Wikipedia talk:Did you know

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

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

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

Main page spelling error, Louis Leakey, not Lewis

Can an admin who watches DYK correct the spelling error on the main age? --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC))

thai is incredibly sloppy. Doesn't anyone check DYKs? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No one clicks on what they link to. Especially in a hook, just click on it! Someone fixed it, after thousands of hits. --(AfadsBad (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC))

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Review request of hook placement

The hook for the DYK nomination of Josh Hutcherson was added to a queue earlier [1] without the image it was nominated with. I understand that not every image can make it to the top spot but I have a hard time understanding why any one editor get's to decide which image gets that spot and which nominations don't get to utilize the picture they were brought in with. I get the feeling that's a part of the process that just "is the way it is." But I do believe that adding the image to this particular nomination would be beneficial to the hook. Hutcherson's article receives a decent amount of traffic, (see here) so once on the main page, the image of him will likely help with the face to name recognition and give the article additional traffic. Gloss • talk 05:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• It has been discussed on my talk page, and I suggested that Gloss came here. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 05:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There are far more images suggested with hook nominations than we can possibly use (we run only one image in every set of 7 hooks, and I estimate that roughly 3 out of every 7 nominations includes an image, so it's clear that we can't run every image). Volunteers need to make choices. Criteria for selection include how eye-catching the image is at small size, whether the image illustrates the hook fact (i.e., adds information value), and a desire to vary the types of images we display in DYK. The Josh Hutcherson image isn't particularly striking, it doesn't illustrate the hook fact, and because it's an image of a white man it wouldn't inject much variety here. That's the way it goes. Maybe you'll have better luck next time. For what it's worth, only one of my last three image suggestions made it to the main page. --Orlady (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I find it really strange that a picture of a sponge is somehow better to put on the main page than a picture of a well known American actor. But life goes on. Gloss • talk 06:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• There's already a "well known American actor" pictured on the MP, right now. How many sponges have been on the MP recently? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not enough, it seems :) Gloss • talk 07:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

IWD holding area

There are currently 14 articles in the holding area for IWD on 8 March, and more waiting in the wings. If we are to run three sets on that day as we do at present, this will already exceed the 50% quota of biographies. Are we going to suspend the quota for that day? If not, we need to start managing the hooks. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Good question. If we have too many, the Angela Stent one I just moved down there could be moved back up. I think nominator Chris troutman would be just as happy if the nomination ran earlier. — Maile (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Can't tell if she's a Brit or American. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you asking to see if there is a good international mix? The article says she was born in London and her husband is a natural-born American. It does not say she became an American citizen. And there's really no reason for the article to say so if she didn't change citizenship. — Maile (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

She worked for the State Department so she has to be a US citizen. Yes, run that hook on another day if the 8 March queue is overflowing. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Chris troutman, please respond to this. If you would like to have Angela Stent run the normal way, which mean it might run earlier, let me know here. I will move it out of the special holding area. It's your nomination, so you tell me. If you would prefer it to stay in the special holding area, say so. I prefer to accommodate your wishes on the nomination. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think that if the 8 March's DYK hooks are all about women, that would probably constitute a NPOV violation. Given that what we have and what is waiting would go over the quota, I would suggest closing the area to new submissions ensure that the iwd hooks don't account for more than 50% so that a sense of balance can be maintained. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed that we should close the IWD area, now. We then need to consider 1/bumping and 2/asking for voluntary withdrawals. Poll, maybe? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 17:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ummm ..I see your point C of E, however we frequently have days with few women represented at all, every week and every month. I roughly estimate that 50% of the women based articles for this month are going on March 8th. ie It takes weeks to find one day of articles about women! If we tried to do this with male biographies then we would find them in less than a week. Halloween has all halloween articles and Xmas has all xmas..... I cannot see a reason why one underrepresented group shouldn't have a day to them selves. If we have too many then they can run after March 8th. What is a pity is that up to now we have only biographies - we could have "women" based articles that were not biographies. If you would like to correct the national bias then try here - there are lots that could be written. There is a risk that just one day next month we may not show male bias - that is what the day is about and the reason why it was discussed in advance. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I'm not convinced that we either need a special day for women, and I also am not 100% sure if we should be running 'special' days on the main page. Matty.007 17:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Just to clarify my above statement, if we have a special day for women, where do we draw the line? If people want more female DYK hooks, write more female DYK articles. Matty.007 18:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Earlier I expressed some reservations about a concentration of hooks about women on IWD, mainly because I don't think that women are so unusual as to need to be a special focus for one day (and, by implication, ignored the rest of the year). Rather than freezing the IWD holding area, let's selectively pull out some hooks to run earlier, while allowing others to be added. Based on a cursory review of the holding area, four hooks currently in that area (Angela Stent, Jocelyn Hay, Cordelia E. Cook, and Emma Mashinini) appear to be of singular interest for IWD, but the rest are more commonplace notable women whose hooks could be run earlier. --Orlady (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I tend to agree on that approach. I think that having a few select gems would work well enough. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 00:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the archives, I'd say that we have been disregarding the quota for IWD in the past. Even that was not enough. We can start early when it's IWD in the Far East, before it's IWD by UTC. And we can have spill-overs at 0:00h, March 9th, when it's still IWD in the US West Coast. We can also run 4 shifts, instead of 3, on that day. --PFHLai (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there's definitely precedent for sets containing only IWD hooks, as this was done for at least three years. In any case, I strongly oppose closing the section to new entries. The more options we have, the greater the chances of creating sets with a balanced range of topics. For example, the section currently contains only one athlete and no scientists. If we get more than we can use for IWD, the remaining ones can be spread out during March for Women's History Month. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

With that in mind, why not change the section heading to say it's for Women's History Month.— Maile (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think the DYKs on IWD have to exclusively feature women. Since we have been hoarding for IWD, next to no pages featuring women have made any dyk set, except for the olympians. As noted below, we are not getting enough DYK nominations through and hooks are only getting filled at the last minute because we just can't keep up. I don't see that as being a good thing. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 23:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the idea of running an International Women's Day was discussed here... in advance. Now that we? have the articles required to fill the day, we seem to have a lot of interest in managing it, renaming it and otherwise working out that it was never required in the first place. Are you sure this is what people expect of this project? I admire your confidence but I suspect you may be just annoying those who felt that their? articles may appear and they are now told that someone has had another discussion and decided to re-decide. There are more people who have actively decided to take part than the number of people having a discussion here. Editors may drift away. Victuallers (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

More coming I'm suggesting that we decide on someone (or several people) to put together the hook sets for the day. If we are allowed two, three or four sets then we could have a number of people to choose which will be chosen on the day and which will run later.

• Is it possible to run over more than 24 hours as per @PFHLai's suggestion
• Can we run at an increased rate - we used to run every six hours...
• Can we increase the number of hooks? Eight would seem to be reasonable.

Which of these is more acceptable? As the new template (thanks) notes this is not important as we can run out the excess over the month. Victuallers (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I think all are perfectly acceptable, time zones do allow for a bit of leeway to spill over into the days before and after. 8 hooks for 6 hours on that day would get a lot through. However, the point I made I think is still valid that we ought to not make every single hook there about women, in case we violate NPOV. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion of DYK

I don't recall a notice being placed here, but an ANI discussion that directly relates to the DYK holding area was started a few hours ago. — Maile (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Time to reduce run rate?

It looks like it is time to reduce DYK's current run rate. The table below shows the number of nominations received for each day over the past two weeks (dates that are currently open for additional nominations are shown with a red background):

Date	# of Hooks
January 28	11
January 29	12
January 30	9
January 31	11
February 1	26
February 2	19
February 3	15
February 4	22
February 5	15
February 6	7
February 7	14
February 8	10
February 9	10
February 10	3
Total	184

Based upon these numbers, the 8 most recent days listed at Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations have a mean of 15.625 nominations/day. The last two weeks as a whole has a mean of ~13.143 nominations/day with this value expected to increase as additional noms are received for the open dates. Based upon these numbers it seems fairly obvious that we can not continue to support our current run rate of 21 hooks/day until an increase in the submission rate occurs. Such an increase may occur in the next few weeks (the 2012 Olympics produced a surge in nominations for biographies of athletes and the next Wikicup round begins on March 1), but such an increase can not be counted upon until it occurs. The big question seems to be do we switch to 3 sets of 6 hooks/day (18 hooks/day) or 2 sets of 7 (14 hooks/day)? --Allen3 ^talk 13:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I asked numerous times for a change, but I see no one else supporting the change. Orlady thinks that six per set would disrupt the flow. I would prefer seven per set and 12-hour cycle. George Ho (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Orlady correctly noted that because we seek approximate balance between the two columns, a reduction from seven hooks to six would impact the right-hand column. But I pointed out that this actually would be helpful at ITN, where it would enable us to retain fewer stale items (at least for the time being).

On that basis, I support the idea of switching to three sets of six hooks (eighteen hooks total) per day. —David Levy 08:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's now clearly time to reduce the run rate. We may need to go back up when the next Wikicup round begins in March, but 131 is quite low, especially with only two and a third sets out of ten filled, and only a handful of hooks in the special occasion area for the next week or so. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to be WP:BOLD and reduce to six hooks from seven. If we need a more drastic reduction, I think two sets of seven is the next step, and then to two sets of six. For now, however, we can't wait any longer to reduce, so we're now at three sets of six. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for possible 11 February scheduling of article

Mentoz wrote an article Finn Hågen Krogh today he would like to have on the mainpage 11 February because it relates to an olympic event this day; I reviewed; so if anybody has time to see if it may be promoted and scheduled at the requested day, that would be highly appreciated. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I put it in Prep 1, which is the next one to move up to the Main page, and should be daytime hours in Europe. Does this look like a good slot to you? — Maile (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Many thanks! Regards, Iselilja (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you ;) Mentoz (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Prep 3 link disruption

Can somebody please take a look at Prep 3? I'm slightly uncomfortable with the arrangement. I find the presence of the heavily linked hook disruptive and visually too uncomfortable. Nothing we can do about the hook, but maybe rearranging them might help? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Premature promotions

I'd frankly like to know why two of the hooks on that page were promoted with icons still active. Promoters should only be taking hooks with active ticks. I've removed one, since there was an active question; the other was a QPQ matter that might be allowable ... if a tick had been added first—though not by the promoter, since approver and promoter should always be different. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• I already apologised for one, and I apologise again. That's three 'hail marys' and more regular attendance at mass/confession. I misread as an apparent approval, being too anxious to fill the prep area. I need to slow down. But I am glad you did not chastise me for promoting something with an omitted tick that I added myself? ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ohconfucius, since promoters are also the final check to be sure the reviewer didn't miss anything, I'm glad to read you're planning to slow down: we have a fair number of inexperienced or hasty reviewers around, so making sure the hook facts are supported in the article (and checking the actual source), making sure the ALT hook chosen was actually approved, and making other spotchecks, are a good idea when going over approved nominations. My experience is that I rarely finish a prep set without having to send at least one nomination I thought to promote back for more work. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Prep 2

Just an observation: There are 2 assassination hooks in Prep 2. Yoninah (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There shouldn't have been; I've moved one of them. Yoninah, next time you see something similar, just move the hooks yourself. Two assassination-related bio hooks is clearly one too many. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yoninah, I suppose I've reaped what I sowed, but my understanding of "quirkiest" doesn't match yours: someone almost severing their foot doesn't seem quirky to me, which is why I moved the "Long" Jones into the quirky position to begin with (quirky name plus was a legislator in two states). Not that I can do anything about it now that it's in Queue 2 ... BlueMoonset (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree it should have been at the bottom too. I had originally put the Long Jones article at the bottom upon its promotion, and someone changed the position. I'm not one to war over placements, so I didn't challenge the change. If we are all agreed, one of the resident admins can always move it. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I still think that a skater almost severing her foot is far more interesting than a politician with an odd nickname. It will probably get a ton of hits in the last position. Yoninah (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Preps

Could somebody please complete Prep 3, then ping me so I can queue it? We've only got a couple hours left. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed one from the main page

@LauraHale and Aymatth2: I thought this had been handled, but apparently not... I have just pulled Jose Marin Rodriguez from the main page. It's one of the User:LauraHale Spanish athletes articles, which are riddled with serious errors, and which have led to a lengthy WP:AN discussion and her abandoning the creation of further similar articles. This has been discussed at WT:DYK before, but it seems as if still these can slip through the cracks...

Back to the article at hand; apart from nearly incomprehensible sentences like "Nymburk, Czech Republic again hosted the location of Marin's next gold medal which he won the men's individual recurve event at the 2009 CTO World Championships.", we also get factual and easy to understand informaton like "He participated in the recurve W1-W2 event, finishing fourth behind Italian gold medalist Oscar Pellegrin, Malaysian silver medalist Hasihin Sanawi and Malaysian bronze medalist Lung Hui Tseng.[13]". The problem is, he didn't finish fourth, he was eliminated in the 1/8th finals by Korean Young Joo Jung (6-2 defeat) after finishing the ranking round as 11th (with 591 points) and defeating Japanese Yutaka Ajima 6-0 in the 1/16th finals. The source given for the 4th place states "Destacar que el tirador de la delegación española José Marín Rodríguez llego hasta unos meritorios octavos de final.", but this was too hard to understand: since only the three medals and Rodriguez were given, this had to mean that he finished fourth, no? Quality journalistic work, that. (Note that the same sentence from the article mentions "Malaysian bronze medalist Lung Hui Tseng.", who was actually from Taipeh, not Malaysia; why stop at one blatant error when you can cram two of them in one sentence?).

I don't know and don't care whether this page violated any of the many DYK rules; BLPs with such blatant errors in them shuold not be tolerated on the main page. Please be more careful in general, and with LauraHale's articles in particular. Fram (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If anyone would think that one sentence isn't enough to pull the article (I hope no one does, but stranger things have happened): consider the sentence I already gave above, "Nymburk, Czech Republic again hosted the location of Marin's next gold medal which he won the men's individual recurve event at the 2009 CTO World Championships." This seems to state that he won the gold medal at the 2009 world championships for "the men's individual recurve event", right? But the source given for this fact, [2], clearly states: "CTO DEL MUNDO 2009— NYMBURK (CZE) ARCO RECURVO EQUIPO OPEN— ORO". "Equipo", sadly, is Spanish for "Team", so he didn't win the individual event at all, he won the team event. A notable achievement, don't get me wrong, but if we make an article on a living person, and certainly if we highlight it on the main page, we should make sure that it is reasonably correct. This obviously can't be said about this article, presenting at least two major events in his career incorrectly. Fram (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• OUCH! I agree it was serious enough to warrant pulling, and thank you for doing the dirty. The article has been languishing in the noms area since before the ANI. Radioactivity declines by its own over time, but unfortunately bad articles don't improve by themselves. Thanks also for so painstakingly explaining the problems, which actually seem quite elementary. Oh, if my Spanish was any good...

  LauraHale has proven time and again she should have nothing to do with sourcing articles using Spanish citations. And judging from the grammatical errors, one should question whether she should be writing at all. The DYK team's biggest mistake seems that we did not attach a "super-maximum high risk factor" when reviewing what she writes for the DYK. Barge poles and fine tooth combs come to mind. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Oh ... my ... god. Did Laura Hale not undertake recently to ANI to have every single article creation she "translates" from the Spanish reviewed by a native Spanish-speaker, and did WMF board trustee Maria Sefaradi not agree to perform this role? Tony (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Maria may not even have been aware of this turkey. Apologies to turkies. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I was not aware of this issue, was obviously too casual in reviewing the article, and missed the factual errors in the mass of results details in the sources. I have corrected the errors and also copy-edited to make the language a bit less stilted. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)As far as I am aware, LauraHale hasn't touched any of these articles anymore since the start of the AN discussion, not even those nominated for DYK or those with the most blatant errors exposed at the discussion. It would probably be wised to decline all the ones still at DYK by default (if any are left, havent checked yet). Fram (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
        • There were two brought forward, but the other may have already gone through the MP. Allah be merciful. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Prep 1

I just attempted to complete a prep set (3 hooks were already in place). If I did it right, could someone move it to the queue, which is going live in a few hours? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Kanako Momota DYK

i've X'd this nom numerous times, in case no ones noticed, with very clear reasoning & every time i check-back its still there ignored; am i missing something in the process?? hey am i in my right to remove it from the list myself? because... now this already questionable nominator is reverting edits/deletions i made (also clearly explained) deflecting attention with skewed/misinformed explanations &/or accusations of (his) own, & ignoring other major shortcomings which ive noted even very recently (i.e. in memos listed just above his own clueless appeals)... this person has already clearly exhibited poor judgement & abuse of privelidge; (he) doesnt speak the language though he's providing only Japanese source material; he showed up from the start with an article which was in need of a full rewrite... the nominator at this point no longer deserves the "author" credit because 99% of current content is from the bits of contributions of other editors, AND i'm not even sure this nom qualifies as an "expansion" any more! must i continue wasting my time when there are clear abuses & assumptions of allowance by such a misguided selfish clueless nominator??? your swift response & assistance to this matter is highly appreciated Japanglish (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• How sad. How I do so agree with you. However, I really don't think my intervention will be helpful in bringing the drama to a smooth end. Here's hoping some wiser person watching this will help end this matter some way or another. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

by the way: the nominator-in-question is now instigating trouble with edits at the related Momoiro Clover Z article/talkpage, at which he has been ruling some kind of self-imagined fiefdom for a good deal of time. Japanglish (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't believe Momoiro Clover Z has been nominated for DYK nor would it fulfil DYK criteria even if it was nominated. To solve that one, maybe try WP:ANI? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• i know thats not up for dyk nom; just pointing out that the editor-in-question is ruffling feathers with other contributors (viewable at the bottom of the momocloz talk page) in the same way he's trying to manipulate the Momota dyk nom (& at the same time!)... piece of work, that one. thanks for your show of support though, i plan to follow it through as long as his/her slip is showing~ let me know if i can help anytime Japanglish (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot

It looks like DYKUpdateBot (talk · contribs) has stopped working. --PFHLai (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

We are late, and the Bot is acting strangely....

Can someone review and move the hooks in Prep 2 to queue or directly to MainPage, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's ping Crisco 1492 and see if he's available. — Maile (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sent to queue. But I don't think we're that late. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

oops edit clash Victuallers (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, what's happening here? I put Prep 2 in Queue 5 here, but the bot copied this to the MP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

ACLU v. Clapper

I just noticed that the ACLU v. Clapper hook was removed for copyvio concerns. Chris857 (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, it seems that HectorMoffat, in his haste to create a bunch of articles he wanted to bet onto the Main Page on 11 February, has been borrowing liberally from other people's work, sometimes as huge block quotes, sometimes without attribution. Mass surveillance in China got pulled for the the latter reason. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Swiss referendum item

I feel that the item currently in Queue 2, which says "dyk that Swiss voters passed a referendum limiting immigration that could harm Switzerland's access to the EU single market?" is overly alarmist and violates WP:NPOV. The hook could equally have said "dyk that Swiss voters stood up to 'bullying' from Brussels by passing a referendum limiting immigration?" A new hook needs to be found. The comment is actually a quote from an official of the European Commission, which is obviously in crisis management mode, but the hook doesn't say who's opinion it is. Also. it is purely speculative at this point, unless the EU already intends a diplomatic tit-for-tat that they have not yet made public. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, pull the item altogether and reject the DKY as no longer eligible. The item already made the Main Page two days ago as part of ITN. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• An admin needs to replace this ineligible hook before it hits the Main Page in two hours. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• We are now one hook short of a full set in queue 2. There are now 5 hooks in that queue, and none in the prep areas. We need to do some promotions. I would do that if I'm not on a mobile device. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is a bit odd that ITN articles can't appear in DYK while DYK articles are not automatically excluded from ITN. I'm not arguing to have this put back since I wasn't aware it was on ITN and I accept the rules, however I do think it is a bit inconsistent that one article can't appear in one project if it has been in another yet the rules don't work vice versa. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Almost all of the nominations on the last list have been reviewed, so I've compiled a new set of 29 nominations that need reviewing. Three are from December, so please take them on if you can. We currently have 141 total nominations, of which only 19 are approved, and we need 18 approved per day for the main page. Thanks as always for your reviews.

• December 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Sutton High Street
• December 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Freedom and Unity Front -- needs review by fresh eyes
• December 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Quantum refereed game
• December 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Crocodile farming in the Philippines
• January 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Luisa Zissman
• January 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Prince of Wales F.C.
• January 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Cirrus (song)
• January 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Burevestnik (Petrograd, 1917) (two articles)
• January 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Henri Wald
• February 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Pål Refsdal
• February 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Mass surveillance in North Korea (requires careful copyvio/close paraphrase check)
• February 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Binnya Dala (minister-general)
• February 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Mass surveillance in China
• February 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board report on mass surveillance (requires careful copyvio/close paraphrase check)
• February 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Bhuj Airport
• February 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Stop Watching Us (requires careful copyvio/close paraphrase check)
• February 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Dibby Dibby Sound
• February 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Simmons Bedding Company
• February 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Eduard Scotland (two articles)
• February 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Dowa Yalanne
• February 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Leech River Fault
• February 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Relevant and irrelevant considerations in Singapore administrative law
• February 5: Template:Did you know nominations/First Capital Plus Bank
• February 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Codex Aureus of Echternach
• February 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Mira Jalosuo
• February 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Cornwell Scout Badge
• February 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Fred Slaughter
• February 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Leave Home
• February 8: Template:Did you know nominations/List of biophysically important macromolecular crystal structures
• February 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Healthcare in Belize
• February 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Roger McMurrin

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Formatting and bullets

On 2 January, I wrote here:

The template used to generate each nomination uses the wiki-code :* to indent various items. This is not good practice, and should be replaced using single asterisks

There were no responses before my comment was archived, but this still remains a concern. I've just seen a discussion where comments are indented in the manner:

:* Foo
:*: Bar
:*:: Bas

which produces over-complex and inaccessible HTML markup.

Is there any reason we cannot implement my suggestion immediately? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that this would be a good idea. Graham87 07:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• i've never been able to work out how all the permutations of colons and asterisks work, and i suspect i'm not the only one. but i do know that if you indent with two asterisks, and the preceding line does not start with one asterisk, or if you have a blank line, you start creating a huge formatting mess. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Current events DYK

I expanded Template:Did you know nominations/Zbigniew Bródka about a Polish winner in current Winter Olympics. Probably worth reviewing and displaying in the near future? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Goldmine of DYK subjects

If anyone is looking for something to write, then there is a goldmine of stuff with the Winter Olympics-have a look at the athletes here for example, the majority need Wikipedia pages. They also have a fair amount of info on them, especially after they have competed, so please create them. Thanks, Matty.007 12:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I know this is ridiculously short notice, but I am writing John Baines (bobsledder), who is competing this evening. Please can it go in the next queue (it would need to be reviewed near instantly). Thanks, Matty.007 13:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The nom is at Template:Did you know nominations/John Baines (bobsledder). Thanks, Matty.007 14:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

New tool

Hi all, a friend of mine has developed a tool using the WMF's Individual Engagement Grant program, meta:Grants:IEG/Replay Edits. This tool basically shows an animation of edits to an article. I believe this would provide a great insight to the articles' expansion and help both content creators as well as nominators. Please have a look at the tool here and post your feedback on the talk page. I have requested a few features similar to DYKCHECK. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)