Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 114

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 110 ← Archive 112 Archive 113 Archive 114 Archive 115 Archive 116 → Archive 120

WP:DYKSG#D2

Old discussion retrieved from archive

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

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

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

as meaning

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

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

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

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

How about this:

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

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

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

Continuing...

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

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

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

A proposal

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

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

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

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

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

So just to be clear, you're proposing that D2-ALT1 replace the current --
D2-ALT0 The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content.
-- right? Gosh, where have you been all my wiki-life? The man of my dreams! Your proposal is rational, sensible, practical, and cogently stated. EEng (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Llywelyn hit the nail on the head by saying that "the current 'minimum' is a fetish object". EEng (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Is it asking too much for SOME discussion of this? EEng (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Tough crowd. EEng (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Tumbleweed rolls by. Press 1 to chase tumbleweed. Press 2 to wait. Harrias talk 15:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support While I like the minimum of one reference per paragraph, this criteria can actually be more powerfully used to request that references be added for anything the reviewer queries, while not making an arbitrary numerical request. That said, if the caveat about plot summaries (etc.) isn't included elsewhere, we should leave that in as a guideline. Harrias talk 15:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The rule for WP globally is that, generally, article content can be supported by a general list of sources at the article's end, instead of by inline cites; however, you don't see this much, and there are certain things that must carry inline cites (WP:MINREF). The main effect of this change is to clarify that, for DYK, inline cites must be used. But it's silent on the question of what types of material need citation at all (e.g. plot summaries don't), which I think is fine since that's covered by guidelines outside of DYK and I don't see why we should repeat them inside DYK. EEng (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The rule for WP globally is that, generally, article content can be supported by a general list of sources at the article's end, instead of by inline cites. – Not really: WP:V and WP:REF both say that material that could be challenged (which let's face it, is any fact that isn't commonly known) has to be backed up by an inline citation. While it is commonly known that the lead doesn't require citations, the plot summary is less well known, and I think mentioning is worthwhile for those who don't commonly edit in that area, and might not be aware. Harrias talk 17:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
For the record I was stating the formal rule, which in principle contemplates that there's material no one's likely to challenge (a naive idea obviously dating the first hours of WP's existence). However, I agree that in practice most articles use inline cites, and attempt to supply them for everything except for "the sky is blue", plot summaries, and the other narrow exceptions. I think we're in violent agreement about the way things work in practice, but I disagree that we should import stuff re plot summaries, lead, etc. into DYK rules. We'd probably just end up arguing over them for years, and if part of our goal is to encourage new editors we sure don't need to swell the rules. EEng (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The obvious advantage to repeating general Wikipedia rules in this context is that it's all conveniently in one place where a newer contributor to or reviewer for DYK can find it. It's there now and has been for years, so there isn't any question of importing it, and it should be retained. People who generally don't work on fiction articles haven't run into this, which is why we specifically mention it here. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the rule was written as it is for good reason, namely that before it was added, there were regular disputes breaking out between reviewers and nominators regarding how much inline citation exactly was necessary, and inconsistency between reviewers with some insisting that absolutely everything be verified while others were content to pass articles with few citations. Changing the rule per the suggestion above will just mean a renewal of these disputes. Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Huh? But everything is supposed to be verified. Are you seriously suggesting that we're supposed to pass articles where any non-trivial statement isn't traceable to a source? EEng (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I thought you were the one arguing for fewer citations, not more? The point of the "rule of thumb" as it currently exists is that it establishes what is considered an acceptable standard for a DYK submission - you don't have to cite every sentence, but every paragraph that is not a summary of other content should have at least one cite. Now if you think the current rule can be clarified, by all means offer a suggestion, but returning to a generic statement that merely prescribes "inline citations" will just mean a return to the bad old days when reviewers and nominators were periodically at loggerheads over how many inline citations exactly are required. In fact, you only need to read the above discussion to see the disparity in opinion that exists right now on that score. Gatoclass (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Responded below. EEng (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Another proposal

OK, so how about

D2-ALT2: The article must use inline citations (so that its content is easily verifiable by the reviewer and administrator) excluding the lead (but the lead must still use inline cites where required by WP:MINREF) and plot summaries.

I took out the bit about "paragraphs which summarize other content" because I don't know what that would be other than the lead; am I forgetting something? EEng (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose The current wording seems better than the proposal in that it provides clear guidance on the level of citing expected but tempers this by saying that it is a rule of thumb, i.e. not a rigid rule. The proposal seems too vague and so might lead reviewers to demand a citation for every sentence, say. Note that if a citation supports multiple paragraphs then it is fairly easy to repeat it by giving it a name and then just using the name. Andrew D. (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Except that "one cite per paragraph" has indeed become (as someone said above) "a fetish object" -- so that I've seen reviews saying "Sourcing is OK -- one per paragraph" and objections by nominators to reviewer requests -- "You're asking too much -- there's already one cite per paragraph!" And what do you mean by a "level of citing"? EEng (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for the same reasons given for the previous proposal, with the additional objection that this proposal implies that inline citations need only be used to verify the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Huh? The proposed text says The article must use inline citations... EEng (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Llywelyn, could you help out here? I... feel... my strength... slipping... away. EEng (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Women in prep

I like the amazing collection of women in prep, but do we need two Chinese women in one set, and two singers in the next? I think Lulu Wang would be good with an image, not necessarily on 8 March. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Gerda, I was trying to fill up the International Women's Day prep for March 8 with what was approved. I took your advice and moved the second singer to the next prep. I know you like the image for Lulu Wang, but the hook really suits the quirky position well. Yoninah (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah:, I am at a loss as to why you are build a set for International Women's Day in Prep 3. DYKUpdateBot is currently in the process of resynching update time with midnight. Assuming no new delays or problems promoting sets to the Main page, Prep 1 will load at 23:40 (UTC) on March 7 while Prep 2 should load at 11:55 (UTC) on March 8. Prep 3 should not load until 00:00 (UTC) on March 9, the day after International Women's Day.
  • Sorry, I got mixed up. Looking at the Local Update Times chart on the queue page, I thought that the row with all March 8 dates (Queue 2), followed by the row below it (Queue 3) were the main queues for March 8. Thanks for adjusting the hooks. Yoninah (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As to the two Chinese women in Prep 2, there were three nominations dealing with Chinese women and five with images under the March 8 header when I began building the sets for Prep 1 and Prep 2. As we are currently only running two sets per day, something had to give. If an uninvolved party wishes to shuffle things, I have no objection. --Allen3 talk 22:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
New idea: how about reserving Irish Margaret Kennedy (singer), now lead in Prep 3, for St Patrick's Day? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I have pulled the hook from Prep 3 and it is now listed under March 17 in the special occasion requests holding area. --Allen3 talk 13:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
If you want more women, I've got Template:Did you know nominations/Naomi Sager. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, she is here, with others which still need a review. Feel free to add and review! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Back to St. Patrick's: looks to me as if the preps were filled without her, can that be fixed? She was pictured before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, only one of the sets that should run on St. Patrick's day has been started. Assuming no hiccups with moving things to the Main page, Prep 1 should run at 00:00 (UTC) on the 17th with Prep 2 loading at 12:00 (UTC). If someone else would like to finish Prep 1 and assemble Prep 2, it would be appreciated. I have been building most of the sets recently and am starting to have problems assembling balanced sets due my being either a nominator or reviewer for a number of the currently approved nominations. --Allen3 talk 16:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Right, - I just saw an opera singer in prep 6 (Marga Höffgen, for 15) and thought that was close to the other, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

This joke of a DYK should not have been promoted - requesting further input

Template:Did you know nominations/2015 Boston Marathon

I'm sure twenty runners from the same town participated in the 2014, 2013, 2012... and every other iteration of the marathon. It's a completely banal non-hook, you may as well have ALT ... that the 2015 Boston Marathon will be taking place in Boston?

Not only that, the fact is completely trivial and should be deleted from the article. The source is the Tewkesbury Patch, that's not even the local paper - it's a local branch of a failing ex-AOL venture, whose sports coverage almost exclusively covers school sports. This is the sort of triviality that got promoted on the main page, I was so embarrassed, I went and removed the hook from the article when it was still main paged. But now the author has gotten a little angry and I don't want to edit war, so can someone else take a look?

Oh, and next time when someone creates a template article for a future event, and tries for a DYK badge with a banal non-hook, say no. - hahnchen 23:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The hook is not the catchiest, obviously it's harder to headline something that hasn't happened yet. Presumably you've put as much time into reading the article as you did writing the above. Do you have a suggestion for a better hook? μηδείς (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion is at the bottom. - hahnchen 00:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean at the bottom? Do you think I should have made the hook about how competitors are having to find alternative ways to train because of the snow? I was considering making it ALT1, but by the time I could write it, the DYK nom had been closed. That said, with regards to the hook that did go live, I want to address a few things. First of all, Patch covers news beyond school sports and cam be considered a reliable source. There were copy edits made to the hook before it went live and honestly, my original hook was undoubtedly better and catchier. On an unrelated note, quit calling it a "joke of a DYK", as I find this offensive and it undermines the work I've done to this website, as with your bad-faithed comment above about badges. After all, we're all here to contribute to the wiki. So why are you fussing so hard, Hahnchen? It was looked by half a dozen editors, given the OK, and made it to the main page. So what's your point? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
No, my suggestion is "say no". I'd say inserting local trivia onto the main page undermines the work you've done. I'm fussing over this because you keep on inserting local trivia into the 2015 Boston Marathon article, and I guess you will continue unless someone else tells you not to. Nikkimaria, any thoughts? - hahnchen 00:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I pulled the article from the prep areas because most of it was copied from last year's article, including content that was not verifiably applicable to this year. The discussion about this is on the nomination page. After that, I would have preferred to wait until after the event to run the article, but assuming it runs at ITN it won't be eligible for DYK after the fact - perhaps that would be the best solution for future articles of this type. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Boston Marathon is an ITN recurring item, so perhaps in the future, I won't nominate Boston Marathon articles for DYK. But Hahnchen, you're making a fuss out of nothing at this point, so just drop the stick. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Nikki, I asked for your input because you gave the nomination the final OK. I essentially think the hook is bad content, it's bad content I removed from the article when it was still live on the main page. I'd like someone who OK'ed the hook to agree that it was a mistake, so I can remove bad content from Wikipedia without being reverted. I mean, if one article from the Tewksbury Patch is notable enough for inclusion, what next? I'm not dropping it until the bad content is removed, do the right thing and remove it yourself. - hahnchen 01:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
There, I removed it. It's legitimate content, but we all just want you to shut up and stop whining over nothing. Now, drop the stick and move on, please. This is turning really pointy on your part. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Not exactly - it's a bit hard to follow because of the reopening, but I reverted the promotion because of another problem and, once that particular issue was addressed, restored the original approval which had passed the hook. Anyways, the disputed content has been commented out - and Sportsguy, you need to calm down as well, as your commentary has been inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list will be archived soon, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 18 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 20 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, 68 nominations are approved, leaving 240 of 308 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest. Finishing the three from December 2014 would be especially welcome.

Over one month:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Abrahams Creek in current set

...that Abrahams Creek is also known as Abraham Creek, Abraham's Creek, Abram Creek, and Abrams Creek?

This has been mentioned on main-page errors as an unacceptably dull hook and I agree. What happened to "interesting to a broad audience"? Espresso Addict (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: That was ALT1 in the original nomination. How about replacing it with ALT0 (which was also approved): that Abrahams Creek has a daily sediment load of 13,700,000 pounds (6,230,000 kg), but is not considered to be impaired? --Jakob (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
As has been noted on other nominations, the use of the word "impaired" isn't exactly interesting either, certainly not to a broad audience, since it's a word that could mean any number of things in this context without specialized knowledge, which the vast majority is unlikely to possess. I don't see it as an improvement. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree Alt0 isn't much of an improvement. It would seem a shame to pull the hook as the article is considerably better than average. Khajidha at main-page errors suggests using the fact that it was named for a Mohican chief, which appears to be supported by ref 11. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I like that proposed hook about the creek being named after a Mohican chief. I'd be willing to have an admin change the hook assuming that doesn't require a full review again. --Jakob (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I've done some IARing and changed it based on my review of Khajidha's suggestion. Ping me if you object. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Urgent request for queue change

@Coffee:, @Crisco 1492:, @Casliber:, @Allen3: Could someone please swap Fresh Wharf, the lead item in Template:Did you know/Queue/5, for Frederick Reines, the lead item in Template:Did you know/Queue/6? Queue 5's lead item is a UK topic but it will run at midnight UK time (in less than 4 hours' time), so next to nobody in the UK will see it.

As a more general rule of thumb, can we please try to run DYKs at times that are more appropriate to the geographical area that they concern? Prioryman (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I don't agree. I understand this to a point, but if we follow this logic, we'd end up with all queues being constructed according to geography, and those in the US would rarely see UK related hooks, while those in the UK might not see Australian related hooks. We're a global encyclopedia, let's keep it global. Harrias talk 20:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It should also be pointed out that we are currently running just two updates/day. As a result the hook in question will be on the Main page until lunchtime in the UK, allowing the entire morning for people there to see it. When we run three or more updates a day, I take time of day into consideration when building sets, but with hooks appearing on the Main page for 12 hours at a time, this is not practical. --Allen3 talk 20:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, OK. I hadn't realised we were down to two sets a day. That's OK then. Prioryman (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it's nice not to run articles when the particular area is unlikely to see their own hooks. With 12 hours spent on the main page, this doesn't often happen since as Allen3 notes there are usually a few good hours for most hooks, but some Asia-Pacific hooks and some Americas hooks can hit a particularly bad time slot, and run from 8 or 9 at night to 8 or 9 in the morning local time, which is as far from ideal as it can get. It's usually possible to avoid this with a bit of planning, so I think it's worth being aware of while constructing a set. Given the number of U.S. hooks, some imperfect placements are inevitable. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

One of the most minor queue tweaks possible

The sixth hook of Queue 5 (for The Good Terrorist ) erroneously uses {{'s}}. That template should only be used with italics, which is not the case here. It adds a tiny bit of extra space before the apostrophe, which is good when used with italics, but wrong otherwise. There's no reason to use a template here at all, and certainly not the wrong one. It should be replaced with 's (just an apostrophe and an s). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Harrias talk 07:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this is eligible

Selective color was expanded from a stub by way of a merge and some subsequent expansion. As a hook, I would suggest the lawsuit over the red London bus images, something like, "Did you know that a company won damages in court over the use of a red London bus in a black and white image?" Can probably be improved. Samsara 23:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see how it can be eligible at the current time: both articles were over 900 prose characters prior to the merge, and the initial post-merge total was 1590. It would need to undergo a 5x expansion to at least 7950 prose characters within a week of the merge, and is currently at 1779. At this point, I think its only realistic chance is to become listed as a Good Article, and be nominated within a week of that listing. Sorry for the bad news. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify - you seem to be saying that characters added by way of a merge DO count. Samsara 10:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
What I meant to say was that any pre-existing characters are considered as part of the base amount that needs to be expanded 5x. Basically, a merge is like adding material from another article, which is covered under WP:DYKSG#A5: If some of the text were copied from another Wikipedia article, then it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article. I'm assuming that the post-merge 1590 just involved text from both of the articles and no new prose; if there was a bit of new added to stitch the two together, then it would reduce the 1590 based by this new text, but I imagine it's a minimal amount and the 5x would still be infeasible. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

12 seconds

At Prep 6: "... that the documentary Morrissey: 25 Live, commemorating Morrissey's 25-year solo career, was filmed at a concert that sold out in 12 seconds?" I don't believe it. The source says " The Hollywood High show may have sold out in 12 seconds" (emphasis added), but there is no further explanation of how that could happen. It would take about 12 seconds just to process the first customer's credit card, and a high school would likely find seating for hundreds. It's also imaginable that the first customer was a ticket agent who bought hundreds of tickets for resale – but without such an explanation, it's much more likely that 12 seconds is a joking exaggeration like "in a New York minute", not a fact. Art LaPella (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @Crisco 1492: Not really a big deal, as it was included only to draw readers through an interesting hook, why did no one simply ping me and suggest that 12-second bit be trimmed from the hook? Schmidt, Michael Q. 14:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

April Fools Day hooks awaiting review

April Fools day is coming up soon and we have a few nominations requiring review at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done All nominations are now verified. As of right now, 22 hooks for April Fools Day. Good job, everybody. — Maile (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. The only issue I can see is how we are going to fit all these into the day (and I still have one more i'm thinking of nominating!). I suppose a bit of creative accounting with time zones (Australia getting theirs at a time when it is still 31st March in other places for example) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Something like "April Fools! - a day early" or "April Fools! - we enjoyed the laughs so much, we're still fooling you for a couple of days." — Maile (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with that if we really have more material than can fit in a day. However, I think a lot of the stuff currently listed isn't really April Fools-worthy, but merely quirky. Would we be willing to disappoint some aspiring Fools by sending their hooks back to the normal nom page? EEng (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2015 (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 #4 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) 10:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Error with DYK credits

I didn't get a DYK credit for Coal Creek (Susquehanna River). Everyone who did get a DYK credit with the most recent batch seems to have been credited for Kayla Mueller. Possibly an error with DYKUpdateBot? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

How strange. It's now delivered the correct DYK credits to me and three other people, but not to anyone else. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
There is maintenance occurring on labs that is probably to blame. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 135#Labs is going to be slow additional details. After a check of the bot's edit history, it looks like all the credits were issued but there was a time gap between 00:06 and 00:20 (UTC) when the bot made no edits. --Allen3 talk 01:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 20 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 19 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, 66 nominations are approved, leaving 266 of 332 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest. Finishing the two from December 2014 and four from January 2015 would be especially welcome.

Over one month:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification bot

A year ago, this project approved a bot to notify editors if someone else nominated their article for DYK. Approved implementation is close at hand. Details Here. It's been a long road... — Maile (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Church

Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know says "Keep all hooks and articles completely truthful". So how can Prep 3 say "... that there is only one major public church in Europe?" In addition to the most obvious counterexamples (Catholics, Lutherans etc.), Template:Did you know nominations/Niagara Falls, from the American Side says "Well, I mentioned that before I checked the source, which says it's "the only major example of Church's work in a European public collection". So I'm afraid ALT1 won't work in its current form. But the other hooks, assuming they check out, could still work for April Fools' Day, or perhaps another one could be constructed. User:Mandarax" Art LaPella (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Other than that Church should be capitalized in the hook (I'll do that now) I don't see the problem. With that change, the hook exactly matches the source you quote. EEng (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be capitalized. The April Fools' Day rules say "Proper capitalization ... may be disregarded only if doing this will give away the joke." I think it does partly give away the joke, but I'm not going to be too concerned either way. BTW, that rule actually says the opposite of what it intends to say; it should say "only if not doing this".
The confusion is because the name has an alternate meaning. Substitute something like "Picasso", and the meaning is clear: a "Picasso" in that context is universally understood to mean a "work by Pablo Picasso". Similarly, "Church" in the hook means "a work by Frederic Edwin Church", and the "counterexamples" given above are no such thing, as they're not works by Frederic Edwin Church. That the word has another meaning is precisely what makes it an April Fools' Day hook, but that does not make it any less true.
Note that the correct nomination page (which you can determine by checking the "View nom subpage" link in the "Credits" section of a Prep or Queue) is Template:Did you know nominations/Church. The quote was me pointing out in the old nomination why that old hook wouldn't work. I have no idea why it was included here, because, as EEng mentioned, it supports the current hook. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: I've corrected the rule, adding "not". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know about the capitalization rule -- we do have so very many rules here. Someone's changed it back -- good. EEng (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I see most of that now, but I still don't see why Catholics aren't a church (even though a painting can also be a Church). But if everyone else gets something I'm missing, that's what counts. Art LaPella (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The artist's name is Church, so this painting is the only "Church" in a European public collection. EEng (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Right, but it says "major public church in Europe", not "collection". Catholics are major, public, a church, and in Europe. It really depends on what "only" means. Art LaPella (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, the understanding might differ depending on which side of the Atlantic one is, or just because on April Fools Day everybody gets lax. You know, only one side of the Atlantic has the Church of England as the big one. At least in America, when news sources refer to "the Church", they mean the Catholic Church heirarchy and doctrine. At least since JFK was President. Protestants vary in how they refer to themselves, as a fellowship, a faith, a body of believers, or any number of ways. Quakers are "friends" and Mormons are latter day saints. While "a church" over here is a building, "the Church" (capitalized) is Catholic. — Maile (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, no self-respecting news outlet in the US simply says "the Church", without qualification, to mean the Catholic Church (or any other church, for that matter), any more than they say "the Queen" to mean, um, the Queen. Beyond that... are we done with this? This painting is the only "major" (important) "public" (publicly displayed/publicly held) "Church" (work by the artist Church) "in Europe" (in, er, Europe). As mentioned Fools rules allow the cap to be dropped on Church to further mislead the reader, and thus we have "only one major public church in Europe". This has nothing to do with actual churches, though we want the reader to think it does, until he clicks. EEng (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, American news media do say "the Church" to mean the Catholic church. Local and national outlets both do it. It's the largest denomintion in the Americas, so it's not that out of the ballpark to do that. I did the review this nomination, so I'm OK with it. I just agree with whoever made "church" lower case. — Maile (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to fuss this, but for my own curiosity, show me where any major US paper or magazine says just "the Church" without qualifying that, on first use, as "the Catholic Church". EEng (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Show you? hahahahahahhahahha. I'm not digging into archives for you. Do your own research. I would say just keep your ears open next time you're watching a TV news program. Yeah, I'm done wit this, too. — Maile (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
hahahahahahhahahha yourself. It's your assertion, so one would think you'd have at least single example to offer. The first few pages of Google News for "the church" doesn't show a single example (except in publications issued by the Church itself) in which the Catholic Church is referred to simply as "the Church" without being qualified. I was ready to believe that some small-time source might make such a slip due to poor editorial oversight, but was mostly interested to see if my intuition that e.g. the NYT would never write such a thing, was actually incorrect as you claim. Since you're disinclined to assist in resolving that, I checked the NYT stylebook and it's clear [2] that my intuition was correct. EEng (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Who cares? Do you honestly believe (or care) that people check the NYT stylebook before they blurt out "the Church" from their mouths? Do you honestly believe that a Google search will give you the pulse of every American conversational idiom over the last half century? Chill out. — Maile (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The question as I framed it regarded "self-respecting media outlets" i.e. old-style newspapers and formal network news presentations, not chit-chat shows with blurting. I care, because it would have interested me as a cultural data point if unqualified references to "the Church" were actually in mass-media currency. And the question wasn't about the last half-century, but rather about "now" (i.e. the last 10 years or so). So again, if you have any examples of the phenomenon, I'd be interested to see them. EEng (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, good luck with that one. I hope you are inspired to think great thoughts on the subject. I, too, was in part referring to broadcast news media (not print). But you know, I'd have to search my own memory banks of a lifetime to remember exactly who or where. I can't tell you it was such-and-such newscaster on such-and-such a date and time. Who logs that minutia into their memory banks? Many people I know consider the phrase "the Church" all by itself to mean the Catholic church. And we get that from what we are fed in the media, in schools, everywhere. I don't know about the last 10 years, which is merely a piffy blink of the eye in the overall scope of a lifetime, because I wasn't narrowing it down to that frame of time. Sorry, I can't help you on the proof, and you can't Google my brain. You also can't disprove when a person says they experienced one thing or another in their lifetime unless you were part of that moment or moments in their life. You have to experience these things on your own (or not), and Google won't help. No manual of style is going to get this one. It's like trying to disprove reincarnation - you can't disprove it ever happened, but can only have your own ideas about it.— Maile (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It is a blissful if bankrupt mind that is certain of its beliefs without concern for the basis of those beliefs. Perhaps I should envy you. EEng (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I invite you now to have the last word, if you wish.
Hmm. So how far back do those Google archives actually go? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm done with it, in the sense I'd be repeating myself. Art LaPella (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Good job the hook doesn't mention Dorset, or Dylan Thomas. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Or Osama bin Laden. EEng (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Am sure we could work it in somehow..... Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Or work it out, I suppose. (I never get tired of the puerile joke, it seems.) EEng (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I guess we can all say "only major publicly held church" and get this all over with. Epic Genius (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Queue 2

The lead hook in queue 2 simply isn't true, even for April Fools Day: ... that the front slipped off Alex Chinneck's house (pictured)? The front of the house was designed and built to look like it slipped off, at no point (at least according to the article and the source) did it actually slip off. Harrias talk 14:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

(@Pigsonthewing, Fuebaey, Cwmhiraeth, and Crisco 1492:. Harrias talk 16:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC))
You could have
That one works better for me. Unless there's any objection in the next couple of hours, I'll switch them over. Harrias talk 18:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Except it needs to be properly formatted. Instead of '''[[Alex Chinneck|Alex Chinneck's]]''', it should be '''[[Alex Chinneck]]'''{{`s}} (per rule C7). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Comma

Now in Queue 4:

It needs at least a comma after Prague, I would go further and place "pictured" not there - it's not Prague that is pictured:

 Done --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, new admin ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Time sensitive hook

I just reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Radner, about the singer Maria Radner who was killed in the Germanwings plane crash, which is the headline of every major news site right now. The prep areas are filled all the way to the end of March. Can we expedite this hook, so it can be shown before the news becomes old (and before the end of the Women's History Month)? -Zanhe (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but at the moment ref #3 is broken, and the lead is woefully short. Harrias talk 18:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I've fixed the broken ref. Wuerzele and Gerda Arendt are probably more qualified than me to write a lead that adequately summarizes the article. -Zanhe (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I have always thought it a mistake to rush things through because they're currently in the news. Women's History Month notwithstanding, this will be just as good a nom after the article's had a little time to develop. The suggestion (as seen on the nom page) that the hook term the crash "tragic" is a good example of why this kind of rush is a bad idea. EEng (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Zanhe I completely agree with EEng that there's no rush for publishing this in DYK. the article can ripen and settle as more info is published on the crash and maybe on her. Harrias I can work on the lead, provided that folks find the subject notable above the WP:1E objection of a user on its talk page. (Did you notice that, Zanhe?) I dont understand though, EEng, why my suggestion to add the word tragic "is a good example of why rushing is a bad idea". The event's tragedy is not time sensitive and it is completely independent of when or if DYK is published. please let me know.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Calling something a tragedy is a bit WP:EDITORIAL-ish (though sometimes an event comes to be known as "The X Tragedy" or whatever, in which case we would use that name as a formality). EEng (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The WP:1E objection is completely irrelevant for DYK. If someone doesn't think it is notable, they should open an AfD. At that point, the DYK would be suspended until the outcome has been determined, but DYK is not the forum to decide notability. Harrias talk 20:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I think she is notable, having sung at the MET, recorded, sung with notable conductors internationally. I am sure she would not have an article if she had not died, but that's a different aspect. Many notable people don't have an article yet. There is no rush for this to appear, and no need to add "tragic". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Osama bin Laden (elephant). April Fool's Day. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Osama bin Laden (elephant) ready to be moved into a queue for April Fool's. Time critical at this point. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen: No panic; none of the April Fools sets have been made yet. They are the next prep areas to be filled, and as this nomination is in the right place, it will be seen and placed in a set appropriately. Harrias talk 15:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
It was a very long time coming. They kept adding ALTs. Harrias it's been moved to Prep 3. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Prep 3

The hook for Viktor does not accurately state what's in the article, and also reflects negatively on a living person (Gérard Depardieu). Both reviews being quoted are panning the film, not praising it, and pointing to Depardieu's obesity as a laughable film element. I think the hook should be replaced with something else. Yoninah (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Negative or not, the hook reflects what most sources say about the film, as sadly almost every reviewer who panned the film made note of Depardieu having put on too much weigh to be believable as an action hero.
  1. The Detroit News says " In his younger days, Depardieu had a burly charm, but the dude is 65 now and has to weigh 300 pounds. He looks ludicrous in action sequences."[3]
  2. The Hollywood Reporter says "Depardieu, age 65 and looking like he can barely move due to his massive girth..." [4]
  3. San Francisco Weekly states "The 66-year-old Depardieu was no action hero even in his prime, and as his girth now rivals Paul Masson-era Orson Welles, we're meant to believe he strikes fear into his enemies".[5]
  4. Film Journal International writes of the film's weak points:"...sadly, the problem is Depardieu, who lumbers through the film looking as though he's tormented by indigestion rather than a lust for vengeance."[6]
  5. The Los Angeles Times writes "the film's corpulent, 65-year-old star, Gérard Depardieu, play a brash killing machine who beds the likes of the gorgeous Elizabeth Hurley is truly like entering some cinematic Bizarro world. Think Charles Durning as Dirty Harry.[7]
  6. However, Sud-Ouest states that it was very popular in France.[8]
  7. and Daily Mail reports it was a spectacular flop in the US.[9]
  8. and Voici agrees telling it it was loved in France and panned in the US.[10]
I am open to this being temporarily pulled from prep and will await suggestions for alternate hooks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Returning to noms area. Yoninah (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks right back Yoninah. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Vicious comment Reminds me of Marlon Brando's appearance in The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996 film). Aside from reviews mentioning e.g. that Brando looked like "Bozo the Pope" in his pancake makeup, I vividly recall one which opened, "Marlon Brando plays the title role in the current release The Island of Dr. Moreau. But is he playing the doctor, or the island?" EEng (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. I've not seen Viktor but have enjoyed many of Depardieu's earlier works. Any actor that balloons out cannot pretend no one will ever take notice. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know nominations/Washington Monument

Should I be credited with this DYK, which has already passed? I had successfully nominated the article, Washington Monument, for GA. Epic Genius (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Epic Genius, I think so. It looks like the DYK nominator credited the GA reviewer (who made a few edits) rather than you, the GA nominator, and you clearly did work prior to nominating and have continued since then. Let me see what I can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Epic Genius (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No credits

I just happened to notice that my joint DYK nomination for Beroe cucumis and Bolinopsis infundibulum is currently on the mainpage but that the credits on the article talk pages and my talk page are missing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, I think it's because when the prep set was assembled, a "nompage" rather than a "subpage" field was added to the two DYKmake templates (the Bolinopsis definitely needed a subpage field). When ultimately promoted to the main page, the bot didn't know how to process them. Allen3, would you know how to get these DYK credits to each of the articles, and both to Cwmhiraeth, and can you process them? If not, I can try to do it by hand, though I'd be guessing at all the steps. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It should be technically possible to add corrected DYKmake templates to an upcoming set. My understanding is that this will cause the bot to generate credits but will also generate a message at User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors because the bot will be unable to find the corresponding hook. Overall, it is probably easier to issue the appropriate credits manually. I have taken the liberty to do so. --Allen3 talk 21:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Allen3. Much appreciated. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for sorting that out. I always wondered what the subpage fields of some credit templates were for. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The subpage field should be added to every DYKmake where the article name (first field after "DYKmake") is not identical to the "DYK nompage links" template's "nompage=" field contents (which is the name of the nomination template). If the article has been moved, the DYKmake will need a subpage field; similarly, multi-article nominations will need subpage fields for at least the second through nth articles (and maybe the first). If the article name contains non-alphanumeric characters, a subpage field may be needed that translates those characters (this is usually done automatically when the nomination template is generated.) BlueMoonset (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Finding my reviews

Is there a way to use my Contributions filters to find the DYK's I've worked on? I work here in bursts, so it's difficult to find my QPQs weeks later when I post a new article. Is there any sort of shortcut? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I always give the edit summary "review" (possibly with other content) when I do a DYK review. This means I can use the edit summary search tool to search for "review" in the "Template" namespace. So this is a list of all my DYK reviews. This method finds three DYK reviews for you; if you use a different summary it won't work, of course. Relentlessly (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I list them on my user page, look under "For others", with a link to the review as long they didn't appear, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Maury, you could try selecting "Template" using the "Namespaces" selector on the Contributions page. It will give you all of the template edits you've made, but if the bulk of your template work is DYK, then it will show you your nomination and review edits together, with maybe some extra non-DYK stuff. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Start using edit summaries! Harrias talk 07:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

BM, that's the solution. I tried Template Talk, but didn't bother trying just the Template selection! Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Close a DYK

Hi, can anyone please close it Template:Did you know nominations/Tomb of Aurangzeb. It has been accepted by the reviewer but still not promoted. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 05:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

We currently have over 100 approved nominations awaiting promotion. Please be patient. It will probably be another several days, if not a week or more, before it is promoted. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll say. The nomination for Graziella was approved more than 3 weeks ago. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There's one that was approved back in February. I think this calls for a list of approved nominations that have been overlooked. Give me a minute... BlueMoonset (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
You're like a wizard! EEng (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Loophole in the DYK-GA criteria

Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew II of Hungary - At the very least we need to close the loophole in DYK rules that allows the GA reviewer to also be the DYK nominator. Too easy to game the system, regardless of the intent on this one. I feel bad about this, but I don't think this article received a GA review in accordance with GA criteria, and it's not ready for DYK. But all our rules say is, "Articles designated as Good articles within the past seven days, regardless of whether they were expanded, are also eligible." — Maile (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see what's wrong with nominating the DYK. Reviewing the DYK, that's another story. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Crisco: I don't see anything wrong with the GA reviewer nominating an article, but there is a loophole in that the DYK review should be by someone other than the GA reviewer, and be done independently of the GA review, but the rules don't say this. Given the number of DYK reviews that have resulted in a Good Article reassessment, and the article being delisted as a GA (and thus losing DYK eligibility), it's clear we need different reviewers for GA and DYK, since GA reviewers do get it wrong. (We have one nomination about to be reassessed, and it looks like the one here is another candidate for GAR.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Ohhhh...until you mentioned this, never occurred to me that GA reviewer could also be DYK reviewer by DYK's lack of specifics on that. GA on DYK can be an asset, but there needs to be checks and balances written into the system. — Maile (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with BMS and C. EEng (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Agree with BMS, C and EE. Harrias talk 08:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
      • So, if we're all agreed, should I add a phrase to the rules that says that the GA reviewer cannot in turn be the DYK reviewer? I think WP:DYKSG#H2 would be the best place, if so. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with everybody. EEng (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with adding the phrase to the rules. — Maile (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I did it, though I actually strengthened it a bit to exclude the GA nominator (who usually participates heavily in the GA review), as well as the GA reviewer, from being the DYK reviewer -- we want really fresh eyes here, remember. [11]
Good thinking, and good job, oh anonymous one.— Maile (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Guess who! EEng (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Fools schedule

What's the plan for updates on April 1? Is it to be 3 sets of 8, eight hours each? Personally I'd prefer to stick to 12 hours' residence for each set, even if that means we run over an extra 1/2 day. EEng (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is April 1 will use 3 sets of 8. Running over a 1/2 day is not a good option with a surge of Women's History Month submissions filling the slots for March 31 and group of Holy Week/Maundy Thursday submissions for April 2. --Allen3 talk 17:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I still don't see how a Thursday can be Monday. EEng (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, so whose job will it be to tickle the bot or whatever to make this schedule adjustment? Also, if I may ask, can Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators run at least partly during Eastern US work hours. I'd like my old Wit and Humor professor to see it -- imagine how proud he'll be! ;) EEng (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Could we restrict it to a single hour, during the next eclipse, and just in Boston? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
AGF? Could we assume that the people who have been organising this for months have thought about this and are not "fools"? Victuallers (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
UNBELIEVABLYQUICKTOSEEOFFENSEWHERENONEINTENDED? Could we assume that "Fools schedule" (my heading for this thread) simply meant "Question regarding April Fools Day schedule", instead of jumping to the strained conclusion that someone's being insulted somehow? Think twice next time, would you please? EEng (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
How very dare you! Some of us have enough trouble thinking once! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Or even zero times! EEng (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. That EEng, he's such a card. "lol" Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
EEng, I've just adjusted the Dilators so they'll be visible from 4am to noon EDT. I hope this gives them enough of a daylight workout. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
What a relief! Good to know I still have friends in low places. EEng (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC) "EDT" -- is that Eastern Dilate Time?
  • To be serious for a second (yeah, I know), I was planning on updating the bot tomorrow at 00:10 or so UTC, then again at 00:10 UTC the day after. Everything is covered. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Bah...

Wikipedia is no place for humour.
Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important.

... harrumph Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Congratulations. We... actually got very few complaints.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
    • What? No complaining about the top totty on the front page? Clearly we weren't doing our fooling job properly! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, ship – italics needed

The name of the ship in the seventh hook of Queue 5 should be italicized: [[HMS Formidable (1825)|HMS ''Formidable'']]. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done by Jakec. Thanks, MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 6 that were "new" back in December and January, the second has 5 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 26 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

As of the most recent reckoning, 96 nominations are approved, leaving 271 of 367 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest. Finishing the two from December 2014 and four from January 2015 would be especially welcome.

From December and January:

Over one month:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Still women's month

We can be proud that more than 100 women have been shown already on the Main page or are prepared! However: many more need a review, and some articles are perhaps not yet written. Last year we had to postpone some to April, - let's try to do better this year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

To be more precise: as I write this, more than 50 nominations have not yet appeared, and preps are loaded until 26 March. Assuming all noms pass, we could fill those five remaining days with almost only women, - or shuffle some in the sets for the next 3 days. Special case: I nominated Cläre Jung, finding out then (late) that she died 25 March, - it would make some sense to show her then, but would first need a review ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: - If we can get Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alliance of Women Directors to close early, I can put in a DYK for that. Otherwise, if it closes on time, even as "keep", it'll miss the 7 day window. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
We already have too many, and I will also add one more ;) - If my math is right we would need 5 per set to accommodate just those already nominated. Another set was filled since I wrote with "only" 4. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Ritchie333, you can certainly nominate the article now; indeed, you'll need to by March 25 in any case. There's nothing to prevent a nomination while the article's at AfD, though the review cannot be completed until after the AfD is concluded. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

24 March update: impressive 106 articles have appeared, 20 are in prep, 17 are reviewed, 7 are under review, 20 are nominated, - we will again not accommodate all in March, but let's see what we can do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

25 March update: 115 articles have appeared, 20 are in prep, 10 are reviewed, 11 are under review, 17 are nominated, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

26 March update: 122 articles have appeared, 17 are in prep, 13 are reviewed, 10 are under review, 16 are nominated, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

27 March update: 125 articles have appeared, 16 are in prep, 12 are reviewed, 12 are under review, 14 are nominated, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs) 16:20, 27 March 2015‎ (UTC)

Now the March Women reservations are blanked. Well, I guess no statistics is needed right now. Let's wait for next year then. George Ho (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

29 March: the noms went back to their position in time, last call because preps are set for March: 137 articles have appeared, 9 are in prep for March, 12 are reviewed, 12 are under review, 21 are nominated, - reviews are slow, nominations keep coming. Thanks all, it's pretty amazing, I count a total of possibly 191. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

31 March: 145 articles appeared, 5 are in prep, 16 are reviewed, 11 are under review, 16 are nominated, total possible 194, - great! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2015 (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 #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Seaman-Drake Arch

The creator of the article Seaman-Drake Arch has requested to withdraw the DYK nomination for Template:Did you know nominations/Seaman-Drake Arch. How should it be closed? Epic Genius (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I just closed it. Thanks for posting here. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for closing it so quickly. Epic Genius (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

How does one add a photo after nomination?

After making a DYK nomination, I realized that there are a plethora of PD images in Commons that can be used for Template:Did you know nominations/My Italian Secret: The Forgotten Heroes. I tried without success to add one such image. Can anyone help with this? Thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I have added one then you can change. Victuallers (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
That's great. Thanks! Coretheapple (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Old approved nominations awaiting promotion

With 104 nominations currently awaiting promotion (excluding special occasion hooks) and 385 total, it's easy for prep set builders to overlook the ones that have been waiting for a long time, since they aren't listed in any order.

The following are 14 nominations that were approved at least two weeks ago (and one well over a month ago!), in order by the listed date of approval. Since we're promoting 102 per week (a few extra this week due to April Fool's), these 14 have been waiting much longer than average.

Please remember to cross off entries as you promote them, or discover that one isn't eligible for promotion at the present time. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

All but 2 come with images. No wonder they've been passed over! Yoninah (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Right, I've cleared some preps - go load away....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

One of the most boring hooks ever now in Prep 6

Honestly, have we so completely given up on the "interesting" requirement that we now entertain hooks giving the length of a film in feet/meters?

... that the reel length of Mayabazar was 5,888 metres (19,318 ft)?

"Hey Marge! Look at this! Here's a film that's 5888 meters! That's so interesting!" EEng (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, we will soon be past the sets that will be running during the observation of Easter and Passover. Once this is done we can start scheduling our backlog of nominations dealing with Hindu religious practices, banned Jewish activities, murder victims, and Nazi sex dolls (any relation between these topics is purely coincidental). --Allen3 talk 12:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
What about rectal dilators? EEng (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The dilators are no longer in the backlog, as you have been previously informed. --Allen3 talk 13:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I was aware the rectal dilators had been successfully passed -- I was just wondering how you could have failed to squeeze them into your august list. EEng (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

First runner-up ("Most Boring Hook" category)

... that upon its opening, the Washburn branch asked to borrow materials from other Minneapolis libraries to meet the high demand from patrons?
"Hey Marge! Look at this! Here's a library that had such high demand from patrons that it asked to borrow materials from other libraries -- in Minneapolis! That's so interesting!" But really, I'm serious: hooks are supposed to be interesting. (Please no lectures about subjectivity.) What's weird is that I've hardly ever seen a boring hook whose article, upon examination, didn't contain the material for a good hook. It seems like some nominators just want the DYK credit, and care not whether hundreds of WP readers worldwide end up in the emergency room with Acute Boring Hook Stultification Syndrome. EEng (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I guess the answer is that we have, indeed, completely given up on the requirement that hooks be interesting. EEng (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

DYKs for UK Election

I just wanted to check before I started running off and expanding a bunch of articles for the UK Election (7 May), I wanted to clarify the promotion rule. It states "A means of advertising, or of promoting commercial or political causes. While it is fine to cover topics of commercial or political interest, DYK must not provide inappropriate advantage for such causes (e.g. during election campaigns or product launches)." Now I figure that by covering currently (or even very recent) MPs this could hit upon the inappropriate advantage during the campaign issue, but I was wondering if older subject (such as elections or MPs from the 20th century or earlier) would be fine as long as the hooks are neutral. I wasn't really seeking to get these together for the run-up to the election but instead for the 7 May itself. What do you all think? Miyagawa (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you're much better off sticking with the historical material. EEng (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I was always led to believe that you shouldn't run any involving current politicians or parties the month preceding the election in case it does have any unintended effects. Hence why I created UKIP Calypso earlier so that didn't happen. But if its historical then by all means I would think. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad I wasn't far off track. I'm working up 12 Downing Street as a start (I was surprised that it was a stub). Miyagawa (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
What WP:DYK says is: Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Where are the technogeeks when they're needed?

Are we really never gonna have view statistics for April 1? I'm gonna cry! EEng (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Try WP:Village pump (technical). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm just venting. <pfffffffft!> EEng (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I was looking for stats for an article I had up on April 1st and have done some digging. You can find discussion of the issue in the village pump archives. The good news is that the raw data is available and so you can drill down for specific articles. For example, you can find the file pagecounts-20150401-130000 in the dumps for April. This contains lines like:
en Dr._Young%2527s_Ideal_Rectal_Dilators 2 0
en Dr._Young%27s_Ideal_Rectal_Dilators 1164 16518118
en Dr._Young's_Ideal_Rectal_Dilators 4 94376
These are the stats for one hour (13:00 UTC) and, in that hour there were 2 + 1164 + 4 = 1170 hits. Given time, I could assemble a full set of stats for the day but the dumps are large and there are other people who usually do this so maybe a fixup is already in the works.
If these dumps are too large and indigestible then another option is to try something similar again. I created the stub rectal dilator when I first came across the topic here and it is still small and tight. It would be easy to expand that five times to create an even larger passage... :) Andrew D. (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
You've been appointed an honorary curator of The Museums [12]. EEng (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I should also point out that rectal dilator is currently only 142 characters, so a 5X expansion won't be enough. I suggest you add more bulk to get it passed faster and more easily. EEng (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

April 6 - MLB Opening Day

A great baseball hook for either Queue 6 or Queue 1 has just passed; the ALT2 comes with a picture image. Could an administrator (for Queue 6) or regular prep builder (for Prep Area 1) slot this in, please? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

If you require an image slot then Prep 1 is your only option. The lead hook in Queue 6 is a special occasion request for April 6 (Day of the City of Sarajevo). I had been leaving the image slot in Prep 3 open to allow a place to move the lead from Prep 1, but that option was taken away about an hour ago when Panyd decided to fill the image slots of all available prep areas. --Allen3 talk 18:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't require an image slot; I'm just saying that it would be best to run a hook from this article on April 6 Opening Day. Since I can't promote it myself, could you slot the non-image hook into Prep 1? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 Done --Allen3 talk 19:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Chris Martin (baseball) making his Yankee debut while his wikibio is DYK'd on MainPage at the same time. Nice! --PFHLai (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, as it turns out the Philadelphia Phillies are doing horribly today, and Odubel Herrera is not playing well either. The next game is Wednesday; any chance he could be on the main page that day? The nomination has been reviewed/approved, it just needs promoted. Thanks. Go Phightins! 22:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 Done. Should run (assuming no problems with the bot) from 08:00 till 20:00 (EDT). --Allen3 talk 23:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
BLATANT promotionalism of the Phillies. EEng (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

something's odd

The set that currently displays on the main page does not show up on the "recent additions" page, and the set that shows up for 12:00 5 April is not displaying on the main page currently. Did we have a very short run, or am I missing something? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Last I checked, sets only go to "Recent additions" after they've left the MP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Oh. So the date/time listed on the Archive page is the time they left, not the time they appeared? I did not know that. If do find it a bit odd there are no Easter hooks when most of the western hemisphere is celebrating Easter. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Now overdue; admin needed to promoted at least one prep to a queue so the main page can be refreshed. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Statue of Edward Snowden ‎

This is kind of a hot topic, and would be especially timely if it made its way onto the main page without undue delay. 17:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I've put it in the next available prep. In return, if somebody could pop Template:Did you know nominations/Selling England by the Pound in there, if my calculations are correct (and it doesn't get pulled) it should hit main page round about Jeremy Clarkson's birthday. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:23, 8 April 2015 (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) 15:08, 13 April 2015 (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) 14:15, 14 April 2015 (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 #4 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) 06:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Will be overdue in a few minutes; admin needed to promote a prep to queue for the main page. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2015 (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) 14:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Now overdue; admin needed to promote a prep or two to a queue so the main page can be refreshed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Statue of Edward Snowden

Please add User: Hafspajen as a cocreator. It is in the queue. We are still within the 7 days, and he made some valuable additions that would be nice to acknowledge. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • No, really, I don't deserve it. Just made some very minor edits, only like five. No problem at all. --Hafspajen (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I defer to Haf's judgment: an Awesome Wikipedian to be sure 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
So we're all agreed: Hafspajen is undeserving. EEng (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 4 that were "new" back in January, the second has 18 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 16 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, 97 nominations are approved, leaving 292 of 389 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest. Finishing the four from January 2015 would be especially welcome.

From January:

Over one month:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You know there are too many noms when...

...nomination templates no longer transclude (i.e. display fully, see bottom) on the main nomination page, T:TDYK. Are there any admins out there willing to clear the preps so we can shove more in? Fuebaey (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

All looks fine to me. Harrias talk 20:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that Template talk:Did you know has been bumping into Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size. I just check the page' HTML source and it reports "Post‐expand include size: 2092137/2097152 bytes". Fuebay bought a little time by promoting three or four nominations, but it will take a couple full sets if we want more than an hour or three before the limit is again exceeded. --Allen3 talk 21:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem is too many unapproved hooks, not too many already approved hooks. The best way to handle this is to concentrate on approving and promoting the 10 oldest hooks, with have really long discussions and make up maybe 15% of the combined text of all noms. EEng (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm... probably right there. But having 3 sets a day, or 2 and a half, would perhaps help. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I take back part of what I said -- I counted wrong. We currently have an approved reserve of 158 (i.e. GTG awaiting promotion + preps + Qs). I have long advocated 150+ as the trigger point for temporarily increasing the burn rate.

I therefore propose we switch from the current 2x8/day to 3x7 per day, until the approved reserve drops below 100, at which point we return to 2x8/day. (This will take about two weeks.)

  • Support (as one might expect). EEng (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Of course. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. There's a huge backlog, so maybe this will help clear it. Epic Genius (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, but without the automatic drop back. With the next round of the WikiCup starting on May 1, and a likely increase in reviews about that time, late April probably won't be the best time to slow the run rate. If the number of approved hooks decreases dramatically, though, I imagine a slowdown to twice a day will easily gain support. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
"If the number of approved hooks decreases dramatically" -- do you have a number in mind? I do -- it's 100 (which sounds like a lot but is actually only 6 days' worth of hooks at 2x8/day). A healthy reserve makes it easy to put balanced preps together and insulates us from any unexpected downturn in the approval rate. In fact, if we stay at 3x7 until May 1, as you propose, then all else being equal on that date we'll have taken the reserve down to about 45, which we should never intentionally do.
Once we're down to 100- we should go back to 2x8. If after May 1, as you predict, it rises back to 150+, then we go back to 3x7 until it's at 100- again; but that's then and this is now. EEng (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, sorry: I don't see 100 as the magic switch where this should be turned back; sitting in the 90s for a while or even dipping to 85 wouldn't phase me. "All else being equal" is not the way the ups and downs of DYK tend to work, and we can go from 3x7 to 2x8 or even 2x7 if necessary... or up to 3x8 if approvals pick up. We're at 158 at the moment, eight above your magic 150, yet the world didn't end because we exceeded the number, and the world won't end if we go to 3x7 and later slide below 100 for a few days without instantly adjusting our run rate downward by five a day. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the world ending, but it is highly desirable to have neither too many approved noms waiting to appear on MP (because delays become annoyingly long and/or, as seen above, technical problems arise) nor too few (for reasons with which we're all familiar). Nor are magic numbers involved, but 50, 100, and 150 are easy to remember and fit very well with the experience that around 100 is a good target, 50 is too low, and 150 is too high; and further, the delta of 50 (on either side of 100) is plenty big so that the system is stable -- you hit the triggers infrequently. It's silly to keep having to open a discussion and have everyone and his brother weigh in on what is really just a straightforward quantitative maneuver. It's like a thermostat: at 76, the cooling kicks in; at 68, the heat kicks in; and in either case the heat/cooling turns off when you get back to 72. (Equivalent Celsius narrative on request.) You set it and forget it. You don't have everyone in the room discuss when to have the heating start and stop every few minutes. EEng (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, I agree with EEng. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

As there appears to be clear consensus to go to 3x7, I have made the appropriate changes to the prep areas to implement the change. The sets bult prior this discussion will take us through Saturday, so I recommend implementing 3 sets/day beginning with the first set on Sunday (00:00 12 April 2015 (UTC) update). --Allen3 talk 10:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

On a side note, Queue 4 contains a special occasion request for April 11. If a change of rate is made before this set reaches the Main page then apropriate adjustments will need to be made. --Allen3 talk 13:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Modifications to bot configuration needed to implement this change have been completed. Bot will start performing updates every 8 hours beginning with the 00:00 (UTC) update. --Allen3 talk 16:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking care of everything, Allen3. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Johnny-come-lately. EEng (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

April Fool's Day hook violated DYK rules

On the DYK stats page, the top April Fool's Day hook was "... that extraterrestrial spiders have only six legs?" But that hook should have never made it to the main page. It violates DYK's rules. There are a few specific exceptions to the rules which are allowed for April Fool's Day, but all other DYK rules must be adhered to. The particular rule violated was "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." When bad hooks like this make it onto the main page, it undermines the credibility of DYK and of Wikipedia, and provides ammunition for those who would like to do away with the observance of April Fool's Day. Agolib 23:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the parties involved. Nominated by Sven Manguard, reviewed by Storye book, promoted by Crisco 1492. Agolib 00:47, 14 April 2015 (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) 19:23, 18 April 2015 (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 #6 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) 02:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 04:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Has my completed review been forgotten about?

Template:Did you know nominations/Vrmac Fortress was completed nearly two weeks ago but doesn't seem to have been picked up by any set builders. Prioryman (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of hooks at present. I built a set earlier today (help required!) and I started at the oldest picking up enough for a set and I didn't get as far as your (or my) approved hook. HTH Victuallers (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, OK then. It might be time to pick up the frequency of sets in that case. Prioryman (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
We're already doing three sets a day Prioryman. I don't think they'll do more than that. MeegsC (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Queue 1

The last two hooks should be switched, since the penultimate is definitely quirky and the last one definitely isn't quirky. I would do it myself, but I don't want to break anything. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh! I'm so glad we're still doing that. I switched. If it's broken though I'm going to blame you :P PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hook for Magnes the Shepherd on main page now and incorrect

Please see Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in the current or next Did you know... I have only have a moment as I am at work. Reported this error a few hours ago and I see no action taken. My hook was changed to something quite incorrect.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I see your point - if you "attribute something" to someone, it doesn't necessarily imply you personally "believe it". The Rambling Man, who's normally on top of DYK related stuff in WP:ERRORS is on holiday (rambling, one might assume), so if no other suitable admins are about, I think a post on WP:AN would do the trick. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Well no, if you attribute X to Y then, or make any other statement or claim, others are entitled to presume that you actually believe that attribution (or statement or claim) unless there's some reason to think you're dissembling. The real problem is the faint implication that Pliny knew about English derivatives of the root. I actually think the hook is ambiguous enough on that point, but in an abundance of caution I've suggested another at ERRORS. EEng (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
It eventually got updated almost at a time it was about to drop off the page anyway. Unfortunately I could not be around to get it done sooner. I think all the problems would have been solved by keeping in the original hook, but we all have better things to do than talk about the past.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I need to push back here a little. The original hook --
... that Pliny the Elder attributed the name of Magnes the shepherd to the etymological source of the Latin root that has given English speakers the words magnet, magnetism, and related word forms?
-- made no sense, since it says Pliny attributed the man's name to the root (or to "the etymological source of" the root -- weird enough in itself) and that's completely backwards. By comparison the potential implication, in my correction, that Pliny had linguistic opinions about English is a very minor problem, because the ambiguous phrasing allows a reading which doesn't imply that. EEng (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@EEng:No it makes perfect sense. Pliny attributed the etymological source of the Latin word magnes (Latin for magnetic ore) to the name of Magnes the shepherd (via Nicander). In turn, English derives magnet, magnetism and related word forms from that Latin word. You seem to be missing that two-step derivation relationship.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The number of steps has nothing to do with it. As you state it now ("Pliny attributed ... magnes to the name of the shepherd") it's correct i.e. the root magnes came from the shepherd's name. But your original hook ("Pliny attributed the name of Magnes to the etymological source of the Latin root") reversed what came from what: it said that the man's name came from the Latin root (or, as I keep pointing out, it said that the man's name came from the "source of the Latin root", as if there's some deeper source from which come both the root and the name). A simple fix to you original hook would have been --
... that Pliny the Elder attributed to the name of Magnes the shepherd to the etymological source of the Latin root that has given English speakers the words magnet, magnetism, and related word forms?
-- but unfortunately I didn't think of that at the time. EEng (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
EEng, that's not the original hook. This is what you just said it was above in quote marks, followed by what it actually was:
... attributed the name of Magnes the shepherd to the etymological source of the Latin root (you)
... attributed the name of Magnes the shepherd as the etymological source of the Latin root (actual).

"To" and "as" work as opposites here. The hook said "as". And here's the first part of the sentence in exactly the same same form in another context for illustration and comparison. Did you know ... that philologosts have attributed elektron, the Greek word for amber, as the etymological source of the English word "electricity"? When you read that, do you see any reversal, any problem in direction? It parses exactly the same.

Holy shit. After writing the above, I realized where (I think) all the problems came from (if you agree that "as" would be correct). It was as, and was changed to "to" before you saw it, in this edit by User:Yoninah.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I always like it when we can agree it's some third party's fault though actually I'd have changed attribute as myself -- not a standard construction. EEng (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The change was made in good faith, obviously. It's just not good to have incorrect hooks persisting for hours, especially after the problem has been noted. I just wish I had been monitoring the prep area, had seen the problem before it made it to the main page, and also that WP:ERRORS had functioned faster (obviously I could have just gone ahead, but in such situations I am always leery of exercising admin powers when I'm involved, even if it's not a wheel warring type situation, and also I was running, already late when I dropped the note there).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
This discussion [13] might interest you. EEng (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
By linking that particular discussion it would appear you have entirely missed the point. The motivation for my posts to WP:ERRORS and here, and my problem with the hook as changed, could not be further from fussiness over anyone daring to change my sacrosanct wording. The issue was that my wording imparted correct information and the hook as changed imparted incorrect information. This was all about substance, and that linked discussion is all about a complaint over the words used without a change in substance.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The point of that discussion is that, for whatever reason, plenty of hooks get approved which need subsequent fixing as they move through prep or Q, but unfortunately mistakes are made now and then in doing that -- either something which is actually correct gets turned into an error, or in fixing one error a new error is introduced. So if you care about your hook you need to keep an eye on it during its journey to Main Page. The fact is that, apparently, most editors don't seem to care, in which case the rest of us have to just do the best we can. For sure we can't just always let the approved hook run as approved on the nom page -- way too many of them have obvious errors.
And I don't agree that your original attributed as was appropriate. In your "philologists" version above, I would definitely have said "that philologosts have identified elektron, the Greek word for amber, as the etymological source..." (or, if we wish to telegraph some uncertainty, perhaps "that philologosts believe that elektron, the Greek word for amber, is the etymological source..."). EEng (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I made the change from "as" to "to" because "attributed as" is not grammatically correct; the expression is "attributed to". Certainly "identified as" or "is" would have been preferable. Yoninah (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Yoninah! Have you visited the Museums lately? EEng (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I realize that this is your first post here Yoninah but by doing so your reversed the meaning, which is far more grave than any grammatical error you perceived. Anyway, I did not come here and this thread was not started seeking anyone humbling themselves or apologies but just action, and then we started down incredible path of "push back" deflection. By the way, identified as would be factually incorrect because Pliny did not identify it as the source, he attributed it, via a third party.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Look, you're not hearing what we (Yoninah and I both) are trying to get you to understand, which is that attributed as doesn't mean anything in this context. There was no meaning to reverse because there was no meaning. In trying to fix that, Y picked the wrong direction of attribution, and that's too bad, but the error in the original was there and something had to be done. EEng (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list over a week old and due for archiving, so I've compiled a new set of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 5 that were "new" back in February, the second has 19 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 13 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

As of the most recent update, 84 nominations are approved, leaving 288 of 372 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest. Finishing the five from February 2015 would be most welcome.

From February:

Over one month:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Review request

Hi can anyone review Template:Did you know nominations/Tomb of Ali Mardan Khan. The reviewer says there is problem with paraphrasing. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Review has been done, and significant issues remain both with close paraphrasing and prose. A good copyedit is needed if the nomination is to succeed. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK cheating

So, I notice that once more DYK is spicing up hooks by simply cheating on basic formatting:

... that Dennis Marks survived life with an idiot to film the diary of one who disappeared?

Distorting movie titles by simply ignoring correct capitalization and standard italics makes DYK looks bad in my view. It's the same cheap trick that produced the following hook for Thor Heyerdahl Upper Secondary School:

.... that a Norwegian school was named for Thor Heyerdahl and built by a hammer?

Please don't let stuff like this through. Arbitrarily ignoring formatting to fit a pun isn't clever or funny.

Peter Isotalo 21:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It would have been more effective in terms of getting this fixed to post to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Nevertheless, as DYK can not ignore the MOS (with the oft-discussed exception of April Fools Day) I have put the proper formatting in place, even if this "ruins" the "joke". Harrias talk 21:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I think this is a bit overfussy. What distinguishes A.F's.D. is that the reader really might be fooled (temporarily misled until he reads the article and, hopefully, gets the joke). At least in the case of the first of the two hooks above, one will be "fooled" (misled), even temporarily, because it's too far out -- the moment the reader sees "life with an idiot" he'll know there's some double meaning. As far as I'm concerned that's OK.
The second hook I'm not so happy with because it admits a direct reading which is, indeed, not what is meant, and since that reading sounds perfectly reasonable, there's nothing telegraphing the reader to be on the alert. EEng (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Was it ever not the case that something that was funny to one person was grossly offensive to another? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmmmm. You may have a point. Of course, there's plenty of room to find offense even when no humor is involved, but (attempts at) humor can make the situation a whole lot worse. I'll have to think about this. EEng (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No-nonsense hotel management

Is there any particular reason Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Guler went with ALT1 ([14] - now in the main Queue) instead of the main hook? If there's a reason (BLP problems with a recently deceased person?) then that's fine as long as I can find it! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The humor of ALT0 offended someone. P EEng (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Notability issues and Reviews

I made a review where I was skeptical of the notability of the article as a stand alone article (I suggested a merger). What is the policy for approving/declining a nomination when you have (serious) doubts about notability? I know one option is to start an ADF/Merger discussion myself, but sometimes you just want to make a review. Iselilja (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK is not a forum to discuss notability. If you have notability concerns, open an AfD or similar. If you don't want to do that, then either don't review the article in question, or review it without considering notability. Harrias talk 17:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thx. Withdrawing review then. Iselilja (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand; DYK is definitely a forum for discussing notability, along with all the other key Wikipedia guidelines. Many articles are posted on Wikipedia without any references, poor grammar, etc., but those nominated for DYK must meet the high standards. If I questioned the notability of an article and decided not to go through with an AFD or a DYK review, I would at least put a notability tag on the article, and perhaps copy the explanation of my concerns onto the article talk page, so that the page nominator and future DYK reviewers would be alerted to the possible problem. Yoninah (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
What Harrias is saying is that we don't decide notability here. That should be AfD (or maybe via CSD). If you have notability concerns you can (1) just say so on the nom page and move on, letting others nominate for AfD if they like, or (2) nominate for AfD. I think that tagging the article for questionable notability isn't such a good idea here, since such a tag blocks DYK approval -- either someone has to disagree with you and remove the tag (in which case you might as well have just mentioned the concern on the nom page), or someone has to go through the trouble of nominating for AfD that you didn't want to bother with. EEng (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list over a week old, due for archiving, and mostly used up, so I've compiled a new set of the 41 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has one nomination that was "new" back in February, the second has 26 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 14 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

As of the most recent update, 75 nominations are approved, leaving 284 of 359 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest. Working on the one from February 2015 would be great.

From February:

Over one month:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

question--need someone who knows DYKS to check this

"So hooky!"

One reviewer accepted my hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Christ Church, Newton last week. Then, earlier today, as the approved hook was waiting to be picked up and put in the pipeline, some other user shows up says your hook seems "more factual than hooky". WTF does that mean? and what does it have to do with the criteria? There is no objective, actionable reason, IMHO, for this to be interfered with for such a nonsensical reason. I ask someone who knows someone about DYK and is objective with the criteria to take a look and sort this waste of time out.--JackTheVicar (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing the editor was referring to this guideline: When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones, as long as they don't misstate the article content. The "actionable" suggestion (not well explained perhaps) would be to find some pithy, interesting fact you could use to pull readers in, rather than just a dry recitation of facts. Up to you, obviously, but more intriguing hooks tend to get chosen (and read) first! :) MeegsC (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Until we start facing the fact that some articles just don't have the raw material for interesting hooks, so that the nomination should be rejected, we're pretty much stuck with running deadly boring hooks. My recent favorite was:
... that upon its opening, the Washburn branch asked to borrow materials from other Minneapolis libraries to meet the high demand from patrons?
That got 600 clicks! Wow! So hooky! EEng (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that some articles are limited to "boring" hooks but we shouldn't stop them from coming on DYK. Not every hook can be amusing or mention sex or include a swear word (the reasons why anyone ever clicks on most DYK anyway!) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Pshaw—I can think of "hookier" hooks for that library, just based on a quick reading of the article!
MeegsC (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
A hook can be "hooky" without sex or swears - if there's really absolutely no reasonably "hooky" hook in the article, absolutely we should stop them from coming on DYK. But, as MeegsC points out, in many cases there are better hooks possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely Nikkimaria is right -- DYK is not the Special Olympics. As for MeegsC, he/she is right there as well -- I can probably count on one hand the times I saw an awful hook that I didn't find, on looking at the article, a much better one. Only now and then have I had to say, "Wow, this article is utterly barren of interest." (Of the two suggested, the millstone is definitely the one.) EEng (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Pshaw"? What – are we suddenly in a Peter Wimsey novel?
You say that but there are number of sportspeople whos pages mostly consist of their playing career with little else. Now that may lead to less that interesting hooks but are DYK rules really designed to stop things appearing? The hooky rule is really something that should be aimed for and reviewers should certainly encourage more interesting hooks (as happened with Wan King Path) but if there is nothing there more interesting, we shouldn't penalize nominators by not running something. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

A modest and probably hopeless proposal

I violently disagree. From the rules:

DYK consists of a series of "hooks", which are interesting facts taken from Wikipedia's newest content, of the format "Did you know that...?" Thus, to nominate something to appear on DYK, an editor must either write or identify new content (see below for what qualifies as "new") and propose an interesting "hook".
The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience.

If there's nothing to say about a sports figure more interesting that "Born in Place X and ate apples in Place Y", then that article doesn't belong on the main page. Before someone comes along with the "Oh, but that's subjective!" complaint, here's how this would be determined (rough draft):

(1) Nominations are made as usual, with proposed hook(s)
(2) Let's say we want to run 15 hooks per day. Then every day, some bot picks 20 hooks from the pool of noms.
(3) Everyone votes on those 20. The top 15 win, and pass to the review stage.
(4) The 5 "losers" go back in the pool, unless they've participated in three elections already, in which case they're rejected as too dull.

That's it -- straight voting based on primitive emotion. No discussion, no consensus. It's a complete popularity contest, to weed out the 25% dullest hooks. This isn't penalizing anyone, because a penalty is taking away something someone's otherwise entitled to, and no one's "entitled" to an appearance on the main page. EEng (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Making a popularity contest out of DYK is completely against the aims of what DYK is meant to be, to showcase a wide variety of new and improved content. For example, some of Cwmhiraeth's biological articles would end up not running no doubt due to !voters not either sharing an interest or not understanding it. It is also asking for systematic bias where people will vote for what they like to the detriment of things that is not covered often. In doing that proposal, it would make DYK more subjective. The problem is that DYK will always have a case of (for example) stating "X has represented Australia in rugby at 3 different levels." Now to the non-sports editors that isn't very interesting but to those interested Australian sports or rugby in general would find that interesting as they would want to find out which levels these are and what he has done in his career to merit this. A "dull" hook may have so much more behind it, that is why we shouldn't discourage people by banning all the "boring" hooks. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm openly advocating subjectivity or, more precisely, the objective measurement (polling/voting) of the subjectivity readers unavoidably exhibit, even if we try to pretend it's not there. Sure, someone might want to know about Footballer X's three levels or something, but a whole lot more people might want to know about something else. Again, choices have to be made, and by polling a small group in advance (it takes a surprisingly small number of participants) we can tell what people will actually want to click on. Right now the choice is made by the ridiculous "new article" requirement, which has nothing to do with anything. People being asked "Did You Know" expect something interesting, not just something that happens to be new.
We should be banning boring hooks -- why should MP space, viewed by millions of people each day, be wasted on hooks that no one wants to click on, just so one editor can enhance his DYK barnstar collection? You'll notice my proposed system (and, again, it's only a rough-draft procedure) is structured to cull out only the least appealing 25% -- but it could be just 10% maybe, or even 5%, if that's all the stick necessary to get people to make "interesting" a priority. Culling out the dullest hooks will get people to go to the trouble of finding interesting hooks in their articles -- as noted already (not just by me) there's almost always something interesting in there somewhere, if you care enough to offer the reader something worth knowing, . EEng (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not completely against a radical change to nomination procedure because I think it may help refocus reviewing efforts against the backlog. My proposal would be to include a subject based selection system - categorising nominations at the initial stage rather than leaving it to the last minute when prep building - so we're not seeing the same topic crop up every other set. However much I appreciate the work done by our regular contributors, seeing another river/film/footballer pop up yet again does get tedious. Editors are always going to gravitate towards certain interests so there's no point forcing someone to write about something they're not motivated to write about, but seeing 5+ similar noms on DYK a week doesn't help combat systemic bias - it just replaces it with a new form. A few issues with the original proposal:
1. The original hook(s) are the only possible options since the review take place after selection - just because the nominator proposes a poor hook doesn't mean another more creative person can't come up with a better one. Sure, it might encourage some nominators to initially propose better hooks but, take non-native English speakers for instance, sometimes editors are not aware of more interesting hooks. Should we just dump their nomination without trying to salvage it in favour of another well covered subject that has a better written hook?
2. It assumes once selected a review will be completed in 3-5 days (or however long the set to scheduled for) - far from the current arrangement which can take up to weeks, depending on nom/reviewer activity.
3. If a selected hook fails its subsequent article review for whatever reason, what then? We'll be short on noms for the scheduled queue.
4. Not a big fan of straw polling - it's an easy option that doesn't require much thought, with no requirement to explain why you've come to that decision. Editors put a fair amount of effort into writing these articles and to have them rejected outright like this is unfair. Is it beneficial if say a random user makes a flippant comment like "Oppose: I don't like it" about an obscure well written article, by a new editor from an education project, that meets all five of the original DYK project goals and all five of the main DYK criteria? Or conversely "Support: Great hook!" about a three line unsourced stub, last edited five years ago, primarily because they want to see their favourite band/team/trivia linked on the Main Page? No. Obviously, if there's consensus for it then fine, but a head count is not necessarily well reasoned consensus. Fuebaey (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

1. If the ALT0 passes the not-boring test, I'm not worried about ALT1, ALT2, etc. The collective mind during the review will rarely settle on something worse than the original ALT0, so if ALT0 is minimally OK we're all set. Anyway, we're not looking for a failsafe system here.

2,3. No, once the hook is voted not-boring, it can go into a big pool of noms awaiting reviews, like now. The voting isn't on tomorrow hooks or anything like that.

4a. We don't care why people think a hook is uninteresting -- if, out of 20 hooks, this is one of the 5 voted "most boring", then it would appear to be pretty boring. End of story. Except remember, I said it can circle back to compete in another coupla rounds of voting. If all three times it was in the bottom 5 out of 20, then can there be any doubt?

4b. If a hook fails the test of 4a, you can renominate the article with another hook.

4c. Acknowledging there are many things to work out here, let me outline a voting system that meets your objections.

  • Noms with hooks go into a pool P. Every day a bot picks 20 of these hooks from P for voting. (They don't have to be a balanced set in the sense of balanced prep sets.)
  • Now, every 24 hours any given registered editor, or any IP, has a 1/1000 chance of getting the banner: "Help us select upcoming DYKs! Would you rather click on THIS hook, or THIS hook?" Each editor is only offered a pair of hooks to choose from, randomly taken from the (20)(19)/2 = 190 such pairs. When an editor picks a hook, that hook gets one point; the other hook gets -1.
  • I have no idea how many distinct visitors we get each day, but let's say it's 10 000 00, so that's 10000 votes, which is plenty (and even if only 1/10 of those offered actually vote, that's still plenty). Or maybe only people who visit Main Page are offered the chance, since they're our target audience anyway.
  • The 15 hooks scoring highest move to pool Q, for review as usual. The other 5 go back to pool P, unless they've already "lost" twice before, in which case they're out. (Not sure this 3-chance provision is needed, but I'll leave it in for the moment). Even then, the article can be renominated with a new hook.
  • As mentioned, new hooks can be added in review without needing to go through voting.

So there's no way to volunteer to vote or stack the vote -- vox populi. We're not electing delegates to the Galactic Peace Conference here, so the many biases one can imagine don't matter. (If someone wants to switch IP addresses 1000 times to get a chance to vote, more power to him.)

So wadja think? EEng (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Idealism is a wonderful thing. Imagining that unsolicitated users are going to care about picking "clickbait" is optimistic at best, and no one is going to sanction mass messaging/botting for this purpose because it's spammy and disruptive. One of the reasons why there's an opt-in option for Wikiproject newsletters. Perhaps creating a newsletter and sending that to interested parties is a better way forward?
I'm still not convinced about straw polling. This feels a lot like what they have over at WP:TAFI but the obverse. An editor is deciding on an article that has already been improved and the creator is told it don't meet one single subjective requirement. If we're going to have a polling system, I'd rather have one that doesn't split the reviewing process and add another layer of bureaucracy. We could introduce more editorial collaboration, like ITN and the Featured projects, and have more than one editor constructively comment on a nomination. That way more problems can be caught, including those "uninteresting" hooks. Fuebaey (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2015 (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 #6 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) 05:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Now overdue; admin needed to promote at least one prep to a queue. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Updated with ~10 minutes to spare. Thank you to HJ Mitchell for protecting the images yesterday. Very aware that updating queues with prep queues that I packed is not something we should be endorsing but with that tight a deadline I just jumped in. Unless a 10 minute deadline rises up again, that's not behaviour you'll see from me. This is the...3rd time? Where is everyone? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The reason I'm packing the Prep Areas is because they need to be up for long enough for even more people to review/tweak. EEng removed a hook that was approved, then approved by me, but now needs extra review and that is definitely the ideal system. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and this is one of the most important reasons for having a healthy-sized "approved reserve" of hooks (i.e. # of hooks approved but not promoted + # in prep + # in Q) -- it allow a set to remain in prep, where many eyes can scrutinize and adjust, a good long time. BTW, in about 48 hours we'll be decidedly below my magic trigger point of 100, when I recommend we shift back from 3x7/day to 2x8/day. EEng (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I would happily prepare prep queues to alleviate this problem, but I really don't know what the process is. All the documentation seems to be geared to admins promoting to the main queue pages. Can anyone set out how this is done? Relentlessly (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That would be absolutely wonderful! You can see the guide here. Remember to make them varied. You want to make sure the prep area doesn't just have long hooks, and that you don't fill it with the same subject (we don't want 3 hooks about movies!). If you need help I'm sure everyone would be more than happy to assist. 13:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
And if you don't feel brave enough to put a whole set together, you can get your toe in the water by just sticking one or two hooks into the middle of an empty set -- someone else can complete the set with appropriate balance. It would be especially helpful if you'd make a point of finding older approved hooks which have languished unpromoted for a long time. (These are easily found in the right column of the "scoreboard" at T:TDYK -- then if you click on the date you get taken right to it.) EEng (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've given it a go, with much fear and trembling. Edit 1 and edit 2. Have I got it right? Relentlessly (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Please don't update Prep Area 1 right now though because I believe that goes out on the 24th and that's a special day. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Since we're currently doing three updates a day, Prep 1 should be going out late on the 22nd UTC. It will likely be not the current Prep 5, which is just now being worked on, but the one after it—and since there's only one special occasion hook for that date, it would be easy enough to adjust things if the hook being saved was overlooked. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Shall we revert to two updates per day with eight hooks per set? I don't think, with the current situation, increasing to three sets solves problems. I don't mind having currently 500 or 1,000 nominations until we have more active administrators. Shall I leave a note at admins' noticeboard? --George Ho (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Christ Almighty, how many times do I have to point out that the appropriate burn rate (e.g. 2x8 vs 3x7) has nothing to do with how many unapproved noms we have awaiting review. It depends only on the number of approved noms awaiting their main page appearance (what I call the "approved reserve": # in prep + # in Qs + number approved but not promoted to prep). If the # of nominations awaiting review is growing (and it is) that's a problem, but burning hooks faster than they're being approved, once you've burning off the excess reserve, won't get them reviewed any faster -- it will just draw down the reserve to the point where (first) balanced sets becomes difficult to build, soon after which we just run out of approved hooks and stand there looking like idiots because the Main Page DYK section doesn't change for 36 hours (and yes, this has happened in the last year, for exactly this reason).
The fact is that since we went to 3x7 the approved reserve has drawn down faster than expected, which indicates that the higher-than-normal rate of approvals has returned to normal. That means we should return to 2x8, and it's only a matter of when. As I'm always pushing, "when" is when the approved reserve drops below 100, which coincidentally is the capacity of all the preps + Qs combined (6*8 + 6*8), which makes a nice symmetry (though it's not how I came up with the figure 100). That will be in 1-2 days. EEng (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • At 200-300 nominations, T:TDYK almost crashes my browser when I load it. At 400, people report that only part of the page is shown. With a thousand nominations, T:TDYK would break—and so would a lot of people's computers. Of course, T:TDYK could be divided into by-say subpages. Perhaps it should.
I can understand why no one wants to built preps and queues and seriously commend those who do build them. Consider it: prep builders are basically required to re-review every nomination. That comes out to seven full reviews for every prep. Even one full review is a tedious chore most of the time. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I love building prep queues. It's very zen. I also love seeing people engaged enough to move things about and remove them and add them in the (hopefully) 12 or so hours before it gets bumped up. It's a great ecosystem. Last time I was doing it on a regular basis though I got told off for doing it too much and not giving anyone else a chance. I don't want to take away anybody's fun - but I do want to keep it functioning and facilitate cooperation for as long as possible until the last minute. So I show up and leave depending on how likely I think a telling off is going to be. This is my hobby. Nobody wants to be yelled at for their hobby. 20:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That Masked Zen Prep Builder was Panyd, in case anyone's wondering. [15] EEng (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, what we could do with, rather than a reduction in the number of hooks per day, is a sweep of the nominations to get the overall number down. Maybe something akin to the GA backlog drives and similar. I don't know whether there would really be any interest, but we really could do with getting the total down from 350–400, to a more reasonable 200. And that ain't gonna happen if we are running less hooks per day! Harrias talk 23:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
A push to reduce the backlog of hooks awaiting review is a fine idea, and if it's effective we would need to increase the burn rate to pipe all those freshly approved hooks onto MP timely. But the increase in the burn rate would be a response to the increased number of approved hooks available, not a cause of it. They way people talk around here it's as if they believe that, if the reservoir is low, you should turn on all the taps in town to use water faster, because that will make it rain and so fill the reservoir. It's insane. See comments beginning "Christ Almighty", above. EEng (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I agree with you, but I am proposing a different solution. If there are not enough approved nominations to run, there are two solutions: run less hooks, or approve more nominations. You are suggesting one, I am suggesting the other. I agree, that given the general lack of interest in reviewing at DYK (and across WP) your solution is more likely, but I was merely pointing out that another, more beneficial, option exists. Harrias talk 23:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, my suggestion is more of a wishful one. In the short-term, unless there is a sudden pick up in the number of approvals, we need to change the number of hooks per set pretty soon. I just built a couple of sets, and there wasn't much variety to play with. Harrias talk 00:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
With that clarification I think we're in violent agreement. Your current difficulty in building sets validates my claim that 100 (which is almost where we are) is the trigger point for slowing the burn rate. EEng (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Panyd: Glad to hear you love building preps. I tried it a couple of times and found the process exhausting. Please build as many preps as you'd like, maybe leave one or two empty sets for those who may be jealous of the fun you're having. -Zanhe (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Time to return to 2x8

The approved reserve (approved but unpromoted + preps + Qs) has been below 100 for the last 60 hours. It was the consensus (not without some dissent, to be fair) that this would be the trigger for returning from 3x7/day back to 2x8/day. This is a good moment since the preps are largely empty. Admin needed. EEng (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Crisco 1492?

Do note that since the DYKHousekeepingBot was down for about 51 hours from after April 24 at 13:06 UTC to around April 26 at 16:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC), any approved but unpromoted numbers from that period were not being updated. Even so, the number is now clearly below 100 (currently 81), and I don't believe there are any special occasion hooks in the three prepared preps. Just one suggestion about doing the actual changeover: please make sure the change occurs while a 00:00 UTC set is loaded (as now), so the next update occurs at 12:00 UTC; otherwise, the queues will be four hours off, and have to move back to 00:00 fifteen minutes at a time. If the admin who moves the next prep to queue is careful to switch the interval first before the prep to queue promotion, then the transition will happen right away; if not, then it's probably best to wait until 00:00 rolls around again. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Another note: as there are currently three prep sets with seven hooks, perhaps whoever promotes the first twelve-hour set can move an eighth hook from one of the other preps, and increase the prep set sizes to eight for all succeeding sets. Just a thought. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Exception from size requirement for expansions from copyvio?

See my nom Death of Andrew Sadek. I remember at least a few years back we waived the size-of-expansion requirement for material that was essentially rewritten from copyvio. Are we not doing this anymore? Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The rule you are talking about is Supplementary Rule A4: "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception)" The rule is still in effect. The fivefold expansion is therefore waived in this case, but the other DYK requirements are still in effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Request

I wondered if someone would be kind to review one or more of my four current DYK nominations, so that hopefully one of them could be on the main page within the 28th. I know we aren't supposed to about the Wiki Cup but I have these four unreviewed nominations, and then I got some unexpected problems other places where I had expected to pick up points before deadline and now I am in a difficult situation.

  • All noms have been promoted. Yoninah (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:DYK rule 3B

I've been bothered about this rule for a few months. It promotes ridiculous and pointless edits like this (mindlessly copying a perfectly good citation). It's also an annoyance to have to hold up reviews for trivial "issues" like this, since nobody seems to want to duplicate their citations in this way (who can blame them?). In any normal article, it's implied that a statement is sourced to the next citation. I fail to see why DYK should be any different. Citing two sentences after the hook fact instead of one does NOT make the hook fact unreferenced. It isn't even any harder to verify. I thus propose that rule 3b be changed to: b) Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the paragraph(s) offering that fact. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It's an old cliche, but .... I'm not sure why the rule was made, but in most instances it does make it easier and quicker to confirm the hook is factually correct, and from my experience this scenario described above doesn't occur too often. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
As you may recall, I thoroughly agree with you on this. There's no reason why DYK referencing rules should be any different from the rest of Wikipedia. Relentlessly (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Requiring that hooks be absolutely directly cited doesn't bother me at all, and as Ritchie says it just makes things a bit more handy to verify, and kind of forces the article's "shepherd" to double-verify that this is indeed the source supporting the hook. It's just that one possible duplication, and easily removed, if redundant, after the hook's MP appearance.
What's ridiculous (here we go again...) is that dumb one-cite-per-paragraph requirement. That's beyond anything required anywhere else, and affects the whole article. EEng (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Another noble attempt to rationalize this withering on the vine. EEng (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Completely agree on this. It does my head in that the DYK requirements force you to duplicate references, while the MOS suggests that is unnecessary. Harrias talk 21:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Back to withering on the vine again. EEng (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Advice for a novice promoter

Hi. I've been building up Prep 4, which I think is going well. I'm not going to have time to finish it right now, but I will come back to it later if no one else does. A question, though: the instructions refer to {{mprotected}}. What am I supposed to do with this template? I don't quite understand it. Thanks. Relentlessly (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2015 (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) 06:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I've moved two preps to the queues, and also added a hook to each to take them up to eight, and reset the counter. It does mean that the current seven hook set will also run for twelve hours, but I wanted to get it done, and it seemed a small price to pay to do so. Feel free to trout slap me if I've done something stupid. Harrias talk 07:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Did we go back to 8 hooks per prep without anyone telling me? Yoninah (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, see the discussion above. Harrias talk 11:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

OTRS ticket

We got an OTRS ticket asking me to feed back that we have a lot of Pennsylvania and more generally USA-related content in DYK. I replied that it was a matter of WP:CSB, but promised to pass the message on. Stifle (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

We've had Jakec doing a lot of work on Pennsylvania waterways lately, which has been great as it is an under-represented topic in general across the encyclopaedia. With regards to the wider point, I'd actually disagree. DYK has, for a long time, had a guideline to post no more than 50% of hooks in a given set as being USA-related. It used to be a struggle to keep under that figure, but of late I would say there has generally been much less than 50% USA-related content in each set. Good to get any form of feedback though. I do recall a set recently having two Pennsylvania-based hooks, so we do need to try and avoid that where we can, at least. Harrias talk 16:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Personally I think the whole 50% USA-related content rule is a bit outdated as granted when Wikipedia began the majority was from American editors and content but now it is a bit more global and there seems little point in having it when the 50% rule isn't always followed anyway. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
If the "rule" helps to keep people focused on mixing up content, then I'd say there's no reason to abolish it. Just because "it isn't always followed anyway" doesn't mean we should eliminate it! MeegsC (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Then wouldn't it be better to change it to something along the lines of "try to avoid having 2 or more hooks on the same topic area when building sets"? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
@The C of E: "No more than two hooks on the same topic area" doesn't mean "no more than 50% of the hooks for US-related articles". Those are completely different issues! MeegsC (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
You did say that the 50% rule was kept because it stopped people focusing on mixing up content so by definition it would be better to change it to something more obvious and less focused on US hooks. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
But the point I was making was that it seems a bit redundant given the global nature of Wikipedia nowadays, and as is said, it isn't followed much anyway. For Example the hooks on 8:00 2 July 2012 ran as (in order of hook focus) Wales, Kenya, Puerto Rico, USA, England, Russia, Guernsey. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I do think we could do more to be on the lookout for new/expanded articles of others. DYK has always had "runs" or articles on a topic or topics popular with certain editors (me included). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep an eye on submissions being passed from Articles for creation - sometimes they can be good candidates for DYK, though they are only required to withstand an AfD, not to the DYK standards. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ellen Pickering

Could someone reopen Template:Did you know nominations/Ellen Pickering please? It was created, nominated, and closed by the same user, which appears highly irregular. I identified a NPOV issue which required me to make a resource request for offline sources a week ago.[16] On April 22, the request was finally fulfilled.[17] Strangely enough, approximately one hour after acknowledging that I had received the sources, the nominator of the hook closed out his own DYK.[18] I have a hard time believing this was a coincidence. During the original review, the nominator refused to cite these sources in the article, hence the NPOV issue and the resource request. I left the review at the behest of another user and made the subsequent source request to fix the problem. I see what appears to be a pattern of deliberate obstructionism. Gerda Arendt was the last known reviewer of the hook and I had contacted her to let her know of the source request and my plan to fix the problem, so the close was not just unexpected but unusual, particularly given the one hour separating the fulfillment of the source request and the close itself. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas, any nominator is free to withdraw a nomination at any time. Mind, they aren't supposed to close the nomination themselves, but they can decide they don't want the article on the main page after all, and we normally respect that. You're certainly free to make whatever edits you wish to the underlying article. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a totally transparent, textbook definition of deliberate obstructionism in the passive aggressive style. The nominator did not want to improve the article nor did he want anyone else to improve it; more importantly, the nominator did not have a reason for withdrawing the nomination. The nominator simply closed the DYK because I volunteered to do the work to fix the NPOV problem. By so doing, the nominator wasted a great deal of time and energy of other editors who volunteered their precious time (I have a full time job) to improve this encyclopedia. The nominator is someone who does not respect other people or their work. Many, many different people worked hard to review this article, check the article for problems, check the sources, request sources, find the sources, upload the sources, download the sources, check the DYK criteria, etc. The nominator closed the DYK for no reason other to stick it to all of these people. The nominator demonstrates a vast ignorance of the concept of a collaborative encyclopedia, and makes me seriously question their competence. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Viriditas, your complaint seems overwrought, to put it charitably. The nominator decided that the whole thing was getting to be too much trouble -- big deal. Work on the article if it's important to you. EEng (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
That was the original point. It was too much trouble for the nominator, which is why other editors stepped in to collaborate and fix the problem. Editors like:
  1. Gerda Arendt
  2. Gobonobo
  3. GoingBatty
  4. Johnbod
  5. John M Baker
  6. Maile66
  7. Mandarax
  8. NQ
  9. Tim riley
  10. Viriditas
  11. Wehwalt
Clearly, the nominator did not want to collaborate with other editors, which defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. It appears to me that the nominator believes DYK is special and does not involve collaboration. Tell that to the eleven editors listed above who donated their valuable time and energy to work on this DYK. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop it right now
  • Stay off people's talk pages
  • Don't post about this anywhere but the DYK template, this talk page, or the article's talk page
  • Stop name dropping - nobody mentioned above wants to be involved; stop exaggerating their involvement
  • Gerda only got involved because I asked her to, and she's a trooper who always tries to assist.
  • Stop the personal attacks
DYK has attracted some real idiotic mud wallows, and this one is not far from the top. You are so close to, if not over the line of, personal attacks on any number of people. I got hauled into this, because you posted on my talk page and asked for a second opinion on the DYK review. I chose to do some minor editing on the article. But after this got SOOOOO out of hand, I asked you on the DYK template to back away. You told me you had. Apparently not. But knock it off. — Maile (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Completely agree with Maile. I modify my earlier post's evaluation by changing overwrought to crazy, as in: your complaint is crazy. And I note that none of the 11 editors you list seem similarly concerned. So stop it. Do yourself a favor and let it go by not posting to this thread again. Instead, go work on the article. EEng (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The last women's history month noms

Missed this, but didn't miss much. Viriditas is working on the article, the POV tag is gone. However, the article is not the only one unresolved in Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month/2015/Outcomes#DYKs (which was March, remember?). Some only need to be promoted, for some others a review needs to be completed, two have green light and question tag at the same time, not easy to interpret (Agustina Andrade, Teresia Constantia Phillips). With some joint efforts, we should be able to close the chapter in April. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Per WMF legal counsel only editors in Colorado should be engaging in joint efforts. EEng (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Some understood, by now all reviews were completed (or postponed, - the above), - all it takes now is to get them to prep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2015 (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) 07:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Queue 5 – comma needed

Could a passing admin please insert a comma in the lead hook of Queue 5 after "Pakistan"? The queue is due to be promoted to the main page in three hours, and it would be great if it could be done before that occurs. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Done, in the nick of time. Harrias talk 07:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Agriculture in the Republic of the Congo

I was looking at this nomination with a view to reviewing it for DYK. Instead, I ended up expanding the article, and I also created an article on the Niari Valley which was redlinked in the article. Since the proposed hook for DYK is "... that the Niari Valley is a notable agricultural area in the Republic of the Congo?", I asked the nominator if she would object to me amending the nomination to a two article hook to include my new article. She approved the idea so I have made some changes to the credits and hook, but I expect there are other adjustments that need to be made to the template, such as adding subpages etc. Could someone who knows what they are doing have a look? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done. And, Cwmhiraeth, seeing your name reminded me of what I had read above, where it was suggested that if users voted on hooks to use, some of yours might not make it. Well, while lots of people who write many articles in the same general topic area end up constructing repetitive, boring hooks, I've always found yours to be interesting and different. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Also thanks for your comment; I try to find something catchy for the hook where I can. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot is down and queues are empty

DYKUpdateBot has been down for almost two days. As a result, the bot's usual message that "DYK is almost overdue" is not being generated despite the next update being scheduled for just over an hour from now and all the queues being empty. While I have the technical ability to fix this situation, I am not comfortable assembling new sets in the prep areas, promoting them to the queues, and then performing the manual update needed to move the hooks to the Main page. Is there anyone interested in helping with process so that one person is not performing all these steps? --Allen3 talk 10:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You can still manually notify. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK is now well overdue

DYK is currently two hours overdue and none of the queues have been populated (see above). Prioryman (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If this is still the case in an hour and a half, I'll be able to sort it then, once I'm home from work. Can't help before then unfortunately. Harrias talk 14:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, done now. More or less on time right?! I've got a bit more work to do before I clock off tonight (even though I'm home now, go figure) and then I'll look at promoting the other preps. Harrias talk 16:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I will move a prep to queue although it involves one of "my" articles. I will also try and assist with a manual load as I used to do it before we had the wonderful tools. Victuallers (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:DAB

Please, can the posting admin, or the reviewing editor, or the proposer, make sure there are no ambiguous links in their hooks please? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault. We were four hours in backlog, and I promoted it in a hurry. I saw that IED was linked, and assumed it was the right link. Willing to take the blame here! Harrias talk 20:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
It happens, it just so happens that I've been looking at circa one or more error per day at DYK for a while now, so it was just frustrating that DABs got through, and that the BritEng definite article thing (which I was variously hounded out and ridiculed for) has been prevalent. Better to let the backlog back up and ignore the red lights, and keep up the quality... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
No, I agree – but as you say, sometimes it happens. The BREng definite article is a constant problem: I catch a fair few in the prep areas and queues, but frankly I have better things to do than continually patrol them. Unfortunately, as with every other area of Wikipedia, the admin coverage in DYK is getting sparser and sparser. Harrias talk 20:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I was given such a hard time about the BritEng thing, and despite trying to help DYK, it became too much of an effort, so I left the process to itself. Looks like it's just as bad, or worse than when I was trying to help. Still, as long as they get their laughs, who cares? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that is entirely fair. Yes the BrEng thing is still a major annoyance, but the number of major issues has declined dramatically. Now, I grant you, it is still the worst of the MP areas, but I think that is always likely for an area that deals with new or heavily expanded articles. Harrias talk 21:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep, agree to disagree! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that will have been my fault! I added a couple of ALT hooks for an article I reviewed (as the suggested hook was a bit of a snoozer) and clearly didn't do my due diligence. I'll check more carefully in future! :P MeegsC (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has three nominations that were "new" back in February, the second has 23 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 12 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

As of the most recent update, 57 nominations are approved, leaving 287 of 344 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest. Working on the ones from February 2015 would be great.

From February:

Over one month:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Credits?

Will there be credits for the set currently on the Main page, starting with Head of Christ (Correggio)? Its author is angry with Wikipedia, - it would be a nice gesture ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thats timely @Hafspajen: @Gerda Arendt:, Ive just updated the main page. Its a long process that only an admin can do, Giving out the credits is a task that any keen editor can do. I'm going back to sleep. Can someone give out the credits and I and others will thank them. cheers Victuallers (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hope is the first comment on my talk, and a similar Beethoven on Hafspajen's ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
ps: I am a keen editor, but don't want to give them out to myself ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
ps: Me neither! as I am one of the editors too. Victuallers (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. Harrias talk 09:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't an editor but nominated two, received credit for one ;) - thank you Harrias! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Odd, I guess I must have had an edit conflict with myself and not noticed. Should be there now. Harrias talk 10:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Harrias: I'm intending to update the main page again in next 30 mins. I cannot do the morning and any help with the credits from anyone is appreciated. Victuallers (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Ha! If I'd seen this a bit earlier, I might have saved myself some effort! Harrias talk 18:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the credits! Update seems to have worked, but no archive? I need sleep now ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Yay, the bot is back! Harrias talk 06:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
That should not go un-noticed. So I ask rhetorically Isn't the bot truly wonderful? Thanks for your efforts Harrias 176.227.129.236 (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Expedited review request for May 10 Main Page appearance

I recently nominated a DYK hook for "A Limo For A Lame-O", which I spent the last several days working on in the hope that I could get it to run on the Main Page on May 10, the 35th anniversary of the subject, a commentary on Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update which may have had the greatest impact of any speech Al Franken has ever given—basically, in two minutes, without even really meaning to, he guaranteed the next season of the show would by and large suck.

I know things have been running slowly of late in getting hooks on the main page, but could someone make an effort to review this? (I apologize for the short lead time; I hadn't realized the anniversary was coming up and so I had to rush). Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Review in progress. Yoninah (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2015 (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) 20:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Now badly overdue. Can an admin please promote at least one prep to a queue as soon as possible? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Still badly overdue, and hoping an admin will see this on their watchlist and promote a prep. (Repeating because bot supervened.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

A "the"

The fourth hook of Queue 5 is about a band from England. Even though it's about them releasing an album on an American record label, I guess we have to add a "the" (... that the folk rock band  ...). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Christ, are we still wasting our time on the idea that "false title" is some kind of blunder, or that this is anything like worthy of joining 'color/colour' on the ENGVAR list? EEng (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree with you, but if we don't do it, a certain user always complains to WP:ERRORS, then another certain user takes that as evidence that DYK is full of errors. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. Now we can get back to important issues such as arguing about how the Oxford comma is never acceptable in British English. --Allen3 talk 11:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
We should have left it as it was. If some slave of defunct grammarians wants to waste his time changing it during its MP appearance that's fine, but no need to validate the tsk-tskish obsession by doing it for them. EEng (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
To be fair it isn't even really an ENGVAR issue. Most of the major US newspapers require use of "the" for these false titles too. Although admittedly, most of them also advise trying to avoid the construction altogether, and use a more grammatical form. But then, they aren't trying to fit a hook into 200 characters or less... Harrias talk 13:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
For the record, "most" doesn't include the AP style book. And as the editor Harrias points out, hooks are perhaps less akin to article text than to headlines, where space is precious. EEng (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Trouble adding DYK template to article talk page

I just finished reviewing an article and realized that its talk page never had the DYK template added. I added the template myself, but for some reason, the review isn't appearing. Is there a problem with adding the template after the review has already been archived? The article actually went through a name change over the course of the review process (an apostrophe was added), and the review's name was never changed to match. I made sure to use the name of the review when adding the template, but could this be the source of the problem? The article is Back to Backspace and Pillywags' Mansion and the review is Template:Did you know nominations/Back to Backspace and Pillywags Mansion --Jpcase (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Once an article has been promoted, its review is no longer visible on the talk page. This is normal and expected behaviour. It's unfortunate that the review never appeared on the talk page, but it's a new article, so I doubt it has many watchers. Relentlessly (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Thanks! --Jpcase (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Once the hook appears on MP the "credit" box added to the article's Talk does have a link to the DYK nom discussion. EEng (talk)<
If you list the template on the talk page in square brackets, it is visible until you delete it, which means also between promotion and actually appearing. I do that for articles where several people may be interested. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Credits?

Will there be credits for the set currently on the Main page, starting with Head of Christ (Correggio)? Its author is angry with Wikipedia, - it would be a nice gesture ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thats timely @Hafspajen: @Gerda Arendt:, Ive just updated the main page. Its a long process that only an admin can do, Giving out the credits is a task that any keen editor can do. I'm going back to sleep. Can someone give out the credits and I and others will thank them. cheers Victuallers (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hope is the first comment on my talk, and a similar Beethoven on Hafspajen's ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
ps: I am a keen editor, but don't want to give them out to myself ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
ps: Me neither! as I am one of the editors too. Victuallers (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. Harrias talk 09:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't an editor but nominated two, received credit for one ;) - thank you Harrias! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Odd, I guess I must have had an edit conflict with myself and not noticed. Should be there now. Harrias talk 10:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Harrias: I'm intending to update the main page again in next 30 mins. I cannot do the morning and any help with the credits from anyone is appreciated. Victuallers (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Ha! If I'd seen this a bit earlier, I might have saved myself some effort! Harrias talk 18:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the credits! Update seems to have worked, but no archive? I need sleep now ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Yay, the bot is back! Harrias talk 06:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
That should not go un-noticed. So I ask rhetorically Isn't the bot truly wonderful? Thanks for your efforts Harrias 176.227.129.236 (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2015 (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) 12:08, 10 May 2015 (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 #6 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) 00:54, 11 May 2015 (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 #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

doing....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 Done - right, I am going to sleep in a moment. If folks can load away I (or another admin) can fill queues in several hours. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:57, 11 May 2015 (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) 00:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

8 May

I asked at TFA what would be a good article to mark the end of World War II, - no article was found. I wrote one which I think would be suitable for DYK that day but it needs a review first, Missa Dona nobis pacem (1948), - and please let's look for others, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Gerda, do you mean Victory in Europe Day as the end of WWII day? Because the war with Japan ended in September. — Maile (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, being in Europe, that's what we remember, - sorry for sloppy language ;) - The hook is approved now, but the preps are full. Could it be exchanged for another one "by me" in there, Ray Barra? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Archive

A set is missing in the archive, the one in the history of 8 May, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

That set ran about 16 hours, and was taken off the main page at around 02:53 on May 9 (the bot finished up at 02:56, but apparently without doing the archive step). I think an admin is needed to take care of this. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_114&oldid=1136061603"