Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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;

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.

Template:FixBunching

Nienover

The hook for Nienover with political relevance for Europe is in prep 3 now, which will appear in Europe in the middle of the night, to my understanding. Could that be moved to 1 or 2 later? There is no rush. - But Template talk:Did you know#Joanne Lunn would have been nice on 23 January and is still waiting for a review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Nienover hook is now on Q4. --PFHLai (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for moving! - The cantata hook for Jan 23 is still waiting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing

With the introduction of the new system, it is possible that two editors may be trying to review the same article at the same time. Would it be possible to introduce a new dyk template incorporating the symbol for editors to use to show that they are reviewing an article? {{DYKunderreview}} perchance? Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Its not that you'll have an edit conflict saving your edits. Several ticks are welcome and this is observed at times. If you mean "registering for QPQ", a review can be poor, or constructive, no matter whether it is first or second for a nomination. Materialscientist (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new system

I'd like the name of the editor who first came up with the idea of "review-one-submit-one"? Can anyone say? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This came about from the big discussions a few months ago that are scattered all over the place but mostly in archives #60 and 61 here. Materialscientist's comment here, dated 11:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC), might be the first one that made the suggestion explicitly, although I'm not sure. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Reviewed"

Editors are showing that they have reviewed an article by adding the article name. Might I suggest adding to the big yellow box, something like the following:

"When nominating a new article, if you wish to show that you have reviewed an article, consider adding this:"

(reviewed example article name)

I am suggesting this because editors aren't following any guideline and it seems to visually congest the space. Plus, bumping it over to the right would help keep it out of the way, and would encourage further edits to be placed below it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, it probably works better if editors link to a diff showing their review (or a step in it) rather than to the article itself. cmadler (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply using the "reviewed" section of the template... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the template has a |reviewed= paramater, which was added by Ucucha. If people come to an agreement on how this information should be formatted, the best thing to do would be to work that formatting into the template. (The reason for the "standard" formatting we have now for the rest of the noms, which keeps the space from being "visually congested", is that a couple years ago when I was designing the template I made a few arbitrary choices about the formatting and as the template was used more I guess everyone just got used to it.)

As for the issue of linking versus diff'ing, the consensus at the brief discussion here was that a diff is the most useful. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion here, I thought the review was to take place after the nomination. If that's the case, a parameter in the template does no good, because the template is (rightly) subst'ed. cmadler (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing... the review parameter is great if you've already done your review before you make your nomination, but some (many?) of us don't do it in that order. 28bytes (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Queue/4

Extra question mark in the ? Nycticebus linglom DYK hook (which as you can see is actually from the errant title). DYK hook reads as:

... that the fossil primate ? Nycticebus linglom is known from a single tooth, which is said to be the smallest known prosimian molar?

Shearonink (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Are you referring to the ? preceding "Nycticebus"? If so, that is actually part of the fossil's scientific name - the "?" indicates that the assignment of the fossil to the genus is uncertain. There's nothing wrong with the hook. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks...that extra question mark is jarring to the unknowing eye. Perhaps a comment that the ? is correct should be placed within the coding, otherwise well-meaning editors like myself will make the same mistake. Shearonink (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended the article accordingly, using a hidden comment. Schwede66 03:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Queue 1

In the last hook of Queue 1, André Duchesne should be André Duchesne (musician). Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bach cantatas again

As mentioned above (Nienover), Template talk:Did you know#Joanne Lunn is still waiting for the review to be completed, should have appeared ideally 23 January, and certainly before Template talk:Did you know#Anna Reynolds (singer) for 30 January, coming soon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done, the later one now first, but it doesn't matter too much, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages?

There have been several proposals to divide T:TDYK into subpages (Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_53#Subpages (by me) was the most recent I could find). The last proposal died for lack of response, but I still think it would be a good idea; the fact that T:TDYK is such a huge page (currently 330 kb) makes edits difficult and clutters watchlists. Ucucha 23:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a good idea to revive this discussion. Edit conflicts are the most annoying aspect of the current system (and I would estimate that I usually edit outside of the hours of peak demand, so others might be much worse off than I am). My preference is for a page per day that gets transcluded, as that seems to make good sense and would appear to be much less complex than a page per nomination. One aspect that I'd be keen on is the ability to jump straight to a subpage (i.e. a particular day) rather than get to everything through the large front page where everything gets transcluded. I sometimes look at DYK using a PDA that has Internet Explorer as its browser, and the warning that the "page may load slowly if viewed through IE" is an understatement - usually it doesn't load the whole page at all! Individual pages would get around this issue for those of us who sometimes have to use IE to view DYK. Schwede66 01:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is good idea as well. Often, I find myself unwatchlisting the page when waiting for responses to reviews/noms, as it has far too many changes. It would help both reviewers and nominators keep track of what's progressing. Maybe there is some technical hurdle to this that I don't know about. A system like WP:AFD - could it work here? (Main page indexes the days, links to review pages) The Interior (Talk) 01:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the proposal I put together last time:

Subpages for every day: Template talk:Did you know/2010 January 11 etc.; and Template talk:Did you know/Special for the special occasions.
Template talk:Did you know transcludes all day pages and the special page with open nominations. A bot adds a new page every day and deletes every page from this page that no longer has any open nominations. (Of course, old day pages remain; they're just no longer transcluded.)
Template talk:Did you know/Links only links to days with open nominations, but does not transclude them. Also updated by bot.
Template talk:Did you know/New transcludes the first six days of open nominations (like T:TDYK#Current suggestions).
Template talk:Did you know/Old transcludes other open nominations (like T:TDYK#Older nominations). Updated by bot.
Template:Editnotice/Group/Template talk:Did you know is used to give the same editnotice for every subpage.

I still think this proposal is sensible, and it addresses Schwede66's concern (Template talk:Did you know/Links does what he wants). Ucucha 01:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If T:TDYK served as a transclusion point for all of the subpages, wouldn't we still have the same issue with load times? Arctic Night 04:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, but only for when you want to see the whole thing. If you just wanted to follow a nomination of interest, you'd watchlist that subpage. Theoretically you wouldn't have to ever pull up the whole page; you'd know what date your nomination would fall under and add it there, and you could probably find an unreviewed article on that same page, or if not, then the previous day's. 28bytes (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I review yours, you review mine...

Is it advised to allow mutual reviewing by DYK nominators? I have nominated Tewkesbury Medieval Festival and reviewed Wabbicommicot. Arctic Night, nominiator of Wabbicommicot, later reviewed my Tewkesbury nomination. It should be of no issue if all was done objectively. This, however, might be easily gamed and involve a conflict of interest between the two. The DYK page only states "Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding or nominating an article may review it ...", should there be a change? Jappalang (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make it known that this was not intentional - we didn't organise a mutual reviewing of each other's DYK hooks, just to let you know! Arctic Night 00:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's probably natural that people whose interests are similar will end up reviewing each others' nominations a fair amount. As long as it's a good-faith review, I don't think there's any problem with it. 28bytes (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think reciprocal reviewing is probably undesirable, but less undesirable than having hooks sit for a long time unreviewed. We're already operating in a DYK world that's far from perfect, so aiming for perfect transparency and absolute impartiality can wait until such time as we have the workforce to achieve it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to keep in mind is that some of the folks who promote "passed" hooks to the prep areas do some double-checking to ensure there isn't a problem. I always at least skim the articles, double-check the images and run DYKcheck when I move hooks to prep, and if something looks a little off I give it a more thorough look. I don't know if everyone who builds prep sets does this, but I do and I know some others do. 28bytes (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An exception

Can someone make an exception for a future hook for Airbus A330? The article is quite complex for me to undertake by myself. I've managed to add 50% of info, which I think is the limit, onto the page over the last 5 days, short of the 200% requirement. Is someone willing to make an exception for this page only? --Sp33dyphil ^(Talk) ^{(Contributions)}^{(I love Wikipedia!)} 04:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current expansion is 22446/8322=2.7, which is somewhat too low by my standards. Some large articles are too difficult to expand 5x for DYK, and I personally would tolerate, say 4x expansion, especially when much information is added as non-prose material, but this is not the case here. Materialscientist (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A better option would be to try for Good Article status. Mjroots (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convert in Queue 4

In the fifth hook of Queue 4, "300 metre" should be replaced with: {{convert|300|m|adj=on}}. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Shubinator (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that you've reviewed something...

In the instructions for the 'new system' of review-one-nominate-one, editors are told that they should indicate which article they reviewed for DYK in their nomination with a diff and/or a link to the nomination. This isn't too difficult to do: it involves pressing maybe 20 more keys on the keyboard - not that difficult at all, considering that the nominator pressed at least 1,500 keys to nominate for DYK anyway.

I've noticed some editors not specifying which nominations they reviewed. Clearly, these editors think that they are exempt from the requirements of the rules. In addition, it is clear that these editors consider their 'fame' in DYK reviewing circles enough to exempt them from the requirement to indicate which nomination they reviewed (oh, I've reviewed so many, the reviewer for my nom will just assume I've reviewed something).

It makes it more difficult to enforce the review one, nominate one requirement if nominators don't indicate which nomination they reviewed! It's so simple, and causes so much trouble when not done.

OK, I'm finished :) It's just something that's annoyed me. I don't know, and can never tell, if an editor has reviewed a nomination or not to satisfy the review one, nominate one requirement. Editors exempting themselves from the indication requirement could also be sneaky and say, review one, nominate ten?

OK, now I'm finished :D Arctic Night 04:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, everyone needs to indicate what nomination they reviewed. If you're a DYK regular, it takes a very tiny bit of effort to pick one review and mention it on your nomination. cmadler (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too, most DYK regulars are established editors. They should know how to provide a diff, and such diffs should be expected. Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As we all get used to the new system, perhaps the nomination template could an empty "reviewed" template with fields for article name and the diff. Seeing those blanks would remind most of us to fill them in. - Dravecky (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That only works if you do the review before your nomination. cmadler (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also favour a field in the nomination template. That could produce 'review to be done' if you haven't done one at the time of nomination, and this comment could eventually be replaced by a review diff or something similar. I suggest that this would make thigs more transparent. Schwede66 16:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{NewDYKNom}} already includes fields to specify the reviewed article and a diff; I added those options some time ago. Ucucha 16:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* I see. The reason I didn't know about it is that I always use the Template:NewDYKnomination/guide. Thus, I've amended that guide to now include a section on reviews, too. Schwede66 19:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realised that Ucucha, but many editors aren't using it. Arctic Night 11:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the image link take the reader?


Clicking the above image takes the reader to the tiny cropped photo.	Clicking the above image takes the reader to the larger photo.	Clicking the above image takes the reader to the article in question.

In my recent DYK entry "Bloody Saturday", I provided a small 100-pixel-wide detail of the main image. Some 10,800 readers clicked on the cropped image detail, probably to experience some degree of disappointment, irritation or confusion. Using the link parameter, I propose that clicking on a purposely cropped image at DYK should take the reader either to the larger image or to the article in question. My preference is for the latter. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know a lot about the licensing issues but I imagine linking to an image is preferable to linking to an article, where possible, because of license stuff.

But why is this cropped image being used anyway? I was not aware of any requirement that cropped images be used for DYK hooks; in the past I often used normal images (the <div> used on T:DYK handles the size), and the only time I was aware of new images being uploaded was so they could be protected (if the original image was on Commons). Have things changed recently? rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes images are cropped for clarity at 100x100px. I think linking the cropped image to the uncropped image would be nice. I'm undecided about linking the image to the DYK article. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have used purposely cropped images twice before in my 90 DYKs, for the purpose of having a more arresting image in the very small space allowed by the 100-pixel limitation: File:Richard Henry Savage 100px.jpg and File:Boeing SB-17G 100px.jpg. I have also helped improve an image destined to accompany a Featured Article appearing on the Main Page—Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett—by creating a 100-pixel-wide crop of a much larger image, and the article's editors subsequently decided my cropped version was the best available for the infobox: File:Norman Birkett 100px.jpg. At any rate, cropped images are not that common at DYK, but they are not unknown. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. You're right; I didn't noticed beforehand that this is a cropped version of the other one. Cropping here does make sense (since the whole image reduced to 100px would just be a blob). rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the expected blob can be viewed here on the right. So, I understand you are okay with linking to the larger image via the link parameter? Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with linking to the larger image. Like Bruce1ee, I don't think I'd like linking to the article—both because of the potential of licensing issues, which I mentioned above, and just the fact that users who are used to Wikipedia will already expect that clicking an image leads to an image page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes sense. If I crop a photo again I'll link it to the larger version of it. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Small point

and I really should be in bed . . . but in Queue 1, "... that although the Parks and Recreation third season premiere "Go Big or Go Home" was filmed immediately after the second season ended to accomodate actress Amy Poehler's pregnancy, the premiere was delayed until January?" - shouldn't that be accommodate? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Art LaPella fixed that. Materialscientist (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A rule or a suggestion?

I would like to use an interesting image of corn smut on the DYK of a biologist who studied smut, which is among other things a disease of plants. (Although a search through Commons for "smut" turns up other stuff too.)

Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Images says "The first item "hook" should be modified to include (pictured) (or perhaps (pictured, flag of Zdxyrastan) or whatever) in the appropriate place to make the connection to the image." Does that mean "should normally be modified" or "must in every case be modified"? Because it does kind of ruin the joke of saying he studied smut, to say that the picture of corn is a picture of smut... Sharktopus^talk 16:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this could be run as part of the April Fool's Day hooks? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a case where WP:IAR could be applied? Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed an alternative wording for the hook at the nomination thread that may address the problem. EdChem (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very excited by the idea of April Fool's Day, but I expect to have lots of competition by then. And EdChem's suggestion is brilliant, so I hope to go with that. Thanks, EdChem and Bushranger and Mjroots, for your helpful ideas. Sharktopus^talk 20:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1 fix

The third hook in Queue 1 erroneously has a (pictured). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second reviewer requested . . .

... for Pacific Center for Human Growth. I reviewed it, assessed it as needing more work, then went ahead and fixed it as best I could. My work on it is too substantial for me to now give it ye olde tick. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with a DYK sourced entirely to primary sources?

I just reviewed the article Tourism in Åland, the review of which you can find here. It has four sources, which all seem to be primary sources, since they are from the government's touring website. Is there a rule on what to do with DYK nominations that are entirely primary sourced? Is it okay to pass through or not? I thought it wasn't, but the nominator believes otherwise and I am not 100% sure on what the rules are for this. Silverseren^C 02:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are good reasons the {{primary sources}} tag exists. (I've added it to the article in question.) A hook fact may rely on a primary source in certain cases but the entire article can't be sourced to them with no reliable third-party coverage to for purposes of verifiability and notability. - Dravecky (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a good long read of WP:CSB. I'm sure we wouldn't be having this issue if the sources were from the US government. Just because the sources are all from the government of the Aland Islands doesn't make them any different. Arctic Night 17:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really seem appropriate. You're saying the standard should be lowered for an article that's on an underrepresented topic? systemic bias doesn't mean that articles haven't been written on this topic because there are no third-party sources available on it; it means that relatively fewer Wikipedia editors are interested in writing about it. If there are third-party sources available, you should try to find them and use them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was trying to say that a double standard exists - if we created an article on say, the demographics of the United States and used only United States Census Bureau sources as references, this would be seen as OK. I created Tourism in Åland and used mostly government-published sources (the Åland Islands statistics office, as an example). These are apparently 'unreliable'. K. Never mind, I have added some secondary sources to the article - all statements not previously supported by a secondary source are now supported. Arctic Night 17:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See how easy that was? rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I know this issue seems resolved but Arctic Night brings up a really good point about DYK's view on primary sources from US government vs foreign government sources. We get a lot of DYK who are essentially completely sourced to applications and pages related to the National Register of Historic Places. If we apply the same standards then a lot of NRHP DYKs won't pass. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 19:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those standards should, most definitely, be applied. Such articles should not be entirely sourced to the NRHP. We should not pass them if they are. Silverseren^C 20:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone else please finish the review? I don't feel comfortable doing so right now. And i'm still unsure on some of the sourcing. Silverseren^C 20:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Rjanag, but it was not easy at all. I had to do a lot of extra research because a foreign government source is not considered reliable. I should say though that I do agree with Silver seren to some extent - there should be some consistency, either both U.S. and foreign government sources are reliable or they're not, no double standard. Arctic Night 01:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that they aren't reliable, primary sources are generally reliable, it's just that they have the tendency to be kinda biased. Which is why we prefer coverage from secondary sources. Believe me, I think we should give more credit to primary sources, read my essay on the subject. Silverseren^C 01:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with the view you put forward in that essay! Maybe I was mistaken, but I saw the issue in this case to be what I saw as systemic bias against Government of the Åland Islands sources, not primary/secondary reliability - that is, again, that while an article on the demographics of the United States would be fine if sourced to United States Census Bureau sources, while an article on tourism in Åland is not OK when it's sourced entirely to Government of the Åland Islands sources. That's what I saw the issue as - maybe I'm wrong. Arctic Night 01:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it questionable whether a government-produced synthesis of data is to be regarded as a primary source in this case, as opposed to the underlying data. In any case, a discussion such as this is pointless unless you make some consideration of the actual credibility of the sources.

As far as I know, the government of Åland isn't known for manipulating data. They may not tell you everything in a website intended to sell the islands to potential foreign tourists, but what they tell you is not likely to be wildly incorrect.

As for the non-government sources: If there were academic secondary sources making an independent critical analysis of primary data, I would agree that these would be at least as credible as the government sources, possibly more so. But travel guides like Frommer's? These may technically fulfil a requirement for being independent, but they are not really any more credible than the government sources, which is probably where they got much of their data in any case. --Hegvald (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. As for the government/non-government question, I would ask the naysayers whether United States Government Printing Office sources are considered reliable or not. If they say that they are reliable, that is blatant systemic bias, as one government's sources are being considered reliable while another's are not. Arctic Night 01:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also an issue of what part of the government you are sourcing from. Archival- and scientific-related government bodies have oversight and standards. Sometimes tourism boards are a bit weaker in that regard. I try to avoid sourcing only to government tourism agencies and boards as they do have a mandate to promote the subject, though the hard data in these sources is usually reliable. My feeling is that usually they need to be complemented by a third-party. The Interior (Talk) 01:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources are there now. What I took issue with was the labelling of a Statistics and Research Åland (the Islands' equivalent to the United States Census Bureau) publication as unreliable. That is clear systemic bias. Arctic Night 01:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review requirement

I've tagged a couple of nominations, where an editor put forward somebody else's new / expanded article. There was no indication of a review of another article, so I queried what it is that had been reviewed. The answer was that a review is only required for self-nominations. I'm surprised!

I've had a look at the rules and the additional rules. Nothing appears to cover the review requirement. The only place where it says something is the yellow box at the top of the nomination page: "reviewing another editor's nomination is now part of the nomination process for self-nominations" And yes, that would indicate that this requirement applies to self-nominations only.

Surely, what is meant is that if you don't nominate your own article, then you don't have to review something (after all, you might never have heard about DYK before). I would have thought, though, that the person nominating somebody else's article IS required to review another nomination (if they have five or more DYK credits). But that's not really what it says in the yellow box.

So the questions are:

Is my understanding of the intention of the rules correct?
Should the review requirement be added to the rules (or the additional rules)? Schwede66 02:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is only for self-nominations. It seems rather silly to expect non-self-noms to have to review another DYK, since they would have little to do with the article that they are nominating. Also, you can end up with situations where there were multiple people involved in an expansion. Which one of them do you expect to have to do a review? That's why it is just for self-nominations. This isn't really an issue though, since a large majority of DYK nominations are self-noms. Silverseren^C 03:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying if I get somebody else to nominate my articles, then neither I nor the nominator are required to review another article? Schwede66 03:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a) deceitful and b) easily found out. Silverseren^C 03:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing one article is pretty easy, and takes a lot less time than writing one in the first place. Is anyone really that lazy that they would go around colluding like that to get out of such a small thing? rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since some of my non-self-noms were the ones queried, I'll clarify that I asked and was answered here about that awhile back. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing that link. It seems that indeed, only self nominations trigger the review requirement. So if somebody doesn't like reviewing, but likes to collect DYK credits, all that's required is to nominate other editors' work. For the record, I for one find it rather odd that this is supposedly what we agreed on.

And nobody has yet commented on my query whether the review requirement should be added to the rules. Schwede66 16:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And chipping in late once again - DYKnom credits are tracked seperately from DYKmake credits. So you can't "[just] nominate other editors' work" to 'run up the score' of your DYK credits, sensu stricto. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organised reciprocal nomination of articles is not a good idea, and will probably be found out fairly quickly. You might get away with it once, but a pattern would soon emerge and be spotted. An article I wrote recently (Marden Airfield) was nominated by another editor without my knowledge, and I was not notified it had been nominated. That editor then went on to review another article and provide a diff. There was no obligation for that editor to review another article, so I think the notice may need a slight rewrite to state that if you nominate someone elses article then you do not need to review, although reviewers are always welcome at DYK. Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree with me that the nominator should provide a review, and we should make that clear in the rules? Schwede66 18:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Self-nominator should provide a review, and a diff for same. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But in someways a nominator is doing a review when they nominate someone else's work since it makes little sense to nominate an article that is not likely to pass. For instance, a fellow Wine Project editor was having a hard time coming up with a hook for an expansion of Stag's Leap Wine Cellars and asked for help. So while looking for a potential hook I reviewed that it did meet prose expansion and date requirements as well as verify several references for potential hooks--essentially a review. When I nominate this article it will already have one look over but will benefit from a yet another set of eyes doing the "official review". Like others have said, I don't think there is much to gain in gaming DYK since one way or the other we all end up doing some work. :P Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 19:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not always the case. There have been times when someone nominates an article and it's blatently obvious that they never even read it [1]. - PM800 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But do you really that is the rule or the exception? No doubt bad noms happen but I really think most editors that take the time to nominate another editors work are doing it with good faith after making a sincere attempt to insure it qualifies. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 19:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I agree with you, Agne. Firstly, if I write my own article that qualifies for DYK, I might use your logic and claim a 'self review', since I obviously strife to get it right. Secondly and more importantly, if I wanted to submit other editors' articles for the sake of getting DYK credits without having to do a review, I would submit 'as is' without any fixes that are required, as those fixes would make me a co-author (thus triggering the review requirement). So I'd wait and react to the review comments.Schwede66

My logic is referring to a second set of eyes on the article that are different than the author. (so, no, you can't claim it for a "self review" :D ) The basic logic of doing reviews in the first place is that extra set of eyes are likely to see something that the author, who is very close to the article, might miss. While bad noms happen, (as I mentioned above) I think we can safely WP:AGF that most nominators are not gaming DYK and have taken the time to do look over the article before nominating. Obviously these hooks should still get the "official review" (because a third set of eyes is even better) but my original point is that nominators do reviews naturally when they nominate a hook. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 19:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schwede66, I am not convinced that a nominator doing some fixes makes one a co-author. For example, I nominated David Kato and listed as authors the editors who had contributed about 2000+ bytes each. I have made additions, fixed refs, fixed the unref'd paragraph etc and added about 2000 bytes myself, but I still don't consider that I qualify to claim co-authorship. Perhaps others would see it differently (input welcome) but I certainly think that simple fixes from a nominator are not sufficient to fairly claim co-authorship. EdChem (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Re Should the review requirement be added to the rules (or the additional rules)? My answer is absolutely it should, it makes no sense for a requirement not to be codified formally. If you propose a codification it might also help to clarify the consensus on exactly what requirements apply, because I think there have been changes since the original discussion. For example, significant contributions without giving a tick now seem to be acceptable. EdChem (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Draft rule amendment

Ok, taking up EdChem's suggestion, I've had a look how this could fit into the rules. It hasn't got a logical home and I've concluded that it fits best with the basic rules. So the following would be added to the heading Selection criteria (additions in red; deletions struck out), and the yellow template message would also be amended:

Did you know

Five basic criteria are used to determine whether a nomination is eligible for DYK, plus there is a review requirement. Other criteria may arise as a result of community discussion or policy (more details appear at Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules), but the following ~~five~~ criteria account for most cases.

6. Review requirement – The DYK nominator is required to review another editor's nomination. This helps us make sure that all nominations are reviewed in a timely manner. You may add your nomination before you undertake a review, but before it is approved, please review another editor's nomination and then indicate at your nomination which nomination you have reviewed, and (if you know how to do this) provide a link to the diff for your review. New nominators (those with fewer than five DYK credits) are exempt from this review requirement.

DYK rules change

Effective January 1, 2011, reviewing another editor's nomination is now part of the DYK nomination process ~~for self-nominations~~. This helps us make sure that all nominations are reviewed in a timely manner. You may add your nomination here first, but before it is approved, please review another editor's nomination and then indicate at your nomination which nomination you have reviewed and provide a link to the diff for your review.

What do you think? Schwede66 19:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. The rule as-is is for self nominations, and there's no reason that needs to change. As noted above, by nominating an article that isn't yours you've de facto given it a quick review already; the argument that that argument could be applied to your own articles is a strawman, as with your own articles there is a conflict of interest, whereas with others', there is not. Applying the QPQ requirement to non-self-noms is fixing a problem that isn't a problem. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Hunting down other users' good-quality new articles, reviewing them, and nominating them here is a fairly selfless contribution to DYK that should not require quid pro quo. --Orlady (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Honestly, I think the number of added reviews we're getting from the self-noms alone is sufficient; I don't see a need to expand the requirement at this point. Plus, what Orlady said. 28bytes (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per reasons I stated above and Orlady's point. I know a lot of DYK regulars, myself included, who got their introduction to DYK by some editor stumbling upon a new article of theirs and nominating for them. It's one of the charms of DYK that still keeps it relatively newbie-friendly in that veteran editors can seek out these new articles and take them through the nomination process. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 21:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On top of what the others have said, the self-noms seem to be taking care of the backlog that we had before; I'm afraid that if we added this requirement, there really wouldn't be enough DYKs for people to actually review. Seems like a silly concern, but it's getting a bit tough fulfilling the requirement that we have now sometimes. Nomader ^(Talk) 22:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Nomader which includes the others. Finding an unreviewed fact which you want to make known - the reason why I go for DYK - seems to take almost longer now than the actual review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there's no wikilove for my suggestion. I've thus tried to craft the self-nomination bit into the rules. Please see WP:WIADYK and tweak it further if needed. Schwede66 05:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2 fixes

In the last hook of Queue 2, Solsidan should be in bold italics and "who" should be replaced with "which".

(Note: Even after previous cleanup, the article still had lots of typos which I've now fixed. Also, the article only has 1246 characters of prose, but I guess someone decided to IAR the text in the table.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quickfixed the hook. Thanks. No (time to) comment on the article. Materialscientist (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd pull it from the queue as being too short. To get 1500 bytes of prose isn't really that onerous and I can't see why that should be IARed. Schwede66 21:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I expressed all these concerns about the article before, including the fact that it was 13 days old when nominated, but HJ Mitchell basically ignored everything and then moved it to prep. - PM800 (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that doing a significant amount of work on an article should preclude you from promoting it to a queue. Schwede66 00:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but those copyedits you've shown, whilst extensive, don't disqualify HJM from picking the article. It's the same content before and afterwards, just better Englished. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

As far as I know, we want to avoid redirects in hooks. If that's right, how critical is this? I note that the three queues that are currently in the system have a combined total of seven redirects. Schwede66 00:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no rule against having redirects in hooks (see Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Additional_rules#F9). And, given WP:NOTBROKEN, there is not really any reason to be concerned about redirects. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Schwede66 00:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No big problem, yet, I would fix them when noticed, to avoid intense traffic to redirect pages. Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with intense traffic to redirect pages? Ucucha 12:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can skew the stats. If an article is getting, say, 2,000 hits a day to its main page, but only 5 to a redirect, linking to the redirect for DYK might boost it to (for example) 6,000 hits as a result. Which would be 4,000 "DYK hits" corrected for normal traffic, but since the redirect was used, it looks like an "honest" 6,000. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we baseline-correct DYK hits for normal traffic? I've never seen that done before. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before "fixing" a redirect, consider why the reader is being redirected. Was it because an editor was lazy with regard to punctuation or terminology? If so, then by all means, fix it. But many redirects point to a section of an article or deal with a subtopic that may eventually have its own article, and if that's the case, the redirect should probably be retained. cmadler (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 5 issues

Prep 3 was loaded and then moved to Queue 5 before I had a chance to correct some errors:

In hook 2: "built by the same man that" should be "built by the same man who"
In hook 6, there is a double "the"

—Bruce1ee^talk 06:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Fixed. Thanks, as usual :). Materialscientist (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feast 2 February

Please look at Erfreute Zeit im neuen Bunde, BWV 83 for tomorrow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done and moved to special prep area. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! btw relief: next Bach cantata 20 February, because Easter is so late, two more, and then only one or two during Lent, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I thanked too early, that was just the move to Special occasions. All queues for the day look full now, and it's still waiting there. Hint: I nominated Elke Neidhardt without any urgency, that is in q5. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a hook featured on a given date you should nominate it sufficiently in advance. At least 5 days (and probably even more, as from a cursory glance at T:TDYK it looks to me like hooks take longer than 5 days, on average, to get to the main page).

Also, as a side note, DYK is not mini-TFA, and there shouldn't necessarily be an expectation that a lot of hooks are going to be accomodated for special dates. If you look through the talk archives and find discussions when the "special occasion holding area" was first implemented (perhaps 2 years ago, I don't remember precisely), you will see that there was a resistance to having it at all, and at that time the idea was just to use them for major holidays. Getting using that holding area for individual anniversaries related to individual articles was not common. Certainly, if it is possible to get an article on the main page on a special day then that's nice, but I don't think the DYK volunteers should be expected to bend over backwards (i.e., rearrange already-assembled queues) to accomodate anniversaries, especially if the article was nominated relatively late (for DYK, 4 days is practically last-minute). rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The holiday of Purification of Mary is a holiday, 2 February, which was celebrated by the cantata in question. The article was nominated in time and brought to Special occasions timely enough to appear on February 2, and I asked before (s.b.) when the queues were not yet assembled. How about having it late but with the pic, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may attempt to "split the baby" again: why not allow the special-occasions holding area to hold a hook, after nomination (NOT approval), for up to 30 days, with the exception of April Fool's. If a hook (ApFD aside) would be "held" for more than 30 days, it should go ahead and run. Thoughts? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 5: not enough variety

Queue 5 has too many hooks about similar subjects. The lead hook is about a naval vessel and a tanker, the next one is about a guy who built many boats, and the fourth hook is about hundreds of naval vessels. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 12:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I switched out the second hook for a non-naval one. How do things look now? --Orlady (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough articles about [insert joke here] but otherwise fine. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How strict should we be about the five day limit?

I only ask because we have article that have been nominated for 3 or 4 weeks that still aren't ready to go on the Main Page. I'm fine with turning a blind eye to the rule for nominations of eligible articles that are a bit more than 5 days old, but, if an article is getting to two weeks old and isn't ready for DYK, then I think people need to face the reality that it's not going to get on and reviewers need to be taking a harder line on ancient nominations that still have issues. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO (and YMMV):

If a hook has not yet been reviewed, it should stay on the board until it is, no matter how old it is.
Once a hook has been 'reviewed', if concerns aren't fixed within, call it a week, it should be subject to pruning.
Once a hook has been passed, it should stay on the board until moved to prep, no matter how old it is.
If a hook is pulled from the queue, it's on the 'week clock' for fixing.

Just my two simoleons... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean start zapping hooks that have been reviewed but still have issues a week after the review? That seems entirely reasonable to me... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that'd be it. Now, if the issues are in the process of being worked through, it could always be IAR'd of course, but if it sits with nothing happening...sayonara. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second Bushranger's recommendations... as long as the nominator has been notified of the problems. I'd start the clock upon notification: a week is quite generous, especially if the nominator continues to edit other pages in the meantime. 28bytes (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would make it 5 days, equal to the submission terms - this gives a margin for lenience (new, different comments can pile up, extending the term too long). Notification of the authors is obligatory for starting the count, off course. Surely, this can fall on weekends/holidays, etc, but 5 days are enough for leaving a note, asking an extension. Materialscientist (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think we should add something about this to T:TDYK and then start pruning the really old nominations that still have issues. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with this, except with some flexibility where where the nom has said they are going trekking or something & will be unavailable. You might put up the nom a week before you go, then have no comment for 6 days, then.... But abandoned noms just need to be cleared. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support Johnbod, remembering my recent experience of nominating (Joanne Lunn) for 23 January 5 days before that date, the first review 24 January when I was traveling, finally appeared 31 January. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've always used 5-7 days after nominator notification. If it's still actively beeing worked on at that point, then give it more time, but if nothing's been/being done (and particularly if the nominator has continued to edit other articles in that time), then I'd call it abandoned and remove it from the nominations page. cmadler (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional note to this, people need to be more diligent about notifying editor of issues. Lately there's been a few times where the only reason I've known there's a need for attention to one of my hooks is because I check up on them on the page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queue issues

"Quirky hooks" seem to be lacking for final hooks in the queues recently...

Queue 3: suggest the "Funtime" hook be moved to the final hook.

Queue 4: suggest the Farman hook be moved to the final hook.

Queue 5: suggest the Mario Moraga hook be moved to the final hook.

Queue 6: suggest the Charlie Webb hook be moved to the final hook.

Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And another one: Queue 3 hook 3 needs to have the "(pictured)" removed. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another one in Queue 3: in the fifth hook, the title of the film Concrete should be in italics. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that too. Materialscientist (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 February

Again, sorry I'm so boring: I miss the special occasion hook in the line-up for the day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1

There's a typo in Queue 1, Hook #5. It should read: "an anti-slave patrol". Best, Yoninah (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4

There should be a question mark at the end of the entry for tourism in Malta in Queue 4. :.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:|pepper|:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.: 13:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this should be fixed: in queue 3, should the b in "battle of Grochowiska" be capitalized? I'm pretty sure it should be. :.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:|pepper|:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.: 13:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Shubinator (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

warning about queue 2

I just noticed that the immage for queue 2 is a depiction of Muhammad. I'm not suggesting we censor it, just warning everyone about the onslaught of messages there will be on the main page talk, and probably here, that will need to be fielded. Good luck.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitiveness

Why is the Did you know section so repetitive? Looking at the archive, I see that 16 pictures of churches were featured in January, plus at least 17 additional non-pictured items about houses of worship. There were 9 items about cantatas, 8 for lighthouses, about twenty for ships, etc. It's wonderful that people are writing all of these articles, but does each and every one of them have to boringly appear on the front page? 159.83.4.148 (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This just reflects the kind of articles that people are writing and nominating for DYK at the moment, the project can only work with the material that it gets. You may find them boring, others will find them interesting. Mikenorton (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)This has been discussed to death, I'm afraid. "Boring" is relative. Hooks you find "boring" are very exciting to others. DYK puts up what its gets, if people want other kinds of articles to appear, they should write them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That we still are missing articles on Bach cantatas, for example, shows that there is still a lot of work to do here, and every article the particular talented editor in question contributes helps to redress the balance. Our coverage of English and Welsh historic churches is also similarly thin, and a few editors (including me) are coincidentally going through our own target lists of missing articles. A few months ago, the complaint was that there were too many articles about US college sports team seasons – not my cup of tea, but there we go. We aim for variety within each group of hooks, but with 7 or so hooks every 8 hours, there would have been in the region of 1,736 articles at DYK in January (and probably more as there would have been some multiple-article hooks). 8 lighthouses is a laughably small proportion and even 33 churches (or about 1 per day) would be less than 2%. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree "Boring is relative". However, the anon IP's concern about the lack of variety in the lead picture hook is valid. Featuring 16 church articles in one month for the lead slot seems like a lot. Assuming 6 rotations a day that mean that around every other day this month we had a lead picture hook about a church. While I'm sure that wasn't deliberate, and it certainly doesn't happen every month, this is one area that we can consciously control by what we select for the lead hook. Just a thought. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 00:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do try, when making preps, to choose a picture/lead-hook subject that isn't already in preps waiting for promotion. Not sure about others though. Of course sometimes the only approved hook with a pic is a "repeat" (and I try to avoid the "this is a green grassy field" pics in all circumstances!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were about 125 sets in January, so those 16 churches account for over 12% of all Did you know pictures for the month. Many of the sets for the month had 6 or 7 items, and the total number is not even close to the estimate of 1,736 mentioned above.159.83.4.148 (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]