Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Did you know...?" template
Queue T:DYK/Q
Nominations T:TDYK
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA

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.

WP:DYK#DYK rules[edit]

Can someone please explain what this means?

(As a guideline, an expansion of fivefold or more is acceptable; the decision on whether an expanded article is appropriate for the template will depend on the updating administrator's judgment).

In particular, why is this particular bit of judgment, among the many exercised routinely here at DYK, being called out so loudly in the middle of a summary statement? Why is there nothing like it stated at WP:DYK#Eligibility criteria?

And how is anyone but a pretty experiences Wikipedian supposed to know what "appropriate for the template" means?

EEng (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping we might hear from Rjanag, who added this parenthetical sentence to the rules back in the August 2011 revamp, and would certainly know what is meant by it. I've been assuming this is the 5x equivalent of WP:DYKSG#D7, though from the old days before the current automated process was introduced. The terminology almost certainly needs updating if this is still relevant, and perhaps it ought to be moved elsewhere if it isn't already covered. My guess at "appropriate for the template" is "appropriate for promotion", with "the template" referring to what is now a prep or a queue. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
If no one can explain what this sentence means, I propose we delete it. EEng (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Going once... EEng (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
This was added back in the day because a lot of people were under the [incorrect] impression that expanding text fivefold automatically entitled them to a DYK no matter what. This was not the case---an article might fail because of other criteria, or the fivefold expansion might not be acceptable (for example, consensus at the time was that expanding a film article fivefold by adding a huge and detailed Plot section was just bloating, not improvement). Since this was a perennial issue, we decided to call it out explicitly. I don't know what current consensus about this issue is. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
My recommendation, then, is that per WP:CREEP we take this opportunity to simply drop this text. If the "5X plot bloat" problem returns we can add some provision to the Rules, or the Supplementary Rules, or the Unwritten Rules, or the Unknowable Rules, or any of the several other rulesets we have here, on that point. EEng (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers[edit]

The previous list has been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 8 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 31 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, only 41 nominations are approved, leaving 250 of 291 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest.

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) 05:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Back to 2x7/day[edit]

Proposal withdrawn -- see below. EEng (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Since we switched from 2x7/day to 2x8/day seventeen days ago, our approved reserved has dropped from 143 to 80[see below], and recently has been dropping precipitously. I have long counseled using 100 as our target for the approved reserve, and at current rates we'll be down to 50 in about three to five days, and that's dangerously low. I recommend we return to 2x7 (leaving preps already built alone). EEng (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose for the following reasons:
    1. The nominations page has bumped into the Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size several times over the last few week. Just because we are finally getting a tiny bit of breathing room is not a valid reason to slam on the brakes and reverse course.
    2. Activities related to Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 113#International Women's Day and Women's History Month have artificially reduced the number of approved hooks available for set building. This change will reverse in less than a week when all the hooks moved to the special occasion holding area start being moved into the prep areas.
    3. The next round of Wikipedia:WikiCup starts March 1. If past years are any indication, expect an uptick in the rate of nominations to start about the same time.
You are worried about what will happen in three to five days, but that is the point in time when we can realistically expect an increase in the rate on nominations and not the decrease you foresee. --Allen3 talk 02:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
(1) If there's a technical problem, fix the technical problem. We don't distort content or procedures because some counter has overflowed.
(2) You're absolutely right about this -- I hadn't realized that approved noms in the special-occasion area fall off out of the counts on the big scoreboard. Normally there are none to just a few there at most, but right now there are 17, so the correct size of the approved reserve is actually 97.
(3) Let's see what happens.
I was mistaken and withdraw my proposal. EEng (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert Brode[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Brode was promoted by Victuallers at 10:57 21 February 2014 (UTC) but never ran. Face-sad.svg Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have just added the hook to Prep 4. 97198 (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
It ran a year and a day ago. Please see Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/February; it's the third hook in the set marked "00:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)". It looks like it was first loaded into prep, then moved right away into a queue (I'm guessing it needed a slot filled). Did either of you check the February 2014 archive? Searching on "Brode" there took me a few seconds only... BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Oops, my bad – I read 2014 as 2015. Thanks for picking that up. 97198 (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Me too. Face-blush.svg But there is no entry on the article talk page, and I was never sent a notification. Can you issue me one for my records? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Hawkeye7, both the article talk page and your talk page have been updated; I found another hook in the same set to use as the basis for your note, including the original comment and timestamp by Victuallers, who set up the queue. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! I didn't want to do it myself. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Technical change request: add special-occasion holding area to scoreboard[edit]

Can some technowizard add a line at the bottom of the scoreboard giving the number of approved hooks in the special-occasion holding area(s)? I realize this may not be trivial but perhaps it can happen someday. EEng (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


Old discussion retrieved from archive[edit]

As with the discussion here, just a note that some of you are very blatantly misreading your own rules.

I have no reason not to AGF but if Zanhe is right that the administrators here interpret

The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content.

as meaning

The article must use inline, cited sources with a minimum of at least one citation per paragraph, excluding areas such as the intro which summarize other content.

then A) you should emend the rule to reflect that; B) you should bump it up to the main chart as a mandate instead of hiding it in the supplementary section as a general guide; and C) you should be mindful of WP:IAR-level application (as during this nomination) where such an approach is essentially an unproductive WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in favor of violating WP:PRESERVE and WP:FATRAT. I understand general carefulness and that such rules of thumb are good to have; random over-enforcement may even be a decent way to slow the backlog; but there's nothing actually helpful about requiring new articles to blank entire sections of undisputed content just to run this process before reinserting them again. — LlywelynII 13:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the rules should be more explicit. I'm not familiar with LlywelynII's article, but many articles that I've reviewed often have one short paragraph (even one line) that is not sourced, and I ask for it to be sourced before granting approval. Yoninah (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Me too - we're trying to tighten up referencing and formatting, so let's align the rules to reflect that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
This absurd idea that every paragraph must end in a cite is one of the residual foolishnesses here I've been waiting to take on. The right "rule of thumb" is WP:V + WP:BLP. Period. Sometimes one cite covers several paragraphs, and requiring that a cite be mindlessly duplicated so that -- gasp, look how well-cited this article is! -- every paragraph ends in a cite subtly encourages reviewers to care about that instead of about whether the article really is appropriately cited. FA doesn't have such a requirement, so why in the world would DYK? EEng (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree with the exact wording of the supplementary rule but I suppose it's an intepretation of DYK rule #4 (WP:V: Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation). Basically, the reviewer has challenged you to source it. I don't think 'cite each paragraph' is an entirely helpful comment but neither is refusing to add a reference when requested. Not that I'm questioning your integrity, but it's there to confirm that what's written can be found elsewhere and is not accidentally made up (I've misread sources before). I'd ask for clarification over which specific fact they're debating if you're reluctant to cite the 'rule of thumb'. Fuebaey (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Even WP:REPCITE, which deals with citation overkill, only suggests that one reference can support multiple sentences in a paragraph; the implication there is that a reference should be repeated if being used to support another paragraph. Given that these articles appear on the main page, I think it is right to be stricter than GA guidelines: the amount of flak that DYK takes whenever an article has copyvio or is just wrong places a large onus on the reviewer and the promoting admin to be able to check against such things easily. If there is no reference in a paragraph, it is hard to tell where that information has come from, and therefore, whether it is firstly correct, and secondly, not a copyvio. Harrias talk 12:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
FAs appear on the main page, and have no such requirement. If there is no reference in a paragraph, it's reasonable to assume that the applicable cite is the one found in the following paragraph.
Already this discussion begins to illustrate how every-paragraph-must-have-a-cite begins to degrade the standard of reviewing into mindless list-checking: Harrias says, "If there is no reference in a paragraph, it is hard to tell where that information has come from, and therefore, whether it is firstly correct, and secondly, not a copyvio." Um, well, see, the presence of a little superscript number at the end of a paragraph doesn't help you tell that the information is correct and not a copyvio. Only actually reading, thinking, and (to the extent possible) checking can do that, and that's just as necessary when the cite comes at the end of the paragraph as when it's found in the next one. A rule such as this puts focus on the presence of a cite instead of on whether the cite is appropriate. EEng (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I definitely think all paragraphs should end in a citation. It's really not that difficult when editing to actually cite sources. Anything less is lax. Manxruler (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
How do you reconcile that position with the fact that FA doesn't require this? EEng (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Simple: FA does require this. While the FA process' written rules are far more concise than DYK's, reviewers raise the issue, and articles with uncited paragraphs generally don't pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
If this is so then we have yet another review process which doesn't follow its own rules (GA and DYK being the two I already knew about) so that newcomers are blindsided by requirements they couldn't have known about. So I'll put it another way: if FA has managed to resist taking the final step of etching this nonsense requirement in stone, then we should too. And for reasons I've given elsewhere, we should dial it down ourselves from a rigid, mindless requirement to what the text actually says: a rule of thumb -- that is, exceptions apply and reviewers should put down their checklists and use their common sense instead. EEng (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
As ridiculous as it sounds, most of the DYK rules are there to make things easier. Rather than the generic requirements set at GA and FA which require the reviewers to have a pretty sound knowledge of Wikipedia'a guidelines and MOS, the idea of having strict DYK rules is that any one, including new editors, can come along and reasonably easily follow the rules, which are written in full, to carry out a review. Now, I'm not trying to suggest that the DYK process is simple, because it is obviously far from it. But I am very much in favour of retaining these prescribed rules, rather than going to a more generic GA style process: I've been through GA a number of times, and some of the reviews are lax in the extreme. The same might be true here sometimes, but that is easier to spot, because of the specific rules. You twisted my words earlier: I was clearly not suggesting that "the presence of a little superscript number at the end of a paragraph doesn't help you tell that the information is correct and not a copyvio", because that is idiotic in the extreme. However, that "little superscript number" gives me a clear indication of where the information is meant to have come from for that paragraph, and therefore makes it easier to check that the information really is in that reference, and really is originally phrased. While this might not be deemed too important for an individual review, when I'm promoting a prep to queue, and have to go through eight articles, I very much appreciate the lack of ambiguity. Harrias talk 15:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You said that "If there is no reference in a paragraph, it is hard to tell where that information has come from". My point is that cites don't tell you where something comes from -- only checking can tell you that -- rather the cite tells you where the article's writer says it's from. Everyone know that an inline cite is meant to cover everything from that cite back to whatever cite comes just before, whether or not there's a paragraph break along the way. There's nothing confusing or complicated about this; whether there's a paragraph break in there or not, it's clear what material should be checked against what cite, and either it checks or it doesn't.

How about this:

To simplify verification, the scope of an inline cite should not usually cross a paragraph boundary except where a very short paragraph, or sequence of short paragraphs, is obviously meant to be covered by the first cite in the paragraph following. (A corollary is that, in general, every paragraph ends with a cite, except for material not requiring a cite at all, such as plot summaries.)

My goal is to make is clear that cite-per-paragraph is in support of, not instead of, actually checking the cites to the extent possible. Robotically, absolutely requiring a cite every single time there's a paragraph break, no matter how obviously excessive, is just silly. EEng (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't everyone rush to Support at once. EEng (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


So what was the outcome here? EEng seems to agree with me that a rule of thumb is fine but mindless application of there must be one citation per paragraph is the opposite of productive. Most of the support seemed to be of the "I like it" variety, without giving any reason that this is an improvement on simply applying WP:V + WP:BLP. Is the idea that adding more rules is helpful just in order to tamp down new submissions and have another stick to discourage new submitters? or is Harrias right that the guys setting up the queue find it needful in order to do a proper review? (That sounds valid, but since he's the only one to mention it—and that at the tail end of his comments—I'm not sure it's the actual rationale here.)

To make it specific: If I'm doing an article on a geographical entity and a map clearly establishes that everything I've stated in the #Location section is entirely accurate, why—for DYK, not GA status, and when the hook has nothing to do with that section—should that section have to be deleted or each point in it be sourced to a text describing patently verifiable statements? WP:V & WP:BLP go without saying but once those are met, in what way is it good to penalize editors for creating a 22k new article rather than a stubbish 4k one? — LlywelynII 03:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @EEng: I'd just like to clarify that my understanding of "one cite per paragraph" does not refer to citing the paragraph as a whole. I understood that if only one sentence is cited somewhere in the paragraph, that's enough for DYK. When the article gets to GA or FA, then every sentence or group of sentences needs to be cited. Yoninah (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, now I'm confused more than even by what DYK requires. I've certainly run into people who said DYK doesn't allow a cite to apply to more than one paragraph, which in turn implies that every paragraph must end in a cite (except in the few situations where a statement is allowed to go uncited anyway e.g. plot summaries). Of course, such a requirement is nonsense outside DYK's weird little world. Now Y is saying, I think, that the cite can be anywhere within (or at the end of) the paragraph, I guess, as long as every paragraph has at least one cite somewhere -- and this cite can apply backwards into the last part of the prior paragraph? What happened to the argument that having one cite cover multiple paragraphs (or parts of paragraphs) makes things too hard to verify?
Or wait -- is Y saying that it's OK for the paragraph to have just one cite somewhere in it, and that cite applies only to one sentence? Then what covers the rest of the sentence? It's OK for all but one of the sentences in the paragraph to go uncited?
Why don't we just do what the rest of the world does, which is to say that every sentence is supported by the cite that comes next in the text, whether in the same paragraph or a subsequent one? What in the world is achieved by this one-per-paragraph obsession, which seems to value everything other than that each bit of content be covered by a supporting cite? EEng (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I offered the reasons I like the rule. I suspect it was introduced purely as an arbitrary rule. Rather than say 'well-referenced' someone decided to create a minimum, which has probably crept up from being a vague guideline to a hard rule. Harrias talk 15:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I meant this: it's OK for the paragraph to have just one cite somewhere in it, and that cite applies only to one sentence. This is DYK, start-class articles, so writers can assemble whole paragraphs without citing anything except one little sentence. That's my understanding of the guideline, at least. Obviously, we need to rewrite D2 so it's perfectly clear and enforceable. Yoninah (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Your understanding is that it's OK for DYK to pass an article in which only one sentence in each paragraph is cited at all, everything else in the article being completely uncited? Um... I guess I've been sorely confused all along. EEng (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
What Yoninah is saying is exactly what the "guideline"/"rule" states. I'm not sure why he doesn't realize it's not terribly helpful instead of a good thing. — LlywelynII 10:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


A proposal[edit]

But a) we should eliminate arbitrary rules (WP:CREEP) since they only discourage contribution;

b) as above, the current 'minimum' is a fetish object and not in any sense a productive use of time by the writers or reviewers;

c) how about this as a counter-proposal for an enforceable rule regarding 'well-referenced', if we need one?

D2-ALT1: The article must use inline citations so that its claims are easily verifiable by the reviewer and administrator.

Summarizes needful policy, gives authority to people who need it, when they need it, without fetish objects having no bearing on article quality. Side benefit: Usefully leverages DYK into avoiding "Bibliography" and "reprinted from X"-style articles which should not qualify in the first place. — LlywelynII 10:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

So just to be clear, you're proposing that D2-ALT1 replace the current --
D2-ALT0 The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content.
-- right? Gosh, where have you been all my wiki-life? The man of my dreams! Your proposal is rational, sensible, practical, and cogently stated. EEng (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Llywelyn hit the nail on the head by saying that "the current 'minimum' is a fetish object". EEng (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Chongming Island[edit]

From here:

Regarding the article at the top of this discussion (Chongming Island), it has far too few citations... Manxruler does appear there are some gaps in this article's citing... EEng

The hell you say. Even before the mindless addition of repeated cites to each section, the actual information was sourced or not legitimately questionable. (E.g., no cite in the #Location section, but nothing that couldn't be verified by looking at the map to its right.) What actual, questionable information is there that in all good faith needs further sourcing? If you're being serious, that's great, but mention specifics on the DYK submission or the article's talk page so the article can be improved. (And thank you for your time and care.) If you're not, y'know... hesh up. — LlywelynII 02:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's a section that ends As it is usually only about 1.5 km (0.93 mi) wide, however, its area is only around 36.8 km2 (14.2 sq mi), and I hardly see how that can go uncited. With the exception of that kind of thing (i.e. a cite's span shouldn't continue from one section into another) I'm completely behind you. Please don't yell at me as you'll find I'm likely the only one here who is. EEng (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't yelling, but point taken. That's available via link but, again, point taken. I'll move that cite over. — LlywelynII 11:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Policy (broadly speaking) on maintenance tags on articles linked to from Main Page[edit]

Today, the article Ali Akbar Aboutorabi Fard appeared on the DYK section of the Main Page, but it had had a maintenance tag ({{lead rewrite}}) on it since December 2014. I remember reading somewhere that articles linked to should not have maintenance tags at all (though the first reviewer stated that it was okay because it didn't indicate that the article violated a core policy or anything) - the article did (and still does, after the lede was fixed) need some copyediting for grammar as well, though I'm not going to invest time in it because I have other priorities at the moment. So, is it okay to have a tag like the one it did, and if so how did it get through? ansh666 05:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Longtime denizens of this page will not be surprised at the following short rant from me. The idea that DYK articles should be tag-free is ridiculous. We cannot and should not be demanding that new content pose as perfect content. This is DYK, not TFA. Insisting that there be no [clarification needed] or even the odd non-contentious [citation needed] does nothing but encourage the sweeping of problems under the rug. We should frankly acknowledge that DYK articles are works in progress. EEng (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
*eyebrow raise* I was not suggesting that. But maintenance tags which are highly visible at the top of pages - I thought those were to be avoided? ansh666 05:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't be a problem if the DYK section on MP said something like, "Wikepedia's newest content—​works in progress which you can help improve! [Click here to find out how, etc etc]". EEng (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There should be no orange-level tags or higher. I could have sworn that was in WP:DYKSG... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, yes, that was the page I was looking for. I think D6/7 are the most applicable here, but it passes both. Thanks for the link. ansh666 06:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Minor queue tweak[edit]

In the last hook of Queue 5, "thoroughbred" should be "Thoroughbred". MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 09:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

What kind of insanity was it give a particular breed of thoroughbred horses the name Thoroughbred. EEng (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
They're bred to be thorough/thoroughly bred. Nothing odd about it. [Edit: Oh, I see the confusion. No, he's talking about thoroughbred horses. There are some people—including our article—that bizarrely capitalize the term, but it's just talking about the entire thoroughbred breed.]
Man should go read he article on the horses he's talking about, though. There is absolutely nothing wrong with lower-case thoroughbred. In fact, thoroughbred is more correct and preferred by every style guide outside the United States and every major style guide that thinks about it inside the US. The only concern is whether that adjective is being used to describe other breeds. (It shouldn't be.) — LlywelynII 11:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Location in Q5[edit]

Now in Queue 5: Christchurch (New Zealand) Town Council, - really? I had to read twice to find out that it possibly means the town council of Christchurch, New Zealand, and don't think any link is needed for town council, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Presentation proposal for Wikimania 2015[edit]

Wikimania 2015 Mexico City identity.jpg

Hello DYK folks. Victuallers and I have developed a proposal for a talk to be presented at Wikimania 2015. It's titled, How to pick up more women... (there are many alternate titles) -- as in, more women editors and more women's biographies. The proposal mentions the increase in the number of women's biographies which appear at DYK? during WikiWomen's History Month so I'm drawing your attention to the proposal. I haven't done a statistical review on the number of women's biographies vs. men's biographies appearing at DYK, month by month, over the course of a year. Has anyone done a statistical review on this? Is anyone interested in doing one? As I am a long-term contributor to DYK, I can safely assume you know how supportive I am of DYK. I also want you to know that I am not in favor of, nor would I support curtailing the number of men's biographies in order to reach a 50%/50% balance with women's biographies. What I am interested in is (a) creating more women's biographies, and (b) increasing the number of women's biographies which get nominated at DYK. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

100 years after the sinking of the RMS Lusitania[edit]

I think Sinking of the RMS Lusitania is eligible at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 7, and there is Curly Turkey's The Sinking of the Lusitania which is a Featured Article, but is DYK doing anything for the centenary? May I propose Marie Depage? (Before someone complains, yes, no doubt I will need to add some footnotes.)

Or is that overkill? -- Ferma (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Beyond posting here, as you've done, to maybe get people thinking about it in case they have any article ideas (or articles they can bring to GA in time -- good luck given the GA backlog!) I don't think there's anything in particular to do. Hooks appropriate for May 7 should be so noted when making the nom. EEng (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Since special occasion hooks are supposed to be nominated between five days and six weeks before the desired date, the article shouldn't be completed too soon; a March 26 nomination date (one month from now) is the earliest to aim for given a May 7 run date, which means initial creation/expansion/GA no earlier than March 19. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Character count vs bytes in Dr pda/prosesize[edit]

The article length criteria specify that eligible canditates must be "1,500 characters of prose" in length. I have the User:Dr pda/prosesize script installed to check page sizes. Of the output values it gives, the prose size is given in bytes. For some reason, I had simply assumed that Bytes=characters. Is that correct or not? Regardless of the answer, a footnote should be added in eligibility criteria 2d: "...measured using this script (most accurate) or this one[insert footnote] or this tool." ("this one"=User:Dr pda/prosesize script).

The problem arose when I failed this nomination (assuming bytes=characters) which the script said was 1479 B (248 words) "readable prose size", but the nominator contends the article has 1901 characters (both measures refer to the same revision). I'm fairly new to DYK and would appreciate a second opinion of that nominee; besides differing character count, the article also has some padding with irrelevant prose that I think was intended to reach the size limit (but skimming the supplementary criteria, I can't determine if there's any applicable criteria for this). AHeneen (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)