Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 77

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78Archive 79Archive 80

Misbehaving template

Help! After moving the hook to the prep area, I closed Template:Did you know nominations/Carex bigelowii in the usual fashion, but the contents of the template disappeared. I haven't found the problem. --Orlady (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The edit history looks strange. I would not be surprised if a comment was not closed right and now the content is considered "comment", but don't know where to look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Fixed it. I think you forgot to do |passed=yes.Actually that's not it, I'm not sure what happened. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes edits just go wonky on Wikipedia or its sister projects, but a further edit (of any kind) corrects the problem. It's a rare happenstance, but I've been around long enough to see it happen at least half a dozen times. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I sometimes like to work on puzzles, so I thought I'd take a look at this. I discovered exactly what must have happened. When you were preparing to do |passed=yes, you deleted the comment from:
|passed=<!--When closing discussion, enter yes or no-->
but you probably had a mouse slip and also accidentally deleted the next line:
|2=
Doing so produces exactly the same result as you encountered. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, that's entirely credible. On at least one occasion I accidentally removed the "2=" parameter (or caught myself before removing it), but fixed things before saving the changes. It's credible that I failed to notice one such "mouse slip." --Orlady (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Production line again.....

Ok folks, moved the last prep to teh queue and began loading Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. I have to do some other stuff for a bit but meant to begin checking some of the older ones for paraphrasing as a few are ready to be checked - opnions on Gholhak Garden, Red goats of Kingston, Helmut Damerius, Ryan Taylor (American football), Fancy Dress Festival, Aboakyer festival and Margaret Anne Staggers can all be reviewed for resolution of paraphrasing concerns. And strike thru here when examined Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, someone could review 1804 Haiti Massacre. It's been over 9 days since I (as nominator) addressed the issues with that article.
As for Casliber's list:
  • Fancy Dress Festival and Aboakyer festival (a pair of related articles) are still both in need of rewriting to address too-close wording. It's still less than 48 hours since I did the initial review of Fancy Dress Festival, and the creator has not been active since my review. I just now reviewed Aboakyer festival after the article creator followed up on Nikkimaria's comments; unfortunately, the issues are not resolved. It appears that the article creator is going to need help with these. The good news is that the sources are amazingly interesting -- both articles have wonderful possibilities.
  • Red goats of Kingston hasn't been touched since 6 December. (There has been no effort to respond to the review issues.) --Orlady (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Gah, my free time keeps evaporating - I pause before archiving some of those older ones thinking maybe there is an opportunity to educate/collaborate with new editors. I'll try to look later...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Gholhak Garden (q1)

This is a British diplomatic compound, so surely British ENGVAR is appropriate, so it has been at the centre of diplomatic controversy. Kevin McE (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yikes! well spotted...now done...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes/No, now prep2

Probably I don't understand, and wonder what. I see something bold "the most spectacular [marriage] proposal I've ever seen", am curious, see it link not to a proposal but an episode which is going to show a proposal, - I think this is misleading, at least, also looking in an unknown future, - I try to avoid that. Good advertisement, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As a note for the above, the earlier prep 2 loader moved what he loaded to prep 1 which is where this hook is now. SL93 (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
An unattributed quote in the first person looks unprofessional: the most spectacular that who has ever seen? Kevin McE (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I added attribution to the hook, which is now at Queue 2. --Orlady (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Orlady. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
It's now on the Main page: "... that what Matthew Morrison calls "the most spectacular [marriage] proposal I've ever seen" is scheduled to occur on Glee in January 2012?", bolding a proposal, but linking to an episode. I would prefer "... that what Matthew Morrison calls "the most spectacular [marriage] proposal I've ever seen" is scheduled to occur on Glee in January 2012?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I briefly considered changing it (the main page has another 1.5 hours to run), but since the article is about this one episode and the plot of the episode apparently is mostly the marriage proposal, I think the current version is just fine. --Orlady (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I won't argue for the remaining short while, but the article's talk has more expression of the view that it's advertisement, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Templates choked on title with "/" in it

Tech note: The templates had trouble parsing the nom for Yes/No. The nomination page, Template:Did you know nominations/Yes/No, ended up linked on the prep area page as Template:Did you know nominations/No. I haven't checked to see if the credits were affected. --Orlady (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw a credit which looks good and leads to the nom correctly, but the nom is not even mentioned on the talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Mandarax fixed the talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I probably should have mentioned that earlier: when I first made the nomination, the links that the template page originally gave me were as Orlady shows above. I imagine that the parser simply looks for the final slash, and takes the title from what appears after that, which would be a problem in this case. What I did at the time was hand-edited the template string offered before inserting it on the DYK template talk page under December 14, but didn't think to check the prep area to see whether the problem showed up again there. Sorry about that! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not a problem with the parser, it was a problem with my own code in the editnotice that gives you the string to transclude on T:TDYK. I fixed it there. I'm not sure why there was a problem in the prep area, as {{DYKmake|Yes/No|BlueMoonset}} should create the correct output. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
It was in prep with {{DYKmake|Yes/No|BlueMoonset|subpage=No}}. "subpage=No" got added automatically because the {{NewDYKnomination}} template checks to see if the {{{article}}} from the nomination (in this case, Yes/No), matches the {{SUBPAGENAME}} of the nomination page, which in this case was just No. That's how the MW parser works, but I think I can change something to get around it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Should be fine now. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Now all of the DYK nomination templates on the noms page are broken. The "Review or comment" links go to the article editing page, not the nom template. Also, the nom templates no longer have a link back to the main noms page. --Orlady (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, just noticed this - I just cut and pasted the template subpage into the searchbox for the time being but something is obviously up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I edited Template:DYK nompage links so the noms page templates work again, but I may have broken something else.... --Orlady (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I knew this would break the current noms, but I went ahead and did it because I think it's unavoidable. As far as I know, the only options are 1) make the change now, and just manually go through and fix all the noms that are on T:TDYK (that would just involve opening the nom page, editing, and replacing nompage=something with nompage=Template:Did you know nominations/something); or 2) not making the change, and just accepting the fact that the rare nominations with "/" in the title will get messed up.
For now, I reverted {{DYK nompage links}} to the version before I made the change. I probably will not have computer access for most of the rest of the day so don't wait on me to make changes; once you guys make a decision what to do, I think the information I left above should be enough to do it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, I went ahead and reverted that stuff for now. It's going to take more work than I have time to do right now, and the issue is not urgent (I doubt there will be anymore "/" nominations soon, and even if there are the problem is easily fixable after they're nominated). rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I've fixed four nominations which were made while {{NewDYKnomination}} was altered: Vigilant Firehouse (Washington, D.C.), Buchnera americana, Alexander Finta, and Tourism in Laos. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I made User:Rjanag/SUBPAGENAMES, which is like {{SUBPAGENAME}} but will work the way we want it to in situations like the one above. It will only be useful for titles with one slash, though (e.g., Yes/No; it wouldn't help a nomination for an article called Yes/No/Maybe), and making the template big enough to handle lots more slashes is unfeasible. Other ways to make the nomination process work smoothly for article titles like this are also not easy. Given that articles with titles like this are so rare, and it's quite easy to clean up the errors after nominating, I think the best course of action is just not to try to fix this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

EEEK! I've filled Queue 5, and have set up Prep 1, but that still leaves 5 empty queue slots, 3 vacant prep areas, 2 hours to go, and a partridge in a pear tree. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas hooks

I've noticed we currently have only 11 Christmas hooks. A few more would be nice, but I'd like to remind updaters that Christmas hooks are spread across the entire 24 hours of Christmas UTC, which with an eight-hour cycle means roughly 4 Christmas hooks per update. Whoever puts the updates for this day together, please also try to remember that for the non-Christmas hooks, we at least want uplifting, positive or topical hooks where possible, we don't want hooks about tragedies, wars etc.

Just out of interest, I notice that the number of hooks in an update has recently been increased from six to seven. I really don't know why since there are only about 150 hooks in total at T:TDYK. Gatoclass (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I see someone has just moved a twelfth, which is the one I had finished reviewing less than a hour before, meaning we have a dozen now. That appears to be it on the nominations page, unless the December 10 "GRB 101225A(Christmas burst)" article should be approved despite the newness issue. (One way or another, that article should acquire a marking of some kind; it's been over ten days since the last comment there.) BlueMoonset (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Adding: I see that the Christmas burst article has just now been moved into the special Christmas section, but should it have been? I thought only articles that were approved (even though subsequent issues may be uncovered) could be moved into the special holding areas like Christmas. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know of any such rule and it's not how I approach it. I think it's helpful to have all the Christmas hooks in one place so updaters can clearly see how many hooks they have - leaving them all over the page is not an option IMO. It does mean though, that there are one or two hooks in the Christmas/y sections that need priority review.
Update: I have now moved some additional hooks into the Christmas sections after combing through the suggestions page, so there are now 13 Christmas hooks and three "Christmasy" hooks to make a total of 16. Some of these hooks still need review however. Gatoclass (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict, saying about the same:) There was a time when special occasion hooks were nominated in the section, then a time when they were nominated normally and moved, which I think is better and now easily done (the move, I mean, now that we have the templates). But more for Christmas - they need exception-making anyway as late (I made one yesterday), I suggest let's keep an eye on nominations popping up there, that's easier to see than anywhere in the noms. In assembling the sets, keep in mind that Christmas starts in countries like Germany on Christmas Eve (2 hooks 24 December) and continues on 26 December. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but special occasion days are done in UTC time. It doesn't matter if Christmas starts earlier some place and ends later someplace else. Christmas Day hooks are confined to Christmas Day UTC time, the same way other special occasion days are treated. Gatoclass (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't get it. All I meant to say was that in case there are too many hooks for Dec 25 some might still work the next day. BWV 63 is not one of them, because for 26 December Bach produced a different one (but I was too lazy this year to cover it),
In years past spill over into other dates has traditionally been done primarily as a means of handling all the qualified hooks. That is not a concern this year as three updates of six hooks (the rate we have been normally operating at in recent weeks) is sufficient to allow the entire supply of Christmas hooks to run on a single day with a handful of non-holiday hooks filling in the gaps. That being said, I have no objections to the Christmas hooks currently scheduled for Christmas eve and would have no problems with a good Christmasy image being placed in the first update on Boxing day. --Allen3 talk 13:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
As pointed out above, the queues and prep areas (and current front page) now have seven hooks, not six. Which will just mean a few more non-holiday hooks filling in the gaps at this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
QUERY: If we're grouping the Christmas noms together to make them more visible, then why have some of them not been reviewed at all? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll try review the unreviewed one this eve. The Interior (Talk) 22:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
As December 25th is always, by some margin, the day of the year with the lowest viewing figures, is there a case for reducing the number of updates just for the day, and using extra noms on the 24th or 26th? Letting the updaters open their presents etc? Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
IMHO we are better off staying at the current 3 sets/day. There are a good number of interesting X-mas related images and reducing to 2 updates not only means an admin needs to adjust the update frequency (not difficult but potentially inconvenient as the change can not be scheduled in advance) but one less image that can appear on Christmas day. --Allen3 talk 23:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Karol Hubert Rostworowski, now on the Main page

The lead hook on Karol Hubert Rostworowski mentions filicide, I don't find that in the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The story refered to has a son killed by his parents, and so it is about filicide, although it seems to be a case of the deliberate use of unusual terms when clearer one would suffice (a common "feature" hereabouts).
What concerns me more is that the hook claims to be "in the words of Nobel laureate Czesław Miłosz", and then paraphrases him. Kevin McE (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I may be blind but don't see "a son killed by his parents" either, only "the murder for money", which is not the same. I think the hook should match the article, or the other way round. "In the words" is nonsense because he spoke Polish, how about "according to"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Looking again, I found it in the plot - but not in the summary, which still has an unexplained link to the biblical figure. I think the article should see an English writer copy-edit before it appears, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The hook and the article require some native English speaker, "in the words" should be "according to" at best, and the most provoking link of the hook doesn't appear in the article, the lead says "who is remembered for his visions of totalitarianism and a misguided effort to control fate" - I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

How (or where) to re-add a hook?

Earlier today a hook of mine was removed from the prep area it had been added to (diff). However, as it was passed and removed from T:TDYK, I'm not really sure how to re-add it. I've addressed the concern noted in the edit summary (not that I was actually alerted to it in any way, however), as can be seen here. Should I re-nominate the article again on T:TDYK, or is there a way of simply re-inserting it into the prep queue? I'm just concerned about it ending up getting lost in the shuffle and ignored as it's currently not listed anywhere it could be found without actively looking for it, and is then unlikely to be noticed by anyone preparing the queue. GRAPPLE X 15:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You can complete the steps at T:TDYK#How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue. It looks like whoever removed the hook from prep didn't follow those instructions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll get on that now. GRAPPLE X 17:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
It would probably make sense for such instructions to be visible from the queue. Kevin McE (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Q3 > Q2 or Q1

Why are hooks in Q3 so much longer than those in Q2 or Q1? If the DYK hooks go on the main page as queued, the layout on the main page will be off after each update. --69.157.46.77 (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The length of an update when it reaches can be deceptive as the reader's browser setting help determine the exact location of each line break. That being said, Q2 had three short hooks while Q3 was composed entirely of longer hooks. I have swapped hooks between Q2 and Q3 to help reduce the differences in length. --Allen3 talk 00:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, but now Q2 has two hooks about US baseball pitchers. That seems weird. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Krampus for Christmas? now in Q5

I am surprised to see - now in prep2 - Krampus as a lead picture on Christmas Day. Several reasons: 1) develish creature isn't what I would expect, 2) "his day", as the article states, is 5 December, St. Nicholas (also mentioned) has nothing to do with Christmas, the whole hook should go a different day, imo. 3) I would prefer to see a pic of the church in Halle instead (hook 2nd in prep3), an article which two editors improved greatly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"St. Nicholas has nothing to do with Christmas": I certainly would not have expected that from someone whose specialism seems to revolve around central European culture. Kevin McE (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
MAJOR OBJECTION TO KRAMPUS. It's now in a queue! HUH! I totally agree with Gerda here. And let's see, Allen3 destroyed a prep set I made with a beautiful horse pic in the lead because it would have appeared on Christmas rather than letting it slide one day but it's okay to have a devil creature appear on Christmas? IS THIS FOR REAL?!?!? Is the person that promoted that on drugs? And people wonder why wiki is so messed up and has a lousy laughinng stock rep out in the real world. If we're going to put Christmas hooks up on Christmas, lets do it, not make things up willy nilly.PumpkinSky talk 11:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • From the article: "According to legend, Krampus accompanies Saint Nicholas during the Christmas season, warning and punishing bad children, in contrast to St. Nicholas, who gives gifts to good children." -- Not exactly "making things up willy-nilly". Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I still strongly object I do not think this nor the image are appropriate at all. PumpkinSky talk 12:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Read the article which may be another example of an overly simplified lead (see "visions of totalitarism" above), you read there with some precision, still in the lead: "during the first week of December, particularly on the evening of 5 December". That should not be summarized to "during the Christmas season", and should not appear at all on 25 December, if you ask me. Also: WP should not support the myth that Santa has anything to do with St Nicholas, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps (although I seem to remember that St Nicholas was a bit of an inspiration [although not the entire foundation for Santa Claus, of course]). I think the outrage over Krampus is cultural as well; if we were to write about how the Japanese eat KFC as their "traditional Christmas meal", how would other editors take it? Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I didn't say (don't understand outrage) "don't write on Krampus". I said don't write on Krampus on 25 December as if their was a connection to Christmas. Place him 26 December or wherever, once "he" missed 5 December. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I also see another issue with the picture: let alone that it is plastic-era/death-metal-inspired kitsch supporting something that is supposedly age-old, but what does it actually stand for? Was it on display somewhere? was it a mask worn during a festival? It looks to me like it's an annoying case of someone's very modern idea about what Krampus should look like, that now shapes wikipedia's entire perspective on how Krampus was imagined by the traditional community that spawned him. Dahn (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Support that as well, please let's drop the picture any date, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Aboslutely, the photo is god awful and totally inappropriate for Christmas. I don't object to the article at DYK, but it should be on another day with a different photo.PumpkinSky talk 13:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I've moved it back to prep for now, I agree it's not appropriate for Christmas Day. But I must say I'm pretty disappointed in some of the other choices too. Bombings? Assassinations? Earthquakes? It seems that whoever put these updates together totally ignored my reminder to avoid such hooks for the Christmas updates. I might see if I can swap a few more around before they go to the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reacting! Could you perhaps swap the pic of the opera singer to a different day and have a picture accent on Bach's Christmas cantata, as nominated? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Another vote for the Bach Christmas cantata picture, which is of the church article featured in the hook. It's a nicer picture, and the article is more clearly related to Christmas, making it more appropriate to head the list. The opera singer could be swapped to a different day or run on this one without the picture, as seems best. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for the suggestion :) Gatoclass (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I thought of pulling that one but decided to leave it for now since it apparently occurred in a remote area. I guess the date makes it topical, but I'm still not convinced it should be there. However, I've left it there for now as I didn't find any other hooks on T:TDYK that stood out as suitable replacements. Gatoclass (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't my suggestion to keep it until the 25th but nobody died in it, in fact hardly anyone noticed it, so not a disaster, but it can be kept to whenever as far as I'm concerned. Mikenorton (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've now promoted some new hooks to get rid of some of the more objectionable ones. Gatoclass (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Go Gatoclass! PumpkinSky talk 14:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Well folks, you've disappointed a few people in the Interior household this Christmas. Members of the extended family had helped with research and followed the nomination process with glee. I planned on expanding Krampus after User:Miyagawa placed this list of Christmas-related stubs on DYK at the end of November. A lot of effort was put into expanding this specifically for the Christmas queues. I am truly baffled by the arguments that this is not an appropriate hook, or that it is not Christmas related. We should pull Gemiler Island as well if St. Nicholas is insufficiently connected with the season. The Krampus is part of less-sanitized holiday tradition, I'm sure our readers would be interested. Very disappointed in the decision making here. (This discussion happened during the night in my timezone.) Sigh. The Interior (Talk) 15:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that two DYK regulars (Victuallars and Orlady) approved this for Christmas. The Interior (Talk) 15:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
It will still be topical if it's run on Boxing Day, and it will be much less likely to freak out kids or parents, or devout Christians. If there is more support for running it on Christmas Day, I guess we could reconsider, but I for one would be opposed to running it as a lead hook. It might be okay as the last, or "quirky" hook in an update, but if there's a consensus to run it as such, it will have to be done without my participation as I'm just about to log off. Gatoclass (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Sigh, it would have been most topical during the first week of December, as the article correctly states. And what about the quality of the picture which has been described as "plastic-era/death-metal-inspired kitsch" (above, not by me) and which seems to suit Halloween best? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Do what you feel best, folks. I'm not going to spend my Christmas Eve arguing on Wikipedia. Happy holidays everyone. The Interior (Talk) 16:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Interior-at least you/Krampus had a discussion, I've been the victim of the opposite multiple times. PumpkinSky talk 16:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Bach cantatas 63 133

Sorry to make things complicated, but: Bach composed a cantata for Christmas Day, BWV 63, that - if you ask me - should appear prominently with a picture of the church on THAT day. He composed a different cantata, BWV 133, for 27 December, which should - if you ask me - appear THAT day, they celebrated Christmas for three days in Bach's time. At present we have both on 25 Dec, no pic. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Also see above, I realize only now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That's in a prep now. Would be good to get it in queue 5 or Q6. PumpkinSky talk 14:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
We have an obvious shortage of Christmas Day hooks this year, and I very much doubt anyone will make the December 27th association. The hook's association with Christmas however, is clear. I should add that the update currently in prep #3 will eventually be displayed on Christmas Day when it is moved to the queue. So I think the hooks are fine where they are. Gatoclass (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
If you think so. We had complaints about too many hooks about same topic in too close succession before, and two Bach cantatas one day looks to me like that. The article for BWV 133 says Third Day of Christmas twice and 27 December twice. But I am quite happy with the change for the other one, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Another year, I would say fine, let's keep it for the 27th. But IMO that hook is really needed for Christmas Day, since we have such a shortage of Christmas hooks, or even Christmas-related hooks, this year. And if it's run on Christmas Day, that's a good excuse for making it the lead hook :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't get that, but perhaps don't have to ... - the one for Christmas day is the lead hook, designed for that in collaboration, all fine now. It's the other one which you seem to need extra, ok, 27 comes before 25, no problem, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Correction needed on Main Page hook

It's been brought to my attention that the tree referred to in the first hook is the National Christmas Tree, not the White House Christmas tree. The New York Times articles used in the articles apparently misidentified the tree, see the discussion at Talk:1996 United States federal budget. It should be replaced with:

The 1995 official White House Christmas tree

Sorry about that! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Changed the hook, but not the picture, because improvement is marginal, IMO Materialscientist (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the point is that the original image was the White House tree, while the new image is the National tree? Harrias talk 22:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, changed the image. Materialscientist (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for making the change. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Credits for Liebfrauenkirche

In Template:Did you know nominations/Christen, ätzet diesen Tag, BWV 63 I nominated the pictured church later. I miss the credits for it, for Taksen and Bermicourt, did I make a mistake? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

No. you didn't make a mistake; you added the correct credit templates. The credits were accidentally omitted when it was moved to Prep. I've put the {{dyktalk}} on the article's talk page and issued credits to you, Taksen and Bermicourt. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sandström and his piece

Template:Did you know nominations/Jan Sandström (composer) was made for the composer, but changed to one about his piece Es ist ein Ros entsprungen. Now the composer is credited, not the piece. Should we clean that up? In this case I had not changed the credit info, and perhaps it doesn't matter? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Caption or alt caption?

Here, I changed a caption to an alt caption. Sighted people can see what's visible in the picture – well, after clicking to enlarge the picture they can. So detailed descriptions of visible details seem intended for the blind in an alt caption. In this edit, I considered making the same change from a caption to an alt caption. Almost all English speakers know what belongs in a Christmas nativity scene, so why are we listing them all for those who can see them?

So are these oversights? Is it a change in philosophy about captions? Art LaPella (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

  • The alt images policy and "requirement" for FAC collapsed in confusion a year or so ago because someone apparently with expert knowledge came along and said the recommendations as to what say in alt captions were all completely wrong. Nothing seems to have changed since. Alt or not, these captions are not seen by ordinary viewers, and course the contents of a nativity scene are variable - this one does not include the Three Magi, as many do. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
There shouldn't even be an |alt= parameter used anymore. See Template:NewDYKnomination/guide. The template generates a |caption= parameter which generates both the tooltip and the alt-text. Further information at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_68#Image_alts. I think we also reached a consensus somewhere that this caption no longer needs to be a detailed description, just a very simple description (it doesn't seem to be in that particular discussion I linked, though). rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Anyway the short answer is, there is no need to specify alt-text, because both the caption (also known as the tooltip or the rollover text) and the alt-text should be the same for DYK images, and both should be short and simple (one sentence or phrase) descriptions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Help with nomination?

I was wondering if someone could help with nominating this article to DYK? I left the specifics here. Not to criticise but the new system Wikipedia uses seems very complicated. I can fill in the name but the template I'm suppose to use is locked. Do I just add a suggestion directly to the main page like before? 71.184.32.202 (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Done rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict, looks like you got helped.) Well, this article was created 17 December and is older than 5 days, that's what I can easily see. If you can claim a 5* expansion within the last 5 days it might still work. I think the process to nominate is well explained, just follow the instructions to create a nomination and keep track of it. You can ask for help if something is unclear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that it requires WP:AUTOCONFIRMed status to create the needed subpage for the nomination, an access level only registered users can gain. I see that Rjanag has added additional information to the instrucitons to address this problem.[1] --Allen3 talk 14:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

loading prep areas

Hi all, all preps are now empty (bar me beginning prep 1 with a nice image one)...but I have to do some RL chores (and write a few DYKs it seems), so load away. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Just did one. PumpkinSky talk 03:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Is an editor who has trouble with his own DYKs qualified to review others?

I am familiar with an editor who has been submitting DYKs for many years, but still has trouble with certain aspects of MoS, and proper formatting of references. I noticed that on his recent DYK nom he has been asked by the reviewer to help out review other DYKs, and it made me wonder: should we really require such "help" from editors who are clearly not familiar enough with our requirements to even finish (without help) their own noms? The way I see it, it doesn't matter if an editor has been submitting DYKs for 3 years and has several dozen; if they still have problems with their own articles they should not be required to review others (because we obviously cannot trust them to do a good review). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

To whom are you referring? It's rather difficult to make a judgement without that information. Gatoclass (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
The nomination in question would seem to be the one on December 18: "Karlino oil eruption". Additionally, the editor in question is requesting a new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

IMO, we are long overdue for a discussion of whether the QPQ-review experiment is working, and whether the requirement needs to be modified or even discarded.
When QPQ was proposed, one of the reasons why I supported the requirement was my hope that by reviewing noms, certain unskilled submitters would learn about DYK and become more adept with their own noms. At the time, I was particularly thinking of Billy Hathorn as someone who could benefit from the experience of reviewing other people's noms. I also thought that newbie reviewers would not necessarily be expected to take full responsibility for review of a single hook nom, but some newbies might instead get full QPQ credit for partial reviews -- for example, reporting that an article is too short for DYK criteria, but not also investigating the overall quality of the article or the sourcing of the hook fact.
At this point, I think the experiment has been a partial success. It has increased the pool of capable DYK reviewers, it has reduced the workload on any individual reviewer, and it prevents a repetition of the situation where one reviewer was running the entire DYK process. Unfortunately, however, it is clear that it failed to convert Billy Hathorn into a competent DYK reviewer and contributor, and there are a few other contributors who have thoroughly demonstrated that they cannot review noms. The QPQ requirement even has discouraged some contributors from participating in DYK, and there is some suspicion that a few people are getting someone else to nominate their work so that they can avoid QPQ. Also, there is no good system for overseeing the QPQ requirement (sometimes we notice that a self-nominator is a veteran who hasn't been doing reviews, but often this has been overlooked) or for providing mentoring for newbie reviewers or providing quality control on the review work done by inexperienced reviewers. There's not even a particularly good system for communicating the requirement -- not everybody understands the meaning of the review instructions that say "QPQ – if the nominator has more than five DYK credits and is nominating their own article, they must review another article".
It seems to me that everyone who has more than 5 DYKs should be required to try reviewing, but reviewers should be encouraged to flag their reviews with a symbol that identifies them as "apprentice reviewers" whose work needs to be checked by an experienced reviewer -- and who should be given feedback on their reviews. We might even need to exempt some contributors from QPQ if it becomes clear that they are hopeless. I've been trying to think of other assignments they could be given to help out with DYK, but I can't think of anything. --Orlady (talk) 03:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's spelt out clearly and explicitly that reviewers can do bits and pieces of the necessary review (checking page size and expansion, or simply giving just the hook itself a thumbs-up), then troubled reviewers can be pointed down that route, gradually gaining a modicum of experience by learning one thing at a time. Alternatively, reviewers who aren't really capable of reviewing the whole article properly can be directed to simply review the hook - with a basic checklist of tasks like "search the article to ensure the hook is present", "correct any mistakes in the hook" and "verify the hook is a suitable length and sounds interesting enough" to let them do just that. A review symbol to be used instead of the various ticks and crosses to indicate that only the hook has been reviewed would then let someone scanning the page know that they can finish off the review. It would, in effect, be a bit like WP:GAN's "second opinion" option, where reviewers can ask for help if they need it, flagging the review as requiring another editor to finish up. (EDIT: I quite like File:Candidato-Artículo bueno-blue.svg for this purpose, although perhaps it would serve best in another colour to distance itself from the regular ticks). GRAPPLE X 03:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
As at Wikipedia:Did you know/Proofreading, although that page hasn't been kept up to date. Art LaPella (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As a new reviewer, I like the idea of mentoring: it would have helped a lot when I ran into new issues. I also like the idea of their being a flag that new reviewers could put on their reviews so their work could be checked and any suggestions be made, since rules and precedents are not always intuitive or easily found. My first six reviews were done this month, and without QPQ, I'd never have started—I was perfectly happy to let all five "freebies" be used and would have been happier with ten. For that matter, I'd probably let reviewing slide now if the requirement were taken away, since working on articles I'm interested in is far more compelling than on other articles. (Though maybe not entirely: I've already covered my next four DYK submissions.)
(Adding:) I think a different symbol from Grapple X's check mark would be needed for Orlady's new reviewer flag, since it's a different purpose: I'm more interested in one that would, in effect, be a call button for an experienced reviewer to make a determination, solve a problem, or just check the work done. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I've reviewed numerous articles since the QPQ requirement came in, and I still hate it. I'm not sure how many people still active at DYK share my main reason: I am happy to copyedit articles, make suggestions for hooks, and so on, but I am not here to judge others' work and that's what a review is. In addition, done right, it's a boatload of work. More than once, I've been examining an article and its sources only to find when I was ready to write up my review that someone else had come in and checkmarked it. Experience has borne out that helping out in other ways is not accepted as a substitute - in fact one's nomination is looked at askance if one hasn't already done the QPQ review and put it into the template, although with only 5 days I often don't have time for the extra task. A partial review just leads to the nomination languishing; I think we really do need the "ready for re-review" symbol previously discussed or the "Please check and finish this review" symbol discussed above, but it's also simply natural - especially since a lot of us realize a careful review takes a lot of time - to stay away from nominations that have accrued comments on the assumption that someone is still working on reviewing them or still discussing with the nominator. And yes, some people respond to the requirement by giving a very cursory review, for whatever reason. That's led to articles having to be yanked out of preps and queues, or having to be copyedited for major writing problems shortly before or even after they go up on the Main Page. (I don't have the impression the latter, at least, was such a major problem when the reviewers were self-selected for the task.) My vote is to scrap QPQ and return to the "Please consider reviewing an article" statement we used to have. It has indeed driven people off and I don't think it can be made to work. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Very good point about a reviewer discovering that their work is down the drain because someone else was just a little quicker in posting review results. That's a general problem with the system: no way to announce the intention to review an article. Would a 24-hour "reserve" be possible? BlueMoonset (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Again, borrowing a WP:GAN convention - post a blank review first, signed and timestamped, which will allow you to work on a more thorough job for a while without worrying about it being "poached" out from under you. I believe there are some table-based review templates which were required at one point, and should still be extant now to simply add unfilled to dib a nom to review. GRAPPLE X 07:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I think a simple solution would be to make a first comment to a nomination "I am going to review this now" in the nomination, and overwrite that by the actual review. - As for QPQ, I like it, don't see it as "judging" - now that we got rid of the templates - but as a collaboration to improve quality. I would not even call it mentoring, because in many instances I felt that I as the reviewer was learning. It's more than 100 articles in 2011 which I would not have read without it, and all interesting, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have no idea whether anyone else shares my concern about being required to judge articles, and it's none of my business, either :-) The thing is, if you find something wrong, like a copyvio or a misinterpretation of sources, it becomes instantly clear that it is a judgment. And near here there's a thread about someone who went running to two noticeboards because they found the DYK process too hard, when in fact the review of their article was revealing sourcing and referencing problems. Problems are problems, and checking for them is an assessment. ... Also, as I said, I do read (and fix up) DYK articles anyway. I started off as a WikiGnome and still do a lot of that. Many of us do, and although there have been suggestions that other helping out could be substituted for QPQ, it just doesn't work - it doesn't fit in the template and isn't accepted as an alternate. (And maybe it shouldn't be - one of the problems is that reviewing takes so long, done right. For one thing, minor fixes to the article (typos, moving a ref to what it supports, section header capitalization . . . ) are IMO part of a good review. I don't want to crticize those who do an extremely rapid review and give a checkmark, but not very competent reviews are the problem this section started with. My point is that there are other reasons QPQ is problematic that interact with that one. (On at least one occasion I've found a problem with an article only to find it had already been passed. Conversely, I've had articles either held up interminably by a reviewer for reasons I either can't understand or consider misguided (unsatisfiable stylistic concerns about the hook, for example - I'm not talking about claims I plagiarized or didn't have adequate refs or anything) or, as recently, the hook has been massively and IMO wrongly altered in prep (that example also stripped out the "... that") and gone to the Main Page in that mutilated fashion because the issue was not raised at the nomination page where it could be discussed and dealt with. What's happened is that a second layer of judgment has been added to the first because QPQ reviewers are not trusted to make correct judgments as to whether it's ready. This is not a good system for efficiency, accuracy, or collaborative trust.
The suggestions of a blank review or a simple statement, "I am going to review this" are interesting but I don't think they're fair to others. I never know whether I'm going to have a long enough block of time that morning/afternoon/evening - for one thing there's no way to know how long it will take in a particular case. Also I've tried "Here's some of the review, out of time" and someone else sailed in and checkmarked it (ignoring the problem I'd already raised.) These are really problems arising out of forcing us all to be examiners. People have differing grading styles - as well as standards. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Please don't get me wrong about "I will review", I meant to place that there right when I start the review, which can take some time, and yes it happened that I took some time and did what I thought was a thorough review including ce to the article, only to find out someone else had approved it in the meantime. I personally don't go for articles which promise an easy and fast review, but for statements I want to see on the Main page. Some are easy, some are not. - I agree that there are different styles and standards, sometimes a second reviewer might be good, but where to find that one if it's not even possible to get a first review? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Number of nominations

Only 139 noms left at T:TDYK currently. IMO, it's time we started thinking about switching to a 12-hour cycle again. Gatoclass (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Remind me, what cycle are we on at the moment? Prioryman (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Eight hours. Gatoclass (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
New nominations have not been coming in at a rate that will sustain the current run rate so it is probably time to think about returning to 12 hour updates with sets of 7 hooks (14 hooks/day instead of the current 18 hooks/day). Looking at the currently built preps, there are a number of sets built with strong regional affinity that would be disrupted if we change the schedule before their appearance on the Main page. As a result I would recommend we run the currently prepared sets and the set still to be built in prep 4 under the current schedule and have the switch become effective with the 00:00 29 December (UTC) update. --Allen3 talk 13:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
The WikiCup starts up again on 1 January, and they have rescinded the halving of points for DYK that was in effect for 2011, so I expect there will be an appreciable increase in nominations in about a week's time. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I vote for keeping it the same, at 8 hours. This WikiCup thing, if I understand it's goal and methods, will undoubtedly cause a spike in noms. PumpkinSky talk 16:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
January 1st is a week, or about 150 hooks away on an 8-hour cycle. With only 139 noms currently at T:TDYK, I think updaters could well find themselves short of appropriate reviewed hooks over the next few days. I will defer to the regular updaters of course, but if I was still putting together updates, I know I would be getting nervous about retaining the 8-hour cycle at this point. Gatoclass (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Those statistics don't tally. January 1st is about 6 days away. At the current rate of 18 hooks per day, that's 108 hooks needed for the next 6 days. We have that right now, and there's no reason to think submissions will suddenly stop over those coming 6 days. New hooks should continue to come in, albeit at a reduced holiday rate. This happens each year, and once the holidays are over, the noms submission rate picks up again. Some of the reduction is a result of the holidays, some is a result of contributors giving their time to other end-of-the-year cleanup efforts (like the on-going effort to clear the GA noms backlog), and some is the saving up of work for the WikiCup. I wouldn't panic unless the number of noms in the queue dropped much lower. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I predict that we'll do fine with 18 hooks per day. EncycloPetey makes several good points. In addition, although editing is slow on Christmas and the days running up to it, editing tends to pick up a bit when schools/universities are out on holiday (i.e., the next several days). Further, the 3 hooks queued for New Year's Day aren't included in the count on the queue page. --Orlady (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree with keeping it at 8 hour rotations - we can revisit if there is a drought. Hmm, maybe time to write some.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
One of the 3 for 1 January mentioned above is not reviewed yet. I can't do it, because I wrote it. I didn't move it there but it think it can wait there now, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Q1

Grand Palace

Claim of over three thousand inhabitants seems to be synthesis: article states that "the population of the Inner Court numbered nearly 3,000 inhabitants": a dose of WP:SYNTH or assumption about residents of the outer court seems to have been applied to reach the current blurb. Kevin McE (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Right - I can see two solutions - change "over" to "around" in the hook, or substitute a new hook "ALT...that the Grand Palace sits on 218,400 square metres (2,351,000 sq ft) of land? I'm going to bed soon so will let other folks decide overnight. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I just changed the existing hook to "several thousand". Gatoclass (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
"Several thousand" seems even less supported by the article than "over three thousand": If there are three tea cups on the table, I would not call that several. Kevin McE (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
You might not call it "several", but the dictionary does. Webster's says it's "more than two and fewer than many". BlueMoonset (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Sadia Sheikh

Every single English language source cited in the article places the word honour (note spelling in accordance with Pakistani English, the most relevant ENGVAR) in inverted commas: to do otherwise is to appear to accept unquestioningly that it is a matter of honour. Kevin McE (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

agree/done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Gender diverse

MoS would have us render words as words in italics, not in inverted commas: sex and/or gender diverse rather than "sex and/or gender diverse". Kevin McE (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

agree/done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Mont Albert (Q2)

By definition, migratory animals do not have one home, and presumably can travel beyond the boundaries of human designated territories. Kevin McE (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

still can be "a" home I'd have thought -one at each end of the trip. Would you like an indefinite article added? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
That would help, yes. Kevin McE (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
done now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Newbs would like to be involved with DYK, driven away by labyrinthine nature of the process

See [2]. Just thought you all should know. It may be nice to make this place friendlier to the newbs. --Jayron32 04:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you meant this paragraph and this paragraph. Art LaPella (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
It might help if we had members who would volunteer to assist the newbs with adding nominations. However, I do not mean in the usual Wikipedia way of having a list somewhere that newbs must hunt for, and that grows ever longer as it accumulates a list of inactive former participants. I suggest that right under each date header, there appear a volunteer's name (with link) and an offer to help any submissions get started for that date. This keeps the offers visible, current, and usable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think it must be pretty daunting for a noob. Someone was starting work on a nomination Wizard, which looked quite promising to me, but it appears that no further work has been done on it since it was first proposed above. Maybe someone else can help complete it? I'd give it a go myself, but unfortunately I haven't much time to devote to Wikipedia right now. Gatoclass (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
The guy complaining there wasn't frustrated by the nomination process (he got through the template without any problems), he was complaining about the DYK requirements (his nom was rejected for not meeting the criteria, not for any problems with the template). Which means the problem is not the process of creating a nomination, and the solution is not some wizard (as I said in the last discussion of that, the process in place now is already basically a wizard).
For what it's worth, I have little desire to waste my time and bend over backwards trying to 'improve' the nomination process for a few people who just want to complain that it's 'hard' and can't even be bothered to explain specifically what part of it they find difficult. Given that the instructions for nomination are very clear (if people would actually bother to read them), I don't see what more they want. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Rjanag, Wizards can coexist happily with regular processes, the two are not mutually exclusive. Some people find Wizards easier to use the first few times, until they gain the confidence to drop them in favour of something quicker and more straightforward. Panyd's proposed Wizard does not compromise the work you have done to improve the regular nomination process, at all in my view. Some people find Wizards easier to use, and some do not. There's no reason why we should not cater to both. Gatoclass (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. As I said at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_76#Straw Poll on potential technical developments (in the stricken-out part of my comment--stricken out because I didn't realize the poll in that section was about something other than the wizard), I don't think some DYK nomination wizard would hurt anything. I just also don't see how it will really solve any problems, and I don't think we should be expecting complaints to magically disappear if a wizard is made. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not expecting complaints to magically disappear :) However, the existence of a Wizard may benefit the project by encouraging more users to participate. Can't hurt to try in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

William Perry (Q3)

Ranks, unless they are part of a person's title (and in this sentence, it is not), should not be capitalised. Kevin McE (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Legislative Assembly of Nunavut

As with army ranks above: being a member of something is only to be capitalised when it is part of a title. Kevin McE (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Original work (part of "New" article requirement list)

Gatoglass has posted a change to the New requirements, section e), that changes the wording to allow free data source, when it had previously been prohibited. Nikkimaria reverted with the statement, "er, no. that's a huge policy change and needs discussion; previous version is well over a year old". Gatoglass then reverted Nikkimaria's reversion, with the statement "No, Nikkimaria, the version you reverted to has only been extant a few weeks. My edit simply made established practice regarding PD sources explicit. Please do not revert again without discussion at WT:DYK, thanks." Hence, this discussion section.

As early as September 28, 2009, the following text was included on the Wikipedia:Did you know page: "Try to pick articles that are original to Wikipedia (not inclusions of free data sources) and interesting to a wide audience." That's over two years of a prohibition. I've done spot-checks, and the "new" slightly revised wording—though with the phrase "(not inclusions of free data sources)" remaining unchanged—was introduced a few months ago in September. It seems to me that, pending discussion of Gatoglass's significant proposed change, we should restore the wording that's been in place for 27 months, which I'll be doing as soon as I finish posting this new section. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but since I have been contributing to this project far longer than you, I am hardly likely to need an explanation of what longstanding consensus consists of at this page.
For the record, the longstanding consensus version has been as follows:
Try to select articles that are original to Wikipedia (not inclusions of free data sources) and interesting to a wide audience.
A couple of months ago, Rjanag - possibly unintentionally, as his edit summary indicates - altered the above to the following:
Nominations should be original work (not inclusions of free data sources) and should be interesting to a wide audience. [3]
As you can see from the diff above, Rjanag dropped the crucial qualifier Try to which completely changes the meaning of the clause, from a preference for original text to a requirement for it. This is clearly a major change to established practice here at DYK, which obviously cannot be made without adequate discussion. I for one will state at the outset that if any such discussion is to be had, I will be strongly opposing any attempt to alter the longstanding consensus regarding use of free data sources. In my view there could be no reasonable justification for such a prohibition in articles submitted to DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know you have been contributing longer than I have. As has Nikkimaria. And I did notice the change from "try to" to "should be". Your first edit tonight, however, did not restore the "long-standing consensus", but completely rewrote the section and then claimed that Rjanag's change had been "extant a few weeks" rather than over three months as had been the case. In that new version of yours, the preference for original text is only given after a long sentence stating that inclusions from free data sources are acceptable, which practically buries it. To my eye, that's very far indeed from the spirit of the consensus you're invoking. (Addition about 15 minutes later: I just realized that you originally jettisoned the "interesting to a wide audience" clause. Why?)
I should also point out that at least one such discussion has already taken place: the following discussion in Archive 75 on the text you changed, from last month, which is here. It was easy enough to find as I was typing my reply. Make of it—including whether it is indeed "adequate"—as you will, but the summary consensus there appears to be opposed to the inclusion of chunks of material from free data sources. BlueMoonset (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I am in favour of separating anything about 'originality' from 'interestingness' (if that's a word) as they do not naturally go together. We are discussing the use of PD sources here and I think that the current wording is OK - our aim, in my view, should be to strongly discourage articles containing large chunks of verbatim text from PD sources reaching the mainpage. The 'try' part of the rule allows sufficient leeway on a case-by-case basis, although there may be better alternative wordings for this. Mikenorton (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou for finding that recent discussion on the topic BlueMoon. As I said in an earlier discussion, the time I have to devote to Wikipedia is currently limited and I'm afraid I didn't have the time to go combing through archives looking for earlier discussions. With regard to said discussion however, it seemed to me that many users had a position which was closer to mine than to the wording added by Rjanag, but we had a number of users who rejected a particular rewording as potentially causing more problems, a position with which I also tend to agree.
My position on reuse of public domain text for DYK is the same it has always been: it's perfectly acceptable provided the text is fully wikified and formatted, the writing style is consistent and appropriate to an encyclopedia, and the information is reasonably up to date, or updated with additional sources. Attempting to set a particular percentage of PD text that is acceptable to DYK is indeed just adding to reviewer difficulty, the obvious solution is to have no set percentage. This is the standard for en.wiki itself, and if its good enough for the project as a whole, there is no reason to impose a (purportedly) "better" standard here. Even GA doesn't impose such a rule; why on earth should we?
With regard to the argument that PD text should be disallowed because it is not "new" per the DYK requirement, historically the only "newness" requirement has been that the article or the majority of text in it be new to Wikipedia, not "new" as in original. Gatoclass (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
BTW, although it's a separate issue, BlueMoonset asked why in my initial edit I dropped the phrase "should be interesting to a wide audience". My response is that in practice there has never been any such requirement imposed on nominations, the only requirement with regard to interest is that the hook must highlight an unusual or interesting fact. So I think this phrase serves no purpose and should be dropped. Gatoclass (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Though I disagree with MikeNorton's comment above that articles created from PD sources be "strongly discouraged", I can accept the notion that original text might be the preferred option, with reviewers, for example, being given the option of disqualifying a PD-based article if its overall quality is unimpressive. I also agree with him however, that this element of "leeway", currently reliant on the "Try to ... " phrase, is not well expressed and open to misinterpretation. I will give the issue some thought and see if I can come up over the next day or two with an alternative phraseology that meets all concerns. Gatoclass (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Gatoclass, suggesting that this edit restored "longstanding position on pd sources" is disingenuous; it is merely your interpretation, and in fact says something quite different from what you call the "longstanding consensus version". You should have initiated discussion as soon as I reverted you, not attempted to continue to change the page. As for the part about "interesting", you're welcome to move that, but I would object to eliminating it entirely without further discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC) After edit conflict: I'm glad to see you are willing to consider alternatives, but those too will require discussion rather than unilateral imposition. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree that my initial edit was probably excessively WP:BOLD; quite frankly I was irritated by what appeared to be a major unilateral change, but decided instead of reverting straight back to the previous rather inadequate phraseology, that I would take a shot at correcting it on the spot. It didn't work out but it did at least lead to this discussion, where hopefully we can find a better solution :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

How long one has been contributing to Wikipedia is not necessarily correlated with ... well, anything. Gatoclass, please stop edit warring and gain consensus for your change to long-standing text before you re-add it. I do not support your version, do support the long-standing current version, and don't think DYK should be encouraging the kind of serial cut-and-paste editing for which it's best known. With the exception of one editor who checks, DYK is broadly unable to correctly detect copyvio and close paraphrasing or to educate new editors in how to correctly paraphrase, and there is no reason to change the instructions here in ways that will encourage more of DYK's history of serial plagiarism. Cutting-and-pasting PD text does not teach editors how to rephrase sources in their own words, leads to the kinds of problems we've seen here in the past, and considering the shortness of reliable reviewers at DYK, there is no need to highlight non-original, cut-and-paste public domain text on the main page-- it's not even our work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC) PS No one is taking away two-thirds of your DYKs and your "months of hard work" copying PD text; we just no longer need to highlight cut-and-paste on the mainpage, and since you have a pony in this race (defending two-thirds of your past DYKs), please stop edit warring to include your preferred version. As the discussion I linked above shows, consensus has been against this practice at DYK (defending most vocally by *you*, per your DANFS PD cut-and-paste articles) since at least 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it's helpful to escalate this to another discussion of plagiarism, since it's clear from the previous discussion (linked by 2 editors above) that not everyone is making the distinction between copyvio (doesn't arise with public domain text so long as there is clear attribution) and plagiarism. However, as I made clear in the straw poll earlier, I do make that distinction. DYK does have a higher standard than the encyclopedia as a whole: not all new articles (that are worthy of remaining in the encyclopedia) have an automatic right to appear in the Did You Know section. One of the respects in which that standard is higher and IMO should be is that wording taken from elsewhere does not count toward the length requirement for the article or for expansion. We have always stated and enforced this for new articles expanded from sections in other articles and for lengthy quotations; in my view wording taken from PD sources is analogous. On the other hand if an article is sourced to PD sources, that's neither here nor there - reliable sources are reliable sources whatever their format, age, or legal licensing. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
You miss the point: cutting and pasting doesn't teach editors how to correctly represent sources, and that has been a long-standing problem at DYK. We don't need to highlight work on the mainpage which is not original, as that mentality leads to plagiarism, too close paraphrasing, copyvio, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree that contributors who are inclined to republish PD material often also engage in plagiarism and copyvio. Ironically, the nomination discussion that precipitated Gatoclass' changes to the rules concerned an article that I had flagged as a concern when I saw that several paragraphs had come verbatim from a U.S. government (PD) source, and more thorough examination revealed that other large chunks of the article were verbatim borrowings from non-PD sources. --Orlady (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it more likely that editors who engage in plagiarism and copyvio will cut and paste from any source indiscriminately, as appears to have occurred here. There's no reason to suppose this is somehow due to DYK rules. If he doesn't pay any attention to core policy like WP:COPYVIO, I think it highly unlikely he's been paying much attention to ours. Gatoclass (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) DYK exists as a means of rewarding editors, even noobs, for new content creation, and for highlighting the wide range of topics being written about by Wikipedians. It's not intended as a creative writing course. As for copyvio and plagiarism, I agree they are serious issues, not only for DYK but for Wikipedia in general, FAC included, but that's not the issue to hand. Gatoclass (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
And BTW Sandy, I do not have "a pony in the race" as you claim, there is no suggestion that my numerous early DYKs dependent on DANFS are under any sort of threat. However, as a member of WP:SHIPS, a project that has generated a huge number of articles entirely or largely reliant on a government PD source, I feel I do have a sensitivity to this issue that some other Wikipedians may not share. There are, in fact, some pretty good reasons for copying good PD sources verbatim, including the possibility of misinterpreting the text and introducing inadvertent errors, not to mention the Herculean task of attempting to rewrite the entire DANFS database. Yes, re-use of PD text, like anything else, can be overdone, but it has also made for some major contributions to this project and will I'm sure continue to do so. Gatoclass (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for early review

Could someone do review Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Christina Tiahara soon, if possible? There are two relevant dates coming up in less than a week, and at the current rate it's doubtful that someone would get to it on time unless I asked. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look this evening if no one gets to it before me. The Interior (Talk) 23:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hidden text

Editing one of the preps a moment ago, I noticed some hidden text that appears to be deprecated. For convenience: " STOP! BEFORE YOU ADD A NEW ITEM, PLEASE READ THESE NOTES:

  • This is NOT a general trivia section.
  • This section is only for items that have been listed on "NEW PAGES" in the last 120 hours
  • The title of the new article should be BOLD and placed on TOP as the FIRST ITEM.
  • Generally limited to eight items, but whatever the case – just make sure it fits whatever else is on the page at that time. Use your common sense.
  • NO STUBS (moreover, try to find new articles that are 1,500+ bytes in size)
  • Try to pick articles that are ORIGINAL to Wikipedia (not 1911 or other data sources) and that are INTERESTING.
  • The "Did you know?" fact must be mentioned in the article.
  • Images should be sized to 100px or SMALLER.
  • Do not use fair-use images. Instead, find a related free image (PD, GFDL, CC etc.) as an alternative."

I suggest removing most if not all of that text, leaving perhaps the third and second-last points. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Admins, please be prepared to perform manual updates

DYKUpdateBot missed the last update, and it was performed manually. Unfortunately, botmeister Shubinator is without Toolserver access until about January 8, so admins should check whether the bot has updated at scheduled times, and be prepared to do manual updates if necessary. (Note that, due to the late manual update, the next one is scheduled for about two hours later than usual.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

We have 126 noms (22 approved), thus suggestion: change to 12-hr cycle synchronized to 00:00 UTC. This will help with manual updates (fewer updates, and I should normally cover them all, with 8-hr cycle I can't cover one). Materialscientist (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I went bold and implemented my proposal. Materialscientist (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
HUH? I see non consensus for this, certainly not in the above thread on this; nor is it supported by math. This needs undone post haste, the 12 hour updates that is. And why is there no backup on tools for shubinator?PumpkinSky talk 10:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
This is an emergency (holiday) solution, because the bot is down, and neither the bot nor Shubinator is replaceable :-). Ten days don't drastically change the flow of nominations on the T:TDYK page, and I hope the bot will be back then. I am fine with changing back to 8 hrs, provided there is an admin who can cover the 17:00 UTC update through the next 10 days. Materialscientist (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
A backup for Shub should be found. There are plenty of hooks to get to Jan 1, which has its own hooks, and then the competition will start with lots of hooks. I'd do the updates but I don't want to be an admin. Can I get the rights just to do the updates? HEHE PumpkinSky talk 11:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
No. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
To make things worse, one hook for 1 January still did not get a review, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
That's resolved, thanks, Mikenorton, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

← I don't know if somebody did something, or if the bot just woke up on its own, but it did successfully perform the last two updates. Still, we should be alert in case it starts malfunctioning again. Orlady has reset the interval to eight hours. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Shubinator has recovery code that detects when a scheduled update fails to occur and attempts to restart the bot. This code is most likely what has happened. --Allen3 talk 21:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK or DYL? (Did You Laugh)

Buchnera americana is the second article in 3 days that was simply dreadful in parts. Something's wrong in DenmYrK. The first article (as I remember a hurricane) had boats disassembling themselves and stranded fuel tanks and buoys sailing about searching for things. This article asserts that 'sessile' plants are notable and flowers are attractive. Gasp!

In months past, DYK articles were frustrating to me because of the obvious remaining misspellings. But now laughable facts and tortured thesauruses? 24.28.17.231 (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Boats searching for people on boats. Mrah. Boats didn't disassemble themselves; the storm dismantled them. HurricaneFan25 — 19:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Buchnera americana looks like it was a student project. It's a mistake to assume that students understand the subject matter they are studying! --Orlady (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

24.28.17.231, I'm sure your jokes are very witty, but it's hard for anyone to know what you're unhappy about if you don't cite the specific wording/sentences/hooks that you find problematic. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks like I was speed reading/multitasking that day, so apologise for Buchnera americana. Still it got a reader interacting with writers, which is something. Have given it a bit of a once-over but am busy IRL today. He put specifics on talk page which I've fixed some of. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, reader interaction with wreiters is one of the best reasons for DYK to exist. And the improvements in that Buchnera article are evident. (But I did enjoy the laughs I got from passages like "endangered plant that is commonly found"...) --Orlady (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

head cold....

Have been uploading prep 1, but have to go and do RL chores. Started to look at John Crockett but I have a bit of a head cold, so gave up. Anyone is welcome to finish off prep 1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Lawang Sewu double hook (Prep 1)

Is there a way to avoid repeating "Lawang Sewu" in the hook? Both of my originals were deliberately phrased to avoid the repetition. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

How about: ... that Lawang Sewu: Kuntilanak's Vengeance was described by a critic as "truly 'raping' an icon of Semarang"? —Bruce1eetalk 08:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 WikiCup

I'm just dropping a note to let you all know that the 2012 WikiCup will be beginning tomorrow. The WikiCup is a fun competition open to anyone which awards the production of quality audited content on Wikipedia; points are awarded for working on featured content, good articles and topics, did you know and in the news, as well as for performing good article reviews. Signups are still open, and will remain open until February; if you're interested in participating, please sign up. Over 70 Wikipedians have already signed up to participate in 2012's competition, while last year's saw over double that number taking part. If you're interested in following the WikiCup, but not participating, feel free to sign up at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send to receive our monthly newsletters. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page, or ask away at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, where a judge, competitor or watcher will be able to help you. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hook slated for New Years Day; article at AFD

There's a hook for Public Domain Day in one of the 1 January prep areas, but the article is at AFD, where it is not scheduled for normal closure until about 3 January. It should not go to the main page while it is still festooned with templates. It appears to be headed for "keep," but it is not such an obvious "keep" as to deserve an early closure on the basis of WP:SNOW. Opinions??? (Early close for benefit of DYK? Wait for the 7 days to expire, then run the hook late? Or?)

PS - Additionally, the hook isn't entirely true, as some works in the U.S. and Australia enter the public domain every year (for example, most US government works). But let's think about the article first. --Orlady (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not the first time this sort of this has happened. Based upon the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Domain Day, it appears virtually certain that the article will survive AFD (Of the five discussion participants only the nominator supports deletion and there have been no new comments for the last two days). As a result I recommend waiting till after 00:00 (UTC) and, barring any new arguments for deletion, closing the AFD under the principle of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. If a new concern is raised that casts doubt on the AFD result then the hook should be pulled and the AFD allowed to run its full course. This will provide the AFD 6 days of discussion (one short of the current normal) and still allow DYK to honor the article author's special date request. I will handle the AFD close if no one else beats me to it. --Allen3 talk 11:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
And WP:SNOW, for more of our letter soup. PS. Removed from the queue, sadly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 13:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I goofed, removing the article before checking this. I did replace it with another one of Piotrus'... but if PD Day is preferred, feel free to revert. I noticed the discussion before going out to dinner, but didn't check on the developments before removing. Sorry! Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I like Allen3's approach. It's clear that the AFD is going to close as "keep," and since this is a January 1st event, it ought to be displayed on January 1. (Next year it belongs in WP:OTD.) However, waiting until midnight UTC will provide a reasonable amount of due process for the AFD. --Orlady (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
AFD closed and hook set moved to queues. --Allen3 talk 00:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Queue 1

In the John Fuller (college head) hook, can some kind admin please change "condemned of Christian heresy" to "condemned for Christian heresy" or better, "condemned to death for Christian heresy"? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Do reference citations in articles need specific page numbers in order to appear in DYK?

Recently some hooks have been pulled out the DYK prep areas because the inline citations in the articles did not have specific page numbers. The most recent of these removals is Template:Did you know nominations/Fancy Dress Festival. Earlier, one of my nominations, Template:Did you know nominations/1804 Haiti Massacre (not an article I had written) was pulled out of the prep area for reasons including an absence of page numbers, and I undertook an extensive effort to revise the article and add page numbers to the inline citations.

The specification of page numbers is useful, but AFAICT it is not a requirement that has ever been listed anywhere in the DYK rules. What rule am I missing?

Since Fancy Dress Festival cites only one source that has pages with numbers, and that's a university thesis that's available online as a searchable PDF, I can't imagine that anyone savvy enough to look up the references will have any difficulty finding the content cited. --Orlady (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a requirement, although of course it's useful to throw reviewers a bone and help them locate the fact they need to verify. Beyond that, though, there's no justification for challenging a DYK based on missing page numbers. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Orlady, at the time the article cited three sources with numbered pages: the thesis and two books. Also, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Rjanag, it's not only "useful" - do you really think reviewers should be required to page through a book several hundred pages long to verify a single fact? Page numbers are required for verification purposes when using multi-page sources; without them, citations are not complete. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
All of the references to the two books were accompanied by references to the thesis, so the reader had two places to look for the information. The article creator has now removed all references to the two books -- how does that contribute to WP:Say where you got it? --Orlady (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why that was done, as it doesn't solve the problem in this specific case. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec) @Nikkimaria: Like I said, the issue is about whether you can verify the hook fact, not about page numbers. If you can manage to find the fact (for example, using a searchable PDF), there's no reason to fail the nom, although you are of course welcome to tell the author to consider adding page numbers as he/she develops the article further. If you can't find the fact, it's enough to say "I couldn't find the fact in the source cited; please provide a page number so I can verify it). DYK reviews don't generally require verifying all the other claims in the article, only the hook fact, so whether or not page numbers are provided for the rest of the references is irrelevant.
Of course, we all know that page numbers are important and references are less useful without them. I've been on Wikipedia for a long time, I don't need you to tell me that. But they're not a DYK requirement. People need to realize the difference between requirements and good writing; just because something is good writing doesn't mean it's required for DYK, and just because I say something isn't a DYK requirement doesn't mean I'm saying it's not important for Wikipedia articles in general. Peoples' inability to distinguish between good writing and DYK requirements is the main contributor to all the instruction creep on this project and the perennial complaints that DYK is becoming "mini-GA". rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
As I already pointed out, at the time the article cited not only a PDF, but also two books. It's a requirement that the hook fact be verifiable; without a page number, it isn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes the hook would be verifiable, though its more of a pain. Amount of work needed to find a fact in a cited source has never been a reason for removing a hook. If you feel it should be then it should be discussed here first before being implemented.--Kevmin § 23:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
As per Rjanag and Kevmin, hooks should not be removed for supposedly violating DYK rules that do not yet exist. If you believe a new DYK rule is needed then it should be proposed and discussed here first. As a secondary issue, I wonder why Nikki ignored this article for the 4 weeks it sat at the nominations page. Is she aware of the level of disruption she is causing by waiting till the vary last moment to raise issues that could have been easily resolved if raised in a timely manner. There are reasons that Featured article review places restrictions on reopening of debates of recently promoted FAs and FAs on the Main page. Maybe it is time for DYK to implement similar rules as a means of discouraging the practice of habitually waiting to the last possible opportunity to raise a concern and then expecting others to address concerns without the luxury of time. --Allen3 talk 00:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever, because there's no such thing as "DYK status" as there is FA status - an article is featured in the DYK section shortly after being approved and that's the end of it. It makes absolutely no difference whether a problem is noticed the day an article is DYK-nominated or a minute before it's set to hit the Main Page - it's still a problem. If you think I'm being "disruptive", then go to ANI and get consensus to topic-ban me from DYK. Until that happens, I will continue reviewing here and taking action as necessary to prevent unverified/copyvio/plagiarised/otherwise problematic hooks from being featured. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

My personal view is that a cite is not complete without page numbers (where of course such numbers are available). However, I think pulling a hook because it lacks cited page numbers is a tad extreme. It would have been more appropriate IMO to simply raise the issue here. Gatoclass (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused why the issue of searchable PDFs would be an exemption; unless an article has too close paraphrasing, it can be very hard to find content in a source via a search. If the article is well paraphrased, you might not know what words to search for-- I've never found it to work. So, no, I don't think we should have to ever read an entire source to verify content, and further, if the person who adds the content and has the source doesn't add the page number, they just leave a future maintenance burden for other editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

We accept out-of-print newspaper sources, or those which require paid subscriptions to read on online archives, yet this is never taken up as an easy of easy verifiability. Page numbers, or the lack thereof, when the source is otherwise identified, don't make verification any more difficult than those instances, and shouldn't be singled out as something which would disqualify a hook for DYK. Perhaps over at FAC, such stringency is warranted, but DKY articles can get away perfectly fine with being verifiable without the reader's hand being held. GRAPPLE X 03:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

For offline sources, page numbers are even more essential IMO, since verification can be a major problem without them. But I have on more than one occasion found lack of page numbers to be a problem when reviewing, and given that online sources can disappear, I think they are also essential for any online document that is more than a handful of pages long. Gatoclass (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
They're useful, definitely, and they do aid verification when the print source is available. But the ease of verification doesn't affect whether something is verifiable or not, so they're definitely not essential at this stage. I'd much rather see a multiple page PDF without a page number supplied than an unobtainable news story hidden behind a pay-wall, but neither of those can be considered absolutely unverifiable. Ease of verification is not something which should warrant yanking a hook from the queue—if the source has been given, page numbers are a bonus, as the information is still clearly obtainable without them (albeit with more effort). GRAPPLE X 03:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you are underestimating the problem. We frequently get hook statements that simply aren't supported by the cited source. When you don't have a page number, and the source is long, one can spend an inordinate amount of time looking for a piece of info that simply doesn't exist. Alternatively, one gets numerous possible hits, and then must check all of them to try and figure out which reference is the correct one. So again, while it might be acceptable to skip a page number if the document is short, I will almost always request a page number if, for example, the source is a book, because experience has taught me that without one I will often spend much more time on the verification process. Also, I consider it discourteous to force our readership to go to such lengths assuming they want to verify something. Gatoclass (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
That's not the situation with the Fancy Dress Festival article. There is no issue with the hook fact(s). The article had some issues with too-close paraphrasing, but because the article and the source are both very interesting, the article got some volunteer cleanup help from DYK volunteers. Casliber and I (and possibly others) can attest to the sourcing of the hook that's currently in the queue.
The nomination was on the noms page for 4 weeks, including some time in the holding area for January 1. Shortly after it was finally moved to the prep area (in the image slot), Nikkimaria pulled it out of the prep area because the references in the article didn't have page numbers. --Orlady (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit unclear on the problem here. Are we talking about every citation in the article, or just the ones being used to support the "hook". Because I don't think perfection in the entire article should be required for DYK, but the hook should probably be scrupulously referenced. --Jayron32 04:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Nikkimaria appears to be talking about every citation in the article. For 1804 Haiti Massacre, I ended up inserting 31 separate page number references. --Orlady (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, I think that adding page numbers should be a good idea; however I don't think it is a deal killer for DYK, unless we're talking about the hook. --Jayron32 04:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
In this case it applied to the hook; though the other citations are problematic, the decision to pull was because the hook lacked a complete citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) As I said, I think it's discourteous to the readership not to provide page numbers, for long sources at least. So when reviewing, I am very likely to challenge any article that cites books without page numbers, whether they are used to cite the hook statement or not. Once it reaches prep though, it's not such a vital issue that I would want to pull the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the discussion mixes up several issues. Should Nikkimaria pull out that hook? Probably no, because there is no rule for that, but this was done, and let us use it and decide the question raised in the process: Materialscientist (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm wary of how specific the page numbers need to be. While I agree that specifying the page(s) would be useful for lengthy books (and only lengthy books), I disagree with the undue focus being shown here on identifying the page the hook was taken from. The hook is not the raison d'être of the article. It's only important for quick verification by reviewers.

Most of the times when using a book as a source, you often take out other information from it aside from the hook - that means you specify a page range or several pages that can span from a couple to tens of pages to the entire book. And let's face it, most editors dislike the clunkiness of shortened footnotes. Furthermore, when citing journal articles (which comprises most PDF sources) you also need to specify the entire page range of the article per journal citation convention. You simply can not pick and choose the pages you got the information from and ignore the rest, however long the article may be.

All these means that it will be difficult for reviewers to find them, but it absolutely does not mean that it fails WP:V nor is it a reason to fail a nom. I've been in this situation before when a hook I was using was taken from a particularly lengthy and difficult to understand journal article. You know how the reviewer handled it? Simple: he asked me what page and what paragraph the hook was from. End of problem.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed vote

a) Reviewer may request page numbers for reference(s) or pass a nom without them.
b) The book reference which supports the hook should contain page numbers (if appropriate/applicable)
c) All book refs should contain page numbers (if appropriate/applicable - surely, if the mere presence of a book is a reference, it does not need page numbers, etc., etc.)

  • Support c). If the writer did use those sources, he/she should have no problem providing those page numbers (for those readers who happen to have access). Nobody else will do that otherwise (sad experience). This may become a real hassle for anyone trying to improve the article using the past version (for GA/FA, etc.), and even for the nominator, a few weeks after the DYK review. Consider it as an extension of the "bare-url rule" - a reference should be complete. Materialscientist (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • At the risk of instruction creep, I too support (c). One additional reason for doing so, which I didn't mention above, is that POV pushers and others sometimes find a statement they like at an unreliable website which cites the book as its source of information but doesn't provide any page numbers. So the editor uses this unreliable source as the source of the statement in the article, but disguises the fact by citing the book instead of the website. When challenged, they usually can't provide a page number because they haven't actually seen the book. You can usually guess when this has happened when you do a search for the info yourself and find that it only appears on a dodgy website somewhere. Gatoclass (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support a). If a problem with the references is genuine, and not just a matter of convenience, then it's going to come up during review; and if the review has been too cursory and has missed a genuine problem, then the hook can be pulled on that basis. If the nom has been legitimately passed, though, pulling it on what boils down to the desire for perfect, rather than verifiable, refs, just strikes me as petty. A book source without a page number is no more obtuse as a reference than an unobtainable news source or a foreign language source unknown to the reader. GRAPPLE X 05:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
    On the equality: Imagine a world where everyone will have access to any source of information :-D. It's going toward that. A copy of nearly any book can be obtained within a few days (many people don't hesitate paying for that). Materialscientist (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
    We're still a long way from that. For the academic subjects I research, which include the Latin language, Biblical commentary, Onomastics, Paleontology, and Botany, I have to wait a lot longer or travel to where the books are located. There are no e-copies available for some of the standard academic reference works in some of these fields, nor for the primary literature in others. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support C, I don't think this is instruction creep, it's just good practice anywhere on the Wikipedia. We shouldn't expect editors in the future to have to go back and look up pages on books-- the editor adding the text should supply the page number, and since DYK is a "portal" for many new articles and editors, we should teach them here to do what is commonly expected per citation guidelines. Still unclear though on the PDF issue, though, since it is not common to supply page number on journal medical sources, for example, so my comments apply to book sources and very long PDFs, not journal articles, where page numbers aren't routinely used. In other words, DYK should uphold what all good citation practice upholds. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I think "book" in this context can be taken to mean any longish source where it is likely to prove difficult to find the information without a page number. Gatoclass (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support c). per Materialscientist and Gerda. Also, we don't want "mini-FAs" but we do want to showcase wiki's "best of the new". PumpkinSky talk 15:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Since when? "Best of the new" has never been part of DYK's mission. Historically, if an article passed basic content and length requirements it would pass, and the project specifically avoided doing quality evaluations. Nothing on WP:DYK or T:DYK on the main page suggests that these are "the best of Wikipedia's new articles". So it seems you are supporting this proposal based on your own personal notion of what DYK should be, rather than the existing consensus of what DYK is. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Yawn, so presumptive. PumpkinSky talk 15:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a response, or just feeling dismissive? rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Rjanag, your assertion seems to be in conflict with that of Orlady, below. You two might want to resolve that. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
No need to suggest that Rjanag and I are at odds. He is correct that DYK has never been represented as "best of the new." I merely pointed out (below) that DYK is in fact the best of the new, even without page numbers in every citation (nor the various other niceties that have been suggested as requirements at one time or another). --Orlady (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support a) per previous post. Both B and C are rule creeps and both are one-size-fits-all approaches that ignore their impracticality in actual application.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support a) Given the ease of watching noms now it is very easy for a reviewer to request the information if they are having problems finding the hook fact.--Kevmin § 17:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The page number is not only of interest to the DYK process but valuable for a future reader. If that reader wants to find the source in a longish pdf or book, it's just helpful to know where to look, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support (a): If a reviewer can't find the information when checking refs., they should ask; that's also the best way to encourage an article writer to provide page refs in future. I agree that's best practice, but it's complicated when using citation templates and often people provide a raw GoogleBooks search URL with multiple hits in it for several refs, rather than going back and re-searching on targets that will return the specific page in each case. So in practice the info is often a step away, and we should encourage article writers to take that step rather than add it to the mountain of requirements. Similarly, making small improvements and asking about such things are as I see it part of doing a conscientious review - rather than either saying "The punctuation/refs/spelling/grammar is/are bad" and sitting back waiting for the article writer to intuit in what way and fix it, or assuming the reference(s) "must be in the book somewhere" and passing it on that assumption. (Sometimes the ref should have been to a different book; one gets confused and slots in the wrong thing.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support (a): The other proposals are laudable, but they constitute inappropriate instruction creep. It is important that the facts displayed in DYK be verifiable, but that does not necessarily require page numbers -- and with the electronic information content that people are increasingly relying on, it is often much easier to find the content than it is to find page numbers, or page-numbering has been rendered irrelevant due to reflowing of the text on an e-reader. Additionally, I note that conventions for reference citations differ between specialties, with the use of numerous footnotes that cite individual page numbers being an attribute of fields like history, but almost unheard-of in scientific fields, in which the convention is to cite entire journal articles, papers, reports, book chapters (because the reference is to the entire piece of research, not to a specific factoid contained therein). Insistence on a convention that is appropriate in some fields but not others is a recipe for excluding contributions about topics in the "other" fields.
    If a DYK reviewer needs additional reference details to find the hook fact, the reviewer should ask for those details (and enter those details in the footnotes as a courtesy, once they are obtained), but there should be no universal requirement for page numbering in references.
    In spite of opinions to the contrary, merely by requiring verification for the hook fact and inline sourcing throughout the article, DYK does indeed maintain higher standards than are followed on the majority of new Wikipedia article pages. A random walk through the articles listed at User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult will show that a large fraction of the newest content that appears to be reasonably well-developed is unsuitable for DYK -- often due to factors like a dearth of inline citations or reliance on sources that are obviously non-RS. Even without page numbers on every reference citation (or infoboxes or properly formatted dashes, to name two other examples of small elements that some Wikipedians consider to be of paramount importance), DYK truly is "the best of new content". --Orlady (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • A few points on this. First, please read WP:CITE, particularly the point about what information should be included in an inline citation to a book (as was in this article prior to the most recent edits). Second, there is a big difference between citing an entire 20-page journal article and citing an entire 200+-page book, or even a 100-page thesis; the former is acceptable, the latter not so much, at least as a general principle (there are of course exceptions; this specific case was not one of them). It would be great if we could trust that every reviewer is capable of exercising discretion, getting information required for verification, and even adding this information themselves; between newbies and QPQ, we can't assume that. Indeed, I notice that in this particular case, though the reviewers did an admirable job of cleaning up plagiarism, they neither added page numbers nor pointed out the issue of WP:SCHOLARSHIP - and these are very experienced reviewers, as I'm sure you'll agree ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support (c) as a general principle; prefer (a) for DYK - Page numbers from books should always be included, but like others here I dislike instruction creep. I would like to point out to some of the above commentors that electronic books and searches do not make page numbers redundant or obsolete. If you think otherwise, I will gladly cite for you a fact from a Dutch, Latin, Greek, or Hungarian text and ask you to go verify it from the original. Electronic searches are only faster than page numbers if the source is in English and if you have a good keyword to search on that does not occur throughout a long work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a poll about a proposed DYK rule, not about general principles, so what you are saying is you support (a). It would be nice if you could clarify the bolded part of your message to reflect that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
And some PDFs are designed to be non-searchable because they are written to be difficult to copy and paste (see here for a discussion on such an instance), although I have no idea how big a problem this is. Mikenorton (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support (a) I think that contributors should be encouraged to use page numbers, but that's not the same as making it a requirement. As noted by others, we already AGF for offline sources. I'm not aware that this is a major problem - I've never encountered it in any of the reviews that I've done. Mikenorton (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support (c) per Materialscientist. Manxruler (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support (a) I agree with Mikenorton's remarks. Page numbers are not required for GA status and, although they are desirable and should be encouraged, they should not be required for DYK either. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Change to main-page hook ungrammatical

The phrase "currently-copyrighted" should not be hyphenated; a hyphen is not supposed to be used following an adverb ending in "ly". Can someone with administrative powers please fix this recent edit to remove the hyphen? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. For future references, problems with the hooks on the main page should be reported at WP:ERRORS. --Orlady (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll do my best to remember next time, or at least remember to look at the top of this page to be reminded of the existence of WP:ERRORS. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Carrier Group 7 (Queue 4)

Isn't dis-establish supposed to be one word (i.e. disestablish?) We have antidisestablishmentarianism in the dictionary, after all. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

My dictionary (Webster's) has it as one word, "disestablish". No hyphen involved. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

International Women's Day

International Women's Day is on March 8. I know this is eight weeks away, but it can sometimes take this long for a hook to reach the front page. Will/can this be treated as a "Special Occasion" for DYK purposes? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Not a significant celebration, and we shouldn't accommodate every conceivable holiday as a special occasion. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
My reason for asking is that I seem to recall that this was treated as a special occasion last year and that there was a "push" for suitable articles about women. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I think there's nothing wrong about presenting an extra number of women that day, like we had 3 Romanian hooks in a set that National holiday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
If any editor or group of editors wishes to create or expand a suitable set of articles then DYK can has an existing mechanism to request the article appear on a specific date. As for this date during past years, please see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 54#Women's DYKs, Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 55#Women's Day images, and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 64#Reminder: March 8 nominations for previous DYK discussions. --Allen3 talk 15:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I like the list of possible suitable articles at User:T. Anthony/Women in Red. There's plenty there to be getting on with if anyone is short of something to do. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that's a nice idea, and the 3 months' notice is great, gives plenty of time for people to come up with ideas and research and write. Thanks also for the link to a suitable list of redlinks. Please don't dismiss such things as "not significant" - nobody's forced to participate in such bundling of DYKs, and we just bent over backwards for Christmas, even bumping related topics out of December 25 preps/queues lest they spoil the mood for those who observe it. And International Women's Day is observed in large parts of the world. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps "lesser" (I don't mean that to sound insulting, btw) holidays/celebrations could be given a holding area for one full update of hooks with care to choose as many hooks from the nominations that fit without needing to create anything especially for it—for instance, I imagine there will be enough nominations between now and Women's Day to fill an update entirely with hooks about notable women without any real hassle. GRAPPLE X 18:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I strongly support having two or three full IWD sets. This is a wonderful incentive to work on articles about women, an important goal. Last year there were 17 hooks in two large sets (carefully constructed by PFHLai to display in geographically relevant timeslots), plus a couple more hooks in a third set. I only discovered that the significant American artist Claire Falkenstein had no article because I was looking for something to contribute to DYK's observance of International Women's Day, and I probably never would've written the article otherwise. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
And I remember Anne Sharp (written by her daughter), who still lived then and noticed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/James H. Horne

It looks as though the above might have been removed from the nominations page. Should I just paste it back up? Location (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no sign in the nomination page history that it was ever added there once the template itself was created. Since it's still eligible to be added under December 29 (though only for the next five and a half hours), I decided the safest thing was to add it myself, in case you didn't see this until after midnight. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of it! It has been awhile since I nominated a DYK, so it's entirely possible that I did not properly complete the process. Thanks again! Location (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
As you can see from your contributions, you never added it to the nominations page, which is one of the steps for nominating. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Location (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like it belongs under December 24, since that's the day the expansion began, and it would have been eligible if it had been added there on the 29th. I'm going to move it from December 29, where I put it, to December 24. If there's a problem with any of this, I imagine one of the more experienced DYK folks will tell us. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Candidates for image hook for Prep 1

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1 is currently filled, except for the image hook. Ironically, all 5 of the nominations for hooks in that set included images. Surely at least one of them would be suitable to move up to the image slot. I might do so, but I'm partial because I nominated one of the five. --Orlady (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Details: The Clay Beauford image is not verified to be free, and the image nominated for the 3-hook article is not used in any of the three articles, but the other three images (two buildings and a portrait) would be good to use. --Orlady (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to use the image supplied with Template:Did you know nominations/Juncus roemerianus, Aquamarina, Keissleriella rara, Massarina carolinensis, Paraphaeosphaeria pilleata, because a five-article hook with an image is a wonderful opportunity to have. GRAPPLE X 19:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Support that, because the names look less abstract with a pic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The image will need to be added to one or more of the articles. --Orlady (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
It's already the infobox image for the fifth one. GRAPPLE X 20:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Murphy Complex Fire

Murphy Complex Fire needs a second opinion, or needs a reviewer. I was not involved in the article, but in trying to explain that a picture which the reviewer doesn't find appropriate should not be in the way of a review of the article. So I feel too involved to do it myself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Orlady (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, and BlueMoonset for the ALT, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. I just did some minor tweaks to the article, too. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
With respect, this is another example of the problems with QPQ. As soon as reviewer and nominator disagree, as happened here, it becomes clear that reviewing is passing a judgment, and since the reviewer felt required to enforce one of the stated rules and the nominator refused to give ground, it became adversarial. It is in any case one of the more recent nominations - work on the article began on January 1 - so I fail to see the rush, but this is the kind of conflict that makes me hate doing reviews. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Yea, well if people would enforce things equally this would not occur so often. Making the rules match reality would help too. Here the rules said "consider" it didn't say "required". I've seen worse images appear as lead, so the reviewer holding up the hook because he didn't like the image is just silly. Orlday and others said it right, you approve the hook and the prep builder doesn't uses it if it's not very good. PumpkinSky talk 23:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK?again symbol

I have been away from DYK for some thing. I see a new symbol . Can somebody please update Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Reviewing_guide#Finishing_the_review about the use of this symbol. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying that omission! I added some information there. Please read it to see if it is sufficiently clear. --Orlady (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
All clear. :) --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

List of DYK Hooks by Date broken?

The list of DYK hooks by date on the Queues page hasn't refreshed for 48 hours. My recollection is that it normally refreshes a few times every hour. Does something need to be kickstarted to get it functioning and timely again? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The operator of DYKHousekeepingBot, the bot which maintains Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count, is unavailable until at least January 8. Others have left him a note that the bot has stopped functioning but until he returns there will be no automatic updates. The count of pending nominations is useful but not critical and DYK has survived previous multi-day outages of this bot without serious problems. --Allen3 talk 21:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Good to know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Skerray (Q4)

I know the source (a local tourism promotion site, so not, I would suggest, of great academic value) gives the translations, but although I am not a speaker of Gaelic, I have always taken an interest in how placenames in Ireland are derived from the Gaelic. On the basis of my knowledge of places in Ireland with not dissimilar place names (The Skerries, Northern Ireland, Skerries, Dublin, Scarriff: see also the rocky island, a {skerry]]) I can't for a moment believe that this short place name has such a detailed translation: Gaelic just is not that succinct a language. I fear that putting such a mistranslation on the main page, regardless of what a website trying to invite visitors to a very remote area might claim, would be to make Wiki a laughing stock among those who actually know something about the matter. Kevin McE (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the name as given doesn't mean all of that. It's pretty much just "the rocks". Scottish and Irish are languages with prepositions, and "between" (idir) would be a separate word. It's not uncommon for words to be condensed during bastardisation, such as Portadown (Port an Dúnáin) or Belfast (Beal feirste) or even lost entirely. I'd not be surprised if the actual etymology began with a longer name which was then contracted down to Skerray - I could be wrong, but isn't the etymology of Newry based on iúr cinn trá (the yew of the strand), which seems a similar set of circumstances. Hook might be best being reworded to reflect a gradual change and not implying a direct translation. GRAPPLE X 00:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm no expert on Gaelic, but I share the perception that there is nothing unusual about "Skerries", "Skerray," etc., as a place name related to rocks on the coast. Further, I find the alleged meaning of the name, as described on that tourism website, to be a pile of B.S. Accordingly, I substituted a totally different hook from the article. --Orlady (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Q6

Maya eccentrics

If there is any semantic justification for the noun phrase, it should be Mayan eccentrics. However: the use in the article is to use eccentric as the adjectival component in the noun phrase eccentric flints, and when it does take the substantive part, it is qualified by the substance of the material (eg obsidian eccentrics) , not the place of origin or culture of the sculptor. That might not fit the goal of a "hooky" phrase, but fits the goals of accurate and non-misleading information. Kevin McE (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, so I changed it to Mayan. --Orlady (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Monte Ward

This man was surely "the Providence Grays' opening day starting pitcher", not "the Providence Grays Opening Day starting pitcher" Kevin McE (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Reworded to "Opening Day starting pitcher for the Providence Grays". Thanks for pointing it out! --Orlady (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I still see no grammatical justification for capitalisation of day Kevin McE (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
For whatever reason, Wikipedia treats "Opening Day" as a proper noun. --Orlady (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Rano Karno

The habit of capitalising every job title going continues: Ddeputy Ggovernor of Banten, unless it can be established that it is regularly used as a specific English language phrase. Kevin McE (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I seem to remember job titles being capitalized when followed by the name of the person in the office. For example, President Barack Obama, not president Barack Obama. In this case, as Rano Karno is the name, it should definitely be Deputy Governor of Banten Rano Karno. As there are two different foreign terms there, I admit it is a bit confusing. We would probably not say prime minister of Canada Stephen Harper, would we? (Note the capitals). -- Crisco, at web cafe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.20.51.22 (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No we wouldn't say "Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper" but we would have to say "Prime Minister Stephen Harper". When we use the job as a title (very much like Mr. Mrs.) it is capitalized, otherwise it's in small letters. In this case it shouldn't be capitalized, and that's my fault, I reviewed the entry and missed it. Yazan (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Changed it to lower-case. --Orlady (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Q1

Montpelier Crescent

The road on which this set of houses is built runs perpendicular to the coast: given that, it is quite impossible, rather than usual, for it to be built facing the sea. There are about 6 rows of houses between this location and the sea, and no appreciable gradient, so even if they did face the sea they would have seen nothing but roofs. Kevin McE (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The article indicates that it was usual for houses built in Brighton in that era to face the sea. Even though it would have been impossible to build a house with a view of the sea at this particular site, that does not negate the idea that it was unusual to build any house that didn't face the sea. I didn't change this one. --Orlady (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
That suggests that every road with houses was built parallel to each other, and to the coast. Plainly untrue, yet alone unverifiable. Kevin McE (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
As the writer of the article, I can confirm that Orlady's explanation is correct and verifiable in the sources. It is the fact that a res development was built facing NW, rather than this one in particular, that is unusual, per refs [2] and [36]. Incidentally, although I didn't mention it in the article (maybe I will add this): elsewhere in Myall (2008), it states that it would have been possible to build a sea-facing terrace/crescent on the site, as undeveloped land was available perpendicular to Montpelier Road at the time; if I remember that part of the book correctly, there was actually a firm proposal to do this before the current layout was adopted. (Also there is in fact a significant downhill slope all the way from Montpelier Road/Crescent to the sea, although I doubt I can find the exact figures anywhere.) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Aaron Lockett

Are we to assume that this is some sort of sporting acheivement? In what sport? (WP:DYKSG C2) Kevin McE (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --Orlady (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Administrative law in Singapore

No justification for a capital in government Kevin McE (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --Orlady (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
1889 Scottish Cup Final

As with Mr Lockett above, the reader should not have to guess the context. Kevin McE (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Not changed. In this instance, I think the hook ("that in the 1889 Scottish Cup Final, conditions were so poor that the players threw snowballs at each other?") is interesting and meaningful regardless of what game the "players" were playing. --Orlady (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Transclusion problem?

Apparently not all comments in the individual DYK reviews are showing up on T:TDYK somehow. I clicked on Template:Did you know nominations/Moultrie Flag, which shows no reviews on the main page, and discovered two other editors reviewed it two days ago... - The Bushranger One ping only 02:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This could be a browser refresh problem, as I don't see any other likely cause. Did oyu visit T:TDYK after the time the nomination was posted, but before you first went to edit that review? Can you investigate this issue from another computer? --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm seeing the same thing; comments show up on the template, but not in the collected discussion page. Neither a dummy edit to the template nor an attempt to remove problems potentially caused by closed noms ahead of the template in question made any difference. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
User error as usual. What is transcluded at T:TDYK is Template:Did you know nominations/The Moultrie Flag, not Template:Did you know nominations/Moultrie Flag. Don't ask me why the nominator re-created the nomination page after it was already posted, or why people were posting reviews on the latter page (which is not even linked from anywhere). rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
fixed rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

...how does that even work? Since the link on T:TDYK to leave reviews went to the one with the reviews, that wasn't transcluded, that... *head asplode* - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The link from T:TDYK to the subpage comes from |nompage= within the subpage (by default this is the made to be the same as the subpage name and should not be changed). In this case, the editor had (as many editors who don't read the instructions do) messed up the nomination and later manually changed that parameter to |nompage=Moultrie Flag ([4]), which is why the link on T:TDYK went there. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Ahhhh, I see. Thanks for explaining that. I'm not going crazy after all. (Yet.) - The Bushranger One ping only 20:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Help a newbie

Will someone please review "Chris Brooks" (DEC 30): [5]. I am trying to get a newbie a DYK. I'm even fine taking my name off the award (serious). So if I have annoyed people, please look past that and just let's get this on the front page. Um...and if there are issues with the article itself, let me know and I will work to fix them.TCO (Reviews needed) 17:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's received one review but doesn't meet the fivefold expansion criterion; however, it occurs to me it may qualify as an unreferenced BLP expansion. It's on a gymnast. Anyone care to make a second evaluation? ... By the way, speaking of unreviewed nominations, as this one was, we have a long "tail" again on T:DYK. Anyone care to make another of those posts listing old noms that have yet to receive a review? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I took my name off of it. If you will please evaluate on BLP rationale, I appreciate it, Yng. Want to hook the newbie!TCO (Reviews needed) 19:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't have time, I'm afraid. I have too many irons in the fire right now :-( Hence posting back here. Anyone? Thanks to rjanag for giving it a try, by the way. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hook (too negative?)

I have several articles brewing but not complete yet. Rather than risk having to create separate nominations if the hook I'm considering is too negative, I'd like to ask here first; the hook fact is cited to an interview with one of the subjects in Kompas, one of the biggest newspapers in Indonesia. The hook fact I'm considering is: "... that Jockie Soerjoprajogo, who stole a ring from Harry Roesli to feed his drug habit, tried to convince Ahmad Albar to quit the habit but reportedly had a gun pulled on him?" Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

See, I want to read about these now, even though I've no idea who any of these people are. That's the measure of a worthwhile hook, so definitely go for it. GRAPPLE X 23:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I would tighten it. I think people try to have a one sentence summary. But a true hook, is more of a hook. Like just tell us the first or second part of that thing. Other than that. Violence is good. Sex is good. Etc. I mean I did male Common box turtle leans back past the vertical to mate as a hook. Not really even that important to the topic. But a damned good hook, and very DYKish.TCO (Reviews needed) 00:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Sneak peaks in my user space. Ahmad Albar still needs more polishing. Fair enough, but I can't think of a way to trim the hook and keep all three. Or I could write an article on Soerjoprojogo and Albar's band God Bless and go for four... Hehe... Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
How about "... that despite robbing Harry Roesli for drug money, Jockie Soerjoprajogo ended up having a gun pulled on him by Ahmad Albar? GRAPPLE X 00:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You can do what you want, but my point was that a good hook should be single clause. Should not be if, then. Should not be despite blabla. Should be direct and simple. I'm not sure why you are trying to pack three subjects into the hook? But anyhow, good luck. Lots of people do these overly complicated statements, so it is very accepted. Why do you have to tell us both stories, ring and gun? Pick one or the other.TCO (Reviews needed) 00:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... I could just go with a hook about Harry Roesli helping 36,000 street children in the five years before his death. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I like it. Very simple and direct. TCO (Reviews needed) 01:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The hook is simple, but there is nothing particularly unusual about criminals fighting over drug money. I would prefer to at least see something in the hook identifying why these particular people are notable. Gatoclass (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I settled on "... that Ahmad Albar reportedly pulled a gun on fellow God Bless member Jockie Soerjoprajogo after the latter told him to quit drugs?" (God Bless is a band). Not too negative? Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
As a side note, these were band members fighting over the drug habits of the lead singer. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that's too negative. And the "God Bless" name adds a nice touch of irony ;) Gatoclass (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
On second thoughts, maybe it is a bit slanderous - especially given that it's only a report, not a proven fact. I think you may have to find something else. Gatoclass (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I've added two separate hooks and the references to the nomination page as well as guitarist Ian Antono's recollection of the events, which confirm that a gun-like object was involved but suggest it may have been a toy, to the articles. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC to make FA leaders elected, not appointed

An RFC is underway to consider a proposal to make the Featured Article leadership elected.

TCO (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Issue with old hook promotion (or lack of)

Hi all, I was going through my DYK credits and I noticed that I never received one for Amir Syamsuddin, which was nominated on 1 November. Looking into the matter, I found that the nomination was approved by Mkativerata on 4 November and closed by Panyd on 18 November as promoted. However, looking at Panyd's contributions to the preps on the 18th (Prep 1 part 1, Prep 1 part 2, Prep 4 part 1, Prep 4 part 2, Prep 3, Prep 2 part 1, and Prep 2 part 2) it doesn't seem to have made it to the preps. Is it possible for us to add the hook now, or should it just be abandoned? As it was not the fault of the nominator, I think it's a valid topic of discussion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If that's what happens I think it should be put in a prep ASAP. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hook is currently at Prep 3 (tenatively scheduled for the 00:00 10 January (UTC) update). --Allen3 talk 11:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. --Allen3 talk 12:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I was just reading the hooks in Queue 3, and I think this particular hook could use some attention. "Represented" doesn't only mean legally, so instead of being hooked, I was puzzled: I had trouble making sense of the hook, and not in an "I want to know more" way. I was thinking that giving an idea of his ministerial position in the hook would help, and also "Tempo magazine" rather than just the word "Tempo". I'd like to suggest the following wording:
  • If we are to have "magazine" in the hook, it should not be in italics as it is not part of the title. As for "represented", I'd link it to Defense (legal) except the defense article is a mess. As for his position, I don't see how that makes it any more clearer; he could have been a prosecutor from the get go. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Good point that "magazine" should not be in italics; that was sloppy of me. I think having "justice" makes it clear that he is active in law, so there's no need for a link in "represented"—and links shouldn't have to convey that kind of basic information anyway. Without "justice", there's no clue in the text that he is a lawyer or in the legal profession as opposed to being, say, a publicity agent or a press secretary. With that "justice" clue, the word "represented" lets the reader infer, from context, that he was a lawyer defending them. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Q1

In the final entry (the chess match), the phrase "legend has that the" is typically written "legend has it that the". I think the missing "it" should be added; I can't recall ever seeing it written without. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

whoops, missed that. I think you're right, "legend" = subject, so with "has" it requires a subject, "it". Thanks for catching (that). The Interior (Talk) 18:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Now all we need is for an admin to come by and make the change in the next seven hours or so, before it hits the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. --Allen3 talk 00:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

All queues empty

All queues are empty. Can admins please fill them? PumpkinSky talk 01:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well done. But Queue 4 is missing a hook; one got moved out earlier. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Missing hook in Queue 4

Queue 4 (link here) is missing the last hook. I tried to submit an edit request about it, but when I clicked on the link to submit the request, even that page was fully protected. A. Parrot (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have already removed what looked like a typo, but we might want the usual 6 hooks not 5. Art LaPella (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Not a typo. As I noted in a section above, a hook was removed from the set when it was in prep (Prep 2 IIRC). Surely there's a quirky can be slotted in? Yngvadottir (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Not a lot of quirky in the queue. Maybe January 5's Crazy fish would fit the bill? BlueMoonset (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 Done - I stole one from prep 3 to fill the hole. --Orlady (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Toolserver maintenance

There's toolserver maintenance scheduled today until 01:00 UTC. The DYK updates probably won't be affected, but if they are, DYKUpdateBot will update DYK after maintenance ends (so the update may be delayed by an hour). Shubinator (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Prep area 1: three Polish/Prussian/Russian DYKs

It seems a bit much that the first entry is on Russia, the third on Poland, and the sixth on both (and Prussia).

May I suggest that the sixth gets moved to the empty sixth position in Prep area 4, and a new sixth be found for Prep area 1? January 5's Crazy fish might work. The picture isn't a particularly good one, I don't think, and the hook doesn't mention the picture anyway. 66.189.37.138 (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for Pinboard hook in preparation area 2

Hi! I commented on the nomination page for Pinboard (website), but I'm not sure if that'll be noticed at this stage of the process, so I figured I'd post a note here too. I'd recommend changing "25,000 different users" to "25,000 registered users" since that's more accurate to the reference; we can assume that some users of Pinboard actually have multiple registered accounts. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Prep 2 lead hook

The lead hook has (pictured) next to a link that is not the main article (no probs with that), but the link points to a rather stubby stub (which I don't think is what we should be doing). Schwede66 07:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Are DRV's eligible?

Question: if an article was deleted via AfD and then resurrected via DRV, would it then be considered "new" under the DYK definitions? I'm guessing no, but I wanted to ask. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the specifics. The situation you describe appears different than instances such as an article being deleted as a copyright violation and then a different article being created under the same name. Instead you are describing a situation where an article is deleted and then later undeleted complete with its previous history. To the best of my knowledge this situation has never occurred and is not currently covered by the DYK rules. That being said I can easily imagine situations where such an article could or could not qualify under the spirit of the rules. Much depends upon the article's history before it was deleted. If the article existed at least 5 days before it was nominated for deletion then my understanding of the spirit behind the DYK rules is that it should not qualify as new and would require a 5x expansion to appear on DYK (the article already had its chance to appear on DYK during its first incarnation). On the other hand, if the article was still less than 5 days old when it was initially nominated for deletion the time it was undergoing AfD and the time it was deleted should not count against the 5 day limit. If the second situation describes the article's circumstances that I would mention that in the nomination's comments as it would provide at least a good reason to WP:IAR. --Allen3 talk 22:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I would also imagine it would be likely that the page would quality for expansion purposes, if it was of a small size when it was deleted it's likely going to be relatively simple to expand. GRAPPLE X 22:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Recreation of an article that has been deleted probably happens more often than us non-admins are aware; for example I know different versions of Techno Viking were deleted at least twice, and from the AfD discussions I reckon there were speedy deletions too. But I think it's actually covered under the rules as stated. If the deleted article is restored to userspace and forms the basis of the new article, it is a pre-existing article and would require 5-fold expansion, although the 5 days would start when it was moved into article space again; if the deletion is reversed via DRV, it has to be expanded 5 times from that point because again, it's a pre-existing article (unless it's the extremely unlikely event of a snow close as "delete" that then gets reversed at DRV so that the article is less than 6 days old when it reappears; if it's a new article and another article of the same title happens to have previously existed and been deleted, it's a new article; there was no such article when work began. (That was the case with Techno Viking; I have no idea what the previous versions looked like, I wrote the current article from scratch and for DYK purposes all that mattered was that it was five times longer than the small section at Fuck parade; the rules state that if there is an article section on the topic, that counts as something that must be expanded five times.) But we can't be expected to know about or check for an article that once existed; but if it comes back, it factors into the rules as a baseline for the new work. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
That's what I thought. If the article is resurrected, that becomes the baseline figure that needs to be increased five-fold, I can't just say "well it was at zero characters yesterday". Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Special occasions

Should we remove this?

Ahem! There is no "candidate entries section" as linked there, so this paragraph needs rewritten by someone who knows what is what. And I wonder if you'd mind adding wether people will be voting for one (below) when they approve or does just mean they've reviewed? As this *is* the talk page and is only valid for whoever fixes it, I've plonked it right here. Salut ~ R.T.G 13:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, this may need action. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should be removed. I just fixed what I think the guy was requesting in the first sentence; I don't really understand what he's asking about in the second.
On a second note, this isn't the first time I've noticed people complaining about the "template talk page" being used for nominations. It strikes me as not a very common complaint or a very important issue, but if people are concerned about it I wonder if we should consider moving it to Template:Did you know/Nominations (which would mainly entail updating the links in a bunch of the nomination-related templates and stuff) and redirecting Template talk:Did you know to here. I tend to think that would be unnecessary work to fix a non-issue, but if it's more of an issue than I think then the fix is still relatively simple. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This was discussed here in a now-archived very short thread ending in a fix by Orlady. I left a note on the person's talkpage at the time--so far as I know they never followed up on the issue. Having 2 talk pages is confusing, but this one is clearly marked in a big navbox in the upper right corner, so I don't think it merits moving anything . . . the only thing that I would have found useful before I started checking this page daily is to have an alert at the top of Template talk:Did You Know when there was serious discussion of something that would radically change DYK, like the quid pro quo requirement. (I knew about that discussion but many people have said they weren't.) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this was discussed in a short-lived thread on December 10 (apparently few people were paying attention that day), and I fixed the main issue, but apparently someone subsequently undid my fix! Does somebody periodically "refresh" the special occasions section from old code? --Orlady (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Aha! Actually, it seems that I fixed the issue the guy was concerned about, and Rjanag found and fixed a related issue. Two fixes are better than one! --Orlady (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Copy editing before posting a DYK hook on the main page

The Afghanistan at the 2002 Asian Games article required quite a bit of copy editing, every section had grammar and style issues. Why are these things not taken care of before a hook is posted to the main page? --Khajidha (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

All queues empty and all prep sets full

Calling all admins...PumpkinSky talk 13:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Cropped images

DYKUpdateBot now supports cropped images. If DYKUpdateBot sees an outgoing image cropped just for the main page, the bot will automatically delete the cropped image, use the original image for the archives, and tag the original image. Prep assemblers and tweakers, all you need to do is tag the cropped image with {{m-cropped|<original image filename>}}. Shubinator (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have requested this feature to avoid creation of useless cloned crops (this also confused the bot, as it could not delete a local crop if it did not exist on Commons). To repeat, if you crop an image XXX.jpg, creating a local crop XXXcrop.jpg only for main page appearance, do not tag XXXcrop.jpg with {{c-uploaded}}. Instead protect XXXcrop.jpg and tag XXXcrop.jpg as {{m-cropped|XXX.jpg}}. Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the new feature -- which I saw being used before Shubinator announced it here. However, I fail to understand why anyone would consider uploading an image here and protecting it locally if DYK is using a cropped version of that image. --Orlady (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll try to be more specific. Consider a typical scenario. Someone wants to use File:Histrio histrio by A. H. Baldwin.jpg. It is a bit too wide for DYK, but it is an WP:FP, and thus cropping the original is risky, even for a while. Thus xe crops it as File:Histrio histrio by A. H. Baldwin-crop.jpg, and here comes a dilemma: "should I upload a crop to Commons and then locally for DYK? But the crop is useless there". Thus usually the crops were uploaded locally, protected and tagged with {{c-uploaded}}. This was creating local clones, which the bot could not delete because there was no copy on Commons.
Here is what Shubinator done: he updated the bot code and re-tagged File:Histrio histrio by A. H. Baldwin-crop.jpg with {{m-cropped|Histrio histrio by A. H. Baldwin.jpg}} (this cropped file was uploaded locally and protected before by yourself). The bot posted protected File:Histrio histrio by A. H. Baldwin-crop.jpg on the main page, and after that, safely deleted it, but then, used the uncropped version for DYK archives and DYKfile tagging (before I was retagging/deleting manually). Materialscientist (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
In short: the original file version is untouched, the crop is created and uploaded (by any user), then protected by the promoting admin, then featured/deleted by the bot, who then tags the original file and uses it for archives. Materialscientist (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Q5

Thomas Alexander Barns

We should exercise care in verbs that are only accurate from particular places. To a reader in Congo, it is meaningless to say that he "took" anything to Congo, for that reader, he brought the expedition to Congo. This is, in the most literal sense, POV. Suggest led rather than took Kevin McE (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

In U.S. English usage, people "take" trips and expeditions. I changed it to "undertook" on the main page, where this queue is currently. --Orlady (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Needless to say, it is exactly the same in UK English. As usual KMcE gives no link to what he is talking about, but prima facie this point is pure nonsense. English, including verbs, is understood as being written from the situation of the writer. If I write "Smith went to New York" a reader in New York does not say to himself "Oh, he should have written "Smith came to New York"". Still less is it "meaningless". I would change it back. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Q6

Sargassum fish

It cannot increase the size of its mouth: it can open its mouth wider. But there again, so can I. Source for this is the website of a guy in Wales who lets out holiday cottages on his farm: not an obviously reliable source for a tropical fish. All sources other than him seem to prefer the single word sargassumfish. Kevin McE (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Regrettably, I got distracted and did not investigate this one until after it had reached the main page. However, I concluded that your concern is valid, so I wrote an entirely new hook about its ability to change its colour. --Orlady (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Birthday cake

The origin of this claim seems to be from a semi anonymous reviewer on a website that doesn't seem to merit a wikipedia article. The reviewer does not say that the song resembles brief intercourse, it says "The clapping Birthday Cake is shorter, call it a quickie, but it’s just as sultry and playful". Kevin McE (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked at this, but I'm no expert on this topic... It can be argued that the hook fact is an accurate description of the review. As for the notability of the website cited, I have no clue... --Orlady (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't automatically take "call it a quickie" to be that kind of quickie, though. Seems like extrapolation to me, to be honest. GRAPPLE X 02:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
But it still sat in all its error on the Main Page for several hours. Kevin McE (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #2 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) 14:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said when I beat the bot by 20 minutes or so, All queues empty and all prep sets full!!PumpkinSky talk 14:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

update: preps are nearly empty now

Ok - queues are loaded, so folks are free to load hooks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I've done 2 and a half, plan on finishing at least 1. I promoted one of my own hooks, so if anyone has any issues with it please let me know. Another one of my hooks may need to be promoted but it received a fairly perfunctory review so I'm hoping the reviewer will actually say what s/he reviewed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
K, it's all done except for a lede image for Prep 1. As there is already a plant article in that prep and I don't want to touch my approved nom, I'm leaving it for another editor at another time. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hint: there is Beethoven's Giulietta (pics with ALT 7 and 8), if you think holding for women's day is holding too long, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Q3

In the thorny olive blurb, I changed cedar waxwing to capital letters per MOS:CAPS#Animals.2C_plants.2C_and_other_organisms and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna)#Capitalisation_of_common_names_of_species while it was at Prep. It was reverted, with an edit note claiming that the rule only applied to articles specifically on birds. I see no such ruling on these policy documents. Could an admin please restore the capitalisation. Kevin McE (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If I'm reading these correctly, shouldn't cedar waxing be in lower case as it's a common with no proper nouns involved? GRAPPLE X 18:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The former says, "For example, the common names of birds are always capitalized:" the latter states, "Official common names of birds are normally capitalised." Kevin McE (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Totally missed that. Was going by the latter link, missed the bird entry. Poking around a bit, though, the practice does seem to be under heavy discussion with genuine opposition to WP:BIRD's exception to conventions, which I would see as a strong indication that lower case is generally preferred by the community. Not really too concerned though, but it might be worth raising at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points. GRAPPLE X 19:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
When that discussion is resolved, we might, or might not, be subject to a changed MoS: for now, we follow MoS as it currently stands, surely. Kevin McE (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Breach of MoS sat on Main Page for several hours. Kevin McE (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
sigh. The birds wikiproject has it sorted but every so often this gets brought up and argued about....Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination process not working?

I have just made a DYK nomination for Holothuria tubulosa in the normal way but it does not seem to have been processed correctly. Or have I done something wrong? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You forgot a closing ]] :P I've fixed it. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I've added it to T:TDYK and I might as well review it too.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, that's fine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Q6 (2)

Daguangba Dam

Hainan links to the province, not the island. The evidence of the article is that the island is always called Hainan Island, but we have no article for that (there would be little or nothing to say that is not in the province article). But we are left saying that the largest dam in the province, is also the island's largest hydroelectric power station? which leaves the reader wondering, "What island?" Kevin McE (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"Hainan" is the common name for the island. No one says "Hainan Island". The province is the island, for all intents and purposes. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Please find one instance in Wikipedia where the sole word Hainan refers specifically to the island. Wikipedia, and the linked article in this hook, says Hainan Island, so that assertion is clearly false. But regardless, the reader sees a link referring to a province, not to an island. Kevin McE (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It's the largest in the province, as well as the island. I changed the hook, but only after it got to the main page. --Orlady (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Multitasking miller

As an opera, this work should have its name in title case: The Miller who was a Wizard, a Cheat and a Matchmaker; possibly who and or was should be capitalised as well. Kevin McE (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not in title case in the article (title), as a translation from the Russian. It's not the title of an opera presented in English, only a translation of a title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
If you are arguing that there is no opera of that name, then it should not be presented as the name of an opera in the hook. Or indeed, in the article. If it is not the name of the opera, then there should be no capital in the first word, nor should it be in italics. If there is no justification for a translation, then it should just be transliterated; but the article asserts that RSs do use this translated title, so that translation is the English language name for the opera, and should follow the rules for titles of works. Kevin McE (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know too much about that opera, the article only mentions performances in Russian, even in Paris. What I do know is that the titles of Bach cantatas are German worldwide, only translated to make them understood, not as a title in English, therefore (after a discussion) rendered not italic and without extra capitals, example In allen meinen Taten (In all that I do / In all my undertakings). This opera name looks similar to me. A difference is of course that the Bach cantata has the German article name, but imagine all that Russian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Discussion found, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Too tired to look now, but perhaps tomorrow. Do you see the difference between The Marriage of Figaro, performed in English and announced under an English title (or Les pêcheurs de perles, when it gets performed in English), and this Russian one which was never performed in English, never announced with an English title, the translation only helping to understand what it is about? Why should the latter, which is no true title, follow (the strange) English rules for titles? Did you ask the author? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • First: I generally do so (for example, "Kehidupan" is written with quotes, even though Indonesians often write song titles in italics. Second: This is the English Wikipedia; the English titles are to match English grammar, although the original language doesn't have to be changed. Third: No, but per WP:OWN his/her opinion weighs the same as everyone else. If there is a concern that the title goes against the MOS, it can be changed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • To Second: "This is the English Wikipedia; the English titles are to match English grammar." - SURE. What I tried to say is that the translation of a title is not automatically a title itself, only if it is used as a title. Or not? - To Third: I didn't say the author's opinion should weigh differently, but I think it would only be fair to discuss the topic with the author who probably had thought about it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Having said that: could headings please be created adding the day? "Q6 16" for example, tomorrow "Q6 17", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for adding something to the queue number, but in the archives it will still be ambiguous, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I fixed it in the queue -- but didn't save it until after it had gone to the main page. It's now fixed on the main page. --Orlady (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Appeal for DYK nomination?

This article was submitted to DYK a month ago. Two of the hooks seemed to pass but it was never officially approved. Nothing was done until two days ago when it was rejected without a reason. Is there a process for appealing this decision or does it have to be submitted again? 72.74.213.254 (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't you have replied to the reviewers to call attention to anything you might have done to fix their concerns?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 02:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The only outstanding concern in the linked discussion is that the article "may need a light copyedit". I don't see that as a basis for outright rejection of the nom. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I know. Which is why it should have been pointed out earlier that the concerns have been fixed or something like that. A lot of reviewers don't keep tabs on articles they reviewed, even though they should. Or the article creators or nominators themselves don't do anything to address the problems pointed out. When one end drops the ball, we get something like this. Anyway, looking at the history now, PumpkinSky's rationale was "2 weeks no work". I agree that a few typos don't justify rejection, but I don't know if it can be appealed. If it aims to be included again though, the author better work on it fast. DYK is supposed to be about new articles after all.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 02:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
It is supposed to be about new articles, but the current process has a lengthy backlog and lots of stagnation. The process of reviewing some noms takes over a month. Article writers shouldn't be made to suffer even beyond that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Given that you know I worked on the current oldest nom Corsia, which is not even mine and will probably end up rejected because I can't be an impartial reviewer anymore - you're preaching to the choir. :P -- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I restored the subject DYK nomination. It was waiting for a review, not for followup by the creator/nominator. I didn't tackle the review because I know little and care less about professional wrestling, and I was feeling over-committed to review of other ancient DYK noms. --Orlady (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Q1

Red-banded sand wasps

The wasp does not provide food to a burrow, it stores food in a burrow. Absolutes like always are setting the claim up to fail: surely they sometimes fail to do this. suggest ... dig burrows in sandy ground, stocking each burrow with paralyzed caterpillars, and laying one egg on the first caterpillar? Kevin McE (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I changed the verb "provide' to the verb "provision", which is what the source uses. --Orlady (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
St Martin of Tours Church

It would be very odd to give a name to a lectern, and even more so to chose ""the finest medieval fitting in any parish church in the county" as such a name. It is very different to say that something is called X, than to say it has been called X: the former suggests a name, the latter a description. This should be has been called, or perhaps clearer, as been described as.

If we are claiming it to be outstanding in the county, the county should be named: St Martin of Tours Church, Detling, Kent. At a minimum, link the words the county to Kent. Kevin McE (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I edited the hook. It now says "that a carved wooden lectern in the 900-year-old St Martin of Tours Church, Detling, has been called "the finest medieval fitting in any parish church in the county"?" --Orlady (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but still no clue as to what is meant by the county. Detling is a very small village, having lived most of my life in Kent I can confidently assert that a huge majority of people even in that county won't be familiar with it. Kevin McE (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Q2

Christ Carrying the Cross

This is a theme in art, but not the name of a specific work, nor is it a proper noun, so it is overcapitalised: Christ carrying the cross Kevin McE (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Undone. It is the name of a standard subject in art, and of course thousands of works, and should be capitalized. Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
On what grammatical grounds? It is not a proper noun. Even if there are some works for which this is the exact title, it is not being used as such here. It is the name of a genre, equivalent to avant garde jazz or medieval murder mystery. Kevin McE (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
"Christ Carrying the Cross" equivalent to "medieval murder mystery"? I doubt that. It's equvalent to "Piano Sonata", a specific one, while "medieval murder mystery" is equivalent to "piano sonata", the genre. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Q3 as of 17/01

Sam Poo Kong

There is no mutual exclusivity between Chinese and Muslim. Kevin McE (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I actually agree with Kevin here. There are many Muslims who are ethnic Chinese (Hui people) and many more who are Chinese in nationality, and the current wording is a bit offensive. Religion and ethnicity just don't overlap like that. I'm pulling the hook (and probably editing the article) until something else can't be found. Just because the source has made an unfortunate word choice error doesn't mean we should. (For what it's worth, I think many or most ethnic Chinese in Indonesia are Buddhist.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Rjanag pulled the hook. FYI to people who comment here about hooks in queues: It would be enormously helpful to admins if you would provide links to the Queue you are discussing and/or the nom page for the hook you are discussing. Discussions of hook problems in the queues have a certain urgency, but when finding the subject of a discussion becomes an Easter egg hunt, it reduces the chance that the issue will be addressed in a timely fashion. --Orlady (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Q5 as of 17/01

St Mary's, Monmouth

It is clear from the picture that the text is Here lies John Renie Kevin McE (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Edited wording in hook and article. As noted above, it would be easier for administrators to follow up on these comments in a timely fashion if links were provided. --Orlady (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree (that links to queues should be provided), and I remember asking people to do this before, although it doesn't seem to have stuck.
I just made {{queue}} and {{prep}} to make it easier to link to queues. Hopefully people will use it...
{{queue|5}} yields Queue 5, {{prep|2}} yields Prep 2, etc.
rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

an old Wikipedia Review hook

So while perusing Talk:Wikipedia Review I note that there's a mention of a DYK from July 8th, 2008. Curious to see what this was, I go to the archive at Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2008/July#8 July 2008 but find nothing there. After a bit of sherlocking (I totally made that up), I find there was a bit of a brouhaha over the addition here and here; the hook wasn't up long enough for it to make it into the archives, it seems. It seems kind of awkward to have an article pointing to a DYK that one cannot find evidence of. So can we add the entry to the archive now,m as it seems the consensus of the discussions back then was that it was a boneheaded deletion? Or should mention of it be removed from Talk:WR since it was not in long enough to be "official" ? Tarc (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what our practices are now (much less what they were then) about archiving hooks that were pulled from DYK.
For anyone else reading, here is the diff in question. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln in Queue 4

Hi all, Muboshgu has requested that the Lincoln hook in Queue 4 (second from the top) be held until Lincoln Day (12 February). Could we pull it and put it in holding? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate it. If it's too much trouble, don't bother. I should've thought of it when I nominated the article, before it was promoted. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. --Allen3 talk 23:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia blackout and DYK

Has anyone figured out what's going to happen with the DYK queues for the length of the blackout? I would hope that the queues would freeze, so that no new DYKs are "posted" to the (blacked out) front page until after Wikipedia is once again available. Would we also want to give extra time for people to get their DYKs into the system if the end of the five days comes during the blackout period? Or even extra eligibility time to finish writing and posting a 5x expansion? I imagine there are people who have given this some thought already, and was wondering what they'd come up with. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What blackout? What is going on?PumpkinSky talk 01:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
See WP:SOPA. The initiative is designed to raise awareness of the SOPA legislation. I assume we'll freeze DYK for that date, and not count it as a regular day when reckoning 5-days for new articles or expansions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action. I see no reason why DYK would stop. It's a bot-run service to update the main page, and users who click through the blackout should still be able to use the site freely, not at a lower capacity. I would support a grace period to extend the eligibility of articles, however. GRAPPLE X 02:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
From the RFC closure: This should be carried out while respecting technical limitations of the underlying software, and should specifically prevent editing wherever possible. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Solution: Block the bot right before the 18th. :P Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 02:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Geez. Protest but don't essentially take down the site. PumpkinSky talk 02:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
As I understand it, the site will still be accessible, but the main page will initially come up in the blacked out version. Users can "click through" to Wikipedia from the blackout page, but editing will be locked for the day. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
DOn't agree with the no editing. PumpkinSky talk 02:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The RfC was fundamentally flawed with tons of SPAs voting to blackout internationally. I invite anyone so inclined to replace their talk pages with a copy of mine. It seems the only way to protest the protest will be to talk with our actions and boycott Wikipedia. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
It now seems clear the blackout will be total - no viewing, no editing. Will that stop the bots I wonder? We should do whatever we need to to give the affected line-ips their 8 hrs in the sun. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
No viewing or editing? Complete BS. I think I'll protest the protest. PumpkinSky talk 02:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't waste your time, there's very little sense here. It's quite clear that Wikipedia has been out-manoeuvred, but it just takes too long to turn the ship around. Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
U R probably right.PumpkinSky talk 02:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Never mind that, it's happening. What are we going to do about it here? Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Can't the bots just be stopped? Malleus Fatuorum 03:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually I suppose the easiest is just to copy the queues over & over until they've actually been seen. We don't even have a precise duration. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe the blackout is scheduled to last from 0500 UTC to 0500 UTC, 18–19 January (midnight 18th–midnight 19th US Eastern). Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Politicizing what should be a neutral encyclopedia is a horrible idea. Now wiki is a political action committee. PumpkinSky talk 03:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
In so far as Wikipedia is run at all, it's run by idiots. We just have to accept it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Fighting against a law that has the potential to shut down the Wiki for good (rather than a day) is not an option, and it has nothing to do with NPOV. Regardless, this is not the place for such discussion, IMHO. I think that since the DB will be locked, chances are the bot will fail in his attempt to update it anyway (although I'm not clear on the technical details involved). Yazan (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The bot failing to update the database will be no consolation to those editors whose DYKs were not displayed on the main page as the result of a database error. Malleus Fatuorum 04:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll ask Shubinator to stop the bot, but if he's away, we can simply do something like remove the !--hooks-- line from the scheduled queue, and the bot will be hanging, posting warnings at its talk, until the issue is resolved. Materialscientist (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
If necessary, we should be able to stop the bot by resetting the time between updates to something ridiculously large. --Orlady (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this option will stop the bot from warning, but then it might be trickier to restart the update right after blackout ends. Materialscientist (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Have the interval coincide with the end of the blackout, or roughly thereafter, and then there'll be an eight hour window to reassign it after that (and a manual update could be done if it will time some time to readjust). GRAPPLE X 04:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I asked Shubinator, and he should know best. The blackout will start 5 hrs after the last update, thus all we need is to stop the next update (to avoid credits issuing) - not really important how, only important to avoid the bot crashing. I have no info on the technical consequences except for some ops chat [6]. Anyone please post a link to tech details of blackout as soon as available. Materialscientist (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Because my hook will be on the shortened window (popping during the last update before the blackout), I would like to know—once it's determined—when the hook will come down. I ask because I received support (photos & feedback) from the researchers who discovered the species, and I was hoping they might be able to catch it on the main page. (Had it not been for the blackout, it would have been viewable until 9:00am their time. As it is, it will pop around 1:00am their time and disappear at 6:00am.) I'll try to monitor this discussion, but either way, please let me know. If needed, I can take screenshots and send it to them. Thanks. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

←I'll manually shut down both bots and start both bots afterward so they aren't active during the blackout. Shubinator (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Reportedly only stewards and staff will be able to edit: [7] --Rschen7754 06:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Would be nice to have the table 'Local update times' on the queue page updated with the amended times, or is that a bit tricky to do? Schwede66 03:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
@Schwede66 Done. Shubinator (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Both bots are now offline. Shubinator (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Both bots are back online. Shubinator (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK 2012 English Wikipedia blackout

Statistics on this are phenomenal and it's current. Can we prioritize a DYK on it while people will have exceptional interest? FT2 (Talk | email) 05:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Or would this be a better "in the news" feature as it is a current event? Froggerlaura (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Already showing on ITN: leave it at that. Kevin McE (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

We lost a day

We lost a day until 20 January (tomorrow!) when BWV 13 should appear for three reasons: it was premiered on 20 January, it was written for last Sunday, it will be followed by BWV 111 for next Sunday (which was premiered 21 January, but is not ready to be nominated). I hope for a speedy review of BWV 13 and an exception. We lost a day. I lost a friend and have neglected this, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Now BWV 111 is also nominated but could sit for a week. 13 is urgent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Article for BWV 13 has been reviewed and the hook is currently in prep 3, tentatively scheduled for the 16:00 20 January (UTC) update. --Allen3 talk 17:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Prep 2

In the hook on Corsia: please consider changing the wikilinks in the words parasitic parasitize fungi from parasitic plant and fungi (both of which are hopelessly too generalized) to the more specific and accurate Myco-heterotrophy for both words. i.e. from parasitize fungi to parasitize fungi -- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, makes sense. You could have done it yourself, the preps are open for everybody to improve, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh. I was under the impression that they were protected like the queues. Anyway thanks. :)-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Something weeeeeeird on the noms page

At Template talk:Did you know, both Template:Did you know nominations/Fordilloidea, Camya and Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Fozail ibn Iyaz are displaying with discussion from different nominations. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just checked, and the transclusions are done correctly—last time this came up it was simply that the transclusion was to a differently-named page. Don't know what's gone wrong this time. GRAPPLE X 18:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe the problem is that, in some other nominations that are now closed, comments were added below the line that says "Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line." Once those other nominations are found and edited, the problem should resolve itself. --Orlady (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Those noms aren't displaying incorrectly. The problem is someone in some other noms left comments where they weren't supposed to, and now those comments from other noms are showing up instead of being hidden like they should. I'll have to spend a few minutes searching for them to fix it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I found the problematic noms and fixed them. --Orlady (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I was barking up a different tree, looking for something missing. So the 9 noms that appear in edit mode on the nominations page between those 2, and the 1 that appears after the second, have all been promoted and aren't really there? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes. When noms are promoted they become invisible and no longer show up on T:TDYK (they get <noinclude> tags put around them), but they are still there. This was done to reduce the amount of work in promoting (removing the step of taking a nom off T:TDYK, which is something promoters used to have to do by hand every time). rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Queues

Queues are empty, three built preps ready. Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

QPQ process is not well defined

I have a pending DYK which has been reviewed but needs me to do a QPQ review of my own. I am not arguing that point because it makes sense. But...

First, "QPQ" as a term is not readily stated on these pages. I guessed at QPQ and realized it meant to do a review for that. This needs to be spelled out explicitly if that's going to be enforced. (It is mentioned in the edit page header for a review, but that's it; nothing outside of that in detail).

Secondly, in trying to do said review, I can't find a way to figure out if that nominating editor has >5 credits or not; there's no apparent search terms to check this and I don't see this mentioned in scanning the documentation. It would be helpful to include pointers to said tools if this is a required part of the process. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

At WP:DYK, scroll down to selection criteria #5, "Review requirement", which details the required QPQ and new contributor exemption. I agree that this could be posted in a more obvious way, since I didn't know about the QPQ until a reviewer pointed it out to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
There is this tool to check page creations, it'll let you see how many DYK nom pages the user has created—more than five and they require a QPQ review. It could be useful to see about linking to that somewhere readily accessible. GRAPPLE X 21:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I've boldly added a small sentence for criteria #5 to spell out QPQ. As for the tool, talking myself where I have a large # of WP space edits, it doesn't quite help easily; if there was a way to add additional search text it... I think there's an existing way to do this easily with existing toolserver tools but I'm at a lack of what the right one is... --MASEM (t) 21:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Grapple X's pointer to the tool is quite useful. If I may add: for the "Namespace" selection, choose "Template" in order to see the created DYK templates (and any others, admittedly). It shows all eight of my DYK submissions, most recent first. Note that it doesn't know whether the template was ever transcluded onto the nominations page and thus ever truly submitted, but you can click on the individual page links to check if it could be an issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hrmm, not perfect. I just did myself (I am sure that I have more than 5 DYK, I don't doubt that) but using Template only pulls up this most recent one; the others may have been before the template system was put in place. WP's built in search doesn't help either. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
A useful tool shows DYKUpdateBot's edits to your talk page. This has limitations such as, of course, it wouldn't show any DYK credits which the bot did not issue, and it shows your nomination credits of others' articles, so determining the number of creation credits might require a little further investigation, but that would be aided by the info provided. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
That's definitely much better. Yea, you may have to click through , but at least reduces it down to much-easier list to navigate. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
There's no easy way to tell if someone has 5 DYKs. Grapple's method is useful but it doesn't count DYKs nominated anytime before July 2011 when the nomination system changed (so it's missing like 5 years' worth of DYKs). I thought we just sort of used an honor system for this... rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Mandarax's looks like it's more useful for long-term DYKers, though it does only show posted DYKs, so someone who is submitting a bunch of DYKs at the same time could slip through the cracks. A combination of the two should be useful. Rjanag, the honor system only works if people are aware of QPQ, and the requirement does slip by some people. (See upthread.) Having an easy way of checking—if nothing else, the reviewer can ask if it looks like the submitter might be at six or above—would be very helpful. I've looked at a couple of screens of a user's contributions to see whether they were past the first five freebies; I'm glad to know these tools are available. Can they be added to the checklist for reviewers to follow? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Johnny Basham

Back in November, it looks like Template:Did you know nominations/Johnny Basham was removed from the queue (for close paraphrasing concerns) but never put back on T:TDYK. Thus, it never got reviewed, and I don't want to reject it for being too old (since its failure to get put back on t:TDYK was through no fault of the nominator). Could someone review it to see if the close paraphrasing concern has been resolved? If it hasn't been resolved I would say we should probably fail it; if it has been resolved we could run it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Same problem with Template:Did you know nominations/Shenhui. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
So put them back on the noms page. --Orlady (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Queue 4

Only some blackeye gobies become males: the hook does not suggest that. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Walter Merchant House needs no definite article before its name. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What sport do the Canberra Capitals play? Or is it a drama group? (Supplementary rules C2) Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Comma needed before opening a direct quote in Teuku Nyak Arif hook Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the blackeye gobies issue. Walter Merchant House is no longer in that set, I could see no simple method of altering the Canberra Capitals hook, and I disagree with the last suggestion. Gatoclass (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The last one is basic grammar. It is incorrect to write He said "I am!", it is correct to write He said, "I am!"
Not sure how you cannot conceive of simply adding the words basketball team between Capitals and players. Kevin McE (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Please restore the first "all", they are all born females. And @Kevin, can't you make the corrections before they reach the queues?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
If they spent a reasonable amount of time in prep, then I might be able to. What is the average duration of a stay in prep these days though? Kevin McE (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Special occasions hook for January 22

The DYK for Croatian European Union membership referendum, 2012 has been sitting on the page under this date; could some kind soul slot it into Prep 3, 4, or 1? Yngvadottir (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Created/expanded by...

When we implemented the new semi-scripted process for nominations, we lost a helpful component of the process that we had beforehand: we now have no convenient way to indicate whether the article were new or expanded. Could someone please add that feature to the default version of the template that is displayed when the "Create nomination" button is clicked? Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I made that change on purpose. I figured it's easy enough to see if an article is new or expanded when you check the article history (which you need to do when you review anyway, unless you're using DYKcheck--and DYKcheck will tell you automatically whether an article is new or expanded). And indicating whether an article is new or expanded required filling out one more parameter on the nominator's part. I was trying to minimize the nominator's work, so I figured removing unnecessary parameters was a plus. (Not to mention having them fill out more parameters just gives them more places to screw up the template, which nominators love to do...) rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree with that. Some nominators use the comment parameter to inform about it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
In my experience the only time that the new/expanded field is of any real use is in the rare cases of nominated articles that have undergone history merges, history splits, or have encountered some other form of edit history mangling. These cases are complex enough to verify that a simple "new" or "expanded" is insufficient and a more detailed explanation is needed in the comments section. --Allen3 talk 23:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Queue 1 as of 21/01

Tarasun seems to be a type of beverage, not a specific brand, so there is no reason for capitalising it. Kevin McE (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed by Rjanag. Gatoclass (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Guido Dessauer

I recently reviewed and approved the article on Guido Dessauer. The nominator requested a Jan 23 date (for the subject's funeral), and I moved the nom to the holding area. Could someone please include for the prep/queue for Jan 23? Froggerlaura (talk)

Thanks from the nominator! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Well-timed, looks nice! Thanks to everybody involved, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Any help?

Raad Shallal al-Ani was written by a keen Wikipedian editor who decided to have a go at his second DYK. I nominated it for DYK where it was declared "shoddy" by a reviewer and in need of a copy edit. It has now laid there abandoned for 2 weeks. Obviously it gives a poor impression to the editor trying the DYK project - I guess we've lost him.... but what kind of impression does this give to other prospective editors? The idea that an article with >1500 chars, an ibox, lots of refs and on a under represented subject can be declared as "shoddy" worries me. Can someone help the DYK projects reputation (I have a COI issue, but I can't see any real issues) Victuallers (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I copyedited it on 11 January, for what it's worth . . . Yngvadottir (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Reviewed by Rjanag, and currently in Prep 4. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I saw, thanks to them! At this point I really don't remember why I didn't add the red arrow after I copyedited it - I did with another article the same day. Maybe I had to go walk a dog or something. I considered re-reviewing it myself but that was an easy decision - I don't know bupkis about the topic and it's a BLP. I will try to remember when I copyedit one of these that the red arrow is a necessary step. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Kluge House, now prep1

Sorry, I didn't look sooner. I read:

It makes me think that "Silesian Prussian Fachwerkbau" is a term. It seems not to be so. I would go as far as omit Prussia, because a link to Silesia will mention it. The type of fachwerk shown may even predate the time when Silesia was Prussian. My suggestion, too major to place it in prep without a discussion:

IMO, "Prussian" should be deleted from DYK hook and the lead sentence of the article. The region is Silesia. --Orlady (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Since two of us agreed on that point, I removed "Prussian" from the hook. Although the wording of Gerda's hook suggestion is better in most respects, I prefer the original hook that has the target article at the beginning of the hook. If Silesian and fachwerk were at the beginning, they would get the lion's share of the click-throughs. --Orlady (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Article changed also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
You could easily displace the first clause in Gerda's hook to later in the text to avoid the click-through problem:
I was bold and went with the version I proposed, while it was still in the prep area and I could edit it. Someone else can be equally bold with another version, if they prefer. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Harmanus Bleecker Library in Prep 3

Minor thing, but for copy editing purposes, there is an extraneous comma after Albany, New York in that hook that I tried to remove in my review. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

For me it's fine as it is, I don't like "New York meant to be used", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
That comma is required. Somewhere in WP:MOS you will find the advice that the state name should be set off by commas when "City, State" appears in mid-sentence like that. --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC) I can't find it in the MOS, but see Comma#In_geographical_names. --Orlady (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is correct to include the second comma. (cf/ the hook in the section above this - "...Kluge House in Helena, Montana, a rare...") Shimgray | talk | 19:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Huh. My grammar regarding comma usage is not as good as I pretend. Carry on then. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Queue 3 as of 24/01

Waptia

Not really accurate to say that Waptia is named after two mountains. Waptia, the genus, is named after one mountain; the species name of Waptia fieldensis is taken from a second. Give full binomial, then the hook will be true. Kevin McE (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


Marthe Cnockaert

There is no such country as Britain: she was a spy for the United Kingdom. Kevin McE (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the Waptia hook; unfortunately, it's already been featured. Gatoclass (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The level of quality control simply does not merit the profile given to the results of the procedure. If we believe that the Main Page of Wikipedia is something that should be of a high standard, we need a far more rigorous way of checking the proposed content of that page. Kevin McE (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Quite frankly Kevin, I can't get too upset about the fact that some minor errors survive the DYK review process when the wiki as a whole is overflowing with major examples of misinformation and disinformation, not to mention other critical problems like copyvio and BLP violations. The simple fact is that there aren't nearly enough competent people on wikipedia to deal with the vast amount of problematic content being added to the project on a daily basis, and that is true of DYK just as it is true of GAN and even FAC. It is also true, BTW, of professional media outlets, all of whom routinely make errors. It is also true of sources; I regularly find errors and contradictions in even the best available sources. To err is human, no matter how many checks and balances are added, errors are still bound to creep through, and while I welcome all attempts to improve our processes, at the same time I think it's important to keep the problems in perspective. Gatoclass (talk) 08:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Queue 6 modification.

Can someone modify the hook at queue 6 by making it a double nomination as follows: Change The Firm's pilot episode to The Firm's pilot episode. Then close Template:Did you know nominations/List of The Firm episodes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added the second article to the hook, but I didn't change the hook credits to add the second article yet. --Orlady (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Rejecting old noms that were never nominated

As some of you may remember from Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 75#Missing DYK submissions, some editors have been failing to complete their nominations by transcluding them onto T:TDYK, and so far we have no means for catching those. To solve this problem, Shubinator has designed a bot to go through pending noms once daily, see if any haven't been transcluded yet, and notify the nominator to make sure they transclude it.

Right now, though, there are some noms from many months ago that have never been transcluded; a full list can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DYKHousekeepingBot 3. Noms that old will probably be summarily rejected and thus there is really no point notifying the nominators about those and having them transclude them; it would be better just to fail them now so that they don't pop up when the bot starts running. But from the last discussion I recall most of you guys were more lenient than me with regards to how much old noms you were willing to have nominated late, so I am posting here to get feedback on how many of the old noms (in the link above) should be outright rejected and how many we should allow to be transcluded for review. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Just from 2 seconds of looking at the list I can see that it's reading the articles transcluded at the April Fool's page as not being transcluded (Araki Fabulous Willy and ? (film) stick out). Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, some of them are April Fool's; I left Shubinator a message about that and I think it will be easy to fix. But several that I checked really were just never nominated. I hadn't noticed the ones that were actually on T:TDYK, I guess we'll have to look into that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I checked and the one hook of mine in the list, Tuarangia, is in fact transcluded into the noms page.--Kevmin § 10:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see No Exit in the list. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

←I've tweaked the bot to take the April Fool's noms into account. The other bug was a result of the API giving the bot 500 results back instead of the requested 5000 for the transcluded pages query; I've implemented a workaround. An updated list is on the BRfA page; let me know if you still see errors. Shubinator (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No one has given any feedback, so I'm going to go ahead and reject any that are more than 1 month old. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Had I known that I had an article in this situation, I'd have left some feedback. I found out because I spoke up when another article was going to be rejected for not being reviewed, which I had thought was the case with mine. I have had to wait for reviews before, so the delay did not alert me that something was amiss. I'm glad there is a bot now, but it would have been nice to have had some idea this was in the offing before just being rejected for an oversight. I had been checking to see if it was reviewed, but since one can simply watch the template now, I never realized it wasn't on the actual DYK page. It was an interesting article and I was very sorry it was rejected without a review, but I am even sorrier to find out it was all for naught. Marrante (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
One other little note, a comment to rʨanaɢ's post from 18:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC), "They are ineligible, so there's no point "including them". As for "a reminder", there is already one; in addition to the instructions (which the nominator is responsible for reading), there is this big pink notice at the top of every nomination." I typically click "show preview" before saving and that disappears as soon as you do that. Since I often write more than one hook and/or preview several times, in part because I check the character count of my hooks and previewing makes the tags go away, that "big pink notice" is long gone by the time I actually save the page. The first few times, this was a major drag because I really needed the information there. I used to create a new template just to see it again, so before you start thinking that "big pink notice" is sufficient, you'd better make sure it doesn't disappear with a preview. Marrante (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Software limitation there—edit notices are replaced by the preview when you view your work like that. Perhaps a commented-out note in the pre-loaded part of the template could include a reminder of the process? GRAPPLE X 02:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Grapple: No one reads the commented-out notes in the editbox anyway, there are some instructions there (such as "do not write below this line") that people regularly fail to follow.
Marrante: regarding your first comment, I don't even know what nomination you're referring to so I can't offer you any response. Regarding your second comment, no offense but it's not my responsibility to make sure nominators follow the instructions. They are written clearly at T:TDYK#How to post a new nomination and you always have access to them. It is every nominator's responsibility to complete all steps of the nomination. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The nom was Template:Did you know nominations/Ernst Ottwalt. I have had over 40 articles on DYK. Don't accuse me of failing to read the instructions. I know how to nominate an article. It was the holidays and I had a lot going on, was pressed for time and was probably interrupted. That's usually when I make mistakes like that. It was the first time I didn't complete the process. You ever make a mistake? I can think of one or two and I don't even know you. The way DYK is set up now, it's very convenient to check if your article has been reviewed, you just watch the template. Unfortunately, this doesn't inform you if you forgot to transclude it. I just think it was a little harsh to propose rejecting however many articles, not give people a heads-up, but then go ahead because no one gave you any feedback. Not your responsibility? Excuse me, but you just took on a load of it. So much for consensus. Marrante (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_77&oldid=1189652679"