Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fuebaey (talk | contribs) at 10:54, 29 November 2014 (→‎Richie Farmer (Prep 1): reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut


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.

Informal tracking of the stats

Unhide to see a few months' history of available hooks and backlog size

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/nom stats

Notifying bot

This is a courtesy notice for those who have been awaiting a bot to place notices on talk pages when an article is nominated by anyone other than the article creator. For those who unaware of this request, it approved by a vote on this talk page January 2014, formally requested on the bot requests page by Matty.007 on Feb 24, 2014, and begun by Ceradon who dropped it and has not been active since April 1, 2014. It was then picked up by APerson on June 6, 2014. Progress of that is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/APersonBot 2. Because of inactivity, the bot request has now expired. Should anyone else like to have a stab at this, good luck. Matty.007 is not among us these days. I've bowed out of DYK for all practical purposes. — Maile (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't like notifying someone of an ANI lynching, so how about a lighter-weight mechanism: just insert {{U}} in the nom template as its saved. EEng (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't do it. For notification purposes, {{U}} is functionally equivalent to a simple user page link, which we already have in the current system. What I think would work is to sign the "Nominated by" line with "~~~~". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize we were already doing that (never had an article I wrote/etc. nominated). If so then as far as I'm concerned that's enough notification -- it's not critical. EEng (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I keep getting misunderstood today. What happens already in the current system is that nom templates have links to the user pages of creators/nominators. I mentioned that in response to you because, for the purposes of the notification system, those are equivalent to having {{U}} for those users, so adding a {{U}} wouldn't help. The reason notifications are not currently generated is that another requirement – the presence of "~~~~" – is not met. The current DYK system creates a username (talk) timestamp which looks the same as a signature (for users without personalized signatures), but it does not trigger a notification. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 04:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okey dokey. EEng (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Mandarax, here's the fly in the ointment issue: Anything that is not automatically generated is dependent upon individual nominators to (1) Know they're supposed to notify the creator/expander; (2) Remember do to it; (3) Have the courtesy to do it; (4) Not object to it because articles have no ownership; (5) (the most important factor) Not believe they're too (insert adjectives here) good, smart, superior or otherwise above and beyond the other mortals. Since the current set up leaves the whole issue up to the nominator, it isn't working. — Maile (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think one or both of us may be misunderstanding what the other is saying. What I'm talking about would be automatically generated. When someone makes a nomination other than a single-creator self-nom, the template would include a line saying "Nominated by ~~~~". When saved, a "<nominator> mentioned you" notification would be automatically generated for anyone whose user page was mentioned – any user named as a creator/expander. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did misunderstand you Mandarax. I believe you have come up with the perfect solution. Am I correct that the only thing necessary to bring this about is for someone with access to make a little adjustment to the nomination template? — Maile (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Template:NewDYKnomination is only semi-protected, so any autoconfirmed user who knows what they're doing can edit it. There may be some issues, though. The notification system can be finicky, and it's possible this won't work. And there may be problems with users who have special characters in their username or signature. For example, a visible "|" (not used to pipe a link) in a signature will probably break the template. (You're supposed to use "&#124;" to display this character in signatures, but some people don't.) The current template escapes usernames to prevent such problems, but the notification system needs to see "~~~~", so the signatures can't be processed before saving. This would probably be an extremely rare problem. (I suppose we could have an editnotice comment telling people how to fix their signature if they've broken the template.) I'm not really sure about any of this, so let's see what Rjanag, the original creator of the template, has to say about it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One other aspect that you mentioned on Feb 24, Mandarax is the feasibility of having an opt out feature for editors who aren't interested in getting such notifications. And just to refresh everyone on how this subject came up - a long time ago in a cosmic thread far, far away - is because some nominated articles may seem ready by the nominator, but the editor working the article sees it as an unfinished work in progress and not ready for DYK. Or just because some editors like having such a courtesy notice. — Maile (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not instead put a nominator notice/banner on the Talk page of the article, like a GA review does -- presumably all interested parties will see it via their watchlist, and it's probably a good idea to have it on the Talk page anyway. (It doesn't need to be one of those permanent-history banners like for failed GA noms and so on -- just for the duration of the nom, and then if it does go to main page of course there's a permanent "featured on Main Page/DYK" banner.) And this way, you don't need any kind of opt-out -- the watchlist is the opt in/out. EEng (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's already suggested in the instructions on both the main nominations page and the page you go to when creating a new nomination, but I think few people do it. As Maile pointed out, when something's not automatically generated, it often won't get done. I wouldn't be concerned about the inability to opt out of DYK "mention" notifications, since they're so much less obtrusive than talk page messages, and people do have the ability to opt out of all "mention" notifications. In most cases, I don't think that notifying the creator is very important, but it would have prevented a recent incident in which a user was unaware the article he'd written was nominated, and the hook turned out to be incorrect. Of course, now that QPQs are required for all nominations, I wouldn't be surprised if we get significantly fewer non-self-noms. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant have the bot automatically put the notice on the article talk page. EEng (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this thread started as a notice about the inability of getting someone to make a bot do our bidding ... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I was simply suggesting a natural and (I think) desireable way to simplify that which is being bid. bidded. biddinged. Whatever. EEng (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@all, especially Maile66: I apologize for being out for so long. The bot currently works fine, although sometimes it doesn't place notices on the pages of people who need to be notified. I plan to fix this bug soon, but do you guys think I should just get what I have up on Labs? APerson (talk!) 03:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Put it on Labs - APerson, since you already have something that works, in spite of that little glitch, put it on Labs. The worse that can happen is that somebody somewhere doesn't get notified. I take you at your word that you'll fix the glitch. — Maile (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just fixed the bug (off-by-one error, anyone?) and requested a review of the expired BRFA. As soon as that goes through, I'll put it on Labs. APerson (talk!) 19:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim philosophers

In Queue 2: " ... that the new development of philosophical thought among Muslim philosophers was due to a treasury of knowledge left behind by the Shi'a Imams?" Is the word "treasury" NPOV enough for Wikipedia, or should we omit "a treasury of"? In other words, would we approve "... a treasury of knowledge left behind by rabbinical commentators", or "... by early Christian saints", or "... by Joseph Smith", or "... by L. Ron Hubbard"? "treasury" at dictionary.com: "5. a collection or supply of excellent or highly prized writings, works of art, etc.: 'a treasury of American poetry.'" Art LaPella (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have less trouble with treasury than with knowledge -- I'm not sure I'd refer to the works of Aristotle as (purely) knowledge, since a lot of what Aristotle said is nonsense. If we said treasury of commentary or treasury of writings I think it would be hard to argue that the commentaries (or writings) aren't highly valued, at least by some. EEng (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bot not updating hooks

It seems that DYKUpdateBot did not update as it should have about 2 hours ago.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, the bot's working just fine, but it can't update if there's nothing in the queue. That's why the bot posted the warning just above. Until Crisco 1492 moved preps to queues at about the time you posted this, an update wasn't possible; the bot did just what it ought when there was a queue to work with. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of the 41 oldest nominations that need reviewing, over half of which have been waiting over a month since they were nominated or a re-review was requested. The first section has 22 that have been waiting over a month at the moment, and the remaining 19 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, 71 nominations are approved, barely enough to fill the empty queue and prep slots, leaving 306 of 377 nominations as unapproved. Thanks as always to everyone who reviews.

Over one month:

Also needing review:

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) 00:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do?

Subject says it/wangi (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What can you do at Did You Know? Perhaps Wikipedia:Did you know/Learning DYK answers your question. Art LaPella (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renomination after becoming a good article

Many new or recently expanded articles which appear on DYK subsequently become good articles. Is it possible to nominate them for DYK again once they obtain good article status? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, all articles can only be featured once on DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is that mentioned anywhere in the criteria? I couldn't find it myself (or else I wouldn't have asked here). —Psychonaut (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Psychonaut, Articles that have been featured on the Main Page's In the news section or that have previously appeared as a "qualifying article" in DYK are not eligible. (Articles that have been only linked from ITN or DYK, without being the qualifying article, linked and bolded, are eligible.) Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide — Maile (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the key idea is that every article gets at most one DYK appearance. So if a delisted GA has recently returned to GA status, and hasn't appeared in DYK before (for any reason), then I would say nominate away. Do others agree with me on this? EEng (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that. If it hasn't appeared on DYK before then regardless of whatever happens with its GA status, it can be nominated as normal. (though personally, I do still think that GA should have its own section on the MP instead of being mixed with DYK) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Local Update Times table formatting disagreement

EEng and I are having a disagreement over the formatting of the Local Update Times table on the DYK queues page: I believe we only need the six columns during the five winter months that British Summer Time is not in force and London time and UTC coincide, so I removed the extra UTC column for these months in late October when Summer Time ended. EEng thinks doing so is a "bad idea" because it depends on someone remembering to restore the extra column at the end of March, so he reverted to the version that, for the next four months, will have two columns with identical times, London and UTC. I called it "silly" in my edit summary to revert his first reversion (he then reverted again) and will go further: it's ludicrous to have two columns with identical times, especially when they have historically been combined during such periods.

Ideally, what would happen is that someone who's good with coding could revise the Local Update Times template so it would automatically produce six or seven columns depending on whether London's on GMT/UTC (six) or BST (seven); while I've made straightforward modifications to that template, doing an elegant and efficient version of this is not in my wheelhouse. (There is an expression already in the template that calculates whether London time is equivalent to UTC; I'm sure that could be reused for this purpose.) I'd very much appreciate it if someone could add that code, and render this disagreement moot.

In the meantime, I'm perfectly happy to pledge to personally switch back to seven columns in late March if the coding hasn't been yet done to handle the process automatically, so we don't have to look at two adjacent columns with identical times all winter.

While I was away earlier, after the first reversions, EEng and Bloom6132 got into an edit war over this—Bloom6132 seems to have agreed with my reasoning—and EEng is on a 24-hour block due to a WP:3RR violation. In his last edit summary, he wrote, Separate UTC&London cols were agreed to long ago, which is a stretch: the relevant discussion is here, where TonyTheTiger requested a UTC column on July 29, 2014, at a time of year that there was no UTC column, and EEng decided to provide it; they were the only two who "agreed". The notion that the combined London/UTC column is not currently adequate to the task seems bizarre to me, as is the supposed requirement that the columns be separate all year long. What do the rest of you think? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm honestly confused here: UTC is on the screen now in a joint column with London, and would be there in a separate column at the end of March when the two times diverge. Do you see a benefit to splitting the two all year, because that's what "Keep both" means. I'm proposing both UTC and London listed for the whole year, but in a combined column as now when summer time is not active, and separate for the other seven months. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both - as per Dr.K. (... but meanwhile, folks, campaign to end this crazy bi-annual clock-changing mularkey - see 10:10 for the "Lighter Later" campaign.) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep both The idea that it's going to be someone's job to remember to change a template twice a year at 2am on a Sunday, or that the already overtaxed DYK hive mind should add this to its collective burden, is the sort of thing that leads, in other contexts, to shocking official reports on why this or that plane fell out of the sky. If someone cares enough to craft machinery that will automatically combine columns during part of the year, fine, but in the meantime showing the correct time, all the time, takes precedence. I want to thank BMS for bringing the issue of my small block out in the open. As everyone knows, many guys who have small or even average-sized blocks are embarrassed about it, but I've come to accept my small block, and even embrace it in a way (see User_talk:EEng#Without_doubt_one_of_the_lamest_edit_wars_ever). EEng (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Predicting the future?

Template:Did you know nominations/Fashizmi, now in Prep 3: @Soman, Antidiskriminator, and 97198:

I have found no evidence that the hook is incorrect (nor any definite evidence I could understand that it is right), but it is sourced in the article to this. I don't see how a 1938 publication can predict that the Italians would invade Albania in 1939, shut down all existing daily newspapers, and create a new one called "Fashizmi". Fram (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point. I did not pay attention at the year of publishing of the source. I tried to find other sources which confirm this, but with no avail. It is better to replace it with some other hook. Sorry for this inconvenience. It is strange that volume 10-11 which was used as source was in 1938 while next volume (12) of this publication was published in 1940 (link). It is also strange that this 1938 publication extensively (53 times) mentions year 1939 with several 1939 sources cited in the text (link). It also writes (link) about the Albanian Fascist Party (established in 1939). Taking that in consideration, the year of publication might easily be wrong here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True. A bit strange though that Fashizmi gives no results [1], even though the page used as a reference in the article (page 301) does appear as the result of your first search[2]. Fram (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the print is bad so it is probably interpreted by GBS as Fashizni (link). As far as I can see, all other papers are published weekly, so the source probably does support the hook after all.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great find! I'm glad I didn't pull the hook but just brought my concern here, it's nice to get a good result. As far as I am concerned, this hook can go ahead as planned. Fram (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Actually, I put a comment in the article code, saying "<!-- This looks weird, but has an explanation, Vol 10 would have been published in 1938, Vol 11 in 1939 -->" --Soman (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for feedback: editor making numerous poor nominations

Looking at T:TDYK, I see several instances where similar issues have occurred. Template:Did you know nominations/Eva Beem was nominated in this condition: as with the Pettakere nomination, it was barely over the minimum length, used blogs for sources, and had such rough prose that copyediting it would have brought the length below 1500 characters. Again, Yoninah ultimately had to save the nomination; the nom tried to withdraw. Template:Did you know nominations/Daniel Paris has similarly questionable referencing (devote.se, Miinto.se, etc.). Template:Did you know nominations/Florence Valentin is under the minimum, and again many of the sources appear to be blogs. Template:Did you know nominations/Rosa Grünberg; again, too short, poor referencing (uses Geni.com, a wiki which has never been affirmed at WP:RSN). This is just from the first five noms (let's not get into the user's reviews, several of which have been overturned because of issues like close paraphrasing which were missed)
Are there any people willing to mentor BabbaQ? The individual appears willing to contribute to DYK, but the quality of this user's contributions needs to be increased. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user who have made "numerous poor nominations" have had DYKs only on the month of November with views of over 40,000 in total. This is nothing but an attempt of provocation but a user feeling scorned. If anything Crisco could need assistance on how to make correct Reviews especially considering that he/she doesnt take a look at the article in question before making additional comments on its DYK eligibility.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I have to agree with Crisco 1492 here. I'm the one who initially reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Eva Beem; I found the nomination bizarre considering the frankly abysmal quality of the article, but I chalked this up to a good-faith mistake by a new user. That this has turned out to be part of a much larger pattern of ill-conceived nominations is concerning. I think you really ought to consider seeking the advice of a mentor before further involving yourself in DYK. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but you are definitely entitled to your opinion but, you sounding like you are assuming bad faith on my part. And you seem to be making a overall review of my DYK history. While the evidence proves the complete opposit of DYKs since December 2010 that are enjoyed by users and right now for example I have the highest view DYK article on DYK stats for the month of november. I might be reading your comment wrong but you can not make a comment about my DYK history based on your opinion about one DYK. I will certainly not "seek advice" on the merit that I can not make DYKs, especially since I seek input from users at times for articles to help with improvements. Because any suggestion that I am not a great contributor for the DYK is a blatant lie. I might be reading your post wrong but I take offence anyone claiming that I am not to make DYKs considering my track record overall.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'd say it's a fair bet that you're reading my post wrong. I am not assuming bad faith on your part, and I am not basing my assessment on a single nomination of yours. In fact, I pretty explicitly wrote the exact opposite. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you talk about a much "a much larger pattern of ill-conceived nominations". I wonder what the "much larger pattern" is, I do see that the mentioned articles were a bit early to nominate. But you can not state an opinion of a much larger pattern if you had actually looked at my track record of DYKs since 2010. If anything there is a pattern of articles that recieves over 5,000 views and are enjoyed by readers. Of articles being added to DYKstats every month. I think you should take a look at all my DYKs before making a judgement of my contribution to the DYK process. Because it is apparent that you have not done that. Sorry, but I do not take unfounded comments by users who has not taken a look at the overall picture lightly. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is complaining about the many good nominations you have made. It is the bad ones we are worried about. It's an issue of precision versus recall: it's very easy for someone to hit on some excellent DYKs by indiscriminately nominating every article they find (or more realistically, by simply not being judicious enough in their nominations), though this comes at the considerable cost of wasting the community's time with a disproportionate number of low-quality nominations. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I am still wondering were the "a much larger pattern of ill-conceived nominations" are coming from? Why have you not contacted me then to give me your opinions about it until this very point? You seem to indicate that I am a "burden to the project" and as I say, I do not take unfounded accusations lightly. And I can tell you as much, I will not be hounded away from the project just because some users suddenly have the urge to complain and disregard a track record of DYK articles that have been well-recieved. If you have had issues you could have raised them a long time ago. Now I feel you are just disregarding a lot of factors because the opportunity arises. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "much larger pattern" was documented by Crisco 1492 above. I didn't contact you about it previously because this thread was the first place I learned about it. And as far as I can tell neither I nor Crisco 1492 is trying to "hound you away"; we are just asking you to get some tutelage to make your nominations more constructive. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I have again and again told you why I will not accept the offer. So why continue the hounding? I have told in great excess as to why I already get the help needed by several friends on Wikipedia. I still am wondering were the " much larger pattern of ill-conceived nominations" are, atleast you admit that you had no prior problem with me until you got the opportunity to jump on the "bash babbaq bus" heading to infinity.. follow the pack sir :). --BabbaQ (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I contribute to BabbaQ's articles and find the process enjoyable. It would be a pity if we hound out a contributor who is adding to the wiki. I helped with the von Sykow article - which is an interesting and valuable article. I find some editors articles uninteresting or to too tricky to fix. I leave them. Victuallers (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be hounded out of the DYK project. Do not worry. Thanks for the support.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco, I'm sure the tone of your comments on the Pettakare cave review, starting from the very first comment, was atypical, but you must admit that anyone would develop a "battleground mentality" from such confrontation.
My experience with BabbaQ's nominations is that they are usually on the short side, not heavily sourced or necessarily using reliable sources. His reviews, too, are brief and must be rechecked by the prep builder. But I have also found this user to be infallibly polite and quick to make changes and bring articles up to par. When he is shown, in a constructive manner, where his articles/reviews need improvement, he always responds positively.
I don't know if BabbaQ wishes to be supervised by a mentor. But this editor should be encouraged to develop his articles to a decent length and solid content before nominating them. Otherwise, there is no reason to hound this productive editor off the DYK page. Yoninah (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that I was not aware that it was a "problem" Yoninah. Considering the very positive feedback I get from many users and the DYK views tells that my articles are overall interesting and enjoyed by the Wikipedia community. As I said to you, am I perfect by any mean no. Am I productive user who makes an effort yes and are contributing to the DYK process in a good way, yes. I will definitely take your advice to heart , I am not particularly interested in getting supervised because I am already having support by several users when it comes to DYK articles and improving them. But I will say this, I will not be hounded away from the DYK process. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And might I just remind you all that a review is just that, a review. It is supposed to be that another user checks through the article and find problems that needs to be solved. And I always or most time solves them within hours. Again, my track record from December 2010 and until present day shows a history of great contributions to the DYK project.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was also my last comment about this, as user 7&6=thirteen says my record speaks for itself.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since the user keeps referring to his record since 2010, it should be pointed out that in 2011 it was discovered that he used his sockpuppets to verify his own nominations. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that is a factor as to the quality of my articles how? :) Yeah, do not point out all the hundreds of great contributions and help that I have given. Point out the worst of the worst. I did admit it and I took my punishment for it. And it does not give again any justification as to why I should not be able to do DYK articles. All I have to say is, if users are trying to hound me out off the DYK project, you have failed. :) --BabbaQ (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have always found it interesting to see how we humans throw each other under the bus at the first best opportunity. Rather bringing out all the bad, than all the good. I guess that is why it is called hounding. It is just human behavior to take the opportunity to "bite the weak party" when the opportunity arises. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I only brought it up because you kept bringing up your record. When you tell people over and over about your record, you can't expect them to ignore such a shameful, despicable incident in that record. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only really shameful thing here is that you bring something up that happened over three years ago. So do not expect me to treat it as something else than it is, an attempt to throw me under the bus. Even your response here is filled with some sort of hatered. I think it is sad to see actually. These kind of threads bring out the worst in people. And it never fails to happen :)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are the one who repeatedly brought up your record from 2010 until the present. I would not have mentioned your sockpuppetry otherwise; it was only to give some perspective to that record you kept talking about, over and over again. There's no hatred; I simply characterized the situation in a pretty frank manner. Is there anybody here who doesn't think that using sockpuppets to approve your own nominations is "shameful"? Aside from having to format almost every one of your nominations, I only recall one nomination where we interacted. I tried to fix a hook that didn't make sense, and I asked you to add information, which I believed was in a Swedish source, to support the hook. When you failed to do so, I found an English source and added it. I was nothing but helpful. So please don't imply that I hate you and am attempting to throw you under the bus. All I did here was to attempt to show some balance regarding the record which you kept bringing up. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, no need to bring up your record when a) you have skeletons in the closet, b) most of the people commenting have longer and/or better records, and c) it is actually more embarrassing for you, since you've edited DYK for four years and yet these problems still exist. Does that mean four years of nominations with poor referencing and a lack of content?
Yoninah, considering the tone of the editor's comments both on my talkpage and on that of Hawkeye7, I am not too sure "infallibly polite" applies. Saying an editor is "butthurt" and accusing that editor of stalking are polite now? I don't think so. And as for "quick to make changes and bring articles"; you personally had to rescue one of the editor's nominations after they withdrew it, apparently unwilling to fix the referencing themselves. The other two, which were too short, were likewise withdrawn immediately. And before someone says they didn't want to deal with me, remember that I was completely uninvolved in the first review.
I may have been more polite, but the editor's recourse was not to say so to my face and thus resolve the issue. Rather, it was to dispute that there was a problem with referencing, and to run to another admin. When Yoninah finally stepped in (and removed the poor reference), BabbaQ was actually smug about it. There's a serious problem here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: So how you are going to change your ways when it comes to contributing and nominating articles for DYK? I believe that you should try expanding your articles a bit, if there is a limit of 1500 characters, how about you try 2000 or more? Sometimes the subject is contentious or common that it will require more than 1500 characters. The article is more preferable when you write in the context and together with references that could be accessed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Hutton

Well, I don't know if the blame in this case rests mainly with BabbaQ, or the others involved in proposing the hook, reviewing and promoting it, but Template:Did you know nominations/Lady Hutton, now in Prep 5, should not be run with this hook (or the article and sources need a through check). @BabbaQ, Yoninah, 97198, and Fuebaey:

  • ... that the hotel and restaurant ship Lady Hutton was owned by American socialite Barbara Hutton, who received it as a present on her 18th birthday?

Seems quite correct, as evidenced by this. However; Barbara Hutton was born in 1912, which puts her 18th birthday in 1930. But the article claims that she "received the vessel in 1939", which is supported by this. I can find further sources for both statements (18th birthday or 1939), but they obviously can't both be true. This author also found it very hard to find the truth of the matter. Fram (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As promotor, I checked the hook and glanced over the review. The original reviewer did not raise any additional concerns with it. Mistakes happen. Having said that, I would leave out "in 1939". I have yet to see a reliable source state that fact. Fuebaey (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog in the Queue

An administrator needs to work on promoting the hooks in prep areas 5 & 6. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look... Victuallers (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Done Q5 Victuallers (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note

  • Just a note for DYK regulars and interested parties: I've split the introductory text from T:TDYK into a new page, Template talk:Did you know/Header, in order to ease the editing of T:TDYK. This is similar to the header used at the FAC and FLC processes, and means that we can use the same header on other pages if considered necessary.
I was actually thinking it might be nice to split days onto their own subpages as well (reduce edit conflicts, and the time needed to add nominations), but that's a much larger task, and would need consensus beforehand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Farmer (Prep 1)

... that Richie Farmer holds records for most points scored in the KHSAA championship game (51) and most ethics violations by a Kentucky executive branch officeholder (42)?

@Acdixon:, @Cwmhiraeth:, @G S Palmer: If we're going to put negative facts about a BLP on the main page, lets make sure we get it right. According to the article, Farmer was charged with 42 violations. Later in the article it says that he admitted to 35 of the charges in a plea bargain, which presumably means that he was not found guilty on 7 of the 42 charges. WP:BLPCRIME says that "a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law", thus he does not have 42 ethics violations, he has 35. 137.43.188.220 (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what you say is not quite correct. According to the article he faced 42 state ethics violation charges to which he pleaded not guilty but several months later his attorney "filed a motion to allow Farmer to change his plea to guilty and announced that Farmer had reached a plea bargain to settle all federal and state charges against him." The 35 that were "acknowledged to the Executive Branch Ethics Commission" was quite a separate matter. However, five hooks were approved, so it might be best to use one of the others instead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should switch the hook, unless we qualify the hook with charged. Farmer did pled guilty to all charges but in his settlement there were only 35 counts, because 7 were merged into other pre-existing indictments (see here - under Issuing Year: 2014, Executive Branch Ethics Commission v. Richie Farmer). Technically, he still has the most ethics violations because the previous highest anyone else has ever been charged with is 16.[3] Fuebaey (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Acdixon, Cwmhiraeth, G S Palmer, and Crisco 1492: Given that it's factually incorrect, can someone explain why this hook is running on the main page? Fuebaey (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the time it gets to the Queue or the Main Page, it needs an admin to make any alterations. Such a change could be simply made by substituting 35 for 42 in the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I just think that it should've been changed before it got into the queue and onto the main page for 10 hours. Can we please check WT:DYK next time for any outstanding issues before we approve hooks into the queue/main page. Fuebaey (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about lists

Quick question: all of the information about nominating for DYK refers to "articles". Are articles which are classified as "lists" eligible for DYK? --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it says here under 2c). Lists: Proposed lists need 1,500+ characters of prose, aside from the listed items themselves. Fuebaey (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: Yes, look at this for instance. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

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

  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 #1 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) 22:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that I did my first DYK nomination correctly

Please check that Template:Did you know nominations/South African Defence Review 2012 has been done correctly, it does not seem to have transcluded into the queue. This is the first nomination I have done so there may be procedural/format errors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pages don't automatically transclude onto the nominations page. Templates have to be manually added under the day it was created/expanded (step 3). Fuebaey (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - hope it's correct now - listed under November 27. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=635882231"