I overwrote your earlier version when I posted mine about 50 minutes ago; I don't know why it let me do that, but I didn't know we'd had a collision on the prep3 page. Thanks for your help! (I liked your construction better than mine, though I think I would have wanted to add the reviewer caveat.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I couldn't figure out why your edit summary disparaged my hook wording, but I shrugged it off. Now I understand that you didn't see my wording -- and you weren't alerted to the edit conflict. Something similar happened to me on an article yesterday. In both that case and this one, one of us had edited the whole page, while the other edited just the one section. I'll try to see if this has been reported as a bug. --Orlady (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar problem. When I submitted my edit, someone else's edit appeared, but mine did not. The usual "edit conflict" warning did not appear.--Ishtar456 (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't even thought of that; I'm so sorry! (My edit summary was referring to the original hook, of course.) Glad you've figured out the bug, and it is something that needs fixing; I thought any change in a particular section of the page was supposed to cause a conflict whether you were editing just the section (in my case, "Hooks") or the whole shebang as you did. In this case, my section edit was completed after your page edit; was that the order on yesterday's article? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is a bug related to new software. I've reported it (and described my two experiences) at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Edit conflicts not being detected. Others of you who have encountered this bug (a bad one, methinks) may want to add your comments there. --Orlady (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4

Second to last hook, "Battle of Copenhagen," is missing its "that." Yngvadottir (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Allen3 ^talk 22:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion for cleaning up back log

Hi, I recently came back to wikipedia after a long absence and am overwhelmed by the length of, and back log on Template talk:Did you know. I have come up with a some suggestions for how to clean up that page. ~~<s>1. Either put the directions for "how to nom" and "how to review" on separate, '''clearly linked''', pages. Or collapse them, the way the contents can be collapsed.~~ 2. There should be a time limit to how long a nom has to fix issues with the article. I see several lengthy discussions about articles with multiple issues, mostly plagiarism, POV and citations. I think there should be a point where some says "This does not pass, case closed". But it seems like a lot of time is spent on poor nominations and they just sit there forever until someone finally fixes the problem. Is there a rule that says that every nomination eventually passes? It seems to me that a lot of perfectly good nomination are being delayed because of all the effort put into problematic articles. <s>3. I have also noticed that noms, fulling the requirement to review other articles, often make one comment and then don't follow up after the problem is fixed. I think that they should be told they have to see the review to the end. I think once someone takes on the review they should see it through, unless there is a need for a second opinion or mediation. Just some thoughts.--Ishtar456 (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of my second point check out Template:Did you know nominations/Somewhere I Have Never Traveled. It was originally rejected on Feb. 6, and several other issues have emerged since and it is still there.--Ishtar456 (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how hiding the instructions is supposed to make noms get reviewed faster. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues: 1. cleaning up the page, making it more navigable,2. and promoting the nom in a timely manner (thus making it more navigable). Both things are making the page user unfriendly, in my opinion. --Ishtar456 (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt that any reviewers fail to finish a review because they got lost on T:TDYK. It takes just one click to skip past the instructions and get to the noms. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is timely moving of passed reviews really a problem? I have found that once my DYKs have been successfully marked passed, they are generally put in the prep area with in 12 to 48 hours. This feels rather timely. --LauraHale (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have a problem with noms that are a month old or older taking up more than half the page? I think that kind of defeats the original intent of DYK. These are supposed to be new articles. I do not remember the page being as big a mess a couple of years ago as it is now. I don't remember there being such a backlog of old articles. Should articles stay on the page indefinitely, especially when they have multiple issues?--Ishtar456 (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I don't have a problem with it. I said I don't see how hiding the instructions will help. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Rjanag your response to me is to my response to LauraHale. Sorry for the confusion.--Ishtar456 (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you see a review where a person has responded to feedback and the original reviewer has not come back to address it, just give the reviewer a ping. Sometimes, we review and there are issues and it takes a day or two to get fixed and it is easy to miss them on your watch list. I really like the how to review instructions above the page as it makes it much, much easier to review because the guidelines are right there. --LauraHale (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amplifying upon LauraHale's comment, just as no one owns an article, no one owns a DYK review. From a practical standpoint, when I review a DYK nom, it is unlikely that I can chain myself to Wikipedia for the next week to watch to see whether the nominator or article creator has responded to my review. The primary reason why I review DYK nominations is to help out with the process. If someone is going to insist that review activity on a nom implies a commitment to follow that nom to its conclusion, you won't see me volunteering to help any more. --Orlady (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the red bendy arrow symbol that can be added to attract attention to a nomination that needs to be looked at again. (A very good idea, recently implemented.) Yngvadottir (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my first and third suggestions don't have any support so I have put a strike through them, but I don't see any response to the second suggestion and I would like opinions on that, if anyone has one to offer. Thanks--Ishtar456 (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a manner of speaking 2 already happens. The problem is that there is no set limit. However, various aspects probably make this a necessity. Firstly, most people don't like failing nominations: I would guess that everyone who reviews here also nominates articles, and you don't want to get a reputation for failing other nominations if you want yours to go through okay! In addition to this, it is often difficult to work out how much of a problem there is going to be, sometimes what might appear a small problem won't get solved, whereas there are some editors here who can solve seemingly catastrophic problems with nominations literally overnight. If one problem is solved, and then the article is approved, another problem may be found by User:Kevin McE or another of the editors who review the articles once they are in the queues, and the article will return to the nomination page for more work. This would make it appear as if the article has had problems for a long time, but if these were failed due to a time limit, it would be unfair given that it may only take a day or two after the problem has been spotted for it to be sorted out. Often the delay is actually due to the reviewer(s) being delayed in re-reviewing an article, rather than the nominator being delayed in fixing it. All in all, I think a hard and fast time limit would need so many provisions and exceptions that it wouldn't be practical. That's my tuppence worth anyway! Harrias ^talk 13:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you are saying, especially about people not wanting to fail the nominations of others. I know I feel that way. Perhaps though, if there was a provision for a "hold", like there is in GA reviews. When the problem starts to take an extraordinarily long time ( to be determined with discussion here)the reviewer can put it on hold and the nom has X amount of time to respond. If they don't, then the article fails, if they do than the clock is reset until he next delay. If everyone knows that that is how it is going to work, I do not see any problems with fairness. I think that when someone has nominated something it is up to them to monitor the nomination. When I nominate something here or at GA I check on it at least once per day. I don't think that that is unreasonable, especially with DYK as time is a factor in the nomination.--Ishtar456 (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is sort of happening in practice: someone (often Crisco) adds a note that the problems haven't been addressed in x days (usually a week). If there's no activity after the reminder notice, those noms usually are removed. I guess we could make this practice official, but I'm not sure it's necessary. The Interior (Talk) 15:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When only one editor is putting to practice then it is inconsistent. A policy would make it more common and I think decrease the back log. It is only necessary if people (other than me) feel this is a problem (which I do). I would like to see the back log of month old noms decreased, if not eliminated. When I came back after my absence I could not believe how old some of the noms were and I have to tell you that I think noms used to be promoted in a more timely fashion. I have one that has been there for 5 days that has not been reviewed. And couple of years ago it would have been within the first couple of days. In my most recent accepted nom, I had to remind the reviewer that he was reviewing it. And that was a person that is on DYK every day. I do not think that it would have been overlooked for so long if the backlog was decrease, IMHO.--Ishtar456 (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I would also prefer we not put in hard and fast time limits for getting an article over all the review hurdles. We're all volunteers here, and the 5-day requirement can already be a problem in some cases. The emphasis at Did You Know has always been on getting the article up to standard so it can be shared. And all sorts of things happen to delay an article's passage to the main page, some of which may not be obvious: reviewers forgetting to actually add the check mark/tick template, articles getting returned from prep (or even from the main page) because someone challenged them at that stage; someone nominating someone else's article and then not keeping tabs on the nomination, and often the article creator won't know issues have been raised, either; Real Life intervening in various ways. We have a larger problem with a fall-off in submissions to Did You Know, and somewhere between the two in significance, problems with the thrice accursed quid pro quo requirement; a thorough vetting of the article, resulting in a long nomination page and/or a long wait until it makes it to the main page, is relatively insignificant as a problem and could even be viewed as positive by those who consider DYK prone to copyvio and other problems. On the other hand, yes, the list of articles still not passed is alarmingly long. Someone recently set out to test the hypothesis that older articles that have not yet been reviewed are harder or otherwise problematic nominations, and found it was untrue; further back, someone else (possibly PumpkinSky) was posting every week or so a list of old nominations that still hadn't received a review. Positive approaches like looking for an older nom when doing a quid pro quo review, or posting a list here, are the way to go, I think; not more deadlines. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did not realize that there was a drop off in noms. That sort of makes it different (although the backlog might be part of that problem). I am comfortable with closing this discussion. Thanks to all who participated.--Ishtar456 (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3: Volunia

Another one that seems destined to annoy those who find some hooks overly promotional of the product (as opposed to promoting the article), but more importantly, the claim seems unsupported. The claim in the article is to an article in Polish which, according to Googletrans, cites the developer (which means it is a promotional claim, not a disinterested review) as saying that it is "is an attempt to show how the future might look like search engine" (don't blame me: it is an automated translation: an editor in the nom process offered "According to Marchiori, it is an attempt to show what a search engine of the future may look like"). An attempt to show what something might look like is not the same as being the future of the product, and the claim of the developer should be tagged as a claim from a vested interest, not merely a reported opinion. Kevin McE (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, the nomination discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Volunia raised all the right issues. I've edited the article and hook to better match the various translations, including making it clear that this was the developer's statement. The hook is still in prep, so anyone can edit it. --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Can a reviewer make copy edits to an article they are reviewing? --Ishtar456 (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - if the edits become more substantial then it's normal to let someone else take over the review. Mikenorton (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, in this case I am just talking about really minor stuff.--Ishtar456 (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bot update of Main Page is Late

Looks like the bot didn't do its main page update 45 minutes ago. Is there an admin around who can either kick the bot or do a manual update? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manual update performed and a note sent to the bot's operator. --Allen3 ^talk 17:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The bot was apparently down for the previous update, too. I hope there will be admins around to do any necessary manual updates until the bot is back in working order. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Up and running again. Shubinator (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2:McCormack

I'm still not happy about use of a team nickname that is not widely known, but more importantly in this case is the claim of Prince William being "brought to his knees". A journalist on a small local paper evidently does not understand the meaning of the word literally, because a bow does not involve kneeling. Nor did McCormack do anything to the prince: whatever bodily gesture he made was made by him, without her being an agent of it. A silly error in a small local rag should not be raised to the profile of the Main Page of one of the most visited sites on the internet. Kevin McE (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the hook rather severely. See if it works... --Orlady (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me: truthful even! Thanks. Kevin McE (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3: Iranian power plant

The initials PSPP are not part of the name of this installation, nor are they an abbreviation that will be recognised by the vast majority of our readership. It is clear from the rest of the hook that Siah Bishe is a pumped-storage power plant, so the initials are redundant. Kevin McE (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I edited the hook. --Orlady (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog of passed articles

There seem to be a lot of passed articles still listed on T:TDYK, going back as far as the start of February. Do we need to increase the turnover of DYKs on the Main Page? What frequency are we working to at the moment? Prioryman (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The large number of passed noms isn't necessarily a backlog. Some of those "passed" noms probably should not have been passed, and an ample supply of passed noms makes it much easier to build a balanced hook set. Right now we are publishing 18 hooks each day, which is pretty close to the rate at which new nominations are appearing. --Orlady (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the clarification. Prioryman (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Burton Bridge (1322)

If possible could someone take a look at this nom (Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Burton Bridge (1322)) later today? It would be nice to have it on the mainpage for the battles 690th anniversary on 10 March, but due to work I probably won't get a chance to look at any comments and make any changes between the end of today and then. Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's sorted now. Prioryman (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks User:Mikenorton for looking at this, it's much appreciated - Dumelow (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special holding

I've searched the archives (briefly) and only really found something from 2010, so hopefully someone here can help with a more up-to-date answer.

How long can/should a DYK hook be kept in the special occasion holding area? I'm working on an article that would be great for 15 April, (specifically, the 100th anniversary of the Titanic sinking) but don't know how soon I should nominate it. The article is pretty much ready to go, though not yet in article namespace. Cheers, matt (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a hook held over for April 5, which I reviewed a few days ago, so April 15 should be no problem at all. GRAPPLE X 11:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's changed since the last time I checked, six weeks. 15 April - 42 days = 4 March, which means you're fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers guys. matt (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overlong hook (Prep 1) – now Queue 5!

The hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Young v. Facebook, Inc. comes out to be 217 characters—spaces are always included—well above the ceiling of 200 characters. It needs to be shortened.

Also, I had a problem with the use of "as" in Prep 3's Template:Did you know nominations/Chandramukhi (character) and was going to change it to "because", but that would have put it over the limit, since it's at 198 now. However, looking at the Chandramukhi (character) article, I don't see any support at the given links that she "was the first person to decline the Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actress". The sources do say she declined it, but not that she was the first person ever to have done so. Is there another source, or have I missed the money quote? If not, then it needs to change. Perhaps to:

ALT2: ... that the actress who played Chandramukhi in the 1955 film Devdas declined the Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actress because she thought that her role was not a supporting one?

At 180 characters, this would a better length as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rejiggering the Young v. Facebook hook, how about Alt1: ... that in Young v. Facebook, Inc., Judge Jeremy Fogel found that despite having walls and posts, Facebook was not a physical place? GRAPPLE X 20:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you lose the core meaning without the ADA. I would add a phrase from the original to the end of your Alt, which brings the total from 129 to 184 characters (though perhaps "for the purpose of" could use a little tweaking):

ALT1a: ... that in Young v. Facebook, Inc., Judge Jeremy Fogel found that despite having walls and posts, Facebook was not a physical place for the purpose of the Americans with Disabilities Act? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was shocked to discover, when I returned from an errand, that the original, overlong hook had been promoted to [[queue|5}}, where it currently sits, and cannot be edited now except by an admin.

Should we add a step to the "move to queue" process that specifically states that the person doing the moving should be sure to look at this page to make sure there are no outstanding issues with the prep area? It would have been easy to take care of the issue in the course of the promotion, and frankly that's when it should have been done if the promoting admin wants or needs to promote the prep area.

Lest the same thing happen with the Chandramukhi hook, which doesn't have its prep area listed in the section header, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and change the hook myself as soon as I've posted this. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good! We needed another reason for flagellation of the administrators who participate in DYK. (Please note that the persons who move hooks to the queues (i.e., administrators) are the very same people who can edit hooks once they are in the queues. And, FWIW, I edited that hook). --Orlady (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you edited the hook, and it was better than the above suggestions. Thanks. To be clear, the idea is not to flagellate, which sounds quite uncomfortable, but place another item on a standard workflow checklist as a memory aid. Or do you think it's a useless or inappropriate thing for admins to check? I took a quick at the current checklist involving the queues, and I think it's a bit out of date regardless, since it specifically refers to prep areas 1 and 2, rather than the four currently in use. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Source (Ingres)

It is in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1 ( nom page), but why the image is removed? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I promoted it sans image because the last nom I promoted from you included the image. Besides, I think it's more interesting for someone to hear "that exquisite dream of innocence" without seeing the painting as it makes them curious as to what the painting looks like. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, it says at the top of T:TDYK that not images proposed will be used. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, so what are you saying? You will not include image from two of my subsequent nominations? The nom from me that included the image is Le Sommeil, after which Go Topless Day was featured without image. I still feel this hook will be far better with an accompanying image, especially because The Source (Ingres) is a historically important painting. Not being stubborn, just curious. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What he is saying is there are more nominations with pictures than can actually be run with pictures. I think of my last seven DYKs, all had pictures included with them and only two actually ran with the pictures. It is just simple math for how DYKs can go together all at once. --LauraHale (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I had replied about 6 hours ago but I lost my connection before posting. It was give or take like this:

The top spot is highly sought after, as you can probably tell. Generally I try to balance my promotions so that the same author(s) don't have nominations in the top spot too close together.
For the 2 preps I built this morning (my time), about 8 pictures were cut. Most of the hooks currently ticked at T:TDYK have pictures, so there are some which are cut.
When building the preps, we try to keep topical diversity in the lede hooks. Hence we don't feature six pictures of female water polo players in a row, or five pictures of extinct maple species, or four OWM (old white men), or three Indonesian singers, or two factories in New Jersey, and I've never seen a partridge in pear tree.

Sometimes high quality images are skipped. When the images for Nia Dinata and Dewi Sandra weren't chosen I was disappointed too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Hierarchy of genres, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I get it. Thank you all for the clarifications. :D --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6 : Zengedi

Nobody has praised the author for bringing either this book, or the concept of life (which we are told is the translation of the title) "into the street demos and sitting rooms of near-future Tehran". The critic praised him for bringing the genre of Sci-Fi into that setting. Additionally, the hook is in breach of MoS by having a wikilink within a quote (not a part of MoS I have much time for when it is unambiguous, as in this case, but nevertheless, Main Page should follow the rules) Kevin McE (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about this rewording of the hook: ... that Greg Egan's science fiction novel Zendegi was praised for taking the genre "into the street demos and sitting rooms of near-future Tehran"? —Bruce1ee^talk 07:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been some improvement, although the quote was about the writer, not the book, going into a previously unexplored setting. However, the meaningless version sat on the main page for eight hours instead. Kevin McE (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This hook was on the nominations page for two weeks and in the prep area for 27 hours before it was moved to the queue. If people who are interested in after-the-fact quality control would get involved in the review process, perhaps there would be fewer after-the-fact complaints. --Orlady (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the after-the-fact quality control process. No disrespect intended to the admins who patrol this area, but if there are not sufficient of them to act on that which is drawn to people's attention, then there is an essential flaw in the system. It should also be asked why a blurb that was an inaccurate representation of the facts was A) proposed, and B) promoted. Kevin McE (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would still be helpful for more concerns to be raised earlier. In particular, changes to hooks would be far better discussed on the nomination page prior to promotion so that the article writer(s) and/or nominator has time to participate. Some of these last-minute changes have reflected not looking at the article itself carefully enough to judge the appropriateness of the hook (this happened with one of mine), and some have been purely matters of taste. On the other hand, when there is a real issue, it's best when the author(s) and/or nominators fix it; they have primary responsibility as well as probably the most knowledge. Just because we need an admin to change something once it's in a queue doesn't make it properly a job for an admin to judge the hook. Admins are not moderators. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I was hounded out of nominations pages. I'll act on, or raise here, issues with hooks as soon as I notice them. If our error catching process is going to have any reliability, it needs to be responsive at any stage. That the nom sat for 2 weeks without anyone even querying the fact that the hook was not supported by the article shows that that stage of the process is far less demanding than it should be. That being the case, the later stages need to be ready and able to act. We asked the readers of our Main Page whether they knew this: they could not have known what was never true. Kevin McE (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly . . . how can you have been hounded out of nominations pages? Have a look at Template Talk:Did You Know right now, and you'll see lengthy discussions about numerous nominations. More than one person has said at this page that they're weirded out by how many and how long. I look at the Queue page too - not only are there often missing "that"s and grammar errors (not everyone's a good proofreader), but quite often the article could do with a good proofreading (for the same reason, article reviewers aren't always good that catching such problems, and we recently had someone here asking whether they were even allowed to; personally I regard it as part of reviewing). But criticisms that involve changing the hook's meaning should be raised as early as possible; that's only polite, as well as much more practical. (It's also been mentioned on this page that the writer(s)/nominator would appreciate a message letting them know that such a concern has been raised. I know sometimes it can't be helped, one doesn't notice a problem in time to raise it at the nomination page, but I think that's a basic step of courtesy that all of us who roam the Queue page should bear in mind.) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Orlady and Yngvadottir, hook queries should be raised as soon as possible to avoid last-minute scrambles. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone doubts that it is better to raise the issues earlier. The questions are A) are there enough editors willing and able to apply a high standard of rigour to do that?, and B) what can be done if inaccurate or unsupported hooks are only spotted late? Kevin McE (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2: Gilles

We should not be passing uncited opinions of artworks: who are we to declare Watteau's painting to be "poignant". Kevin McE (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It maybe is a didactic adjective that comes to us from the editorial voice and WP:SYNTH present throughout the article. Consider:

As for the Watteau portrait, it should be clear by these observations that a "definitive" identification of its subject—as either Pierrot or Gilles—is not possible. As Francis Haskell has pointed out (and the remarks above imply), not only did Gilles "wear the same costume" as Pierrot, but both generally "had the same character" throughout the 18th century: Pierrot, like Gilles, "was a farcical creature, not a tragic or sensitive one".[35] (Pierrot will become tearful and tragic only in the middle of the 19th century, in the hands of Paul Legrand.)[36] The conclusion is irresistible: that "the consumptive Watteau has invested the figure of Gilles with some degree of self-identification, and Mrs. Panofsky has also pointed out that on many other occasions when painting Pierrot figures Watteau not only gave them a predominance which was absolutely not justified by the nature of the parts they were called upon to act, but may even have hinted at something Christ-like in their role."[35] The quibbling over the identity of the figure in Watteau's portrait (encountered everywhere in related sites on the internet)[37] is, in short, misguided [note: there is no citation for who finds it "misguided", and note 37 is entirely WP:OR: it states the wikipedia editor's own cursory search through a site that disagrees with their opinion, and disagreeing with the editorial voice is, of course, "quibbling"!].

Am I the first to take issue with this? Dahn (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there's yet another serious reason for concern: while the hook suggests that Watteau's portrait is of Gilles, and "poignantly" so, the article itself mutters that it is still a matter of debate whether it is actually Gilles or Pierrot that's in that painting. It does cite authors who will say that it is probably more of Gilles than Pierrot, but, even with the slanted editorial guesses I cited above, it fails to indicate that this is in any way the scholarly conclusion - and everyone who says otherwise is "quibbling"!

Please move this hook back to T:TDYK and save wikipedia the embarrassment of publishing such glaring original synthesis. Dahn (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the hook after it got posted to the main page. I probably did not fully address the issues raised here. To be candid, if I had taken the time to read these comments thoroughly and delve into the art history background referred to here, the hook would have spent its full 8 hours on the main page before I was done. I have a hunch that the lack of clarity here regarding the issues helps explain why no administrator dealt with this hook while it was still in the queue.

If you want fast action from an administrator, please provide a concise and clear statement of what is wrong and how the problem needs to be fixed. --Orlady (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Dahn: Thanks for your helpful responses to this article. (I wish I had seen them before the hook was so far advanced in the queue!) I see clearly now how my own judgments are shadowing the "Gilles and Pierrot" section, and so I have revised the last paragraph of that section (with which you find particular fault) to read as follows:

As Francis Haskell has pointed out (and the remarks above imply), not only did Gilles "wear the same costume" as Pierrot, but both generally "had the same character" throughout the 18th century: Pierrot, like Gilles, "was a farcical creature, not a tragic or sensitive one".[35] (Pierrot will become tearful and tragic only in the middle of the 19th century, in the hands of Paul Legrand.)[36] "It is", writes Haskell, "hard to resist the conclusion that the consumptive Watteau has invested the figure of Gilles with some degree of self-identification, and Mrs. Panofsky has also pointed out that on many other occasions when painting Pierrot figures Watteau not only gave them a predominance which was absolutely not justified by the nature of the parts they were called upon to act, but may even have hinted at something Christ-like in their role."[35] As Haskell seems to be implying, there may be at least as much Watteau as either Gilles or Pierrot in the portrait.

The hook was unfortunate. My original wording of it made it clear that "Gilles" was attached to the figure of the painting for "almost three centuries" of its history (only at the end of the 20th century has that name been called into question). When I was asked to shorten the wording, I fell back on the assumption that anybody who knows anything about the painting at all would know that "traditionally" it has been regarded to be a portrait of Gilles. I don't know what you mean by saying that the article "does cite authors who will say that it [the painting] is probably more of Gilles than Pierrot ...": the only author cited, Haskell, states clearly that both Gilles and Pierrot wore the same costume and had the same character, thereby implying that the argument that Watteau's figure is one or the other is moot.

That the portrait is "poignant" is widely repeated in the art-history literature, but I will footnote it to ensure it's not confused with an opinion of my own.

I have scoured the rest of the article carefully and can find no other unreferenced remarks. I hope these changes (which will be made if you approve) are sufficient to remove the scare-tags. If they are not, please elaborate and I will revise accordingly. Thanks for your help and attention. (I have also left this note on your talk page.) Beebuk 08:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights DYK

Did you know, Khazar's last DYK appeared yesterday. Every time I look at his legacy, other problems seem smaller. Look, thank him (I did in January), and perhaps take a few on your watch list, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Women's Day

Is March 8th. There are lots of hooks in the special occasions area waiting for this day (some of which I nominated, so I'm not moving them to prep areas). We can be filling the March 8th prep areas with these hooks, rather than race horses, etc. --Orlady (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider starting with an Australian/New Zealand woman's bio at 0:00 UTC when it's the day time in Australia & New Zealand on March 8th, and not start with a European woman's bio when it's the middle of the night in Europe, etc. Also, if we are picking racehorse hooks, please pick one about a filly or a mare. Thank you. --PFHLai (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC), 18:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not too worried about horses, but it would be really nice if we could ensure we have a woman bio DYK four times, at relevant times to celebrate this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Sophia Taylor is a New Zealand bio that's been given the green tick, so if somebody could promote that soon, that'll be good (it's 8 March in the morning here already). Schwede66 19:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting Sophia Taylor into Prep 4 so quickly. Let me just point out that if the preps get moved to the queues in the order they are currently in, then this New Zealand article will appear on the homepage for the first time at 1 pm on 9 March (NZ time) at this end of the world, i.e. one day late. Schwede66 20:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4 has some hooks about European women, so it would be good in Queue 6 (8 am, London). The current set in Queue 6 has hooks about North American women, and would be ideally moved to Queue 1 (8 am, Los Angeles). (Note: the Sophia Taylor hook mentioned above has been removed.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just swapped them. --PFHLai (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All about Europe, Oceania and North America, isn't it International Women's Day? So, I've created this hook related to Asian woman. Can someone care enough to review it?, thanks. — Bill william compton^Talk 06:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've moved this one into the regular March 8 date; if reviewed in time, it can be move to the special holding area, but the instructions are to put them under the regular date until review. I did take a quick look, and I'm not sure it qualifies: prior to expansion, there was a single footnote, and I believe that's enough to disqualify it from the special BLP 2x rule (it's barely 2x) and require a 5x expansion. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy (re)-review, please?

The following noms could use a speedy (re)-review so that the hook can be used for tomorrow:

Template:Did you know nominations/Myra Keen } Victuallers (talk) }Now on P4. --PFHLai (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Pinto (fashion designer) Schwede66 20:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC) }Now on Q6. --PFHLai (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Did you know nominations/Calu Rivero
Template:Did you know nominations/Maryon Pittman Allen
Template:Did you know nominations/Angela of the Cross
Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Kessell - review started but issues found Mikenorton (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Did you know nominations/Estelle Manville
Template:Did you know nominations/Isobel Bishop

-- Thanks. PFHLai (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Template:Did you know nominations/Madeline Rogero --Orlady (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And perhaps Template:Did you know nominations/Jane McNeill, too. --PFHLai (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding images after the fact

When using the Commons, clicking edit after adding the page results in the original template appearing. I can then edit the template with relative ease.

Doing the same for DYK does not result in the same behaviour. Instead, I'm left in an editor that contains text utterly unlike the original I worked on.

In this particular case I simply wanted to add an image, one I had failed to do on the initial entry. But when I click edit, I'm utterly baffled by what I see. It looks very little like what I entered, and there's certainly no obvious place to put the image.

So, can DYK work like Commons? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is a different project than Commons with different needs. The template was designed the way it was to make the nomination and review process easier. I asked for feedback many times when I was designing it.

I can add instructions to T:TDYK explaining how to add images after the fact. In the meantime you can come here and ask another editor for help. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maury, pls follow this example. Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bot, not sure we've spoken recently. I'm sorry that we've failed to feed the Qs recently. Can I just compliment you on your well mannered reminder and on the stirling work you do for the project. Have a barnstar. I have moved a set to Q1 bu the way. So in your own time Victuallers (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, I've loaded up two hooks (not the third as one of mine is in it), so we have three empty prep areas if folks wanna load up...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4: Busted

This is meant to be an encyclopaedia written in an appropriately formal tone. We should not be describing a broken leg as "busted". The desire to portray puns in DYK does not invalidate MoS. Our Main Page should give readers confidence that the project is serious in the way it deals with its content. Kevin McE (talk) 07:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Kevin, it doesn't detract from the hook at all to use 'broken' - 'busted' is just forced. Mikenorton (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. Agree "busted" is too far on the colloquial side...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm glad someone else spotted this one. I had to leave for work ... --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is it going to be changed? Still on there.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 20:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It had been changed: PFHLai reverted to the original proposal. AGFing that he was unaware of this thread. Kevin McE (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't know about this discussion here. And yes, "busted" was indeed colloquial. I chose the word "busted" because that's the name of the horse, and I thought that was funny. Busted had a busted leg! It's too late now that the hook has left MainPage. But I must point out that, even if there is clear consensus, a fix that introduces a factual error must not be made. The leg was not broken. It was a tendon injury. It's too late now, but perhaps I could've used some inverted commas there.... --PFHLai (talk) 05:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, perhaps you could have used a proper encyclopaedic tone. Even colloquialisms have established meanings, and a "busted leg" dos not mean any unspecific injury, it means broken. Another victory for the "though on the nod" nature of the nominations process: another fail for WP:ERRORS, where this consensus was flagged up for nearly 4 hours. Kevin McE (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could take a slightly less sour tone? This really is not a major issue in the overall scheme of things and it does not deserve the level of censoriousness that you're bringing to it. Please keep a sense of proportion. Prioryman (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dramatic tone aside, Kevin isn't wrong (and his frustration is understandable).

This was an inappropriate word choice (even if the leg had been broken, which "busted" indeed implied).

Can we please put factual accuracy and professionalism above a desire to be "funny" (at least on days other than 1 April)? —David Levy 10:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there must a bone fracture to say "the leg was broken" but "busted" could refer to any problem that made the leg not to work properly. If I'd felt that the word "busted" is so inappropriate (I thought it was just a bit "chatty"...), I would not have used it at all. I have no problem if the word "busted" gets replaced. But I have a problem with replacing that with "the leg was broken." If I had known about this discussion here at the time, I would have joined in and we could have come up with a different fix. Anyhow, it's too late now. --PFHLai (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC) [Actually, I was having a late lunch and coffee break at work at the time. Not sure how long I could stay to discuss, but I would have at least left a note and asked for a different fix. --PFHLai (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)][reply]

Obviously anyone is free to have whatever they choose on their watchlist, but it seems extraordinary to me that someone would have enough interest to prepare and propose an item for the main page and then not watch its progress through the system... Kevin McE (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I watched the progress while the nom was on T:TDYK. The change was made afterwards. I did not know about the change till I see the hook on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) ~~14:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)~~ 15:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Informal .
a. to hit.
b. to break; fracture: She fell and busted her arm.
[source]

It's one thing to make a mistake, but please don't blame others for their conventional interpretation of your wording. —David Levy 20:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, David. This is the second time in the last half-year that you've found such a mistake of mine on MainPage. I thought a word meant one thing, used it as such for decades, and found out from an internet link provided by you that I have been mis-using the word for decades... sigh... No, no one else to blame here, David. Just me and my poor command of the English language. --PFHLai (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Rule change for DYK expansions not written by nominator

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Current rules allow for nominators who have not written articles to nominate as many articles as they want. Self nominations require nominators to review an article unless they have nominated five or fewer articles for DYK. There is backlog of unreviewed DYKs as a result. I propose to address this backlog:

If you nominate an article you did not write, you are restricted to ONE nomination for ONE ARTICLE in a 24 hour period without the obligation of reviewing another article. For every additional article expansion and nomination, non-self nominating contributors need to list a second opinion for a DYK they have helped close or complete a new review.

Or some rule to that effect being added to the nominating guidelines. --LauraHale (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support This would help clear the backlog.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 09:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- We should give at least one free nomination as an incentive, but I agree that 3 or 5 in one day is a bit much. Reviews needed! Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified support If we're to continue with QPQ - which I hate - then I don't think there's any justification for making the rules different for nominations and self-nominations. Many of those nominating others' articles have been doing a QPQ anyway; in at least one case the co-author who didn't nominate the article quietly did the QPQ review. Simply require QPQ after the 5th DYK credit for authorship/expansion - whether the subsequent one is a self-nom or not. --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Noms by others serve a useful purpose, especially now that non-regular editors find DYK rather more intimidating, as they certainly do. I'd say no QPQ for one in every 24hrs, up to 5 a week. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sounds fair to me. Without a QPQ, people won't review. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for several reasons.
Nominating other people's work for DYK is a major contribution to DYK that diversifies content here, encourages new content creators to do more, and recruits new participants to DYK. Additionally, it actually involves a fair amount of work. I skim through the User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult output every so often (generally when the nomination supply is getting thin) looking for possible nominations, and I find that only a very small fraction are qualified. When I find a likely one, it takes me a good while to review the article, review sources, and develop a hook. There are a few folks who do this on a regular basis -- their effort is one that should not be discouraged by asking them to stop work and review a nom every time they are about to nominate somebody else's new article.
This "backlog" is a bit of a misconception. We are reviewing hooks at least as fast as they are being produced (which is as fast as they need to be reviewed), and a lot of the hooks that are "awaiting review" are actually in the middle of review. A little while ago, I skimmed through the unapproved noms on the main page and counted 25 that have been reviewed (sometimes multiple times) and are waiting for a nominator response (or response by a good samaritan who will fix the article), the conclusion of an AfD process, or some other action that is not a DYK review. That was a conservative count -- if it looked like the nominator or creator thought they might have fixed something, or if it appeared to be hung up due to continuing discussion of conflicting ideas about the hook, I didn't count it.
Furthermore, believe it or not, some of us actually review noms when we don't have a QPQ mandate (not to mention the work we do building queues and doing administrator work here) -- and I happen to believe that review work done without the mandate is often of higher quality than what's done when a contributor needs a QPQ to tick off. --Orlady (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, I am not entirely sure you understood the proposal here. It's to limit nominations of others' articles without QPQ to one per 24-hour period - not to require a QPQ on the same basis as for self-nominations, which has not been proposed here except by me as a minority view. Nobody here has questioned the value of nominations of someone else's article. The proposal seeks only to deal with multiple such nominations per day by the same person. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE, with an alternate proposal to tweak the DYK rules. I have to say that I don't see a backlog. We are running at 8-hour cycles with 6 hooks per shift, not 6-hour cycles with 8 hooks per shift that we used to have. We need more hooks for DYK. What I see is a shortage of use-able hooks, which is a result of a shortage of nominations. There are other reasons for the shortage of use-able hooks, but my work here in DYK mostly deals with the shortage of nominations -- I nominate other Wikipedians' work for DYK. I rarely write articles and ask to have them showcased on MainPage. (Might've self-nom'd three times at the most.) I see myself as a matchmaker. After helping someone find a suitable spouse, I would be happy to attend the wedding and join in the celebration, but I really don't think I should be paying for the dowry, banquet, etc. So, in DYK terms, I'd say that the QPQ requirement should be fulfilled by the article writers/creators/expanders (with the same current exemption to newbies), not by the nominators.

e.g. if I nominate another article about a Japanese wrestler by TheFBH (talk · contribs), who has only 4 DYK creator credits, no QPQ review is needed yet. (I am hoping to get TheFBH to join DYK...)
e.g. if I nominate another article about a racehorse by Tigerboy1966 (talk · contribs), a wikipedian who is overdue for a DYK25 medal, a QPQ review is required from Tigerboy. Whether I can talk him into doing one, or I do the review for him, should not be an issue. A QPQ should be done. (I won't do the QPQ review unless I really, really, really, really want that hook on MainPage, and Tigerboy suddenly becomes unavailable for whatever reasons.)

Frankly, we should be encouraging more people to nominate, so that we can have better quantity and topical diversity for DYK, and we should not make nominators do more work when they should be out there hunting for more DYK candidates, and introduce DYK to Wikipedians who previously have not participated in DYK. And, perhaps try to bring back Wikipedians who have not participated in DYK for a while, too! Also, I have to say that the 24-hour restriction is a bad idea. Like Orlady, I skim through the User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult output quite often. And also quite often, articles need 4 to 5 days to grow long enough and get properly sources and formatted so as to qualify for DYK. Sometimes I "discover" multiple qualified candidates on their last day of eligibility (sometimes after that 5th day, but this would be another story...). Please don't ask me to choose which one to nominate that day with midnight UTC approaching. I would rather nominate as many potential articles as I can find. You guys can decide not to use them. The nominators can help persuade the article writers/creators/expanders to do QPQ reviews, but please don't require nominators to do reviews. And please don't put in extra time limitation on top of the "5 day" rule. BTW, I review DYK candidates, too -- I just don't nominate those I reject. --PFHLai (talk) 07:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For topical diversity, I just make something that's not about Indonesia. See: The Princess from the Land of Porcelain, No Exit (1962 film), Island of Lost Men, Chapel of Russia's Resurrection, Premarital sex, Anal people. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Crisco 1492. If I find your nice articles when they were still new, I would being nominating them for DYK. Under the current rules, no QPQ review is needed if I nominate your articles. Under my suggested "rule tweak" above, you would need to do a QPQ review if I nominate them, but I as the nominator may choose to do the review for you (unlikely, but I might, perhaps just to speed things up...) --PFHLai (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, if the the onus of the QPQ review is switch to the article writers/creators/expanders, there will be no impact on self-nom, but this will close the loophole that allow article writers/creators/expanders to collude and nominate each other's articles just to avoid doing reviews. I like this rule tweak even more now! --PFHLai (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that we can write articles ourselves, instead of just focusing in one area. Doubt you could catch my articles before I nominate them though Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, I agree with you. But the problem is that many DYK participants are niche contributors. Not everyone can write outside their area of expertise. And I for one is struggling with botany trying to rescue these plant-related DYK candidates. --PFHLai (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only three left Perhaps. Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support (the original proposal) Yes, nominators who find articles might have to do a fair bit of work improving and checking the referencing on article they nominate, but don't forget that nominators who write their own articles have done a fair bit of work writing the article! QPQ should be a requirement for both. Harrias ^talk 14:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. On top of the mad scramble to get the article presentable within 5-6 days, I also have to do a review. Folks who nominate a lot should have to, too. It's only fair and we value both self-noms and nominations of others' articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Per Orlady, as well as experiencing the sensation of drowning in rules. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Orland and Rosie.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the above. Nominating someone's article includes a review (and often improving) of THAT article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per or lady and others. We made a conscious decision when qpq was adopted to not apply it as proposed here, so as to avoid discouraging those who would nominate articles of non-dyk regulars and new editors. Unless it's being abused, that remains the right call. Cbl62 (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe multiple nominations per day are being regarded by some as an abuse; and as someone has mentioned, the set-up right now is open to abuse by those who do wish to avoid QPQ. I think we should indeed keep it simple - one rule for everyone - but the alternative is to revisit QPQ. A lot of the arguments here are based on seeing the review requirement as onerous. Ideally, I'd love to junk it. Second preference: same rules for everyone, after 5 credits as article creator, you do a QPQ for each nomination you make. (I don't think teh alternate proposal, requiring article creators to do a review when someone else nominates their article, is fair.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose original proposal ... Nominators should be free to bring in quality, varied content without a QPQ obligation. While I oppose the original proposal, I'd like to see a shift in how nominators work. Rather than simply nominating someone else's article, I think it would be preferable to leave them a note, explaining DYK and suggesting that they nominate the article themselves. (We should have a template for this.) The effort of the person finding the worthy articles would still be appreciated, and they could even claim nominator credit as a kind of "finder's fee". Note: I don't nominate many articles by others, but the last two I did, even though I knew that I was not required to do a review, it felt wrong not to, and I did do reviews for them.

... and Support the alternate proposal; it makes sense. Requiring a review (from any involved party) whenever the content creator's had more than five DYKs, no matter who nominates the article, actually simplifies the rules by removing an exception. It makes for a consistent policy, and just seems fair. A few days ago a WikiCup discussion focused on an unnamed user who's had tons of DYKs on a single subject, and no QPQs were ever done because they were nominated by another user. That does nothing to diversify the content here (quite the opposite!) and is certainly not doing anything to recruit new participants to DYK. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I checked back, and the "unnamed user" has apparently been identified. Tigerboy1966 (talk · contribs) seems to have done nothing wrong according to our current rules, but he's received at least 56 DYK credits and there are 10 more on the nominations page. That's at least 66 DYKs for one user, apparently with no QPQs ever being done. And we have no idea how many other users may have similarly benefited from the "loophole". I find this to be unacceptable. The alternate proposal should prevent this kind of thing from happening again. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support the alternate proposal Simplifies the rules, and prevents "gaming" the system. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support the alt proposal The amount of work that is involved in writing a new article or expanding one 5x is very similar or greater in my opinion to that of nominating an article created by someone else. If there was so much more effort then there would not be nominators with 3 or more nominations per day, at least based on the several days it usually takes me to write new extinct taxa articles.--Kev min § 18:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt proposal. Fantastic idea, I think it would a great change to the rules, without discouraging nominations. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support alternative proposal: Can some one close this? --LauraHale (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see what closing this now would do, except to prevent anything from occurring: there's approximately equal numbers supporting the alternate and opposing either proposal, with slightly fewer in favor of the original (counting you as having abandoned the original for the alternate). Not a consensus for a specific action by any stretch of the imagination.

Just to clarify in my mind: the original proposal limited the number of free nominations for a nominator of someone else's work to one a day. The alternate requires a QPQ for all nominations regardless of who nominates (excepting the first five DYKs by an author), with the onus for doing the QPQ on the person whose article was nominated, whether they nominated it or not. This means, I presume, that if the original author is not interested in DYK, the nomination could conceivably sit and eventually wither, unless someone else is willing to shoulder the QPQ requirement. And does that someone else have to be the nominator, or could it be disinterested parties? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2: Water polo goalies

ENGVAR issue: I could make a reasoned guess as to what is meant by a pool deck, but it is not a phrase I have ever heard in UK English, and given that the issue in hand is rules that originated in Scotland, such a foreign phrasing seems inappropriate. Suggest pool surround or edge of the pool. Kevin McE (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3: Crufts

The dog show is Crufts (with an s, but without the apostrophe that probably should be present). Kevin McE (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed that, to go with the article title and avoid the pointless redirect. What am I missing? Dahn (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3: Mrs Romney

To add even before one name in a list of people included for the same biographical event is the type of editorialising we should avoid. There is no reason why this guy should not be the son of someone who spent some time studying drama. Suggest deletion of even. Kevin McE (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"even" removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/2011–12 Princeton Tigers men's basketball team

Would anyone consider making this a late addition to prep area 2 which is destined for queue 4? That queue will be on the main page during the team's playoff game tonight. I will be working a bit on this article to expand it today.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2 appears to be already full. You haven't given reviewers much time, and it's not like this is a major holiday or anything. I would say it should just run when it runs. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Rjanag. Under 48 hours is not enough. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they win can I make this request again for the next game?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with that. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4: Volage

Per every mid-sentence occurrence of the word in the main article on the subject, transit of Venus should have a lower case t Kevin McE (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to whoever corrected this. Kevin McE (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 5

Jews in Mauritius

We only have an approximate figure for the Jewish population: 40 is not so high a number that it is obvious to assume that it is an approximation (the confusion would not arise if there were a population to 40,000 somewhere under discussion) Suggest add about or approximately, as stated in the article. We know nothing of the religiosity of these two score odd individuals: they are Jews, but not necessarily followers of Judaism, so the link should point to the former term. Kevin McE (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now on Main Page: anyone willing and able to act? Kevin McE (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria took care of that one. --Orlady (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malacological Society

Being an officer of this group of molluscophiles is not sufficiently ingrained in popular culture to be recognised as an established proper noun in the way that President of France is: lower case p for president. Kevin McE (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now on Main Page: anyone willing and able to act? Kevin McE (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this one. --Orlady (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2: Kosovo

... that one can see almost the whole of Metohija (1,290 sq mi) from the heights of Dulje? That fails H10. I considered adding the word "Kosovo" somewhere, but maybe you omitted it because Serbs might object to that description. If so, then should we at least say it's in the Balkans? Art LaPella (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added Kosovo to the hook. It's my understanding that both Serbs and Albanians call the region "Kosovo"; the disagreement is over who it belongs to. --Orlady (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And why is the area of a European region being given in sq miles? Kevin McE (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Khaled Ali

Help needed to fix this nom template. It's not displaying properly on T:TDYK. Tks. --70.31.8.76 (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I'll inform Ocaasi how to fix their signature so that it won't break templates. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something's funny

Something funny is happening on the nominations page under Justice and Development Party (Libya). On the nominations page, the second half of the review for Template:Did you know nominations/Paintings by Adolf Hitler appears, but it does not appear in the editing window, so I can't erase it. Yoninah (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Paintings by Adolf Hitler needed some fixing. It should be ok now. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4: Balance of hooks

Assuming it is an accident, but two Oregon hooks on one set seems to lack balance. Kevin McE (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I swapped some hooks to change that situation. --Orlady (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using multiple DYK review icons in a single review

Lately some reviewers have been using upwards of half a dozen DYK review icons in a single review to highlight each of the many aspects being covered. Is this useful, or confusing? I would have thought the latter, but I'm not one of the people assembling prep areas and looking for noms that have been passed.

In addition, I believe the software that generates the List of DYK Hooks by Date table on the Queues page uses the OK icons to determine which are verified and which are not. Would such multiple usage cause issues with that software, or is it not an issue? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a human, I find the use of multiple icons in a single review to be confusing when I try to skim a nom to determine its status. My observations of the software behavior have led me to conclude that it uses the last hook in the template to determine the status of the nom. --Orlady (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution-template issues

When Template:Did you know nominations/Illinois Central Railroad No. 790 was created, the nominator (Ishtar456) forgot some technically required bits, such as supplying the creator's name (himself) and bolding the link for the nominated article. I've fixed everything that I know how to fix, but I'm not sure if I properly fixed the template that will be used to notify him that the article has appeared on the Main Page. Please look it over and fix anything that I overlooked. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the DYKmake template with these edits. The talk page notification should now be delivered correctly. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I've fixed the nomination's {{DYK nompage links}}. For future reference, note that there's no need to move the subpage just because its name differs from that of the article(s). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Mandarax: pagemoves like this are almost never necessary. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry; didn't know that. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Yahoo" on Queue 1

"Yahoo" in the 4th hook should be "Yahoo!". Don't forget the exclamation mark. --70.31.8.76 (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Allen3 ^talk 15:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please also add an "a" after "on" in "on Yahoo! message board": it doesn't make grammatical sense otherwise. Thanks! Oh, and should a link for "Yahoo!" be added, i.e., "on a Yahoo! message board"? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Allen3 ^talk 18:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1: Aeroflot

A plane cannot be upside down on take-off: it crashed upside down shortly after take off. Kevin McE (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2: St Patrick and Llantwit Major

There are innumerable legends abut Patrick's early life: that he was a priest at Llantwit is but one of them. It is not so much the being kidnapped that should be qualified by the "reputedly" tag, as any assertion about his age/role at the time. Kevin McE (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2: Bad Girl

A cover version credits the writer(s) of the song, not a previous performer. Once it had been performed by the Pussycat Girls, it was not Rihanna's song, but it was still Chris Brown's work (and that of 5 co-composers). Kevin McE (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refunded QPQ credit?

From Template:Did you know nominations/Kony 2012 - "refunded QPQ credit I have in the bank". What??? 159.83.4.148 (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 559: / Line 559: @@
 A cover version credits the writer(s) of the song, not a previous performer.  Once it had been performed by the Pussycat Girls, it was not Rihanna's song, but it was still Chris Brown's work (and that of 5 co-composers).  [[User:Kevin McE|Kevin McE]] ([[User talk:Kevin McE|talk]]) 23:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
+== Refunded QPQ credit? ==
+From [[Template:Did you know nominations/Kony 2012]] - "refunded QPQ credit I have in the bank". What??? [[Special:Contributions/159.83.4.148|159.83.4.148]] ([[User talk:159.83.4.148|talk]]) 23:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)