Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 82

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75 ← Archive 80 Archive 81 Archive 82 Archive 83 Archive 84 Archive 85

Rewrite the rules as one list?

As seen in the above section on sourcing standards, I think we've reached the point where it would be good to have the DYK rules all in one place. Thoughts? And any better suggestions than me for person to draft it? --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Great idea. This is one of many things at DYK that need to be updated. Somewhat like biological evolution, the evolution of DYK has left us with some organs that don't work as well as if they had been designed for their current purposes, as well as some vestigial organs that no longer serve any function.
The next step, IMO, should be to reorganize the rules -- specifically, to combine all of the current rules in one place. Don't try to change any substantive content until after the new organization is in place. IMO, the "rules" should be consolidated onto the page that is now called "Supplementary guidelines", which should be renamed. Meanwhile, project links should be revised to describe WP:Did you know as something like "DYK project main page" instead of the current name of "Rules".
All we need is a brave volunteer! --Orlady (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't it just be a case of updating this page? (which I haven't noticed before today). Or am I missing something obvious? Moswento talky 15:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Wow, I hadn't seen that either. And I don't think Tony1 had. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
It's actually linked as 'further information' on the DYK main rules page: see here Moswento talky 15:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I had forgotten about that page. However, it's not a substitute for the supplemental rules -- it's a second independent extension to the "rules". (All the more reason to reorganize and consolidate.) --Orlady (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
It does look, and is labeled, as if it was meant to be comprehensive - but it's got out of date. I repeat the offer to attempt a rewrite (though not today, have to clear the decks a bit first), but I'll be perfectly happy to be told no :-D Yngvadottir (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I like the formatting of a one-pager that has appropriate links to more detailed subject information. My vote goes to whoever steps forward and is willing to do it. Going once...going twice....oh, it's Yngvadottir! Maile66 (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's supposed to be a comprehensive page, but out of date. And I say "yes" to you doing a re-write! Moswento talky 20:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Old unreviewed hooks?

Could some one compile a list of the older, unreviewed hooks? I'm having trouble spotting them between active discussions and what appears to be a discussion of hook interest where no review has been done, or because things may have about 4 alts. I'd be more than happy to review these articles if I knew which ones they were. (My QPQ pile is getting a bit low.) --LauraHale (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are a bunch from last month (just in case you're not the only one looking for more):
Enjoy! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. All reviewed. What is the next set of oldest unreviewed ones? :) --LauraHale (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Next set:
BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC) (+1 at 04:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC))


@BlueMoonset: Template:Did you know nominations/4 2012 Pulitzer Prize Winners <-- I'm willing to wade into that morass but only if I know what the hell am I reviewing. Should the review be treated as ONE hook for 4 articles? Or four SEPARATE hooks for four SEPARATE articles? --LauraHale (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd treat it as one hook covering four articles. Note that the QPQ rules require either article for article or hook for hook. This means that the article for hook currently proposed does not satisfy the requirement. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Template:Did you know nominations/Altiatlasius and Template:Did you know nominations/Azibiidae appear have proposed merger into one? Don't want to review them until it is clear one way or another which way this blows. --LauraHale (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
There won't be a merger. In fact, the three-in-one hook that this might have been merged into is itself being split. You can safely review this as a separate hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Next list of oldest hooks needing to be reviewed? --LauraHale (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I find when I start building the next prep area. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC) (May 23 addition at 14:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC))

Only two left; two more have been reviewed in the past day. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Article in Prep 4 too short

Ida Galli currently in Prep 4 only has 869 characters of readable prose. —Bruce1eetalk 09:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, aside from the filmography, there's not much there. I pulled it out of the prep area. --Orlady (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
When a fundamental part of the review is wrong like this was, does that affect the QPQ credit? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Question mark is unquestionably misplaced

  • The second hook of Queue 2 has a misplaced question mark. It should be on the end rather than inside the quotation. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Also in Queue 2: "Trampolining" in the fifth hook should be lower case. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Black River National Forest Scenic Byway Black River National Forest Scenic Byway

Black River National Forest Scenic Byway is now in two places: the June 20 special holding section, and also the June 15 section where it originally was.Maile66 (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I thought I'd cut-and-pasted it, but it appears I copy-and-pasted it. It should be fixed now. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

DYKCheck option, perhaps

FYI on this: User:Shubinator#DYKCheck_option.2C_perhaps. I can't imagine this would require consensus, but I'm puttng it here just in case. Presently, the DYKCheck is supposed to notice if the article has no citations at all. I'm asking is that the DYKCheck have an option that notices if not all paragraphs are cited. Then it would be an automatic check. Maile66 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I'd be interested to see if/how this would work in practice. Moswento talky 21:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that is such a good idea. Checking to see if an article is adequately and appropriately referenced is a job better done by humans. Humans shouldn't have much difficulty scanning a page for footnotes to see if every paragraph has one. Humans are, however, better than robots at determining whether a particular footnote is a reference citation rather than simply a "note". Also, humans are much better qualified to determine whether an unsourced paragraph is OK as is (this happens sometimes) or if the article cries out for more sources in spite of having one footnote per paragraph. Also, additional checking probably would slow DYKcheck down (and possibly take resources away from the 'bot's other tasks); as it is, the bot sometimes takes a long time to process long-ish article histories. I'd rather have a tool that provides good automated checks on article histories than one that counts footnotes. --Orlady (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I think I may have replied in haste yesterday. I think there may be some value in Maile66's proposal, so I'm still interested in if/how it would work, but there are problems as noted by Orlady. More than anything else, it might encourage a kind of lazy reviewing, checking the number of references without noting their quality or adequacy. Moswento talky 07:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Technically, I think this is possible and wouldn't add much computation time (I don't think the added time would be noticeable). From a reviewer's perspective, I agree with Orlady that humans should be checking this anyways. If enough folks would like to see this option though, I can definitely take a shot at it. Shubinator (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
My perspective is that this would only be just an additional aid. Not everybody on Wikipedia has the same vision capabilities. And those who are going to be lazy about doing a review, are going to be lazy anyway. I would think they'd be more likely to try to slip past checking for copyvio, which takes more effort. Maile66 (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Warning: declining consent causes towers to collapse

In the sixth hook of Queue 3, the word "because" is wrong. Maybe it could be replaced with "after". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree that "because" is not appropriate. The building might have collapsed anyway, for all we know. I think "after" is a reasonable substitution. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I thought the same thing when I saw it, but decided to defer to the judgment of the people who wrote, reviewed, and promoted the hook. After seeing that the two of you had the same thought, I fixed it. --Orlady (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that's my hook. Agree that 'after' is the more appropriate word. Good work - thanks! Schwede66 19:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet another cool game....

I do like the idea of subject quasi-flash-mobs on the mainpage - for instance, everyone try to find a hook or a topic with a certain attribute - so one set of hooks might all contain the word "blue" or "circle" or "triangle" or something. These'd have to be pretty broad but I am just throwing this up as a tentative idea....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I also like this idea, although we'd have to be careful not to do something that would irritate the general reader. Moswento talky 15:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
That does sound like fun! I'm in! :) Miyagawa (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I like the idea of that. I'm in. If this was earlier I would have maybe said use the word Monmouth as there seemed to be a lot of them around (actually, there still are a few in the list so maybe it could done with that word.) The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Missing captions

Currently, the image in Prep 2 and Prep 4 appear to be lacking a caption. This should be fixed. Chris857 (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a caption for the image in prep 4. Then I looked at the image in prep 1, which also lacks a caption. I found a potentially serious problem with File:OliverEllsworth.jpg. The current image was uploaded on top of another different image and some of the sourcing information wasn't changed. The image is not from the URL indicated.
Furthermore, I've not yet found the source for the image there. I think it might actually be a flipped-over and retouched version of the image at the Supreme Court history website, a portrait by William R. Wheeler and an image that is at Commons as File:Oliver ellsworth.jpeg.
The current image cannot be used in DYK without accurate sourcing information. However, File:Oliver ellsworth.jpeg could be substituted in the article and hook. --Orlady (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I"ve changed the image in Oliver Ellsworth and the hook. --Orlady (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Artist's Studio—Look Mickey, Look Mickey

Template:Did you know nominations/Artist's Studio—Look Mickey, Look Mickey was approved a few days ago and has been the oldest approved hook for some time. Since then a total of 6 sets of hooks have been promoted to various prep areas. Can we get this hook moved into the next prep area?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It was approved 34 hours before you posted this section, not a "few days". I don't see the big rush, nor why you'd want to limit its chances of being a lead hook; Prep 1 features a painting, so it's a bit soon to run another one. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. I've had a few sit for a while, especially when there are a number of other articles in the same general topic area. --LauraHale (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The approved (and preferred by me) hook does not use a picture.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger , yes and I've had similar situations where pictures were not an issue. It all depends on who is loading the prep area and making sure a mixture of things get included. I've had at least one sit a week. These things happen and it is often not deliberate. --LauraHale (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
That'll make it easier to slot in, then. I'll certainly keep my eye out for it the next time I'm putting together a prep area. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I am just saying it has been six sets by three different people. I am wondering what is going on.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I was going to make this a lead hook this am but all 4 prep sets have been full all day. I generally try to use the older approved hooks simply because the nominators/authors have been waiting longer. That being said, sitting for 1-2 days after approval is not unusual at all. PumpkinSky talk 01:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
You are the second person who is confused about the lead-eligibility of this nomination (which probably explains whey it was not chosen yet). The approved (and preferred) hook is not lead-eligible.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The noms that go on and on often do get very confusing to follow. PumpkinSky talk 02:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Tony, it's mostly bad luck. Mentoz86 built four of the six in question, the oldest two and most recent two, and since your hook was approved by Mentoz, that prevents it from being selected for a prep area by Mentoz. Hooks that I've approved have had to wait when I was especially active in prep area building. Of the two remaining sets, one was assembled by me: in my case, I glanced at the top and thought a picture was involved, though even if I hadn't made that error, I already had a four-article multihook from the special holding area that needed to be in that set, and I wouldn't have wanted to use another long multihook. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
That is correct. When I built the last prep-set, the three oldest approved hooks was approved by me. Even though they could fit into the sets I built, I didn't use them as I was "ineligible" to select them. Just wait and see, it's not always easy to find seven hooks with the right mix. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

June 8 R. L. Holdsworth nomination

I see some issues here:

  • When I click on "Review or Comment", it brings up a blank page as if the nomination template was never created.
Same thing, if you go directly to the Template:Did you know nominations/R.L. Holdsworth
  • There seems to be an issue with the photo copyright, but nobody notified DoscoinDoon (talk · contribs) on their talk page.
  • The Notes section of the article itself is primarily bare URLs, which could be listed on the Comment section if this template worked.

It appears from the user's talk page, that they're new to Wikipedia as of March 2012. Maile66 (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I figured out how to fix the problem that was making the nomination template impossible to edit, and dropped the user a note that an issue had been raised there about the image. The actual article now needs to be reviewed - we always have more pics submitted than slots that can use them, so problems with the picture have no bearing on eligibility of the article unless the picture actually needs to be removed from the article, or the hook depends on the image. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Source reliability opinion

At the moment, the DYK nomination of Template:Did you know nominations/Manfred von Richthofen (General) hangs on this source, which is the only source cited for the Early life and Later life sections. Is it okay, or does it violate WP:RS, especially the self-published part. (My thought is that it doesn't qualify as a reliable source, but I wanted to check before giving a final no.) Thanks for your insights. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The source in question appears to be a WP:USERGENERATED webpage by an individual interested in Prussian military history. Examination of the site even finds a disclaimer where the page's author disavows "ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR CORRECTNESS, COMPLETENESS OR QUALITY ETC OF ANY INFORMATION WITHIN MY HOMEPAGE" (bottom of this page). With this information I must agree with BlueMoonSet's opinion that this source does not qualify as a reliable source under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Allen3 talk 17:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Sorry, I disagree, ALT7 intentionally does not rely on that source, but on ref #4. I am unfortunately not in a position to read the OFFLINE sources which most likely support the content. The article it is a translation (not by me) from WP de. Before rejecting a DYK about a historic person notable enough to receive Prussia's highest order I would ask you to contact Project Germany and/or Project World War I, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The point is not about ALT7, but about the DYK requirement that all paragraphs must be sourced. With both Later life and Early life only sourced from the Viser site, once you remove the citations—which I have just done—there's no source at all for those sections. I frankly like a number of the hooks, especially those that bring in the Red Baron, and appreciate the effort you've put into saving it, but if you want it saved, I think you need to be the one to pursue contacts with those projects. I'm happy to put a one-week hold on further action for you to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I will do that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sound file

A guitar fretboard with line-segments connecting the successive open-string notes of the standard tuning
In the standard guitar-tuning, one perfect-fifthmajor-third interval is interjected amid four perfect-fourth intervals.
Standard tuning (listen)

How should sound-files be included in DYK nominations?

This question is motivated by the standard guitar-tuning sound-file in Template:Did you know nominations/Augmented-fourths tuning.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If the sound file, like the images you include, does not appear in the nominated article(s), then it is not eligible for use with a DYK hook and shouldn't be included in the nomination. I rather doubt that you could include both an image and a sound file if the latter are allowed; I imagine it would be one or the other. Someone else might know whether sound files are allowed on the main page, and under what conditions (the file in question is from Wikimedia Commons, which means copyright would not be an issue). Incidentally, the caption of the diagram reproduced on the right is incorrect: it explicitly shows three perfect fourths and one major third, with nary a perfect fifth to be found. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your error-catching and advice. I updated the articles and hook(s) to have the image and sound file in question.
The question about sound-files on the main page remains open....
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't mean to advise you to include the standard tuning diagram and sound file in those two articles. While both do belong in the standard tuning article, neither truly belongs in those other articles: what should be there in each is a diagram for that particular system and/or a sound file demonstrating that system. That said, we still need someone to chime in on sound files. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, the diagram of the standard-tuning's mix of musical intervals does belong in the articles on regular tunings, because it provides context. Similarly, readers can hear the major-third among the perfect fourths, which again provides context. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


Sound files (.ogg) are fine for DYK. An appropriate template is used in a nomination needing review:

Template:Did you know nominations/Augmented-fourths tuning.

Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Me Haces Falta Queue 1

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Me_Haces_Falta was DECEPTIVELY and blindly olosed on the pretense that i dint responsed. How on earth a silly comment like that could have passed i have no idea, but there WAS a pending response that the creator dint answer...so its NOT ready. in the meantime while under discussion this should not go up. Please pull that.

It ironically comes at the same time as when i ANSWERED a question and it was closed as no consenss because of a lazy reviewer.
To think I had been full of praise for an objective DYK...Lihaas (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Tomica (the reviewer in question at the article); plot does not need a source. I've looked at the use of iTunes, and it is for download release dates, mainly. iTunes seems reliable for that. I would appreciate more AGFing and fewer personal attacks (like the ones at both the nomination page and my talk page).
Regarding the commercial nature of iTunes (and Amazon, for books), that doesn't make it unreliable, especially for something as simple as a release date. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Lihaas, can you please calm down, it's not like the end of the world happens. What actually is you didn't commented on the DYK for "Me Haces Falta" for more then 7 days, meaning other reviewer should take your role there so I did. And yeah, the DYK is good to pass, since we don't need a source for short summary music video plots or films. Got it? And for iTunes, as Crisco mentioned is a perfectly reliable source when dates come in question. And trust me your comments allude on WP:PERSONAL ATTACK and WP:SHOUT. Be aware that Wikipedia has some policies. — Tomica (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Let's be accurate here. The most recent comment on the Me Haces Falta review had been from Lihaas, meaning that it was up to Status to come back to the template review to say that the "mixed" issue—a good point, frankly, since two reviews do not a "mixed" make—had been fixed. A further pointing out that the iTunes sourcing was adequate for the purpose, which was released dates, could well have settled matters. Instead, while Lihaas was waiting for Status's response, or indeed any at all, you come in and pass it without a "hope you don't mind". That is inappropriate, and I'm surprised you don't acknowledge that it was. Better would have been to point out that Status had made the requested fix, so Lihaas could finish the review.
I'm not condoning Lihaas's response above, which was excessive and against site standards, but I would have been quite annoyed if you'd done the same thing to a review I was awaiting a response on. I hope you'll act with more care and consideration in future. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I was not further discussing the iTunes "issue", as it was not an issue what-so-ever. I already told the user that, and wasn't going on about it anymore. I left the user several comments on their talk page asking them to leave a response, and they failed to for a week. It wasn't even as if the user was inactive for a week, the user was actively editing. Statυs (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, reviewing something someone else hasn't touched in a week to get it moving on is not inappropriate. Statυs (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
To those of us who look over ongoing reviews, the fact that there was no response from you in the review meant that we had nothing further to respond to if we felt that a comment could help get things moving. Always put a response in the review itself when you've addressed an issue brought up in that review: that's where an "I've fixed this" belongs. Regardless, I'm disappointed that the posts to Lihaas's talk page did not gain a response.
One week is the time the reviewer has to wait before taking further action, but the reviewer isn't always around when 168 hours have just elapsed to take the next step. Giving another day or two before swooping in is only polite; better is to give an "it's been a week; what now" query before taking over. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I've had people swoop in when I hadn't finished a review . . . and was just annoyed that I then had to start again finding, evaluating, and reviewing an article for a QPQ. Nobody owns a review (as was stated here recently, QPQ doesn't require the reviewer to stick with the article till it passes). That said, I'd be very careful under the circumstances to both justify my divergent view on the sticking point and explicitly review every aspect of the nomination - making it a fresh complete review, which has always been ok. (my differing 2 cents.) --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK sourcing question on my own nomiination

I just created, and nominated, an article on Marie Bankhead Owen. I have a lengthy Bibliography section on works she authored. The sourcing on that is not noted, but it's from the Library of Congress online catalog, Amazon.com, and Open Library. Do I need to notate these sources in that section? Maile66 (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. I've never seen such a section with references (only when it includes comments on the significance of particular items), and I normally put together lists of works from Worldcat and/or the relevant national library, although sometimes I can draw on one of my sources for a shortlist. I don't think adding items to a list of a person's works qualifies as Original Research. --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I hold the same view as Yngvadottir. Moswento talky 13:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Cruciger

The hook about Cyriakus Schneegass, now in Queue 5, mentions Elisabeth Cruciger, sorry, that is wrong, should be her father, Caspar Creuziger, will change article, but can't change queue, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Er .... I don't find that fact in the cited source. I was looking because you currently don't have Caspar Creuziger in the article text, but Caspar Cruciger, which goes to a DAB page (Creuziger is the Elder). Source and confirmation of which person was meant, and I'll happily change it, but in the meantime maybe it should be switched out of the queue, which is up next? We have a little under 4 hours. I'm at work but will check back here. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I see that while I was looking and writing, you added a second source that does support the hook fact. I'll AGF that the Caspar Cruciger there mentioned is Caspar Creuziger (Elisabeth's husband, not father, according to our article) and make the change now. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for checking, I suggest a piped link to match the source, Caspar Cruciger, Elisabeth also comes under that surname, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Technical problems on June 21 nominations

I just added a nomintion to June 21. On my Watchlist, it looks like it took. If I go to that date, it has a big red "Template Loop detected: Template:Did You Know Nominations" instead. What happened? Maile66 (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue has been solved. Maile66 (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I was just noting that while I was trying to get the diffs to show up, you fixed it by switching the slash for the incorrect pipe :-) Computers ....(said the editor who signed the post with four dots)
Maybe there needs to be a companion Wikipedia article to This old saw that says "There's many a slip twixt the fingers and the keyboard". Maile66 (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot failed to update 2 hours ago

I have left a message for Shubinator, and made an edit to Queue 5 that I do not think will have done the trick. I suspect the bot is dead in the water. Any other admin with more confidence than me, feel free to jump in and manually update the Main Page. If there's no response from Shubinator and no one else does it (or successfully triggers the bot) within 15 minutes, I'll do it. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like willow (the Toolserver server that the bots are running on) was rebooted. Toolserver maintenance is scheduled for next week, so I'm not sure why willow was rebooted. Regardless, DYKUpdateBot is online again, and I'll start up DYKHousekeepingBot in a few minutes. Shubinator (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Speed reviewing

I've been posting lists of old articles that need reviewing, but if this is the response I've done my last one.

Four articles were reviewed in the space of eight minutes by Presidentman. All four received a tick and a "Good to go!" comment. They are:

I don't see how it's possible to do four complete reviews that quickly: hook sourcing and accuracy, close paraphrasing, reliable article sourcing, all that stuff. I should also point out that Presidentman had previously approved Barack Obama on Twitter nearly three weeks ago, after which other reviewers found significant problems with the article. I have little confidence that these issues were taken into consideration during Presidentman's second review.

I won't have time tonight to look into these any further; I hope someone with longer DYK experience of issues like this can take the time to see whether these reviews are adequate for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Your choice about listing the old articles. But I think it's helpful to have them sorted out somewhere to remind editors that there are old stragglers out there. Maile66 (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
And now the three of the four have been promoted into Prep 4, the next one in line for queuing. I don't think this is wise. I'm going to move the three into Prep 3, the last one in line to be queued, in the hopes that this can be discussed with some thoroughness first. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Update: all three moved to Prep 3, and the Barack Obama on Twitter article temporarily de-ticked while this matter is considered. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Update: all three moved again to Prep 1 to give more time for a discussion here. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I fear this might be becoming a little messy; certainly in the past I've reviewed articles at some earlier point earlier on then come back to action them; it's not clear what happened here; these four approved in eight minutes are only part of an <20min spurt which also saw rejections of Eleonore Baur, Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor, Jose Alejandrino, Carlos María de la Torre y Nava Cerrada, Flaviano Yengko, and Volksdeutscher Selbstschutz - that's certainly a lot of reviewing; I tried checking out these approved nominations per the request; BLP isn't my thing, but I wonder if there are issues with Chipping Norton - seems to be an attempt at prosopography via gutter gossip, highly voyeuristic and intrusive; yes, there are issues with misplaced apostrophes etc, but to correct would be like dressing a turd; Twitter likewise seems chock-full of random trivia, though it is now a GA; RS issues with the other two, but perhaps that's the nature of their topics; I see User:Presidentman has now withdrawn himself from the "active at DYK lists"; and User:BlueMoonset is busy in RL, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks as if we may have to grasp the nettle and talk here again about reviews that don't specify what the reviewer examined. Perhaps just reminding people that they need to state explicitly that the article satisfies all the criteria of length, newness, referencing of article and specific hook fact, hook brevity, and absence of copyvio or overly close paraphrasing will do the trick (there is a checklist at the top of the edit window on the nomination templates), but the quid pro quo requirement plus eagerness to help move things along will, I think, always tend to produce some hasty reviews. It's perfectly ok for someone who notices one to put a question mark symbol on the nomination and ask what was checked, or whether a previously stated problem has been resolved. On the other hand, I think it's pretty clear what Presidentman did in the case of the rejections; they looked for nominations that had been declared stale and simply closed them as failed. Maybe some of them should be reopened on a case by case basis because we want nominations to succeed if at all possible and some of these maybe could if other editors pitched in to improve them (noting that Presidentman also removed a couple of dates from the page, so those would have to be restored for the nominations to show up again), but let's not be too hard on them about those. But rubber-stamping nominations as good to go is a concern, no matter how benign in intent, because one has no way of seeing whether the reviewer forgot to check something. I'll drop Presidentman a note, but unless they say they checked all those things, I think those closures should simply be reverted. Also, while I'm being forthright . . . it's good practice for those assembling preps to briefly check that an article was not given the go-ahead in error - i.e., that there's nothing obviously wrong, such as a too-long hook, or . . . if there's a simple checkmark with no rationale, that the article does not have any flaws apparent at a quick glance. A while back, admins were told to check articles before moving a prep to a queue (!); I have been trying to give them a once-over, but the primary responsibility is with the reviewer(s) and the secondary with the promoter. The admin, as the third or moreth set of eyes, should only very rarely have to say "Wait a minute, this isn't ready."; although we make a useful last line of copyeditors '-) . Yngvadottir (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd be very happy to fix Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor, were this to be reopened, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Cool :-) I've asked Presidentman to say what criteria they checked so we can check anything they forgot. (I liked the smilies but I kept wondering where the dragonfly was.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Yngvadottir, I agree that reviews need to specify what was done. Some people seem very resistant to the idea that they should have to do anything beyond displaying the tick when passing a review. I'm wondering whether we should consider a policy that any review that doesn't specify what was checked—that fails to follow the "Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed" instructions in the "How to review a nomination" section near the top of T:TDYK—should be denied QPQ credit. Quite simply, more is needed when concluding a review. It takes a minute, two at most, for the average person to type up the aspects reviewed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd also like to suggest a minor change on the review symbols in the edit screen, where it says "You may notify the nominator of problems with" and gives the symbol. Could we change the "may" to "should", or something similar? Here and there, some reviewers skip notifying the nominator, and it puts the nominator and article's editor at a disadvantage in correcting any issue within due time. Nominators sometimes forget to put the nomination on their watch list. Maile66 (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I rarely do a review without leaving a question, but I stopped notifying, telling myself to notify if there is no response within 3 days. It was never necessary, all had the nom watched and responded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just now realized that Presidentman was responsible for a wave of approve-and-promotes while building prep areas on May 31 and June 1—approving an article and the next minute promoting it directly to a prep area—eight of which had to be reversed. Each of these occurred with a minute or two to approve and then place in the prep area. I would welcome an explanation of how these reviews are done, but absent that (still no response to my post on his talk page, though he did post a comment on picture choice in the Barack Obama on Twitter nomination page), I don't think these articles are ready for promotion with these questions outstanding on their reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to just revert both his rejection closures and the closures based on his passing the article - they can always be put back, preferably after he says what he checked. But I think we should hear from a few more people first and someone other than the few who have spoken here so far should do the needed reversions and pulling out of the queues. These are far from the only just-a-checkmark reviews we've had; someone gave one of those to an article of mine not so long ago. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Hope you don't mean me with the Berlin National Gallery - I did wonder whether I should review it or whether it was a test. I checked it all through earlier in the day, then came back to it, honest, (he protesteth too much); a couple of these other closures do seem to be of pretty historic figures, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was WP:BOLD and pulled back the three articles in Prep 1 about 15 minutes after I posted the above, so by the time you replied it was about three hours too late to wait or let someone else do it. I'm happy to have that conversation now. I have definitely noticed an upswing in the checkmark-only reviews, and by people who should definitely know better. It's especially dismaying when significant problems with the articles or the hook are discovered later. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the check mark could be extended into some kind of parameters box for the key points: date, length, hook, sources, etc where you but a y/n against what you've checked? Wouldn't stop blanket yyyy-ing but it would at least be an explicit reminder of things one is supposed to review, and of things one hasn't? Obviously as a supplement rather than alternative to any more substantial comments, a summary, like the current tick/question mark/cross, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
(@him of the spotted lynx pelt: nope, not you. Sorry the article was so turgid and studded with German refs it seemed like a test '-) ) Good. Thanks. No one has spoken up yet saying we should just proceed. Regarding checklists - Tony1 produced one that received a trial in various formats and I was one of the people who found it unacceptable page clutter. The consensus was to make it optional but require mentioning all the required points. That's why there's a reminder of what they are at the top of the edit window on nomination templates. One reviewer currently does use a checklist and I've seen people commenting that they find the resulting set of checks and Xs confusing. I think having actual checklist use be entirely voluntary has proven the wisest course. I'm also extremely aware that we want to encourage people to review articles, and imposing a paragraph-length summary such as I use, or any other additional requirements, may backfire. (After all, I still hate QPQ. I just don't like the alternatives either.) There's been discussion from time to time of allowing reluctant reviewers to perform some alternative sort of service, such as building queues or copyediting, but it hasn't worked out; impossible to quantify, and we really need reviewers. The only suggestion I have to throw in the pot at the moment is to reiterate that multiple reviews of the same nomination and multiple people helping to get an article ready are good things. Having many eyes look at something helps to overcome blind spots and forgetting to check something; multiple reviewers also help demonstrate what a review can look like (in multiple modes) - I imagine some of the hasty reviewers don't really know where to begin in reviewing a nomination, not all of us have taught something like freshman comp. While cruising through the nominations page just subjectively reviewing the interest level of the hooks, for example, isn't very useful, and while some folks find it daunting to read through a discussion just to determine whether the article still needs to be reviewed, on the whole things move faster and more gets caught before the preps stage if people do stick their heads in and contribute where they see they can. IMO. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Cholodny Went model

Currently in the Prep 1 queue: "... that according to the Cholodny Went model, many plants can change their shapes to grow toward the surface ..." The article does mention geotropism and says " the plant shoot will begin to bend toward a light source or toward the surface" linking to this, but that reference doesn't discuss growing toward the surface. It mentions geotropism, but the geotropism article and common sense tell us that plants grow away from the surface, not towards it. Vines that creep on the ground do so only because they aren't strong enough to stand up. Art LaPella (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I debate that vines do it just because they are not strong enough. Maybe they enjoy creeping on the ground - that is their thing. But I do agree that there may be some language problems and think the article should be pulled back while they are reviewed. I already tweaked one obvious wording problem, changing "symmetric" to "asymmetric". I can take a closer look. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Pulled back from Prep 1 per discussion here, and is back in the DYK nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I expanded Cholodny Went model to try to understand the subject, maybe expanded a bit too much. The hook was sort-of-right, just poorly worded, and I have suggested an improvement. The model describes how a growth hormone makes shoots grow towards the light (phototropism), and also makes roots grow downward (gravitropism). To a lesser extent, and more questionably, the growth hormone may make shoots grow up (negative gravitropism). I love the jargon. "Grow toward the surface" is correct while the shoot is below the surface, but that is not clear from the hook or the article. So now it is perfect. Almost perfect. Someone else should check it. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Queue 1 correction

Can someone fix the comma splice in the last fact Queue 1? There's an extra comma after Botswana. Thanks! Ethan | talk. 03:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought the comma was supposed to be placed after the country name as well as after the city name when used like that in a sentence. We've had a very many DYK hooks use a comma after a country or state name in the very way you object to here. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I know it's kicking around in the Manual of Style, but I also believe the comma is correct. Chris857 (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Without the comma, it would say "Botswana was contested" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I had no idea. I must have skimmed over that section in the Manual of Style. Thanks for telling me. Ethan | talk. 07:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

QPQ

Question about the QPQ. Just noticed a self nom where the QPQ referenced dates back two months. Is that important? And if it is, should the reviewers add that to their check list? Maile66 (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, really; even if we decide to check that a proper review was performed, the nomination template still exists. Some people do stock up on reviews in advance, rather than scramble around trying to find and do one within a few weeks the way I do :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I have a bit of a stockpile at the moment, and I may not use them all for a number of months. To add an expiration date to a QPQ review would tend to discourage reviewing, which is not something I think we want to do. As long as someone is not reusing a review that they've already applied for QPQ credit, I see no problem with it. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Good to know. I probably should go back and keep track of what I reviewed lately. Maile66 (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I stock pile my QPQs. I keep track of them on my user page. I have a first in, last out policy generally. (I may have a few going back to lat 2011.) If I didn't stockpile them, I'd less likely do less overall reviewing as at the moment, I like to run a surplus of about 10 to 20 QPQs. I try to be very diligent, removing reviews from my list the second I use them to make sure they are not re-used. It is much easier to do this then it is to do one right before I nominate. --LauraHale (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Although personally I think that hoarding all these reviews are not really in the spirit of what the QPQ was set up to do. I thought it was meant to help speed up the reviewing process. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
If people are reviewing more nominations than they need for their own immediate QPQ purposes, that would be a good thing wouldn't it? Mikenorton (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
This point is kind of what I was wondering about when I posted this section. If somebody pulls out an old review as a QPQ, it doesn't move the backlog and defeats the spirit of the QPQ. I've been doing reviews to learn more about the process itself, and find it gets me to read articles I probably would have never even known existed. When I just went back and counted, I've done almost 40 correct reviews in June. Kind of surprised myself. I blew a couple before I knew what I was doing. I won't need that many on QPQ for the rest of my life. But I list them when I nominate for others, because it just makes it visually easier for reviewers. They see a QPQ was done, and they can click on it. Maile66 (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't nominate without having a QPQ. (Even when I nominate others that I didn't write.) Doing about 10 reviews in a day DOES help a backlog because it gets ten of them moved in a day. I don't see it as violating the spirit at all because it encourages me to do reviews when I have free time instead of only when they are required. It also generally encourages me to be more thoughtful in my reviewing as I don't feel a time crunch to get a QPQ done and just tick it off quickly so I can nominate my own. --LauraHale (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I think Laura's very much right here. Doing QPQ in advance is encouraged, but not required and probably is best - I am just rarely that organized. (I need to find an article and review it STAT in fact. I just went off track helping out in another way.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Foo on Twitter reviews

Barack Obama on Twitter needs a DYK review. Ashton Kutcher on Twitter has now been at AFD for two weeks. It needs to have its relisted AFD closed and then needs to be reviewed here at DYK.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

All queues are empty

All queues are empty and all preps are full. Can an admin load the queues? PumpkinSky talk 11:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

More old unreviewed hooks

All the hook templates from May and early June that haven't recently been updated are now either looking for reviewers with a red arrow icon, or marked with the orange "X" icon. Here are the ones that need reviewing the most:

We're at the point where we barely have enough hooks approved to fill the vacant spots in the prep areas and queues. Getting these older ones done would definitely help. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

One down, ten to go. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Another four in very quick succession. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Those four were improperly reviewed, and need a good reviewer. Have crossed off three others that have been reviewed in the past few days, leaving six still to be done. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Promoting hooks

Because of what happened with some hooks up in the Speedy reviewing section, I think I should ask about this before I attempt it. I'm looking at a nomination I'd just love to have as a lead, if the editor approves the hook I suggested. I've already checked out the DYK issues, and it is well done. If I review this nomination, is it appropriate for me to be the same person who promotes it? I have not yet promoted any nomination over to a Prep area. Maile66 (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, reviewer and promoter should be different people, to ensure more different eyes on a nom and independent judgement. If you point out the nom, someone might be willing to promote it as you think is good. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, assuming the original editor approves of the Alt 1 hook. I chuckled all the way through the article. Giving readers a laugh can be good. If the editor gets back to me, I'll do a proper review with tick. But Template:Did you know nominations/James G. Blaine Society.is the one I'm looking at.Maile66 (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The problem with that scenario (of you reviewing it) is that having suggested the ALT1 hook yourself, you can't review that hook (or the new image either): conflict of interest, much like promoting it would be a conflict of interest after you reviewed it (or contributed one of the eligible hooks). At this point, you can list what you reviewed, but you'll need someone else to give it a final once over for those two facets I mentioned, and another someone to promote it. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I've generally considered feedback from the article's author enough for a proposed alternate; otherwise we'd have reviewers not willing to propose ALTs as they fear waiting for yet another reviewer to look at the whole article. My take on the guide is that we should not promote it unilaterally (i.e. without any feedback whatsoever). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I feel the same: if I review, propose a different hook, the author is happy, I finish the review. I would not promote it, though, generally. (I know, once I made an exception.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, at this point, the author has proposed a slightly differently worded hook. They need to make sure the different wording is in the article, and referenced. I think the author is OK with this idea, but just needs to get it right with the article. Please see message I left on the template and check to see if we need to be that much of a stickler about a change from the word "card" to "message". Maile66 (talk)
  • Crisco and Gerda, I go by Supplementary rules, H2: "You're not allowed to approve your own hook or article." That seems pretty clear to me. If it's a grammatical correction on the order of what would be done at the time of promotion, I agree that it wouldn't apply, but proposing a new ALT hook that has new information from the article? I don't see how that's allowable under the guidelines. When I've done so, and noted that a new reviewer is needed for the hook, usually another reviewer will stop by and approve the hook within a couple of days. (Not always, I admit.) Maile66, since you're the one who added 'and inspired "ungreeting cards"' to the hook, based on H2 you would need to leave it to someone else to confirm that those ungreeting cards are in the article and are supported by inline sources. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, thanks for the clarification. I was reading all the back and forth between me and the author over on the template, and I'm not sure if this is clear, but the Alt 2 was written by the original author. So, I was responding to that when I said the article and references don't mention roadsigns. Yadda. Yadda...Thanks for catching the length snafu over there. Maile66 (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, it was clear that Alt 2 was Orygun's and Alt 1 was yours. Sorry I didn't make that more apparent in the nomination template. Nice trim job. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think H2 applies to ALTs. It is more like your own nominations. For proposing ALTs it should be fine if the writer agrees (you don't really have a conflict of interest in proposing an ALT and later approving the article, not like one of your own nominations). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • But who makes the independent check of facts and sourcing in the article? ALTs are frequently quite different, if not completely so, from the original hook. If the hook is your suggestion and construction, even as helpful reviewer, you de facto have a conflict of interest even if it isn't your article. I've found problematic hooks created and approved by reviewers; there's a good reason to have an extra check in the mix. The original author may like the ALT's wording, but that's no guarantee of meeting DYK requirements. A hook is a hook, whether called ALT or not. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps worth a general discussion to clarify the wording. I think, though I'm not sure, that most reviewers consider adding an ALT minimal interference, not enough to negate their review. If consensus is that adding ALTs negates one's review, I for one would much rather not suggest ALTs for hooks I plan to review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see how adding an ALT negates the review. Everything else in the review stands, just the new ALT hook needs a separate reviewer. I've finally found the place where it says that an ALT needs a reviewer other than its creator. It's in WP:DYKR, the reviewing guide, "Reviewing the hook", second bullet: "You can also suggest an alternate (ALT) hook that is shorter. Just remember that you shouldn't then approve your own ALT hook." BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Passed it with no image

The author of the above-mentioned James Blaine Society DYK is requesting we just use the original hook with no image. I've passed it as such. I realize this will mean it won't be the lead hook, but I think the author was getting confused (or I was) that the problem wasn't that he/she created a facsimile image, but that the hook wording needed to be sourced and somewhere in the article. Anyway, I passed it. Maile66 (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think the fact that these were facsimile images would have been a problem if the images had been used, since they are not images created by the society itself, but by the author of the article as a demonstration. So they aren't facsimiles at all, but mockups. I'm frankly dubious about the propriety of the use of either of the images in the article itself, as they purport to be from the society and aren't. I would think that either actual images of the society's cards or messages are in appropriate for the article, but that these wouldn't be. This is especially an issue with the hook due to hit the main page in a little over 24 hours; if images with this sort of provenance don't belong in articles, they should be removed before then. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
This is one of those cases where some things work out for the best. Maile66 (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of ALT

I said before: if the rules lead to this, they should be questioned, they are not holy scriptures. I think we have to look at how "alternative" an ALT is. If it is the same fact, just in other words, and the author is happy with it, I don't think a yet different reviewer is needed. Example for this situation - and it covers estimated 95% of my cases: Template:Did you know nominations/Transfiguration Church in Kovalyovo. My POV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with a reordering of words, and don't think the rules do either. However, in your example, you've added a completely new fact to the original hook: that they are Byzantine-style frescoes. The Byzantine angle is completely new. So yes, in such a case I think a new reviewer should check out the hook to make sure the new factual assertion is properly included and inline sourced in the article. If others disagree about the independent review, then perhaps this requirement should be revisited, but I think it's a wise requirement, and imagine that it was included because such self-reviews have, in enough cases, been problematic. Those who have been around longer than I have will know better than my imaginings, of course. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
As it stands, the requirement is for every change, no? - For transparency of discussion, I like that the original hook is kept and alternatives worded, by the nominator or reviewer. I am open to the discussion if the addition of an adjective that is supported by the picture requires a second reviewer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
No, not for cuts. "Check that the hook is short enough. If it's just a bit too long and you can shorten it with a minor change, do it yourself." That's listed as distinct from suggesting a shorter ALT, which would involve a non-minor change. I really wouldn't think rearranging word order, providing it still says the same thing, counts either. I do agree that a trail of ALTs is preferred to show what the progression of the hook (or differing sets of hooks) have been through the editing process, and who did what.
Regarding the addition of the adjective, I've just looked at the article, and was frankly surprised to discover that there is no source cited at all in the paragraph that mentions the word "Byzantine". I think you have just demonstrated why the rule was originally put in place: an outside reviewer would likely have noticed this and required not only a citation for the paragraph, but one that specifically supported the "shares similarities with the older Byzantine tradition" statement. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Queue 1

Queue 1

Sorry, I should have hovered over that link before putting that prep set in a queue. It's now on the Main Page . . . I was getting ready for work when you posted this. I could figure out how to change it there, but I'm not sure it's vital enough. Anyone? --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it matters, it's a redirect to the same, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it matters either. Moswento talky 12:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Using DYK to push a POV

Recently, somebody passed Lionelt (talk · contribs)'s DYK for Cristiada, and it appeared on the main page. Lionel's DYK read:

that the persecution of the Catholic Church in Mexico as depicted in the 2012 film Cristiada has been compared to the Obama administration's birth control mandate?"

The source doesn't say that. It only says that "the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is working hard to stop the Obama administration’s birth control mandate". This is a false DYK created by Lionel to push a POV.

In the article, Lionel says "Lauren Markoe examined the relevance of the film to the current political climate in the United States." Actually, Markoe never did this. What she did was show that "endorsements for the film from Catholic leaders explicitly connect it to the current clash between church and state." Not Markoe, and not American Catholics as Lionel claims in the article.

Lionel states as a fact that "The birth control mandate has pitted the Obama administration against the Catholic Church" and he cites Markoe in The Washington Post.[1] However, Markoe never makes that statement in the source. That statement was invented by Lionel. Markoe does say that some Catholics are enraged, but she qualifies this as a minority POV.

For example, Lionel writes, "Finding that American Catholics see parallels between the persecution of the Catholic Church in Mexico and the Obama administration's attack on the freedom of Catholic healthcare providers to refuse to provide birth-control services, she wrote". The problem is, Markoe never found these "parallels" nor did she say American Catholics did. In fact, she said the complete opposite, as she states that most American Catholics support the mandate. According to Markoe:

A March study by the Public Religion Research Institute found that most American Catholics are generally supportive of the mandate. And 57 percent of Catholics (and 56 percent of Americans in general) reject the idea that religious liberty is under siege in the U.S.

Contrary to what Lionel claims, Markoe cites Jim McDermott, a Jesuit priest, who according to Markoe says "connecting the Cristero War with modern-day politics makes little sense, from either a Catholic or artistic perspective." Markoe goes on to cite McDermott as saying: "As much as I personally find some of Obama’s policies problematic, it seems ridiculous to compare that issue with the wholesale demolition of the Catholic Church in Mexico depicted in ‘For Greater Glory...The attempt to equate these two situations strikes me as indicative of the deeper problem our church faces today, the fierce and often willful bolstering of animosities at the expense of our national community."

Please note how Lionel cited the source, crafted a minority POV not reflected by the source, and presented it as a majority view, while failing to cite the actual majority POV in the source. I think that future DYK's submitted by Lionel need to be scrutinized closer for violations of NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned about this and don't want it to pass without comment. (And I noticed that hook in the preps. My thought was that it was iffy but that that was probably my own entrenched biases talking.) But I note that the hook used passive voice; and that the issue was raised and that hook and the article were then passed by two experienced DYK editors. I'd like to assume good faith here. Perhaps best is that we continue to try to encourage checks and balances, multiple eyes on things. We don't have as many passed hooks as we once had, but we continue to have enough that people loading preps needn't feel we'll run out if they raise an issue about an approved nomination rather than just loading it up; in addition to people who see something on the nominations page feeling free to chime in (correct grammar in the hook; suggest an alt . . . ) Maybe this most needed another alt.? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Update times

I just noticed that the update times have gone from :00 to :07 to :14. I wanted to ask, what's going on with it? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK update bot had failed to update for over 2 hours; the times were adjusted to allow for the next update being so late, and are slowly going back to the regular timing, courtesy of Shubinator and his merry bot crew :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

All queues are again empty

We have under four hours before a queue needs to be moved to the front page, and none of them are filled. An admin who does DYK queue moving would be most welcome right about now. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. I was holding off because I have a hook in this set, but I knew a solution for that had been given here a while back, and I found it. Any other admin is of course welcome to redo it. (And I'm truly sorry the queues have to be protected so that only some of us can get them ready.) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry, once your hook was promoted to prep by someone else, you do nothing "promotional" about it moving the set, - my POV, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Speed reviewing supplemental and what does Wikipedia qualify as QPQ?

Confirming everything up in the Speed Reviewing section. I just found an approved nomination, where every source in the article is a bare URL, the hook itself was incorrect English, and an entire section of the article was lifted from the source. An entire section was lifted - amazing. And this was a relatively short article. Although there is no way to know what a reviewer is doing, this one begs the question of whether the reviewer bothered to look at the article. Maile66 (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a clear example of where a review should not be counted as a QPQ - i.e. the editor concerned should have to do an actual review before their nomination is passed. Moswento talky 14:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
That reviewing editor, a syspo, already used it as QPQ for a self-nom. The author of the article has been around since 2007. The hook itself was taken from that paragraph that was lifted from the source. IMO, that also puts the hook into question. The QPQ usage is another phenomenon I've noticed here and there, in the fact that some QPQs listed, when checked, are nothing more than an editor posting a comment within a review done by someone else. Exactly what constitutes a QPQ? Maile66 (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. Yes, I've taken a look and there are also two other problems: the hook fact itself does not have a ref at the end of the sentence (just the end of the paragraph), and the section is titled Flora and fauna but entirely omits the fauna. The creator has 2 Did You Know credits but has had a lot of notices posted to their talkpage about sourcing. I see they have now been left a template, so perhaps the best place to discuss specifics is the nomination page, but they did at least provide sources for the article; they may not have discovered yet about bare URLs and how to convert them into acceptable refs. The copyvio - and the other problems with that paragraph - should have been noticed by the reviewer, and I agree, this is another indication of problems with QPQ (I'll get on that rewrite of the rules) - but let's try to educate the article creator rather than scare em off, if possible. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree about encouraging the writer. As for reviewing, I'm not sure you can enforce anything on anyone who wants to cut corners. But it does reinforce what everyone has been saying about it taking more than one set of eyes on a nomination review.Maile66 (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

IFFHS World's Best Club Coach in Queue 5

IFFHS World's Best Club Coach is currently in queue 5, but at first sight the article looks a little too short (excluding the table). I'm not at home, and cannot check how many characters it is, maybe someone could take a second look at the character-count? Mentoz86 (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I copied the prose sections into an MS Word document, stripped out the headings and ref numbers, and it comes in at 1534 characters, so it's ok. You may have missed the prose below the table. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the prose below the table, bit I guess my eye isn't good enough trained (yet) to tell the difference between 1534 and 1499 characters :p Thank you for checking it out. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The DYK check tool also gave me 1534 characters. Ruby 2010/2013 04:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't have nominated it if I hadn't checked using that javascript tool that I had written enough. Maybe it was because the text was spread out in different sections? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
DYK check showed it long enough for me. --LauraHale (talk)
It is, also I would not be picky about a few characters in this case even if they were missing, as the value of the article is mostly in the table, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Horse burials

The most interesting thing about horse burials is that the animals are buried with humans. This fact wasn't hinted at by the original hook (except perhaps to those already familiar with the subject). I was adding an alt, when I got an edit conflict as the hook was promoted to Prep 4. Rather than unpromote it, I boldly substituted my alt.

Original: ... that while horse burials are widespread among Indo-Aryan and other peoples, there is only one known example of cow burial in Europe?

New: ... that while the practice of burying horses with people was widespread among Indo-Aryan and other peoples, there is only one known example of someone buried with a cow in Europe?

Just bringing it here in case anyone might have any objections. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Mandarax, this is great. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Indian People's Tribunal

I have closed Template:Did you know nominations/Indian People's Tribunal as "no consensus to promote after 60 days due to continued close paraphrasing issues". Because of the controversial nature of the discussion, I'm posting my close here for review by the DYK community. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  • The Indian People's Tribunal (IPT) is a non-governmental organization headed by a panel of retired judges that conducts inquiries into social issues. The article mainly describes these inquiries and the findings given in the various IPT reports. There has been one main thread in this DYK discussion: how should the article present quotations or close paraphrases from the IPT reports? It is appropriate to briefly quote or closely paraphrase the reports, and would not be appropriate to "loosely paraphrase" them, since the article is about what the IPT reports said about events rather than the events themselves. This does not seem to be in dispute. The question is: how?
The guideline at WP:Plagiarism says "when quoting or paraphrasing very closely the careful use of in-text attribution may be required along with an inline citation". The article follows this rule, as in, "The report documented the use of brutal and indiscriminate force against slum dwellers in Mumbai."[16] There is no question of plagiarism and the use is fair as a series of short reviews. The sticking points are the use of quotation marks, where the report admittedly did not always follow MOS:QUOTE, and the choice of close paraphrasing versus direct quotation, where the policies and guidelines are obscure.
It has taken a long time to resolve this issue. Each time an objection has been raised the offending text has been quickly changed or removed (sometimes under protest!) Then there has been a long delay before another objection. Twice, it took approval of the article to trigger an objection. I sense no concern with the subject, organization, neutrality, grammar, sourcing and so on, or with the selection of excerpts from the report, just with the way the excerpts are presented. I also sense (and this may be unfair) little interest in collaborating on improving the article. User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao helpfully added categories early on, as he often does. Otherwise I have been the only contributor so far despite the long-running discussion. There must be a more efficient approach. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, I have been always hating the close phrasing stuff for DYK's. DYK is the newest content, hence close phrasing need not be an issue. These days, DYK has been sounding like GAN. I did pointed out there [at the DYK discussion], doing the same here too. An article nominated for DYK usually only have a maximum of 1 or 2 contributors, which is not in case for GA, and that it makes difficult for an editor/volunteer to bang his head for his/her volunteerism. Things must work smoother. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 04:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, close paraphrasing leads to copyright or plagiarism issues, which leads to suffering---the decline of the reputation of Wikipedia.
DYK can be replaced by snippets from good-articles, on the main page, if DYK again drops its standards. There has been progress this year, with DYK reviews being significantly better than before. Let's keep up the good work rather than backslide.
Your speculation about GA is contradicted by the facts. Even about FA! We have lots of FA articles about medieval bishops, Pink Floyd, hurricanes, Manchester, and the weirdness of Britain because of (usually) individual efforts by excellent editors. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • There seems to be an assumption that close paraphrasing is always "wrong". The objections to this article may come from this misconception. In fact, both close paraphrasing and direct quotation are supported by the guidelines as long as they are fair use, properly attributed and the sources cited, as with this article. Both forms of copying are more appropriate in a commentary on the source book or article than in other cases. Again, that is the case here. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    Nobody stated that close paraphrasing was always wrong. Please avoid responding to misconceptions that have not been shared, because distractions don't advance the editing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • If you review the lengthy DYK nomination debate you will find "... paraphrasing issues persist ... the article ought to be free of ... overly close paraphrasing ... Still close paraphrasing here ... haven't been able to find any blatant close paraphrasing". Since none of these are accompanied by any further explanation, it seems is that close paraphrasing is considered a problem in itself. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Close paraphrasing is not always wrong; overly close paraphrasing is. There was a consensus among the reviewers that the latter was the case for this article. Cunard (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Bisbee Massacre

Template:Did you know nominations/Bisbee Massacre Nothing is happening on this one. As stated on the template, I agree with George Ho that the newspaper clippings need to be transferred to Wikisource. I have no experience at transferring to Wikisource, so I am unable to help with that. The author of the article has been unresponsive. Do I need to withdraw this nomination? Maile66 (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I've uploaded the NYT source to Wikisource and pared down first paragraph, but I unfortunately don't have access to the original version of the Tombstone Epitaph source. I can't upload it when the only version references a blog. Since it is referenced to a blog only, I would remove it for now and find some other print source about the hangings. Froggerlaura ribbit 01:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Toolserver maintenance tomorrow

Toolserver is undergoing scheduled maintenance tomorrow (June 28th), and during the process, willow (the server hosting DYKUpdateBot and DYKHousekeepingBot) will be rebooted. Usually this is barely noticeable to DYK, but tomorrow I may not be online until an hour after maintenance is finished. The upshot is that DYKUpdateBot may miss the 16:00 UTC update, but I should be back online around 17:00 UTC to start up the bot again. Shubinator (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Restart of willow will be delayed until tomorrow, and I should be around then, so there shouldn't be any change to the updates. Shubinator (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Willow restarted, both bots back online. Shubinator (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK hook fails verification but promoted

The above DYK hook fails verification, but it got verified (I guess that was an error) and now it is promoted. The hook says "that between 70 and 90 percent of women in Pakistan have suffered some form of sexual violence" but the actual source says "According to Human Rights Watch, studies on violence against women estimate that a woman in Pakistan is raped every two hours; approximately 70 to 90 percent of women suffer from some form of intimate partner violence". Can somebody please take a look into the matter please? The hook is currently in Queue 1. --SMS Talk 18:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I am the one who approved the hook. I want to point out that at the time I reviewed it, no Google book URLs had been provided and all of the sources were offline. I AGF'd it. Since then, URLs which allow for better verification have been added. I have no control over moving this out of Queue 1, but for what I knew when I was able to know it the hook seemed fine. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Irresponsible DYK claim about Pakistan rape incidence

The Pakistani rape-claim needs to be tabled until it is properly vetted.

70%-90% of women is a rather large confidence interval for a proportion. It is difficult to imagine a human-subjects board allowing such a crappy study that would have so few subjects.

On checking the poor reference

  • Gosselin, Denise Kindschi (2009). Heavy Hands: An Introduction to the Crime of Intimate and Family Violence (4th ed.). Prentice Hall. p. 13. ISBN 978-0136139034.

one finds vague references to "studies" by Humans Right Watch, which is an advocacy organization rather than a conventional reliable source.

What the fuck is this doing on the queue for the main page of Wikipedia?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely. In fact, if you look at the DYK hook review (Template:Did you know nominations/Rape in Pakistan: Revision), I specifically mentioned that I'd want others' input on whether it's even a suitable topic for Wikipedia's front page. Slightly more than just 7 hours after I reviewed the hook, User:PumpkinSky promoted it, not waiting for others to chime in. That was a grossly irresponsible promotion. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I think whether the topic is suitable for the Main Page is a different issue from whether the hook is verified. (I also have some doubts about the article being sufficiently neutral in tone). Going to pull it out of the queue and replace it with another hook now, unless someone else gets there first. It can then be reconsidered. (BTW I'm the one added the URLs; I was able to see all but one of the cited articles/book pages, but that may vary depending where one is.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
That is absolute bollocks. Human Rights Watch are cited by academics and governments worldwide. They are a very reliable source for all manner of human rights abuses. The book used is from an academic publisher also. Take it to the RSN board if you think the source is of no use. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
They do have a POV, and this needed much better handling. Secretlondon (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hook pulled, nomination template reopened, author notified

I think I've set it all up so we can all discuss this expeditiously at Template:Did you know nominations/Rape in Pakistan: Revision. But I will note, Jrcla2, that either of the checkmarks/ticks means you believe it's ready. If you have a serious concern that you believe should be discussed first, next time please use one of the "there's a problem that needs resolving first" symbols. (Of course, part of the problem is that we've had less than a flood of passed articles of late, so they're getting promoted relatively soon after they are given the go-ahead. I had to scramble to do a QPQ review for my last one before it actually hit the Main Page, ahem :-) ) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

In hindsight I agree, I should have chosen a different symbol. At least the issue was caught ahead of time. This would have been bad news bears if it had made the main page as is. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Darkness Shines, the author, has now added another reference and proposed an alternate hook based on it. May I recommend we talk about it at the nomination page? (although I'll be afk soon for sleep; but I also think I've shoved my oar in on this.) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Queue bids

We have a special page for Canada Day in Prep Area 1 which, if possible, should go to Queue 1. I would also be greatly pleased if the rather innovative Prep Area 3 could follow on Queue 2. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Uh, prep 1 is empty right now. Linky? PumpkinSky talk 22:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
If we promote the prep areas in the order they're in now, the Canada Day hook will run just when it ought, during the day Canada time. There's no reason to do anything unusual: Canada Day ought to end up in Queue 2, and that's how it currently will happen. If any attempt is made to jump it sooner, it runs at 1am Pacific time, meaning the Canadian west coast is asleep during most of its run. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
D'oh! You're right! Never set up a special prep are before. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

QUEUES are EMPTY

All the queues are empty.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

All the prep areas are (almost) full. --70.50.201.14 (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I've done Queue 1, but there is still a hook missing from Prep 3, which should become Queue 6. I'll check back in about 20 minutes to see whether that gap has been filled and no one else has moved the set into the queue. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
OK this got a little complicated but the next 2 sets are now queues and the Canada Day set is next up to be moved into a queue. I ganked Run the World (song) from Prep 4, which someone had started filling, so that prep set now has only 6 hooks. I found the hook that had been intended for Prep 3, Bud Morse - only the credit had actually made it there - so I put that one in the now empty Prep 3. Anyone can feel free to put it into Prep 4 or to swap the remainder of Prep 4 into Prep 3. Or ask another admin to swap Bud Morse and Run the World (song). Because I'm afraid it is now past my bedtime. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I've pasted up Prep 3. HJ Mitchell promised the staff at the Herbert Art Gallery and Museum in Coventry that their hook would run on a weekday in the 08:00-16:00 (UTC) slot, so that museum will be able to see the image from their collection on the Main Page. So I've put Spon Street up as the picture for Prep 3. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Red urine copyediting wants

I suggest

"Discoloured" is redundant. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Done, but I went with the simpler
  • ... that eating Lactarius deterrimus (pictured) causes red urine?
Is that acceptable? The article actually says one has to eat a large amount. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!
I am sorry for the obvious sloppiness of my suggestion. As the case with the Pakistani intimate-violence issue, I had to run and wrote as I was going out the door.
Thanks for fixing the errors, so quickly, and forgiving my sins! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Filling prep areas

Last night I had to remove a hook from a prep area, but didn't have time to replace it. This morning, I find that it hasn't been replaced, but two subsequent prep areas have been started and completely filled. As satisfying as creating a complete set may be, I think it behooves someone promoting articles to finished the incomplete prep areas—as long as someone isn't actively still working on them (takes a few seconds to check on the latest edits; if it's been 30 minutes, it should be safe)—before concentrating on their own assembling.

I'd also like to remind people to be a bit more careful about the mix. Prep 4 ends with two Australian hooks in a row, both bios (one fictional, one real); Prep 2 has two hooks about churches in Cumbria. Unfortunately, I don't have time now, but some shifting between prep areas could alleviate the current problems before anything is moved from prep to a queue. Thanks to anyone who can take this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Twofold expansion rule change proposal

I've just been looking over the DYK rules and one thing I'd like to know is why is the unsourced twofold expansion criteria just limited to BLP? Wouldn't it be a bit more encouraging to edit and open up a new number of articles for DYK if that rule was just that twofold expansions are allowed for all unsourced articles rather than just limiting them to BLP? I know there are a few unsourced articles around that have a lot of text so that it would be almost impossible to make the character level rise enough for fivefold. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree this shouldn't be limited to BLPS.PumpkinSky talk 22:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Unsourced BLPs represent one of the greatest legal risks (and credibility challenges) confronting Wikepedia and its operating entity. The reason for the relaxed rule was to incentivize editors to tackle this critical issue. Cbl62 (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I can understand the incentive, but surely theres no harm in offering it to all unsourced articles? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Any unsourced article is a credibility challenge to Wikipedia. Plus, the work involved in expanding a completely unsourced article two-fold will often be the same as the work involved in creating a 1500-character article from scratch, or expanding a sourced article five-fold. BLPs are a bigger issue legally, so it's good to have the incentive, but I think it would be good to extend to all completely unsourced articles. Moswento talky 10:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Just wondering, since DYK has no direct hierachy who would be authorised to make the change (if the rest of the community supports it?) The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Such a change would have to be determined by consensus. I don't think it's a good idea to dilute the special incentive to fix BLPs. A two-fold expansion of an article is too low a threshold and could also flood the system. If consensus were to support it, I'd urge that it only be done for a month (or two weeks) to test the impact before a final decision were to be made. Cbl62 (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I would support the idea of a month-long test period (two weeks might not be long enough to gauge impact). I'm not sure if it would flood the system if the majority of editors were doing QPQs properly. Moswento talky 20:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Way too low a threshold. All you'd have to do is turn a sentence article into a paragraph and you'd be done. We're only allowing this low threshold for BLPs because of the importance of having them be referenced. SilverserenC 20:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Articles would still have to meet the criterion for minimum length, though, which would require an addition of at least 750 characters, and the referencing of 750 more. Moswento talky 20:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. One of the primary goals of the DYK submission rules is to provide a reasonably steady supply of nominations at manageable levels. This proposal is almost certain to increase the number of new nominations submitted but there is no evidence that DYK needs this increased supply. Anyone who was around in 2010 when Wikicup overran DYK with 40 to 60 submissions/day for weeks at a time knows the damage an uncontrolled flood of new nominations creates. There is no need to increase the supply of incoming nominations when current rules continue to provide needed nominations at a satisfactory rate. --Allen3 talk 20:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I started doing DYK in early 2011 and I recall the system was not as ordered as it is now. It is now easier to manage the new ones coming in due to QPQ. If it would help, maybe QPQ should lower the threshold to 2 rather than 5. More nominations coming in can lead to more variety and can still come in at reasonable speeds. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Very weak oppose. I'm very divided on this - it would be nice to attract more participation at Did You Know, and someone recently pointed out the near impossibility of expanding an article fivefold in their field of interest because there's always a plot summary already there. But DYK is substantially about new content; there are still an awful lot of one- and two-line stubs in the encyclopedia; and as I understand it the exception for unreferenced BLPs was made as part of the tremendous panic to get them referenced before they were deleted, and was very much a special exception for that reason. Much though I'd like to help make things simpler by endorsing this change, I don't think there's a compelling enough need to justify watering down our requirement that it be a substantially new article. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Obviously you'd have to keep the 1,500 character minimum for it to work effectively. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Would allowing unsourced articles to be expanded four times, as opposed to five, work as a compromise? It gives a slight incentive to source an unsourced article but doesn't water down the incentive given to BLPs as it's still twice as much work as one of those. GRAPPLE X 12:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. But then the problem would be that it would still be very hard for larger unsourced articles. I'd say that it probably could work with 3 times expansion as it still has the incentive and is not too daunting. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't there then be a danger of making the DYK rules a bit complicated? To have three separate expansion requirements? Moswento talky 16:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Not really. It would still be simple. New Article, 5x Expansion, BLP 2x expansion and Unsourced 3x expansion as the eligability rules. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - One thing I'd like to see is a clearer definition of what qualifies for the 2x expansion. I've seen articles before that had a few "external links" at the start passed as UBLP expansions, whereas other noms have been given the heave-ho on the grounds that ELs are "references". For instance, I expanded Tomy Drissi from this sorry, and partially copyvio, state to this, which after the copyvio was removed was a +3x expansion, but was told that the links in the "External links" section made it ineligible for the UBLP expansion. But I've seen other articles passed as UBLP expansions that had external links, but not references. Perhaps the 2x expansion could be clarified as "any BLP that starts out as not having any inline citations"? - The Bushranger One ping only 20:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
    I'd never consider external links as references; especially as they're often to source we wouldn't consider reliable enough to use as references. Inline citations is what I take references to mean. GRAPPLE X 20:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please shut up about Monmouth

Seriously, nearly every day there's something about Monmouth. Give over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.159.178.180 (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Microhistory? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Just because you don't find something interesting doesn't mean somebody who worked on upgrading a spectrum of articles on a topic should be penalised. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you share the same view about the Women's NAtional Football team articles? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

New World Heritage site

Template:Did you know nominations/Church of the Nativity - World Heritage Site Don't know how anyone feels about this as timeliness. June 30 article, just caught it. Just voted on June 29 as a World Heritage Site. Maile66 (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, Crisco 1492, I see you proposed this article be merged, so I guess that takes care of this nomination. Maile66 (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The nom is a current ITN entry anyway, so DYK should probably be closed. Froggerlaura ribbit 17:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, then. Well, that was fast. Maile66 (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Reviews needed

We have 202 nominations, only 22 of which have been approved. These will barely fill three prep areas, and all four are empty plus two of the six queues, or 42 slots. If anyone has time to do some good-quality reviews, it would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed one, minor question left, - no time for more right no, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Question answered, one more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I finished up another. Should be good to go. Ruby 2010/2013 17:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I added a new hook to University of Freiburg Faculty of Biology which I nominated, should be easy now to finish (looked ok until someone raised concerns about the hook), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I did 2 more, both leaving questions, BUT gave up waiting for a pic in a pending review: one approval! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I've done Imperial Gift but it could do with a more accurate hook even though the one on it is technically correct. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks to all of you! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I think we miss some because they get lost in the overlong debates on some controversial ones. I also think people find it easier to start at the bottom (signed off 3 and commented on some more)Secretlondon (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Gnashing of Teeth Day

I just finished off seven, one way or another, but they won't all help. A couple were rejects, and at least one wanted to be held for the Olympics. As for this section title, it has taken me since BlueMoonset first posted over three hours ago to do that many. The reviews weren't hard. It was all that current Wikimedia nonsense happening: Loss of session data, server problem messages, database lag, and a general slowness (well documented over at the Village Pump) that has been getting worse each day. And in case anybody hasn't noticed, poor Tedder hasn't been able to get Tedderbot through a complete run in several days. You can see by the history of the bot that Tedder has tried several times a day to get it up and running. Arrrrrgh! (as the old sailors used to say) Maile66 (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm glad we have a day's cushion because from my perspective it's been impossible to get anything done. Many thanks to those of you who stuck with it and reviewed a few. But I've almost given up on today. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
It's very been frustrating with the Wikipedia problems, and picking a nomination that needs more work can be disappointing given the current needs. Again, my thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
To try and allieviate this, maybe temporarily require 2 reviews to every new nom or maybe bring back that old proposal requiring review of earlier nominations. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with doing extra reviews, and have pretty much done so.
  • But we might start with editors who should be doing QPQ, but have not done so. This isn't to say they won't. But there are multiple nominations out that where there should be QPQ. And some editors nominate multiples with the QPQ pending. That issue right there would help clear some of this.
  • With the older nominations, I think it takes special editors to tackle some of the really old ones. Not everybody is going to want to do that. As necessary as it is, who wants to spend time reading through a ton of posted messages on the nomination before they do a review? Those that have had problems and were pulled back, I think a lot of editors will shy away from getting involved with.
  • As noted elsewhere on this page, for a lot of editors, it's just easier to review the latest nominations, than it is to weed through the older ones and find one that has no problems but slipped through the cracks.
Yeah, doing more than one QPQ on a temporary basis is a good idea. But let's start with the nominators who have QPQ pending and undone. Maile66 (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Rum Ration

The nomination for Template:Did you know nominations/Rum Ration has been improved to the point where I'm ready to approve, but for one concern about which I'd like broader input. The article is quite short, and much of the content has already been written about on Wikepedia at: Rum#Naval_rum, Black Tot Day and splice the mainbrace. The nominator/editor of the new article has noted that he "didn't look that much" at the prior articles. Should I be trying to deduct those portions of the content already found in the pre-existing articles to determine whether the "new" content is 1,500 characters in length? Suggestions for how to deal with this under the rules would be appreciated. Cbl62 (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Pinkan Mambo

This was passed by Pumpkinsky with the edit summary that it went to Prep 1, but I see no evidence that it made it to the prep. Could someone uninvolved reinsert the article into a prep? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added it to prep 4, the next prep area needing hooks. —Bruce1eetalk 04:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Pic license

Reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Alfredo Zalce, a picture would enhance any hook greatly, but I am not sure if the license makes it possible, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Looks fine to me. FOP is allowed in Mexico. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Somebody over at Commons nominated it for deletion within the last few minutes: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fragmento Mural Alfredo Zalce 6 063.jpg Maile66 (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I've already !voted there. I stand by my assessment above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Might want to weigh in on this argument [2], it seems the Mexican FOP documentation is up for deletion too. Froggerlaura ribbit 02:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Can you please translate this to simple English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, I don't understand the whole thread ;) - my guess: the license is disputed, the nomination should better wait. There are 2 pics in the article, how about the other (not as good, but better than no pic)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
It's about the cake phenomenon and the matter of this; or if you're referring to the discussion on the linked page, I don't speak ?Spanish? but this looks like some kind of pig Latin, in which case it would mean something like: "Works of a literary/artistic nature that are already published may be utilized, provided that the normal commercial exploitation of the work is not affected, without authorization from the property title holder and without remuneration, citing invariably the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases ... the reproduction, communication and distribution through the medium of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual proceedings of works which are visible from loci publici", Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Does that mean, that as the mural can't be traded anyway, it should be free to show the pic? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Not while it's nominated for deletion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

What about the other one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Not as striking at 100px :-(  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
So we wait? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Or run it without an image. Commons deletion discussions can take months. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Tried to run without pic, now face copyvio problems. Anybody with Spanish language skills to save the nom? - I could imagine the article to be much shorter (who wants to know what he drew at school?) and still good to know, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Tomy Drissi

Does this nomination qualify as an unreferenced BLP or not? Before expansion, there was no reference section and no inline citations; there was, however, an External links section with six entries. The nominator thought this would qualify as an unreferenced BLP, but the reviewer doesn't think so. My gut feeling is that it should be 2x rather than 5x, but the rules pages only say "unsourced BLP". I do note that the WP:DYK Eligibility criteria 1c links to CAT:BLP for a "such as" example, which does include sourceless/referenceless BLPs with external links, but I'm not sure whether it's wholly germane. (At the moment, the article's at about 3.5x.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, an unsourced BLP means that the article contains no inline citations. Links placed in the external links section are not meant to source the article. So yes, I believe Bushranger did everything correctly. No need to expand it 5x. Ruby 2010/2013 16:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
(ec, belongs here): Support that, DYK asks for inline citation, formally so. I had a biography where the subject's own website (!) was formatted as an inline citation, promptly the reviewer asked for a 5* expansion ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
In the past it has been interpreted strictly - no references at all. However, as I understand it the "reference all BLPs or they will be deleted" push has ended and any non-new BLP articles have been assessed as having refs. So if we want to keep this special rule for BLPs and not restrict it to brand-new BLPs (which it would not make much sense to have a special category for, since they would be less than a week old to have not been deleted under the speedy deletion rule for new BLPs and it would count as a new article), we should probably officially adopt the more lenient interpretation. Personally, I'd prefer we return to requiring five-fold expansion of all pre-existing articles; it's simpler, fairer, and keeps the focus on new material (and as I mentioned in the above section about relaxing the fivefold expansion rule, there are still huge numbers of one- and two-line stubs in the encyclopedia). But I'm watching here because I'll need to word this very clearly in the new one-page version of the rules. It's one of the things that just isn't clear and has varied in interpretation. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I can see counting an entry in a Reference section, even if it isn't used as an inline source, as nevertheless being a source for the article. But an External links section strikes me as something different: a place to find out more information, but with no guarantee that any of it is in the article itself, much less reliable. Without any explicit description as a reference, how can the article be said to be sourced? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Yngvadottir. And if the exception for BLPs is maintained, it should be strictly interpreted. An article with six external links supporting the content of the article is not unsourced. The sources aren't formatted properly, but it's not unsourced. Cbl62 (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Also agree with Yngvadottir. Truly unreferenced BLPs, as defined by that project, are few and far between; the 2x BLP rule now just causes confusion, and I have never seen a truly 2x BLP. (Yes, I'm a hardliner when it comes to no references = no references whatsoever, wherever) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I goofed, need admin to fix

I apologize for my sloppiness on this. But see this. I moved it to prep1 though it was never actually approved. Graeme B moved it to Q5, where it is as I write this. Can an admin undo my goof and put a different hook in Q5? I'm sorry for this extra work I've caused. PumpkinSky talk 19:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I pulled it out. There are still 7 hooks in the queue, so all is OK. --Orlady (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! The article was fine, but I hope(d) for a more interesting hook ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
... and got it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Dance Again... the Hits

Dance Again...the Hits I am neither the author, nor the nominator of this one. Nor have I had any part in the dialogue. But in reading it, the opposition was started by an unregistered user who seems to have had no other contribution to Wikipedia except to complain about this article (Any unregistered new editor who sets them self up as an expert on Wikipedia guidelines makes a person wonder if they have a more static identity on Wikipedia). It's been going back and forth for a week now, with nothing concrete accomplished. I looked at the article, (did not check for copyvio) and I thought it was pretty well done. But I'll admit I don't have the experienced DYK eye that ought to determine if this is advertising or not. I saw nothing that convinces me this article is advertising. However, I believe the author -nominator has a point. Fish or cut bait. Do a real review, one direction or another. Otherwise, it's just been an opinion blog. If this nomination has merit, we probably could have used it the past couple of days when we were wanting. Maile66 (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The original hook talked about the release being on Lopez's birthday and may have seemed more promotional than the current hook. (Digression: I greatly prefer ALT hooks as changes are needed, rather than editing the hook so that the comments that led to the edit make no sense any more in context.) The hook now seems to me to be in line with other hooks. We do need a real review of it, and someone new to it, too: I was about to add the red arrow icon, but suspect this will do a better job of attracting that new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Are articles moved from AfC eligible for DYK?

I just nominated Anna Green Winslow for DYK. It was created via article for creation. I assumed it was eligible under 1d, as it was moved to the mainspace in the last five days, but there is nothing specific about AfC. Could someone please add that articles created via AfC are eligible for DYK starting when they are moved to the main namespace? Thanks, David1217 What I've done 19:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The clock in my opinion starts ticking when it has been moved to the main space. If it is on Wikipedia talk for AfC, it is not on the main space. I would leave a comment in the notes section to indicate this is how it was created so a reviewer who may not be as clueful will know. --LauraHale (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
This strikes me as analogous to the situation where articles that move from user space to main Wikipedia space are counted for DYK as beginning at the moment they move to the main Wikipedia space, not when they were created in user space. As Laura says, leaving a comment giving the date it was moved from AfC to main space, so the reviewer isn't confused by the history file into thinking the "creation" date was prior to the move. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I've added a part about AfC in the eligibility criteria. David1217 What I've done 05:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional prep areas?

Is there anyway additional prep areas could be created? And possibly make the queues going out have eight hooks? Template:Did you know/Queue indicates that 33 hooks have been approved and we have all the prep areas filled and four of the six queues filled. It is hard to find unreviewed hooks at the moment. --LauraHale (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

With 179 hooks total, of which 28 are approved, it should not be hard to find unreviewed hooks. There are still a few unreviewed in the list I posted here not that long ago, and plenty more where those came from. I'll go add another batch.
Just two days ago, we were struggling to get enough approved hooks, and would only have 14 left if two preps were moved to queues and then filled. I don't see any immediate need to bump the number of slots in prep areas and queues to eight hooks just yet.
I'd be interested in what people think about creating extra prep areas. It could give more flexibility. I'm not sure what software would need to be updated, though, and how long that would take. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I basically decided to spend the day doing DYK reviews/QPQ storage. Got a fair amount worked through faster than we might have otherwise got them done. Thus, there are I think at least two days worth sitting there at the moment. (Other people are also doing their own QPQs DYK reviews.) The thing tells me 167 nominations 37 passed. Extra prep area would be nice. Problem becomes timing things to move to queue. --LauraHale (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Poking at this again. Can some one move prep areas to the queue? There are 45 approved hooks and finding ones not reviewed is getting PITA again. :( (Also, with two free prep areas, that would be 45-14 = 31 hooks around. When can we investigate more hooks in DYK prep?) --LauraHale (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hook being held for July 9 needs action

At the moment, Template:Did you know nominations/Argentine nationalism is in the special holding area for July 9, the day of the Argentine declaration of independence, but the most recent review a few days ago expressed a caveat, and the reply has not yet been considered. I'm not sure why the hook was moved to the holding area before approval, but it would be nice to get it completed and inserted into Prep 2, which will be moved to Queue 2 soon and eventually run during the day on July 9, Argentinean time. (This would mean displacing a hook in that set into a later prep area, but that shouldn't be a problem.) I can't tell whether the concern expressed in the review is sufficient to hold it back; I'm hoping someone else can. Thanks!

I should note that the July 10 special occasion hook ought to be inserted into the next prep area to open up so it runs during the day on July 10. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I moved it - I didn't realise they needed to be approved before they were moved. Secretlondon (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I've ticked it now. Secretlondon (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
And I put it into Queue 1, which goes up on 9 July. --Orlady (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I put the July 10 Special hook in Prep 1, which should run at the run time. Unfortunately, I made a mistake and passed Template:Did you know nominations/Levin Major Lewis but did not use it. Could someone could add it to the next prep that becomes available? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for getting these in place. Hawkeye7, I'll try to keep an eye out for the next prep-to-queue move and insert your unused promotion then, assuming someone else doesn't beat me to it. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Didn't realize it would happen so soon; that new prep has already been moved and filled up again. I think it's best that I unpromote it rather than have it hanging around in limbo; it'll get picked up in due course. (It's an ideal final hook.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

How much IAR allowance?

I've got a nom where everything is right except that the editor that posted the nom for the article is outside the "created within last 5 days" by about 5 days or so (created in June 19, nominated for June 27 on June 30). Everything else on the nom is just fine. It is an established user, but I'm still hesitant to fail it just because of a mistake in timing like that. Can IAR come into play if one feels that the spirit of the requirements is there? (the one in question is Template:Did you know nominations/Chic Chocolate) --MASEM (t) 13:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This comes up all the time. The question is where to draw a line and how firm it is. It varies with the people involved.PumpkinSky talk 13:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Historically, we've been rather liberal regarding dates, particularly for users who are new to DYK (as is the case here). The DYK rules can be bewildering to newbies, so it's desirable to cut them some slack.
This nom doesn't look "just fine" to me yet, though. There's a lot of specific factual content in the article that is uncited, and I see at least one bare-URL reference. --Orlady (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
@Masem, As others said, these things can be flexible. After about a week, I'm generally not willing to do WP:IAR unless there is a specific reason. The article also needs to, in those cases, be pretty much at tick and go. If it has issues despite that extra time, it suggests the writer isn't likely to fix. --LauraHale (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Crediting people for ALTs?

BlueMoonset said that neither DYKmake nor DYKnom is a way to credit people for one ALT or another or influencing correction to other hooks with one hook. What is a way to credit people for merely making hook alternatives or corrections? --George Ho (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your all your efforts, past, present, and future; they are a credit to you and the project, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Users (such as the article creator) sometimes issue barnstars or other User talk page kudos to recognize creation of ALT hooks. Sometimes when a DYK reviewer makes extensive improvements to an article, the reviewer will get a dykmake credit; in many of those cases, the reviewer also wrote an ALT hook that helped to save the nomination. --Orlady (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Question about translation from other wikis.

I have a question regarding translations from other wikis, the DYK Rules states;

2 b) DYK articles may freely reuse public domain text per Wikipedia's usual policy, with proper attribution. However, because the emphasis at DYK is on new and original content, text copied verbatim from public domain sources, or which closely paraphrases such sources, is excluded both from the 1,500 minimum character count for new articles, and from the x5 expansion count for x5 expanded articles.

How does this fit with translations from other wikis? Although not public domain (CC), it is still verbatim - just in another language - and in my mind would fit under this rule. Liamdavies (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I consider it fine, so long as there is no close paraphrasing against the original sources and there is correct attribution. And referenced, of course. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Fine, my experience. I am in translations a lot, actually typically getting away from "verbatim", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
So if someone copies public domain info into a new article it doesn't count, but public domain info in another language translated to English in a new article does count? Why? Either way it's not "new" content. Liamdavies (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
It's considered new both directions as it's new to the new wiki and language. Gerda and I do lots of de <--> en translations and have never even had it questioned before.PumpkinSky talk 13:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think its partly from the effort involved. It takes minimal effort to copy and paste a public domain text, and cosmetic changes take little more. A full rewrite, or a translation, is much more involved. You could spend an hour or more or a short article, just translating, similar to what it would take to write a new one from scratch. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, I hope people understand why I'm questioning this though. Maybe the rules should be changed to reflect this fact, as a strict interpretation of the rules would discount translated material from being new. Liamdavies (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Yes, I've done translations, too. People often are not aware how much effort it is to translate something into real English; you can never just go word by word, you always have to move things around, add explanations, weigh different ways of saying things . . . Also, other wikipedias have their own conventions and rules; typically the article will have to be sectioned differently and need a lot more references. In many cases the foreign-language article winds up being more of a guide than the source of my own text. In any case, I'm responsible for the entirety of text I put into this wikipedia, so if there's anything unreferenced - or that contradicts the sources I find - I have to change it or leave it out. Articles take me differing amounts of time to do, but I don't find that translating takes me much less time than starting afresh, if at all. In any event it's not copying text by any stretch of the imagination. Which is why it simply doesn't fall under the clause you quote. But yes, I will cover translation more clearly when I rewrite the rules, since I think this is a common misconception. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I can understand that, I guess why I raised this was an article nominated that was only slightly changed from what gets translated by Google translate;
ENWiki:
The protoplasmodium is colourless-transparent. The fruit body is produced from the semispherical protoplasm mass, which are approximately 1.5-folds of the diameter of mature sporangia. It receives dark spots as it ripens and the middle of the proplasm later becomes dark. Then, the transparent and milk-white protplasm climbs along the stem to the top, where first the capillitium and peridium and finally the spores are produced. At room temperature, this process last roughly one day.
DEWiki through Google translate:
The Protoplasmodium is colorless, transparent, the fruiting bodies emerge from semi-spherical protoplasmic mass, its diameter is approximately 1.5 times that of the mature sporangia measured. With increasing maturity appear dark spots and later the center of the protoplasm dark. The more translucent milky-white protoplasm then rises upward along the stem, where first capillitium and peridium , and finally the spores are formed. At room temperature, this process took about a day.
Sorry, but rewriting this into grammatically correct English seems no where near the same amount of work that's involved in writing or greatly expanding and fully citing article, in the example I provided all the sources are exactly the same. Liamdavies (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear, I hate to say this, but as your example shows, that's not a very good translation. I am fixing it up as best I'm able, but I'm not a scientist. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • For this particular example, I'd say it needs much, much, much more work just for prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, have a look at the diff, and note how long it took me to do that; and I'm a fast translator and copyeditor. I didn't even look at the refs, which I would normally do to see whether they suggest wording and details. I feel bad for the editor who translated this, and it's not a perfect example because it's well outside my expertise and should be looked at by someone who was able to study science in something other than the Nuffield system, but I hope it's now a lot more readable? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
As for more refs on other wikis, not on de. On de wiki, few refs are required and they are often of low quality. PumpkinSky talk 15:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes, definitely. I think this wikipedia is the outlier on that. You may have misread my saying one normally needs more refs than in the other wikipedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all the feedback. If an article is completely rewritten in English, with citations checked and/or added I would think that it's probably new content, but I hope you can see why I raised this as a concern. Liamdavies (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to weigh in here, especially because someone is citing this thread to say that translations are not DYK-able. Among other things, to do a good, effective translation of articles on historical or cultural matters, one must provide context that is not typically needed by people native to the culture it is about. In particular, it is very often necessary to add appositional phrases to make the article intelligible. Also, in my experience, often when translating a Wikipedia article I find the same sorts of flaws one routinely finds in ill-written English-language articles (redundancies, article arguing with itself, poor structure, etc.) and fix them. After all, this is not a matter of a faithful translation of a literary work, it's a matter of producing a useful English-language article. Further still, quotations, especially from literary sources or from third languages, often take meticulous translation work because the do call for faithful translation of a literary work, which is another art entirely. - Jmabel | Talk 16:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: yes, a barely cleaned up Google Translate job should not be DYK-able, but I think that if anyone looks at any of the hundreds of translations I've done from various Romance languages or the dozens I've done from German, they will be hard-pressed to find an example that fits that description. - Jmabel | Talk 16:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

[claps] Yes. I'm glad this was brought up here because it is an all too common misconception that translating is a quasi-automatic thing. (Even if it were, as you say, one also has to make it an acceptable article, and for a different audience.) It's not that I'm advocating unreasonably high standards at DYK - I and others often copyedit new articles that are not translations - but I'm concerned both by the idea that translations aren't valid and all the more so by the bad translations that are being put forward - and sometimes passed. Awkwardly enough, the latest reason I haven't got to rewriting the rules - including stating as simply as possible how translations fit into DYK - is that I'm currently trying to salvage a bad translation and have another on my list for afterwards! I don't want to discourage people from translating articles, or from submitting to DYK - but I do wish I could come up with a polite way to say that if you can't really read a language, you aren't doing either the topic, the encyclopedia or your reputation any favors translating an article written in that language. You'd be better off writing an article from scratch if you love the topic, using the foreign-language article only as a guideline to what points you might cover, a starting point for sources, and a guide to available pix. (I've frequently done this, for example with Jan Buys.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Considering I brought this up I think I should probably weigh in here, I brought up the question on the basis of existing free content vs. "new" content, being a question I didn't seek anything but clarification, which I feel I received. I was concerned about an article that had been translated in a less than satisfactory manor (I do apologise to the editor who translated the original article in question, I don't mean to put you down or discourage you), and wanted to know others feelings on the matter. I don't feel any consensus was found other than, translations are hard work requiring much time, and for that reason should be included. Which I accept and agree with, as long as all other requirements for DYK nomination are satisfied a translation shouldn't have any problems in my mind (I just wanted clarification on the issue). Liamdavies (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Check for copyvio in Spanish sources

Alfredo Zalce - problem, English source paraphrased too closely, conclusion: Spanish sources also? Anybody with Spanish language skills to save the nom? - I could imagine the article to be much shorter (who wants to know what he drew at school?) and still good to know, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Schooled in parallel texts of Neruda and after my impressive first foray above, am happy to give it a whirl, but won't have access again until the weekend, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, will keep it in mind, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Done, please look again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Old hooks in need of review

Here are a baker's dozen of the oldest hooks that have stalled or abandoned reviews, or have never been reviewed at all. If you have the chance, take a look and give one or more the usual full DYK review. Some of these will have previously unresolved issues that should be considered. Thanks!

If you have the time, do strike out the ones you've reviewed. Otherwise, I'll do my best to keep track. —BlueMoonset (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

More hooks for Laura:

—BlueMoonset (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Not doing any more reviewing for a few days. :( Trying to get follow up done with yesterday's hooks. (Require second opinions on three. I pinged Nikkimaria for help.) I wanted to get some reviewed to build up my own QPQ pile, to assist people in finding my big pile of Olympic DYKs to review, and so I would have enough QPQs to nominate a bunch given what a burden I place on DYK when I nominate 8 or 9 in a day. Ping me Tuesday if no action to review these. --LauraHale (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Will ping if still necessary. The first list is mostly done, and a couple from the second have already been tackled. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: next prep area should use the Wikimania hooks from the special occasion area

Whoever puts together the next prep area, please be sure to start with the three Wikimania hooks from the special occasion area for July 12. They need to run at noon eastern time, since the session is one of the afternoon ones at Wikimania. If I were putting it together, I'd do them in order (with the beautiful photo of Helen Barry as the lead), but odds are the next prep-to-queue move will happen while I'm asleep, so the choice will likely fall to someone else. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. I happened to awaken too soon at the right time... BlueMoonset (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hook swap?

This is a last minute request, so by all means decline it if you don't feel it's appropriate, but would it be possible to trade my hook for Tyler Clippard in Queue 4 with the hook for Gamos (horse) in Queue 6? I only ask to move my hook up two queues because the Clippard hook is about the 2011 MLB All-Star Game, and tonight is the 2012 MLB All-Star Game, so that if Clippard's hook goes up in the next queue, it'll be up during the game. I didn't have the timing in mind when I expanded Clippard, but it just occurred to me that the timing overlap is near perfect. Thanks for considering. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

We'll need a fast-moving admin, since Queue 6 gets loaded to the Wikipedia main page in about 85 minutes. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Done. BencherliteTalk 22:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Very much appreciated! – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Time to increase the rate of DYK publication

With 42 hooks queued to appear on the main page, 67 approved hooks waiting on the regular part of the noms page, about 60 approved hooks in special occasion areas, and another ~100 noms awaiting review or approval, I propose that it's finally the right time to make another small increase in the publication rate -- from 7 to 8 hooks per set (from 21 to 24 hooks per day). (Note that historically, DYK ran 8 hooks per set most of the time.) Am I crazy, or have others of you been thinking the same thing? --Orlady (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Give it a try for a bit. However, we should be careful as a lot of these are related to the Olympics. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Last week we nearly ran out! Secretlondon (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah I was gonna say that. I feel like my noms are getting to the front page faster than they used to, and I attributed that to their being less of a backlog, though maybe I'm mistaken. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Maybe we should wait with the increase until the Olympics start, since most of the hooks sre related to the Olympics. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
          • I incline to think we should hold off on this, too. The 4th round of the WikiCup has just begun, and while that means those who are still participating and make heavy use of DYK points will likely submit more, it probably also means fewer submissions from a larger number of people knocked out at the end of Round 3. An increasing number of hooks are intended to be held for the Olympics. And because of the recent temporary shortage of passed hooks, we've just had a push to clear the backlog (and some of the remaining hooks that have been debated back and forth for a while may not pass; there's no guarantee their problems will be resolved). We may have to expand back to 8 per set for the Olympics, but I'm not persuaded we need to do so yet. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Like Yngvadottir, I think it's a bit premature. As Secretlondon notes, it's not that many days since we had 14 open prep area slots and 3 approved hooks with which to fill them, and this was part of an extended dry period both in nominations and reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
    • @ Secretlondon , and then I reviewed a bunch. As I knew Olympic ones were likely to overwhelm, I wanted to get a bunch cleared beyond my required QPQs. If i get time this weekend, I'll try to spend another day just reviewing. Unrelated, if there are DYKs I need to follow up on, please ping me as to which nominations. I think I've done over 80 in the past week and easy to lose track of them if the nominator doesn't ping me back. The Olympic time period probably should necessitate 8. I'm hoping to get my own batch done by Friday and then I'll look at the passed hooks again and play with the schedule more to get a better idea of how to space them. (Also, it would be nice if people could do reviews beyond what they need for QPQ to get backlog cleared more again.) --LauraHale (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Pinging this here. With the sheer number of Olympic DYKs, (we'll top over 100 that need to go in 14 days) and T:DYK/Q saying over 70 have passed, with this number not having dropped substantially below 50 in a week, I think yeah, it might be worth trying to increase the number of hooks by one right now. --LauraHale (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's hold off until we're sure how many of those 70-odd are vanishing into Olympicdom, given that 21 are needed to cover empty slots between queue and prep. Lots of the new ones are for the Olympics, including some that still need reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Follow-up: Just moved two dozen hooks—20 Olympics and 4 Paralympics—to the special occasion holding areas. Once those 24 are gone, plus another 21 to fill prep and queue, we'll be down below 30 hooks. While we'll definitely need to increase the number of slots during the Olympics if the rate of creation continues, waiting until next week seems reasonable to me. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
At least one of the hooks you moved to the Paralympic holding area hasn't yet be reviewed, I could move it back but it might be easier if someone could do a quick review of Derek Derenalagi (it's one of my hooks so I can't). Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 01:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Review done. Will try to get some more reviews done to clear the backlog of unreviewed hooks again.) --LauraHale (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Barack Obama on Twitter

Hook of Barack Obama on Twitter

Is

... that Barack Obama's Twitter account (Obama pictured) lost 40,000 followers on one day during the United States debt-ceiling crisis?

an appropriate or inappropriate hook for Barack Obama on Twitter? Does WP:NPOV or WP:WEIGHT render the hook inappropriate for use on the main page? Cunard (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK page discussion:

Serious concern Can someone explain how this hook gives appropriate weight to the topic of the article and is not a transparent attempt to play political games on our front page? Hipocrite (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no policy that a hook is suppose to be some sort of weighted summary of the article. Hooks are very commonly quirky tangential elements of an article that are most likely to cause internet rubbernecking.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
NPOV is a policy for every main space page. This is not that. Hipocrite (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The hook is very NPOV and I could provide 5 citations that back it up. It is no more NPOV than to say that his popularity rose or fell in a particular poll or unemployment went up or down.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
It is substantially less NPOV than "Barack Obama's Twitter account had 16,505,044 followers,and has posted 4,239 tweets." It's is also not fully descriptive of why the followers were lost, and it's obvious that something untoward is here. Hipocrite (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Hooks that are half the story is what DYK is all about. Your suggested hook would not cause any wonderment, which is desired in a DYK hook.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

  • For me that objection's a bit of a yawn with the main issue being a fundamental lack of analysis and insight, though there have been improvements since the initial submission, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • In fact, from another cursory glance, there's been quite a transformation; still think ambitus would make a good see also... Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've created a new subsection to discuss the concern regarding a "fundamental lack of analysis and insight". Cunard (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Applicability of D7 to Barack Obama on Twitter

Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#Other supplementary rules for the article D7 states:

D7: There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress. Therefore, articles which include unexpanded headers are likely to be rejected. Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. For example, an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, but contains only a bio of the author and some critics' views, is likely to be rejected as insufficiently comprehensive.

Does D7 apply or not apply to Barack Obama on Twitter? Cunard (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The article has passed a WP:GAC review. I hope it passes DYK#D7.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I have requested a reassessment on its GA status, but fear not. I've not added GAR yet. --George Ho (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Page move

Some newbie whose user page was created 7 months ago moved Barack Obama on Twitter to Communications of Barack Obama based on his own opinion on whether the original location is appropriate for a WP page (even though the page just survived an AFD). I have requested a reversal of the page move at WP:AN.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Without endorsing your comments above, I have undone this per my comments at ANI. --RA (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Crediting co-authors

Template:Did you know nominations/Deputy Prime Minister of Pakistan is my example, but my question is about policy on giving credit. And I'm wondering if reviewers check this kind of thing. This particular article was nominated by someone who did the bulk of the work on it. However, the article was started just the day before by another editor and added to by yet another editor on the same day the nominator took over editing. There's also a minor IP edit in there that is only correcting spelling of a word. My mention on the template is how I feel about it - this was a collaborative effort and all three editors should get credit. What is the DYK position on situations such as this? Maile66 (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

In such situations, if the last editor did a 5* expansion of what was there before, he seems to deserve the credit, especially if that was only a stub of a line or two to start with. If there was more in the beginning, every editor who contributed substantially should be credited. Once I co-credited an editor who contributed a lot shortly after it appeared on the Main page, afterwards, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree with what I think is your position, Maile66, that everyone who has done substantial work on it in the past week or so before the review should be co-credited - plus the article creator(s) if it was created within 5 days of the nomination. In such cases, I don't look at how long it was when the creator first created it, since part of our brief at DYK is to encourage people to create new articles on notable topics. And who knows what the circumstances are. Team effort, credit to the whole team :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I think I said the same thing in other words, stress on "substantial". If I had created a two line stub, and someone else made it to DYK, I would not want credit. I looked at the one in question: I would give credit to the creator, s/he did something substantial. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
See Template:Did you know nominations/Frieder Bernius. Based on the above I credited the original author who started the article substantially, the reviewer sees it differently. Please discuss, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • DYK credits are only for work done in the expansion/creation period (whichever one the nomination is). When I expanded Hantu Jeruk Purut, Dr. B. didn't automatically get a credit for creating the article four years earlier. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

File:939b2.jpg

On queue 4 we have File:939b2.jpg. The sourcing looks dubious and I tried to make an information template. I cannot confirm the license of this image that claims to come from a web site. It would be good for a Greek reader to check whether http://www.topapi.gr/ is likely to host CC content. Else we may have to pull the image. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What's happened with this? That queue goes up in another [counts on fingers] 10 hours. Will we need to switch lead hooks? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The source link 404s. I'm not a Greek reader but I'm not convinced by a quick look at the blog. Secretlondon (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Pulled for now, to be safe. I AGFd, but better safe than sorry. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks; I can only read Ancient Greek and image licensing isn't a major part of the vocabulary; I had AGFd too, but have replaced with an alternative to be safe as you say, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks people. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I ran the dead link through WayBack and it went to a circa 2004 university newspaper. The author is cited correctly, but there is no claim of image free use. The picture is the same as this one [3], but since the image has been around since 2004 I don't know if this is a mirror. Froggerlaura ribbit 13:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

He Bowls To The Left in Prep 2

I'm just heading out, but a quick note that He Bowls To The Left, in Prep 2 has just been listed at AfD, so needs to be removed from the queue pending the outcome. I would do it myself, but as I say, I'm just heading out! Harrias talk 16:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed, blatant BLP vio. Not to mention the notability problems. Jenks24 (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Also would have involved having swearing on the front page and POV, - and just should not have been approved. Secretlondon (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
An alt has been proposed for if the afd is cleared to try and make it less POV. As for swearing, what about WP:NOTCENSORED and there is precidence for it on DYK, example Go the F*** to Sleep. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Misleading graphs nomination

FYI, this June 28 nomination might be overlooked. Template:Did you know nominations/Misleading graphs. Issues were mentioned by a new, not necessarily active, reviewer. I think maybe the issues were corrected, but the author/nominator never replied about it. It would help if this was reviewed by someone familiar with graph models. Maile66 (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This is good to go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Vue de toits (Effet de neige)

There has been a request for a person experienced in images to rule on whether the one of the painting here is eligible to appear on the Wikipedia front page as part of a DYK lead hook. Can someone please take a look? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Oedipus

In queue 6: "... that in the ancient Athenian play Oedipus, King Oedipus, who killed his father and married his mother, is blinded by his father's servant?" That only makes sense as an April Fools misleading hook, if that's what you wanted. In the better-known Athenian play Oedipus the King, which is what I thought of first, Oedipus blinds himself. Art LaPella (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well caught. I have provisionally changed it to "... that in Euripides' play Oedipus, King Oedipus, who killed his father and married his mother, does not blind himself but is blinded by his father's servant?" Will that do or is there a better solution? Pinging the article creator too. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC) --and done. User:Rlendog is also an admin, so they can change it further or change it back. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the original was appropriate. It is a little surprising perhaps due to the better known plot of Oedipus the King, but I think that surprise will help attract readers to learn something they probably did not know. As for an April Fools hook, that might be a consideration if Euripides play was titled Oedipus the King or Oedipus Rex, but it is merely titled Oedipus, which is not the name Sophocles' play goes by. That said, I don't necessarily have a problem with the alternative hook, but I do think the original was better. Rlendog (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Rlendog here; if we make it absolutely clear that this isn't Oedipus Rex, it's not going to be hooky. A bit of ambiguity is allowable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I thought "the ancient Athenian play" bit carried the implication there was only one; and I hadn't realized both were Athenians. Feel free to revert the change I made or to further tweak it to make it less of a give-away. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Prep 3 lead hook

I'm the author of the prep 3 lead hook (Arthur Rhodes (politician) and I've just learned that the hook fact that was previously used is wrong. Rhodes wasn't the first New Zealand-born person elected to the New Zealand House of Representatives (rather, John Sheehan achieved this some 15 years prior to Rhodes). After having found this supposed fact in Rhodes' obituary and added it to the article, I wondered why none of the other sources mentioned this. I tried to Google this fact and eventually asked other editors, with one of them having pointed me to Sheehan. So, what to do? We could pull the hook for now, I thought. But I've settled on the alternative of changing the hook to something else that is reasonably interesting and certainly readily verifiable. So if somebody might want to look at the article and confirm the new fact, maybe just state this here and all is good. Sorry for creating this hassle; I certainly don't like getting hook facts wrong. Schwede66 05:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Facts check out with a reference, so the new hook is OK. It is now in queue 3 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you kindly. Schwede66 06:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Anne of Green Gables is a closeted lesbian?

In prep 3 we have "Anne of Green Gables is a closeted lesbian?" which is a controversial opinion rather than a fact like all the other hooks we have. I would not approve this for a queue unless it was reworded. I know we often have apparently misleading hooks, that turn out to be true. But this statement was also contradicted by many. What do others here think? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the hook is a POV. While the article is about a controversial theory on the subject, the hook is presented as though it were factual, not theory. Maile66 (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Yikes. That hook was entirely inappropriate. To make sure it doesn't reach the main page, I edited it to read "... that a controversial academic analysis speculates that Anne of Anne of Green Gables was a closeted lesbian?" I think that's accurate, but others may wish to propose or make additional changes. --Orlady (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I just changed the first "of" to "in": Anne in Anne of Green Gables (to avoid the repeated "Anne of"). Orlady's hook is a great improvement. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't entirely work for me. From the article, it's not entirely clear how much of that statement is attributable to the newspaper and how much is attributable to Robinson. --Orlady (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, yours looks better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wondering whether, with the hook change, the silver nugget might make a better final quirky hook than Anne. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this is another one that shouldn't have got through. I think the original hook proposed is fine, but not the tabloid ALT1 that got promoted. Secretlondon (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Not at all sure what your comment has to do with switching the order of hooks in that queue, which is what I was wondering about, so I think I'll go ahead and do it before the prep is moved into a queue. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I have no comment on which order the hooks appear - but Delicious carbuncle is now saying that the premise itself is wrong. All the sources given are offline, and it appears that DC has checked one of them.. Secretlondon (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Folks, the problem with this item is not just that it's another prurient hook, but that it is entirely wrong. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Indeed, from this cited source (which is available online), I get the impression that Robinson did not actually suggest that Anne was a closeted lesbian. Rather, Montgomery ascribed "lesbian desire" to the book, but the Ottawa Citizen picked up the stated and represented it as saying that Anne was a lesbian. Still, I think the hook could discuss "lesbian desire" -- and still makes a great hook for the last slot: "... that a controversial academic analysis speculates that Anne of Green Gables expressed "lesbian desire"?"--Orlady (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I think we need a steer as too many misleading hooks are being approved. We are an education project and we don't need to mislead for page views. Secretlondon (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe a good rule going forward would be that if a hook, or the article it references to, are potentially controversial, then the sourcing should be online. Maile66 (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • If such a rule were implemented (I disagree that it is necessary) it should be worded very carefully, as most anything could be controversial. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure it would help really. This is an issue of hook selection and to be honest offline academic sources are generally of a considerably higher quality than online media sources. Secretlondon (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The issue here is that the hook treated the statement as fact, when it was merely someone's supposition. There is a huge difference between facts and suppositions. DYK should not state something as a fact unless it is a fact. --Orlady (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just moved the hook from Prep 3 (next into the queues) to Prep 2 (last), swapping it with a hook there, which delays it by a day. This gives us extra time. Out of curiosity, was there anything wrong with the primary hook in the Bosom Friends nomination (that didn't mention Anne)? I recognize that Delicious carbuncle has raised other issues with the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your actions Orlady and BlueMoonset, I think the original hook for this would be acceptable as well as what is in prep 2. I will be discussing this at the next local Wikimedians meetup due to the people involved! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
[EC] One of the sources is partially available online. It happens to be the same one that is cited in support of the fact in the original hook. The article and the source do compare the Bosom Friends affair to the Tinky-winky controversy, but neither the article nor the source (to the extent that I can see the source) says that the Bosom Friends affair concerned "alleged homosexuality" of the character. --Orlady (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The source that Orlady refers to is "Making Avonlea: L.M. Montgomery and popular culture," ed. by Irene Gammel, 2002. Worldcat says that the book is in my local library, but that place is not open again until Monday a.m the 17th. If you think the DYK could be held until then I would try to check it. The portion of Gammel's book available online suggests that Cecily Devereux (in her own chapter) questions the reasoning of the Robinson paper in some detail. Bosom Friends affair (the DYK itself) refers to an academic talk given by Laura Robinson in 2000. However, Robinson published an article four years later called "Bosom Friends: Lesbian Desire in L.M. Montgomery's Anne Books" in a journal called Canadian Literature. Spring 2004., Issue 180; pg. 12, 17 pgs. I now have a PDF copy of Robinson's 2004 article which might be used in checking some of the claims in Bosom Friends affair. Robinson's article is carefully worded. A typical sentence is "The conclusion that Montgomery's novels subtly question heterosexuality is not new, although little has so far been published on the topic." The word 'closeted' does not occur in her paper; there is no 'repressed desire.' Robinson does not call Anne a 'closeted lesbian'. One of her critics must have come up with the phrase. My study of the full paper led me to a more positive view of Robinson's thesis. Making a DYK that used some words from her paper would be one option. How about finding a way to incorporate her words: "..the suggestion that the Anne books might contain expressions of lesbian desire prompted a public outcry and a media storm". (That much text is 121 characters). EdJohnston (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Another possible hook: "..a controversial academic analysis suggests that the Anne of Green Gables books might contain expressions of lesbian desire." (146 characters). This is closer to the wording in Robinson's paper, since she says that the books "might contain expressions of lesbian desire" but does not say that Anne herself expresses it. This form of the DYK avoids the word 'speculates'. EdJohnston (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The above suggested hooks sound good to me, especially if supported by later publications by the scholar in question. I think a rule that should have been invoked for the Anne of Green Gables hook and also for "He Bowls to the Left" is the one about hooks about fictional things or people being required to "involve the real world in some way". I fell afoul of that one myself once - it's easy to forget after writing about fictional characters that the hook can't be so snappy as to leave out the fact they are fictional. And the chant is an, ahem, creative work: we cannot present its judgement concerning the guy's bowling as if it is factual. I believe that rule would have excluded both the now disputed hooks without getting into what degree of cussing and negativity we can allow. If there are any other such hooks in the system, let's note it before we have to rejigger a prep again. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Since there is no conclusion yet, I've pushed this back yet another day; the hook is now in Prep 1. It doesn't seem to be ready to go into a queue quite yet. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Anne hook offers many puzzles. I'm not even sure that Robinson is summarizing her own work effectively. The word 'lesbian' suggests women in bed together, but the content of her paper is about 'women expressing undying love and great emotion' towards one another, more so than to the men in their lives. The latter conclusion is easy to confirm from the text of the Green Gables books (so 'speculation' is not a good word) but how to interpret it is the question. There are also puzzling sentences in Anne's House of Dreams like "When their work was done and Gilbert was out of the way, they gave themselves over to shameless orgies of lovemaking and ecstasies of adoration" (referring to Anne and her friend Lesie). This is followed by "Even in the twilight Anne could see the sudden whiteness that swept over her beautiful face, blotting out the crimson of lip and cheeks." Unclear what this is talking about exactly. Maybe this whole thing is too messy for a DYK. But Robinson's academic work looks more serious and plausible than the short summaries might indicate. Robinson is not even the first to suggest this idea, as the reference list of her 2004 paper will indicate. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This is now in Queue 5, slated to go up at 16:00 tomorrow, with the original hook (comparing to the Tinky Winky controversy), which I think is more defensible; but for those who have now examined the book itself, is this ready or are there still doubts about its accuracy? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

June hook

I've left comments on talk pages related to every DYK nomination from June aside from the Twitter one and another one where there were comments today. Two appeared to have passed and should be moved to prep areas. Two should be closed as not appearing. If the rest do not have action by Saturday, I would suggest removing them now that the people involved have been informed. --LauraHale (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you (and BlueMoonset) for doing this. But there's no rule that once someone reviews a nomination, teh same person has to ultimately pass it. Several of these could do with fresh eyes, and in any case people should feel free to review or re-review a nomination that already has discussion. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Example Template:Did you know nominations/Agneta Matthes & Agneta Park, it was reviewed as needing better translation, I tried and said when I was done. Asked about the status today, I put the the symbol for "look again" there for more clarity, but in a way it's not right, because nobody had looked any deeper into it than seeing the translation problems. I said elsewhere that taking the machine translation of a different language FA doesn't produce a FA. Have a look, the lady is interesting ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I was reading the check mark there as a pass. Unfortunately you raise an issue that's causing increasing problems: poor translations. I've been putting in serious time fixing some (as you know), and I've seen others recently where multiple editors have quietly fixed them, but ... the person who fixes it can't then pass it, and alerting to the problems causes the dreaded long discussion. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir While there is no requirement that either the nominator or the original reviewer follow up with a review, if no one does, a review often ends up sitting in a state of limbo for a long, long time. This isn't necessarily a good thing for encouraging new contributors who have addressed concerns but got no answer. It also makes it hard to figure out what to do with it. Thus, if the original reviewer doesn't want to deal with it, it would be nice as a courtesy if when asked, they could at least put a little red tick to ask for another person to get the review over the finish line. --LauraHale (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that red bendy arrow is a great thing. But sometimes it's not so much not wanting to deal with it as feeling it's not been sufficiently fixed yet. We have and have had several of those among the lengthy discussion set. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I just do some drive-by comments - it doesn't mean I want ownership of the thing, or that I'm counting it towards QPQ. I'd like to be able to comment without having to see it to the bitter end. Secretlondon (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Disappearing hooks

I've just noticed that Template:Did you know nominations/Billy Cooper (trumpeter) was just promoted to Prep 3 however, it's not appearing in the queue. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I've noticed it's been fixed now. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

2011 DYK reform proposals section

Do we need this hanging around anymore? I don't think any of threads are active. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing... --Orlady (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • We should probably just archive it, maybe in it's own link in the archive box — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, every time I see it I have to check my watch, which thankfully tells me the current year. Thank you Casio. The Interior (Talk) 01:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Hidden for now. Doesn't look like {{archive}} supports individual links. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

July 19 special occasion hook needs to be in Queue 1 or Queue 2

The hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Ganting Grand Mosque has been sitting in the Special occasion holding area for a number of days now, and should have been picked up for one of the prep areas earlier this week. The request was that it run on July 19, immediately before the first day of Ramadan, which is July 20 or 21 this year, depending on where you live, according to a reference in the Ramadan article—it's July 20 in the Americas, July 21 for most of the rest of the world. Queue 1 runs during the day of July 19 in Europe and the Middle East; Queue 2 in the US.

Can an admin please add this hook to one of those two queues? The displaced hook should go to a prep area, even if it's the eighth hook, temporarily; one of the eight can be displaced to an empty prep area when it becomes available. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

  • July 20 is fine, appears my count was off. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Some one should put it in prep 3 then! Or if some one makes a queue 3 or 4 replacement for me I can paste it in. I admit I have never put any hooks in a prep area before, although I am willing to put preps into queues. So let me know in the next couple of hours if you want me to do this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I'd do it myself, but I'm the article creator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've promoted it into Queue 4, switched with another hook by Crisco 1492, which I have put in the not yet full Prep 1. However, it's not the picture hook; the reviewer didn't evaluate the pic, nor was it mentioned here. If it's important to have it as the pictured hook, Prep 3 hasn't yet been moved up into Queue 5, leaving space for some manoeuvring. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Official Wikipedia app display

I spotted this post at Talk:Main page:

the new version of the "official" Wikipedia app for iOS devices (iPod, iPhone, iPad) only displays TFA and ITN. The other sections are deliberately omitted. (I assume the same is true on Android.) If you have any comments for the developers of the mobile app, they can be directed to the feedback mailing list at mailto:mobile-feedback-l@lists.wikimedia.org

As this is one of the sections omitted, I though leaving a note here would be appropriate. Carcharoth (talk) 07:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but hopefully nothing to worry about; the only scenario I can imagine is technical shortcomings with their β - dyk is the most dynamic element, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I expect it is space related rather than technical. Secretlondon (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Silvina Moschini in Queue 3

This page is tagged. It is thus ineligible. Can it be moved out until this get detagged? --LauraHale (talk) 08:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have remove the tag, as this is much easier than moving DYKs around. The es article is not any bigger than en. article. If someone retags than I could protect the article till it appears, but that may make me involved, and not eligible to use the admin tools for the purpose! It is not as if the tag is an afd or suspected non-notability problem.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
All good then. I just didn't want to do that myself as I'm not familiar with translation issues. --LauraHale (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Need help with a multiple

Template:Did you know nominations/Stoner Site is the first multiple nomination I've done in a long time, and I'm not sure that I did it rightly. After expanding Stoner from a stub and nominating it, I decided to write an article on Allison-Lamotte, and because it grew to be much more than the stub I was expecting, I decided to add it to the nomination. Did I do everything rightly? If not, please fix it yourself or bug me on my talk page so that I'll fix it. Nyttend (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The hook looks formatted OK, but is "Illinois' " correct? If you nominate 2 articles in one DYK, I expect you to do a QPQ of two articles, not just one! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll get around to it when I can; I'm working an eight-hour day and taking a two-hour night class, so you'll have to wait a while. I'm willing to help with reviews, but I resent this idea. Making it mandatory is the single biggest reason that my output of DYKs has greatly dropped from what it once was; someone might want to study a correlation between imposing this on nominators and the poor-quality reviews that have prompted so much criticism. Nyttend (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Isn't there a smart-arse bunny in one of the Disney films who says something like "if you have nothing nice to say, don't say nothing at all"? Why slag off everyone who is trying to help out here, just because you don't want to pull your own weight? Out of interest, could you provide some suggestions as to the kind of analyses that might go into such a study? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Review done. Needs follow up. And no, the problem with poor quality reviews is not because of QPQ, but rather that standards for what appear on the main page are now so high. --LauraHale (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Look at the number of complaints about insufficiently reviewed nominations (e.g. copyvios getting through) and see whether the amount of text on the subject has increased since reviews were made mandatory. Remember that I'm pulling my own weight by writing articles instead of frustrating article-writers with spurious accusations of racism. Remember that I always follow up a self-nomination by "review[ing] another editor's nomination and indicat[ing] at [my] nomination which [I] have reviewed". Remember that I've just almost always done reviews, even before it was required. Our standards have never permitted copyvios, but the DYK naysayers have been markedly louder on the issue since nominators began to be forced to perform reviews. Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I've looked at the number as... surprisingly low on Talk:Main Page. We have a system in place and it catches most of these problems before it hits the main page. I reviewed your hook as a favour. I review a large number of hooks. I honestly cannot see the problem you're talking about. Remember, I do a lot of reviews for DYK too... way beyond what is required of me in most cases considering the number of articles I write. While you're doing your own reviews to help everyone, you didn't have an extra QPQ around? (I've nominated one or two double hooks with only one QPQ and the second it becomes an issue, I just put in the extra QPQ with out thinking or complaining.) Anyway, would love your DYK statistics regarding copyvios hitting the main page because the QPQ system failed. We love well sourced arguments articles here at DYK. In fact, fully sourced articles is a DYK requirement. --LauraHale (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm - nothing will break if Nyttend takes a while to do the other review. And in fact we have never really settled whether a 2nd review is required for a 2-article nomination; it keeps going first one way and then the other. The nominators of others' work who don't review are more of a strain on the system; but then we have others who like to review articles, so with occasional appeals for extra reviews, it tends to work out. Also, it's nowhere near as simple as standards now being so high - some people just hate reviewing and I'm glad to see some of em still submitting articles nonetheless. Also some take longer to review, and some are quick at it - and yes, some people are not so good at it, just as some people's articles need copyediting. The QPQ review requirement is a nasty thing but we haven't come up with a better suggestion. (I have a review I have to do STAT when I get back from an off-wiki requirement of my own). Yngvadottir (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Before, people complained about a backlog of articles to be reviewed, while now the issue is insufficient numbers of articles at all, which has forced us to increase the amount of time a queue is on the Main Page. What's better? Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no issue about an insufficient number of articles for the main page. Citation needed. The last time I checked, there were 180 articles in the nomination pile. We run about 18 hooks a day and we generally get somewhere around 20 to 25 nominations a day. What are you basing your claims on? DYK now isn't even what DYK was three months ago. --LauraHale (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It goes up and down. On July 2 we had insufficient passed hooks to fill the preps. We're at 3 sets a day rather than 4, and 7 hooks per set, rather than 8, because of slowing of supply relative to the past. Besides, the more - and the more varied and from the more different editors - the better. (Accordingly, I'll be submitting one once I've finished fixing someone's that needs it). Yngvadottir (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Like LauraHale, I attribute the complaints about poor DYK reviews and the reduction in hook production to the higher review standards now being followed at DYK -- and the finger-pointing and other nastiness that preceded and accompanied the imposition of both QPQ and more stringent review standards. QPQ definitely has led to an unfortunate reduction in hook output from some excellent contributors, including Nyttend, but I see QPQ as a secondary factor here. I know that before the increase in standards, we routinely passed a lot of hooks that wouldn't get past the majority of newbie QPQ reviewers today (I know this because I did a lot of reviews back then, and I've done a lot of reviews since). By increasing the number of reviewers, QPQ has helped to improve the quality of reviews (because, for example, we no longer have an individual reviewer feverishly trying to approve 8 hooks quickly in order to post a new DYK to the main page within the next two hours). Also, I believe that when contributors participate in reviews, it usually improves the quality of their contributions.
As for Nyttend's doubleton hook, I think a single QPQ review is probably sufficient. Since his two articles are both pretty straightforward and are based on the same sources, reviewing that double hook shouldn't be much more work than reviewing the typical singleton (and less work than some singleton hooks). YMMV. --Orlady (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Noincluding nominations?

What is the purpose of adding noinclude tags to passed nominations? This causes talk page transclusions of the nomination (which are recommended in the instructions) to show up as empty, e.g. at Talk:Bei Bei Shuai. Is this intentional?  Sandstein  08:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is intentional. The addition of the noinclude tag occurs when the nomination is either promoted to the prep queues (as was the case for the nomination for the article you ask about) or when a nomination is rejected. The nomination templates are designed and intended for use at Template talk:Did you know. The noinclude tags allow for completed nominations to be hidden so that all remaining active nominations are not hidden by a forest of closed nominations. This is a real issue as most days consist of twenty or so nominations that are handled in a timely manner combined with one or two problematic noms that take weeks or even a couple of months to resolve. As a days nominations can not be removed until all the nominations are closed this means there are usually hundreds, if not a couple thousand, closed nominations transcluded to TT:DYK at any given time. --Allen3 talk 12:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
It would be nice to work out a way to display a transcluded nom on the article talk pages, while suppressing the display on the DYK noms page... --Orlady (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Esther Overton

The hook for Esther Overton is currently in Prep 4, but as she is due to compete in the Paralympics it would be good to have it saved for during the Games by moving it to the holding area. Could someone who knows the procedure do this please? Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 13:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Also Template:Did you know nominations/Dominic King (athlete) and Template:Did you know nominations/Georgina Kenaghan were moved to Prep 2 despite requests to be retained for Olympics/Paralympics. Either User:PumpkinSky isn't reading through reviews before promoting or is ignoring suggestions of saving them - Basement12 (T.C) 00:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I moved the two hooks from prep 2 to the special holding area on the noms page. Prep 2 had two Olympics-related hooks, including the image hook, plus a Paralympic hook, which seemed excessive regardless of what day it is. I left Esther Overton in prep 4, though, largely because I noticed a general dearth of sports-related hooks in the current collection of queues and prep areas. It seems like most of the people who are currently contributing sports hooks are focused on the Olympics, so we are going through a period with few or no sports hooks right now, to be followed by a deluge when the Games start in a few days. Better to start a trickle of these hooks early, methinks... --Orlady (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

New reviewers needed.

For Template:Did you know nominations/I Will Be and Template:Did you know nominations/List of number-one R&B singles of 2011 (U.S.) please. Aaron • You Da One 11:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

  • An editor responded, reviewed and passed "I Will Be"
  • "List of number-one R&B singles of 2011 (U.S.)" - apparently all this author needs is whether or not ALT1 hook passed. The other issues for review on this article were checked and passed. This particular author has been struggling somewhat to understand all the ins and outs of the DYK process and is trying hard to accommodate. Maile66 (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK pictures

can we not have 4 consecutive pictures of some building in Europe, please? lets have some variety --69.158.118.187 (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

One purports to be a painting and another to be in Nebraska, which I don't think is in Europe. Shame the four are not more closely related, then we could see their infinite subtlety of variation, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Right, Nebraska is not in Europe. Thanks. But still, more variety, please. Animals, plants, people, cars, whatever... --69.158.118.187 (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with the IP here; these images should be separated a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Best way to have a hook from an article on a delicate subject....

Hi all, Deception: Betraying the Peace Process is a book which is covers a tricky topic (read the article and you'll see what I mean). My query is what we'd have as a hook from it. Some of the facts the book reports are eye-openers and would definitely attract readers....but are we worried about subject matter such as this at DYK? All input appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • e.g. the Dalal Mughrabi football championship would be an interesting hook but I wonder about readers' (of both sides) sensitivities. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow...how do you get a front-page hook out of a POV book that was sponsored and written entirely by one side of a conflict, blaming the other side for everything? It's a bit like a modern-day version of George Armstrong Custer blaming the Lakota's bad attitude for all the broken treaties. Tough call for the front page. Maile66 (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and proposed this. I agree it is a sensitive topic but it would be a pity if this precludes any DYK mention at all. Suggestions of how to present a neutral hook? Ankh.Morpork 13:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Isn't one-sided POV one of the basic issues? See no problem in this being highlighted, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Not having read the book, it's hard to say if the article is presenting a NPOV on the contents, or cherry picking. However, half the references used have a vested interest in one side of that peace process. And it does seem that the "Reception" section of the article is only listing comments from those who agreed with that POV. Maybe it's not just the hook that's a problem. Maile66 (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I have searched some critical review for the book and didn't found any.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Kind of remarkable (problematic?) there isn't more than one POV on the reviews. For what it's worth, and I don't know if the links will hold here, but both the New York Public Library and WorldCat give the full title of the book as Deception : betraying the peace process : Palestinian Authority non-recognition of Israel, hate incitement and promotion of violence during the 2010 peace talks and through 2011. Maile66 (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Do we really want this on the front page? Secretlondon (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I assume good faith by everyone who has posted in this section on this page. Were this a different subject matter, I would not be so concerned. But given this is DYK, I would like to mention some things that bother me about this.
  • The (well-intentioned) hook mentioning football, given the timing of the Olympics also, in this singular case, could be considered a ruse by those who would see it on the front page and then click to the article about a book that is slanted negatively towards an entire race of people. And it could be seen as Wikipedia promoting a racist and political point of view. In this case.
  • The article is about a book. Yet, there is nothing in that article that tells me the creator of the article actually read the book. The article is based in its entirety on what other sources say is in the book. Many of those sources are closely tied to the side that is making the accusations. I'm not comfortable promoting something to the front page that could be considered racist, slanted towards a particular political policy, and not verified that any of this is even in the book.
  • I find it hard to believe that a book like this has not had some blow back in the press somewhere, opposing points of view to what is in the "Reception" section. When an entire race of people get written about in this matter, there isn't usually silence on the issue. The fact that the other point of view is not considered under "Reception" would seem a mis-step for Wikipedia. Maile66 (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It's weird -I can't find any criticism of the book by "the other side" as it were - am I looking in the wrong places? I must say the image on this page would be hard to fabricate....? The NY times has about the only question bit where it notes the author lives in Gush Etzion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying anything was fabricated, or that the book (if it had been read) was not accurate. I am saying that I don't think Wikipedia should be perceived as pushing a POV. But really...it is possible on something like this, that the media as a whole filtered the message. Or not. The media tend to go with the flow of the (perceived) audience POV for ratings. Maybe the other point of view was only heard in a language other than English. It really bothers me that the person who wrote the article may not have read the book. And the book may say exactly what those reviews say. But I think Wikipedia has to be very, very careful on this one. Maile66 (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem I see with the article is that it blandly restates the assertions in the book, then follows up with a "reception" section, as if this were a work of fiction. The article structure and writing style for articles about fiction books and movies doesn't work for controversial nonfiction books like this one. I find the NY Times article (which also accepts the truth of the book) to be more balanced because the language of the Times article is more nuanced. After reading or skimming the Times article and a few other other news media pieces that also largely support this book's point of view (including NY Daily News, Commentary, Israpundit), I concluded that the Wikipedia article needs to be restructured to provide more background and context for the book, and to interweave the description of the book's contents with discussion of other people's published comments about the book. Also, it seems to me that this book article illustrates why it is sometimes helpful for Wikipedia articles to use loaded words like "claims", "asserts" and 'alleges." which can clearly label statements as representing the perspective of one side of an issue. I would not bring this article to DYK in its present form. Revising the article looks like it could be a challenge. --Orlady (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This was nominated over at DYK yesterday: Template:Did you know nominations/Deception: Betraying the Peace Process. It might be helpful to that author, to have a link to one or two controversial non-fiction book articles as an example of how to rework this. Maile66 (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I poked around Wikipedia to assemble the following list of some articles about controversial or opinionated non-fiction books that illustrate some good approaches for providing a neutral perspective (although I note that most of these articles are fairly short, which probably makes it easier to evade discussion of controversial issues):
I hope this helps (posting it here to keep the discussion together). --Orlady (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

GAN + DYK

Hi I was wondering if you're allowed to nominate an article for GA while it is a DYK nominee? Thanks, TRLIJC19 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Why not? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
You'll find that a lot of well-written DYK articles tend to pass GAN before being featured on the main page, often the review time plus time in queues is much longer than the time it takes for a GA reviewer to read through the article. Plus it can mean that any problems missed in a DYK review, which by its nature has lower standards for things like prose, can be spotted and fixed before it hits the main page. Go for it. GRAPPLE X 17:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I've also seen some articles pass GA and run into trouble at DYK. GA doesn't necessarily have higher standards. --Orlady (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
A strict DYK review is better than a lax GA review (and boy, are those ten a penny recently); but on average a GA review should at least look at a broader array of criteria (at the very least, GA crit 3 is something that's not a concern at DYK at all really). GRAPPLE X 19:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
THere is no problem with this at all. When I see a DYK and it's really good, I nudge the nominator to take it to GA and help improve it. PumpkinSky talk 18:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast responses everybody! TRLIJC19 (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP DYK

I'd prefer to expand the article 5 times anyways; however, I am curious as to whether Dan Oates would qualify as an unsourced BLP when considering the required expansion. The version we are expanding from had two broken external links and nothing else that could be considered a source. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess the other question is whether the career of a local bobby is of sufficient universal interest to showcase on the front page, not wishing to sound discouraging or anything, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Happily "sufficient universal interest" isn't a requirement for DYK, otherwise we couldn't showcase anything. Articles like Echeveria runyonii would never make it. In any case, this person's career makes him much more than a "local bobby". Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much for drawing that page to my attention - what a gorgeous plant, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Look, I have nothing against you or against DYK's unrelated to America. In fact, 3 of my 4 DYK's had no relation to America whatsoever. I am just surprised that you are seemingly against this article on the grounds of it being American. I apologize if this opinion is false. In any case, it should currently qualify under the unsourced BLP requirements, but not under the generic 5x expansion. I don't plan on nominating it until the deadline is neared for the purpose of having a full article. Media coverage on the Chief should expand greatly in the coming days. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Back to the original question... Since the prior last version (before several intervening versions that were removed as copyvios) was only 402 characters (per DYKcheck), the article would have to be expanded at least 4x (essentially its current size) just to meet the minimum threshold for DYK. Accordingly, the question is largely "academic" (or "moot" in American usage of that word). Sources like this one and this one should help. --Orlady (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you much! I'm hoping to be able to split the article into NYPD, Ann Arbor, and Aurora sections once enough sources can be found. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Olympic Hooks

Thought it'd be best to start this discussion now as it's inevitable that it's going to happen at some point considering the number of hooks that have already been put aside for during the Olympics (and considering some of the articles on past and current athletes, I don't see the bunch of us working on these types of articles running out of them anytime soon!).

Anyway, I'll get to the point. Although the majority of the hooks will be spread out across different sets during the Games (much like Women's History Month was), would it be a good idea to have a Olympic themed set (entirely made up of Olympic hooks) to run at the same time as the opening and closing ceramonies take place? I'm thinking that we'll have plenty to use as we've got 18 already confirmed, plus I know I've got another four or five waiting for reviews personally, plus those put forward by other editors and there's still 20 odd days to go yet. Thoughts? Miyagawa (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

From my perspective as an Olympic hook writer, I was thinking it would be nice to try to spread them out and if possible, run the DYK hook the day before the person competes. Otherwise, real possibilities of instability with some hooks as people update articles when a person competes. Otherwise, it might be worth waiting to see how many are available. If things look overwhelming, I'm good with a few of the ones I've nominated running early. (Mostly because I realise I've put forward two full prep areas in two days.) *babbles* --LauraHale (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I was presuming we'd try and get one in every set, if we have enough. Secretlondon (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Probably best to do that. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I think we're headed to one to per set. I've got I think 20 of my own floating around. I know there is another person writing Olympic hooks. It might be worth considering now which days to run specific Olympic hooks on with that in mind. --LauraHale (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Number of Olympic hooks per day?

I've reviewed another I think 5 Olympic hooks and we're getting at least one or two a day right now. (There is another week or so until the Olympics.) We need to figure out how we want to handle the hook count. There are currently 101 PASSED ones in the special holding area. 14 * (3 prep areas * 2 hooks per prep area) = 84 possible places if we did that. If we go with an idea of 120 DYK hooks, 8.5 hooks per day. How do we want to handle that volume? Do we want to do one whole Olympic prep area per day of the Olympics with 9 hooks? And otherwise, run 8 hooks per day? Some solution please? --LauraHale (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hook mergers? As in "... that X, Y, Z, A, B, and C all like running" or some such, so as not to dominate other content and put off readers with lack of diversity, assuming there are plenty of other nominations? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I think people will get sick of it. 8 hooks a day is too much. Maximum of two Olympics hooks per set? No more than 50% certainly. Secretlondon (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm working on one right now and I'm sure there will be more ... I'd argue against one entirely Olympics set on any day, since that really would alienate readers who don't care to read about sports, plus as an international event it's presumably of interest to those looking at the main page at all hours of the day. I suggest we sprinkle them evenly throughout all the preps during the Olympics and consider going temporarily to 8 hooks per set to facilitate a 50-50 non-sports and sports distribution during that period. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
@ Yngvadottir: Sprinkling them means three Olympic hooks per prep area. --LauraHale (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
My notion is, go to 8 hooks per set during the Olympics, and have 4 sports hooks (including Olympics hooks) and 4 non-sports hooks per set. Which is how I think I see others taking it below. I'd advocate not bunching them up though - for one thing that enables us to have sports and non-sports quirkies and pictures, as usual. Alternating them within the set is the way I'd go. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
That solution would be workable for me. It gives some flexibility. I'd also be for running some of the ones in the nomination area that haven't been moved to the special area to the prep area now to make things easier now. --LauraHale (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
@Secretlondon, Maculosae tegmine lyncis: Are you willing and volunteering to find hooks that can be merged, propose the alt hooks, follow up with the nominator to make this happen? We cannot do that unless we get the hooks for that which have been approved. --LauraHale (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not interested in merging them - I just don't want to be swamped. Secretlondon (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Merging would be impractical. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
@Secretlondon, you're going to get overwhelmed. We have at least 110 Olympic hooks. (Some of these have 2, 3, 7 individual articles in them.) The question is more how to run them through the prep area effectively. --LauraHale (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Then we need to filter these down. We don't want that many. Secretlondon (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the sensible idea would be to go up to eight hooks during the period, and spread them evenly throughly all sets - the number of hooks per sets completely depends on how many hooks there is, but I would expect not to go above 50% olympic hooks in any one set. Miyagawa (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
If we had 14 Olympic pictures, I'd go with a special Olympic prep area per day. Currently, however, we have only eight Olympic pictures. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm against having sets of all Olympic hooks. I agree with Miyagawa, increasing the number per set and spreading them out seems the best plan as long as there are enough non-Olympic options ready for use - Basement12 (T.C) 21:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Re merging the hooks, queue compilers could be granted temporary powers of discretion? I imagine there will be even more once it all starts; the idea of eight hooks, with an absolute max of four sporty ones might work; perhaps if there are that many they could be bunched together at the bottom, so anyone not interested can stop at that point? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
We don't have to use every hook we get of course, even if they are all eligible.Secretlondon (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Based on what is being created at New pages, there will be more. But I'm wondering if a notice needs to go up on the Nominations pages when/if we reach a limit and cannot accommodate more Olympics hooks? I do think we need to increase the hooks to something like 8, or even 9. Maile66 (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Well it's always discretionary whether or not hooks go up on a requested date - so if they don't fit during the Games then there is always a couple of weeks between the Olympics and the Paralympics where the overflow can fit in. The trick will be to make sure that the Olympic hooks in any given set are different enough to keep the sets balanced and interesting. Miyagawa (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
@Maile66, I'm pretty much at the point where if you nominate now and it gets approved, it should be run before the Games. Cut off date for hook approval I'm for Friday and then any after that get shoved in at the very end where spaces are available or post Games. --LauraHale (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
@ Maculosae tegmine lyncis: Power of discretion for whom? Any hook changes would require modifying them NOW to get the number down, with the proposed hook being factual and then altering the pages. ... that X from GB and Y from AU are 2012 Olympic swimmers? is the easiest way but uninteresting and requires modifying them. Unless some one is volunteering to do this and do this NOW, it is impractical. --LauraHale (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Eight hooks per set, half Olympics half not. Four sets per day. That's... 16 Olympics hooks in a day. That should go through the Olympics hooks we have stored quickly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Do we have enough other hooks to make that feasible? Anyway, if the idea is to go to four prep areas a day, then I'll work on setting up a schedule that will allow 12 to 16 hooks. As I have to go to Sydney for a few days for 2012 Summer Parlympic related coverage, I'll get a schedule done Sunday night. That will be the ASBOLUTE cut off time for Olympic hooks to get nominal related to date placement. (About 18:00 at UTC+11.) --LauraHale (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I think we should, but if not we could do 7 (4 O, 3 N) * 4. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
        • 16 * 14 = 224. 12 * 14 = 168. I think 12 hooks per day is about the max we would need, unless the goal is to burn through them all ASAP so we need them for fewer days. --LauraHale (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I think going to 4 preps a day is a great idea, but I don't think we should have 4 Olympics (or 4 of any kind of sports) and only 3 non-sports in any sets, or we will disgruntle the non-sportslovers. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, if we go by Laura's count 3*4=12 *14 =168, which would be acceptable. The question is would we have 16 non-Olympic hooks a day? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
IMO, LauraHale is on the right track with her plan for two Olympics hooks per set. They should be sprinkled through the day, not bunched together in any single set. Also, it would be best to limit sports hooks (Olympics or otherwise) to no more than 1/2 the hooks in any given set. One of the hallmarks of DYK is variety!
I like the plan to run articles about athletes one day before their events. Another thing I've been thinking might be good is to start running the Olympic hooks at least one day ahead of the opening of the Games -- to help build and respond to anticipation of the Games, as well as beginning to work on the stockpile of hooks. Starting on 26 July might accomplish that goal, however. The preliminaries typically don't get a lot of media attention, so those first couple of days of hooks will appear before people are fully focused on the Games. --Orlady (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Assuming we start on July 26 and go through August 12, that's 18 days of hooks: 6 in July and 12 in August. If we did two hooks three times a day, that would give 108 hooks; three hooks three times a day gives 162 hooks. With eight hooks per set, two or three Olympics and five or six for the rest of them, that could well be sufficient. If 162 is more than we need, then we drop back to two on those days without as many hooks, or run a hook two days before or on the day of that particular sport.
Unless we're expecting more than 162 Olympics hooks, I don't see the need to go beyond eight hooks three times a day to start with: four times a day could exhaust our supply of reviewed available other hooks. If it turns out we have more than 162, then we can revisit this. I agree that three sports hooks should be plenty; also, we probably don't want to go above four bios total (or maybe five if three are Olympics bios?) in the entire set. There's also a need to balance countries in sets as well. Maybe we should have a special Olympics prep set guide that talks about how to fill and balance sets of hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think that if we want to get every Olympic hook through during the Olympics then we might need to increase the number of hooks on the page. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should go for 4*7 = 28 hooks per day during the Olympics, with maximum 2 Olympic hooks in each set (17days*4sets*2hooks=136 Olympic hooks), to secure the balance in the different sets. 28 hooks per day is 7 more then we currently have, which will be 119 more hooks during the 17 days of the Olympics, which is more or less the same the number of approved Olympic hooks, which means that we would need 20 "other" hooks per day during the Olympics. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just mostly to ping this as in Sydney until Sunday afternoon, will look at Olympic organisation with the idea of 16 max in mind. If there are any Olympic related hooks unreviewed, it would be great if people could review them and, as they are passed, move them over to the special holding area by about 30 hours from now so I can begin organising. --LauraHale (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking to get the Australian articles in early for the 0000 time slot. There won't be any games on at the time, but Australian readers will be awake. Others can slip back to times when games are on. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Olympic hook organisation

This is a preliminary suggestion for how to organise some of the Olympic hooks for prep areas with the idea of running the relevant hook the day before or day of the start of the event. Articles about past Olympians or non-date specific things to be run where needed. --LauraHale (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Updated preliminary schedule. Goal is no more than two hooks a prep area. Moved some things around to make this work better. The non-date specific ones can be moved around rather freely if we want an Olympic only prep area. At the moment, there are 57 articles in the special Olympic holding area. --LauraHale (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Updated again when there 65 hooks. I think there around another 15 or so hooks floating around. Any help getting these done BEFORE the Games start would be fantastic as it makes it that much easier to slot and avoid overloading. Will try to review some of them myself tomorrow. --LauraHale (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Should this be taken out of prep1 and saved for the Olympics? Template:Did you know nominations/Ortrun Enderlein? Secretlondon (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
As the hook is about a Winter Olympian I don't think it needs to be saved - Basement12 (T.C) 23:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Winter Olympians would not be my ideal in here because we just will have so many. If it is in the saved space, I'll organise it. Otherwise, I won't. (And going to update this in about a half hour to get a better idea of where we are at with I think 13 days? until the start? --LauraHale (talk) 05:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking now, we'll need better balance on some days though not sure yet how to achieve. Will need to set a cut off date soon. ---LauraHale (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Really nice work on the schedule. My suggestion would be simply to fill the later dates with late arriving noms. I.E. the last articles written/reviewed go where needed and not on the most relevant date. As a FYI, the time between nomination and approval of Olympic articles is currently running 24-48 hours on average. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This is what is done for today with the pretty much guarantee for best date related to an event. If there is anything unreviewed after number 116 Miro Sipek, it will not appear on this list. This list of by dates is the active planning. The most for any date is 12. --LauraHale (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather than inserting each hook on the day before the person competes, thus producing hook sets that are as much as one-half Olympics, I'd like to move hooks up to earlier dates, so that we anticipate the events by at least one day, while not making it look like DYK is solely about the Olympics. --Orlady (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I've put them by date in the Olympic area. If you want to move them around now, it is much easier. :) Please feel free to fix. I'd try to get the 2012 Olympians day before or day of because of a concern they will be less stable in terms of citations after the event as people rush to add information. That's my only cavaet. Otherwise, I'm pretty much done. Hook movers just need to be aware of the Olympic pile sitting down at the bottom. --LauraHale (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I love what you've done in the special holding area on the noms page. That should make things much easier for the folks who build prep areas. --Orlady (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, really nice work. What will be the procedure for Olympic related hooks approved after today? Try to place them close to the "correct" date, just put them whereever there is more room, or not specifically save them at all? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I would aim to put them into any day that has 9 or fewer hooks. Max out at 12. I think we're getting to the point where once some one approved it, it needs to be manually moved by either the nominator or the reviewer to a date to get things done in a timely manner. If this isn't done, it won't run. --LauraHale (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
26 July 2012 - Preliminaries in football


27 July 2012 - Opening ceremonies, Preliminaries in archery, tennis, football
28 July 2012 - Swimming (w100butterfly, m400im), table tennis, shooting, judo, beach volleyball, equestrian eventing, road cycling, women's basketball games, boxing, women's quad rowing sculls and weightlifting starts, all badminton starts


29 July 2012 - Field Hockey, diving, women's rowing 8s and sailing (women's elliot) starts


30 July 2012 - women's basketball games, Judo (w57), women's double sculls rowing, women's laswer radial

* Template:Did you know nominations/Egg-and-spoon race - non-date specific In queue to go up on 23 July

31 July 2012 -
1 August 2012 - women's 25m pistol starts
2 August 2012 - Track cycling, swimming (m100butterfly) equestrian dressage starts, women's judo


3 August 2012 - Athletics starts, men's rifle, women's 75 weightlifting, men's 1500-meter freestyle, women's heptathlon, women's triple jump
4 August 2012 - Race walking, equestrian jumping, women's triathlete, women's steeplechase starts
5 August 2012 - Women's marathon, Wrestling and Synchronized Swimming starts


6 August 2012 - Canoe sprint, athletics (men's discus) starts


7 August 2012 - athletics (women's javelin), men's triathlon starts
8 August 2012 - BMX starts, women's athletics 800m
9 August 2012 -
10 August 2012 - metres athletics women starts
11 August 2012 - Modern pentathlon and mountain biking starts
12 August 2012 - Men's marathon starts
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_82&oldid=1089831913"