Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 83

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80 Archive 81 Archive 82 Archive 83 Archive 84 Archive 85 → Archive 90

EthicalWiki

This discussion continues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EthicalWiki Woz2 (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I was extremely surprised to see this on the main page now. The hook is essentially an advert, none of the sources directly address the subject and several of the sources are written by the site's owner! It needs to go to AFD IMO but I'm not going to nominate it whilst it's on the main page. Can others take a look? I'm tempted to pull it off the template, but want to check here first. SmartSE (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed about how it reads and the sources; plus the created/expanded per the Template:Did you know nominations/EthicalWiki and the article history, the user talk pages, the COI declaration on the article talk page (though not on the template), the line "I am a PR professional and a paid advocate on Wikipedia" etc aren't exactly reassuring, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Just a note, the entire page was reviewed by Woz2 who created it in the mainspace. Perhaps someone should discuss them with him. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Just reading the article, I was kind of surprised, too. It seems too much like it's a spin organization, acting as a go-between for whatever section of corporate America wants to advertise itself on Wikipedia...without admitting that's what they're doing. And this questionable viewpoint in the article's text "David King from EthicalWiki believes Wikipedia editing has only been controversial because its open model leaves it vulnerable to companies using it for advertising and censorship." makes it sound like the only thing on Wikipedia are articles about corporations. Regardless of Wikipedia's ties to this entity, on the main page it seems like an open invitation for corporations to try their free advertising on Wikipedia. Maile66 (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm.... Maybe change "believes Wikipedia editing has only been controversial" to "Wikipedia editing by companies." I figured Woz2's DYK nomination would attract some criticisms. I have been using a sandbox version in my signature as a form of disclosure - he sort of spotted it and decided to be bold, made a lot of tweaks and posted it. "Paid advocate" just refers to the language Jimbo uses for PR pros and other COI editors. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Jeez - I just realised that it was actually all written by you, rather than Woz2 - it wasn't apparent before because Woz2 bodged the page move using copy and paste. It was also rejected at AFC but then moved to main space anyway. I would highly recommend moving it back to your userspace where it belongs, or it will soon be at AFD. I'm baffled as to how you could think this was ever a good idea. SmartSE (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
This page was reviewed and moved by Woz2, reviewed at DYK by Poeticbent, and promoted by PumpkinSky. Proper or not, there were enough eyes on this that it isn't as bad of an idea as you find it to be. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry - you've misunderstood me, I should have elaborated further. I'm not having a go at DYK (it isn't that bad an article), but I was asking King4057 how he, as someone who knows our COI guidelines and is trying to earn a living by helping others abide by them, thought it sensible to let something that he'd written about his own company end up on the main page? He's quoted by PR Week as saying "King warned firms that if they improved their own pages, or asked agencies to edit entries, they would 'engage in a controversial practice in ethical grey areas that are ripe to put the firm through media humiliation'." It is the last thing that I expected him to do. SmartSE (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
In this instance, I don't think it is his responsibility to stop the article from appearing on the main page. Every step of the DYK process appeared to have been acted on by Woz2 (to the extent that I have found). Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
This is an advert and should not have been promoted. Secretlondon (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I have to disagree. And Ryan's right. If it's so blatantly obvious and bad, it'd have been noticed before this. not to mention all the eyes while in prep set and the admin that promoted it from prep to queue.PumpkinSky talk 17:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The article does pass all the DYK criteria AFAICT, but I'm surprised that no one was concerned about posting an article written by the owner of the company that also used sources written by him. SmartSE (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi SmartSE! I'm sorry and surprised that we have a difference of opinion.
  • It seems to me that EthicalWiki is in fact notable on the strength of the PRWeek write up. PRWeek is a reliable source in this topic area.
  • The hook contains an insight that is of interest to our readers. It not an advert since any one can use the advice freely.
  • There's nothing wrong with having supplementary non-independent sources per WP:3PARTY. Non-independent sources may be used to source content from articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. and provided they aren't used to establish notability.
  • As for the mechanics, copy-pasting from user space to main space is a perfectly valid method to create an article. There are pros and cons of the copy-paste method versus the move method. I'll try to find the help page that talks about it. It's not a "botched move." King4057 drafted the article in his user space, I happened to noticed it, and thought it interesting and worthy of main space, so I created and DYK'd it.
  • Editors with COI are supposed to do exactly what King4057 did: offer content for neutral editors like me to accept or decline.

Hope this helps! --Woz2 (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Actually, copy-paste moves are botches, especially if one person copy-pastes another's work; for one thing it removes the page's edit history and attributes edits to the wrong people. Simply moving the original page would have been the right way to go about it as it preserves the edit history in full. Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves is worth reading in this instance. GRAPPLE X 18:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I accept that might be your opinion, but show me the help/policy/guideline page that states that. I'm pretty sure that there's one that states what I said but I can't find it right now... In any case, it's not the main issue here. The main issue the the article itself as it stands. Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit collision) The page you cite is for moves main space to main space and I fully agree with it. This is a different case. User space to main space. Woz2 (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Policy. GRAPPLE X 18:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 4)Actually, a copy paste move would violate the creative commons license. Attribution is not adequately given. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Well there used to be a page that explicitly discussed the pros and cons but it seems to have disappeared, possibly for the reason you mentioned. So, I now confess to have botched the move in good faith. Woz2 (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I didn't think you did it on purpose - as you can see from the page history, it is all too easy to make stupid mistakes when moving pages... SmartSE (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually a guideline, but yes, copy and paste moves cause problems, especially in a case such as this where from first glance it looked as if you rather than King4057 had written the article. Regarding the rest, it's best to discuss it at AFD rather than here. SmartSE (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

AFD

Comments welcome at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EthicalWiki. SmartSE (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

How's your Sunday going? See you over there! Woz2 (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

He Bowls To The Left

the He Bowls To The Left article's AFD has closed, is it acceptable for it (or one of its alts) to go back on the queue? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The vote was to merge into another article. Does the article meet DYK criteria? Secretlondon (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
According to the nom page, it did but the hook needed changing and then it got pulled for duration of the afd. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I just closed the nom. The AfD result was to merge to Mitchell Johnson (cricketer), so the He Bowls To The Left article is supposed to cease to exist as an article any time now. Unless the Mitchell Johnson bio gets 5X expanded, we don't have a DYK candidate article here. --PFHLai (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Didn't think so. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
No article --> No DYK candidate. You might want to consider Wikipedia:Deletion review. --PFHLai (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sérandite

In Prep 4, sérandite had the original hook included, while only ALT1 was passed. Can we get this fixed? Chris857 (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed it as requested, but the phrase "type material" meant nothing to me and I think it's inadvisable for a hook: it's a technical term that can't even be wikilinked. (If you search on it, you're redirected to "type (biology)", which would not apply to a mineral like sérandite.) I think a revision of that final clause might help the hook, especially since it's a lead one. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Type material/specimen is essentially identical to the biological variety; it is the mineral specimen first discovered or considered the best example of the mineral. Unfortunately even wiktionary doesn't help us with a link. Perhaps we could change "and the type material resides in D.C" to "and the original specimens reside in D.C.". Chris857 (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Letting Go

The following hook is currently in Prep 3:

that the Body of Proof episode "Letting Go" aired on a Sunday rather than the usual Tuesday timeslot?

This hook is neither interesting nor unusual enough IMO to pass muster. I would pull it myself but I'm not sure what the procedure for pulling hooks is now, but I think the hook needs review. Gatoclass (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes: Boring! To pull a hook, take it out of the prep area as usual. Then go into the history of the nomination template, restore the last version before the nomination was closed, and edit it to explain why you pulled the hook. That should restore it to the noms page. Also, list the nom at WP:DYK/Removed. --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree boring - but I switched it because it was the approved ALT1. The original hook was mistakenly promoted; that one is not supported by the source. (I had checked because that one also had poor grammar and I wanted to be sure of the intended meaning before fixing that.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
If the article is so fundamentally uninteresting that no interesting (and verified) hook can be found, then it doesn't belong in DYK. However, for this article it should be possible to do better than this. --Orlady (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
It's also really country specific! Secretlondon (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • (The elephant in the room is of course whether every episode of every TV show deserves an article. Having got that out of my system ...) The only contender I can see is in a caption: the murder was filmed at Fairmount Park. But that's not in the article text and I can't find it stated in any of the cited sources. Off to ping the article creator; hopefully they either can source that statement or can suggest another possibility. Then I must go to bed, sorry people. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking this needs to be delayed. I do agree with the above that this is a very uninteresting hook and a better one needs to be found: the extra time should allow for it to be found. It may be that it should be unpromoted while that better hook is found, but I'll leave that to someone else to decide; it'll be Sunday before I can spend any significant time here. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What about a hook related to the fact that Christine Orlando from TV Fanatic wished the murderer had been Brian rather than Al? Need to start work, so can't think of wording at the moment. Moswento talky 08:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've unpromoted the hook out of the prep area, since an entirely new hook needs to be found and consensus here is that the current hook is not interesting or appropriate for DYK. This will allow time for a new hook to be found. I don't find a reviewer preferring a different murderer to be of particular interest, since reviewers will complain about almost anything, but maybe the wording could be found to make it sound like it's interesting even so. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying, ive had the busy template on my userpage for a while. It was a mistake to say "filmed" it was meant to say "set". Maybe: "that Body of Proof's episode "Letting Go" murder scene was set in Fairmount Park Philadelphia, Pennsylvania?" — M.Mario (T/C) 12:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Include Olympic hooks in prep areas

The prep area currently known as prep 3 is the first one for the Olympics period. From now until the end of the Olympics, most newly constructed prep areas should include a couple of Olympics hooks. LauraHale has organized the Olympics hooks on the noms page to make things easier for the rest of us. :-)

I put one Australia-focused Olympics hook into prep 3, which will go up during the night in England but during the day in Australia. LauraHale only slotted two hooks for 26 July, but we may want to move some other hooks up (for example, by one day) to avoid a logjam of Olympics hooks later. --Orlady (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to move things around in those areas. The day before and of the opening ceremonies, there are a few events being run in the preliminaries. Hence the early ones. Just so long as we don't lose them, all is good. :) --LauraHale (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Are we going to 8 hooks? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Tsilla Chelton

Tsilla Chelton in prep 2 is well under the required 1500 bytes of readable prose that is required for DYK. Schwede66 01:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There are also issues with the image. --LauraHale (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The image isn't used with the hook (is this okay then?) but the article is about 400 characters short of the minimum, and classed as a stub. Also some OR with the birth date (we link to immigration records). Secretlondon (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
While image is not used in hook, we're supposed to check copyright on ALL images in the article, and then check copyright on any images in the hook to make sure they specifically work for the main page. Thus, the lack of fair use rationale is problematic. You can use primary source records like that and it isn't OR. You cannot use primary sources for notability. You can't use primary sources to come up with new conclusions. --LauraHale (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree re: the image. I think the author is making new conclusions as they stating that the birth date is different from published elsewhere. It isn't someone else's research that the published birth date differs from the date given in immigration records, it's the article original contribution to the study of its subject. On a more trivial note are lists of works supposed to be treated like that? Do we filter them a bit? Secretlondon (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Lists of works do not count towards DYK prose. Lists and tables are not prose, so they do not count. : / I've found a few times that new reviewers often need to have their work check as some of them do not understand criteria. (I had some one fail one of mine for not being long enough based on eyeballing the text, and then submit three DYKs in a row that were too short.) Occasional spot checking of these articles is good. --LauraHale (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I know they don't count for DYK word count purposes - I was thinking of manual of style. Pages of tables are pretty ugly (although I'm guilty of this too). Secretlondon (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The history show that the article was 2,564 bytes long before adding the list of works (look at the 09:29, 17 July 2012‎ state). Although I was the original author, I wasn't the one who added the picture, and I can obviously take it away if needed. Her age is discussed in the notes, where I summed up the difference between the various other sources. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for catching this, Schwede66. I've taken Tsilla Chelton off prep 2 for now. --PFHLai (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Secretlondon (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Olympian in queue 1

Tia Brooks is currently in Q1 instead of being held for use during the Olympics. I don't know if this is intentional, or was just an oversight, but I thought I'd point it out in case someone wants to save it. (I wrote the article and requested saving, but if there is a reason not to save I'm OK with it going up early.)--ThaddeusB (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

For now, I swapped it to Q4 to give people a chance to decide whether it should be saved for the Olympics or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The news media in the United States have started their Olympics coverage. I don't see a good reason for DYK to wait before starting our Olympics hooks. --Orlady (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Fact in expansion?

Please look at Template:Did you know nominations/Adrienne Bolland and discuss if in case of an expansion the hook fact has to be from the expansion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

First I've heard of it, and it's not on the rules page, the supplementary rules page, or the one-page DYK rules agglomeration. I'll stop by and say as much. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I approved this one, - if such a rule existed it should go, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Gerda, did you approve the original hook? It's not clear that you did so, yet it's the one that is being used in the prepare area. Then again, you do say you "like ALT1 best" initially but preferred a slightly different wording for it (ALT3), so it might be inferred that there wasn't anything wrong with the original hook or either ALT1 or ALT2 since you didn't explicitly say any of them were problematic. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
If there is such a rule, it has never been enforced in the years of my involvement in DYK. --Orlady (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
To answer the question above, please look at the nom again, I said appr ALT3, to me that would mean that ALT 3 is the approved hook. So I placed that in prep4, where "she" already went. The other hooks were all acceptable, therefore I didn't bother to strike them. I would have liked to see the unusual picture of an unusual woman, - inofficial hook from a source: "Adrienne Bolland was arguably the most foul-tempered female pilot on the planet." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There are two different things involved here, and many reviewers are not clear about them. First, which hooks are approved, which means which ones meet the rules as to sourcing, being in the article, interesting, etc. Second, which one (or ones) of those the reviewer prefers. The former is needed by hook promoters, so they know which of the many hooks are usable: approved. The latter is a piece of information for the promoter to take into consideration, and I always do, but there is no requirement to bow to the reviewer's preference as long as the hook selected is approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Berlin Prep 4

I am not happy with the wording but not certain enough to change it myself. 1) Why "although"? 2) I would say "the Berlin street Ackerstraße" or "Ackerstraße, a street in Berlin,". 3) I don't know if you can say a street was "split" between two countries? If so I suggest to simply say "split by the Berlin Wall". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You can say that, but in fact the Ackerstraße article nowhere contains that fact; and the German article says something not quite the same, that part of the street lay in the border strip and required special permission to access. This needs both a clear statement and a reference. Also, the translation is still quite rough; this was promoted faster than I'd expected, I had planned to look it over today since it's by an editor whose translations have needed to be reworked. Taking a quick look at it now, I see that it still has at least one bibliography item translated, and that the picture caption renders Pappelplatz as "A popular place". I haven't looked at the other article on the memorial at all, but this needs to be pulled from the prep for now. I'm at work and could get interrupted at any moment - if I do, please could someone else pull it? --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I've pulled it, and reopened the nomination page. If (as is likely) no one else has time to do a rush check and correction of both articles, I'll do so as soon as I can today, since I brought the hammer down here. But this was really a bit fast for a pair of articles that needed translation checking (as mentioned on the nomination page). Both were created on July 21. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Give Peace a Chance (Grey's Anatomy)

Give Peace a Chance (Grey's Anatomy) was nominated for DYK by me, (see here). I included a valid picture, which is in the article. No issues with the image were brought up in the review, yet the hook is in prep 3 without the picture. Can this be addressed? TRLIJC19 (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Far more images are nominated than we could ever possibly use. --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This. It's really just luck of the draw which hooks get put up with images and which don't; I've probably nominated about 20 image hooks at least without seeing a single one used. Just try to keep an eye out for relevant images for future hooks to improve both your chances and the variety available to anyone building a queue. GRAPPLE X 18:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand; thanks for the explanations. TRLIJC19 (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Maternal sensitivity

  • ... that this recent DYK entry appeared on the Toronto Star today? --Obviously not Created/expanded nor Nominated by me. -- PFHLai (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Very interesting. I've added media links to the talk pages of both Maternal sensitivity and Phantosmia. Ruby 2010/2013 04:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
And Maternal sensitivity got 7,808 views! I've just added it to the stats page. (By the way, Job attitude is hoping for a review. I gave the editor a little help with the template.) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Changes for Olympics Period

It's time to make a decision for queue size and frequency during the Olympics period. We can always revisit it once under way, but we've already started filling prep areas that will run in the morning of July 27 in Australia at our current schedule, and all four hooks for July 26 have already been used, as have three of nine for July 27. We need to decide whether to increase the number of hooks, the number of hook sets per day, or both. Clearly, some sort of increase will be necessary; I count 117 approved Olympics hooks that haven't yet been promoted to prep areas.

I've taken a look at what we have for Olympic hooks by day. With two periods of exceptions, we have seven or fewer hooks that need to run each day. Those exceptions are:

  • July 27 through 29: 9, 11, and 10 respectively, though three of the July 27 have already been promoted, and July 29 includes two hooks, the 1992 bid and the 2012 official song, which could run before the 27th or after the 29th as they are not time-dependent.
  • August 2 through 4: 12 per day.

At the moment, the final six days (August 7 through 12) range from three to five hooks in a day, and July 30 through August 1 top out at six hooks at their busiest.

It seems to me that we could run this two ways:

  1. 3 sets of 8 hooks per day (24 total), stepping up to 4 sets of 8 hooks from August 2 through 4 (32 total) to accommodate the spike in hooks then so that no more than three hooks run per set. Depending on Olympics load, there would be up to three Olympics hooks per set. A few from the first three days could still run on the 26th to even out the load, if they haven't already.
  2. 4 sets of 7 hooks per day (28 total), perhaps stepping up to 4 sets of 8 hooks from August 1 through 3 (32 total) as above.

If we change to 4 sets (every six hours instead of every eight), we need to decide exactly when the changeover occurs so hooks already loaded into queues and prep areas don't run too early or when their target audience is asleep. We'll also need more active admins to promote from prep to queue, since we'd be using up all six queues in a day and a half, and the preps can feed only a day at a time.

One way or another, we'll need to change the size and/or frequency of the hooks. The size could change starting with any prep area; increasing the frequency needs to be planned more carefully so hooks run when they ought. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

My preference is option "3 sets of 8 hooks per day (24 total)" since this should really only be two or three days involved and requires less admin intervention. --LauraHale (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Doing the 8 hooks is better as no bot changes are required. BTW a bot runs on commons too to protect the images linked from the upcoming hook image. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I've added an 8th hook to each of the three prep areas for 27 July. Each of these now has 3 Olympics hooks and 5 other hooks. --Orlady (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm in the process of moving Olympics and other hooks around so they don't run during the late night when their nationals are asleep. Adjustments will be done when the Inuse template is removed; it may take a few steps. Thanks for your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, done. I hope it works for everyone; I balanced as best I could, though I couldn't avoid three bios in a row in prep two given five bios, since the other sets both had four. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Consensus seems to be for 3 sets of 8 hooks daily, which has been implemented as of the current Prep 2, and will continue through the Olympics, with a possible bump up to 4 sets of 8 hooks during August 2 through 4. So far, so good. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos

Now going through an afd while it is on the main page. Remove? --69.158.118.187 (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Somebody proposed it for AFD because it was on the main page. Let's leave it up for the duration of its time slot. --Orlady (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Dan Oates

Per Crisco1492 [1] I am posting this here. It may be necessary to speed up the appearance of Template:Did you know nominations/Dan Oates due to public interest in Aurora shooting. In addition, it should be put in place prior to the olympics if possible. On another note, I believe care should be taken to display the article on the main page at a time when America will be awake. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Iraq death toll rises to 111 [2], Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the Iraqi explosions are significant, that doesn't make this insignificant. The DYK has been approved, the only issue now is making sure it is posted at a time when it is still on peoples' minds. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Maculosae WTF are you talking about? The Iraqi death toll is already on the main page and will be on the main page for a long time as it cycles off the In The News section in slow fashion. I support expediting the placement of Oates DYK w/picture on the main page sooner than later as the topic is of immense interest to our readers, will receive a lot of hits, and will raise the awareness of Wikipedia. – Lionel (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The article Dan Oates is already getting more hits than the typical DYK generates. (I assume that people are finding it via searches.) DYK exists to attract the attention of people who are already looking at the main page; it doesn't attract new readers to Wikipedia. I agree that it would be nice for the hook to go up while people are still talking about the Aurora shootings, but the talk is likely to continue for a while... --Orlady (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The prep areas were full through the official opening day of the Olympics; I've added the hook to Prep 1, which will run at 6pm Colorado time on July 27. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Just as a note, by my count prep 1 is set to run at 2:00 AM on July 28. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've put it in prep 2, which is due at 12 noon in New York. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't see a need to do special moves for it; evening placement seemed sufficient. But okay. Ryan, your count is wrong; take Queue 6 on the chart and add a day; that's when prep 1 will be going up, not two in the morning, which is when it would have come down. I wouldn't have promoted it into the graveyard shift. And Crisco, you swapped it with prep 4's lead, not prep 2's, which does indeed put it at noon in NY (10am in Colorado). I've swapped a couple of hooks in prep 1, since there's no longer any need to keep the San Juan Battista hook a distance from Dan's now that it's in another set entirely, and a good reason to separate the two nature hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Urgh, down... not up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Ahh, I realized why my math was off. Hook 2 will be going up when queue 6 is slated to go up. I didn't realize that initially. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Dan Oates is a Great American! – Lionel (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

More prep space needed

Can we have a fifth preparation area? Rcsprinter (state) @ 15:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? In my experience, the current set of four prep areas is more than sufficient for accomplishing the job of assembling hook sets in anticipation for their promotion to the queues. The only problem I see is that occasionally another user decides to fill the prep areas shortly before I wish to put a set or two together. This is resolved by using a little bit of patience and simply waiting for a prep area to free up. Additionally it is generally preferable for pending nominations to sit at Template talk:Did you know till shortly before their appearance on the Main page to make it easier to find possible problems and facilitate needed discussions. --Allen3 talk 21:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not until hooks hit a prep area that some people bother to look at them to check for overlooked issues: Nikkimaria, for instance, generally doesn't do paraphrasing checks until she knows that the nominated article has been approved and promoted. There is a heightened scrutiny of approved hooks once they've made it to the queues page. That said, I'm not convinced we need more prep areas as long as we're only sending three sets of hooks a day to the main page. However, if promoting admins become scarce again as they were for a while earlier this year, I think there would be a good argument for adding another. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
A few years ago we added 2-3 more prep hook sets for awhile but it was eventually scaled back to 4 again.PumpkinSky talk 12:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Michaela DePrince

I'm glad this was made a lead hook. It's not a topic we do not get a lot of, is interesting, and has a nice video (not a still photo) on top of all that. PumpkinSky talk 12:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I wish the Michaela DePrince article weren't as stubby. --PFHLai (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/List of number-one R&B singles of 2011 (U.S.) reviewer needed to take over review

Could someone finish off the review for Template:Did you know nominations/List of number-one R&B singles of 2011 (U.S.) please? The ALT 1 just needs to be approved. Aaron • You Da One 15:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead hook (or not), now Prep 2

Yes, I understand that not every proposed picture can be taken. However, I would like to see the one of Agneta Matthes and her husband for several reasons: 1) The picture gives a feeling for the time. If it's omitted (as now in Prep 2), at least a date should be added to clarify that what they did was pioneer work in the 19th century. 2) Showing her husband also adds a little bit of fairness to that person who doesn't have an article. 3) The article is a FA in German and of heavy weight, proposed here as GA. 4) A friend cropped the pic nicely. - So, I understand that the lead hook in prep 2 is even "heavier" but could imagine to see the Matthes couple anytime later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Now on Prep 4 with the pic. -PFHLai (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Lack of clarity in hook for Drang-drung Glacier

The hook for Drang-drung Glacier is in prep3. I find the hook wording unclear. It says this is :the largest glacier outside the Karakoram Range in Ladakh". This is clearly not the world's largest glacier outside the Karakoram (as the hook implies), as polar glaciers are larger than those in the Karakoram. I think it is probably the largest glacier in Ladakh, except for the glaciers in the Karakoram area of Ladakh, but I cannot be sure. (Access to the online sources is limited.) I've asked the creator/nominator to clarify. --Orlady (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I finally managed to get access to the cited source via http://books.google.com.pk/ and revised the article and hook to correspond with what I found. The concern is resolved. --Orlady (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Good, many thanks :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

What's an Imperialist? (Prep 1)

The hook approved in Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of San Juan Bautista is in Prep 1. It's about the number of "Imperialist soldiers" wounded in this particular battle. I was surprised that "Imperialist" isn't linked to an article telling what entity it refers to. I went to the article, and it is also unclear. It uses the term "Imperialist" throughout, but never defines it. The article about the war, French intervention in Mexico, also is not explicit. An infobox for the Battle of San Juan Bautista article lists Second French Empire and Second Mexican Empire as "belligerents" opposite Mexican Republicans, so I infer that "Imperialists" probably refers to the combination of the Second French and Second Mexican Empires. I think the hook needs some context, and I'm hoping that someone can provide it by finding or creating an article to link to. In the interim, I am going to add a link to French intervention in Mexico in the hook. --Orlady (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Protect lead images on Commons

I'm an admin on Commons. I was wondering if it'd help if I protected lead hook images over on Commons while they are on the en wiki main page. This would save two steps on en wiki: 1) uploading a local copy and 2) subsequently deleting that local copy. There is even an option in the "reason" field for this on Commons. I am active most days and should catch most of them. The admin moving them to a queue only needs to check that I caught the one(s) being moved and do the ones I didn't. I'll endeavor to get them while still in prep sets. PumpkinSky talk 23:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I used to do that and stopped. Images are rarely uploaded locally these days - there is a bot on Commons that automatically cascade protects en.wiki DYK images. Sometimes it fails, and the DYK update bot shouts in User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors (it is important to watch that page for all DYK admins), and I protect on Commons. Sometimes nobody is around when this happens and an update fails. Nevertheless, I stopped protecting, to save my time. Materialscientist (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, the bot wasn't around back in the day. I'll set a watch on the bot log and protect things as needed. If anyone notices a protection is needed, for DYK or anything else, let me know. PumpkinSky talk 00:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
MS--the Commons logs say you recently protected the Laufen Hut image. and a few others ;-) PumpkinSky talk 00:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The lighthouse one in Q1 wasn't protected. I just protected it. PumpkinSky talk 00:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Nor was Oates. PumpkinSky talk 00:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Olympic Hook treatement

Why was Template:Did you know nominations/Tora Harris moved from the section with Olympic hooks? Does any new article about an Olympian count?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't been reviewed yet. Will review now. If it passes, you can move it there. The Olympic section is only for PASSED hooks. --LauraHale (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Balancing and timing Olympics hooks

In previous discussions, we've said we don't want more than three Olympics hooks per set. When attempting to juggle nine hooks in a day because the events are about to start, what sort of preference should we have for the various aspects? I assumed we'd have a strong preference for running them when their home country was awake, but that led to three Australian hooks in a single set, and the breaking up of these led to two single-gender sets, which is also problematic. Before we continue building sets, it would be very useful to have consensus on what's an important consideration, and what is less so.

It may not be possible to perfectly balance sets, but we can have preferences. Here are the criteria we're dealing with, and in a possible order of importance (let me know if I've missed any criteria, and what you think the order should be):

  1. Run prior to the sport's debut, so it's still relevant when on the main page.
  2. Run when the athlete's home country is awake.
  3. Run with no more than two entries per country per set.
  4. Run with no more than two entries per gender per set.
  5. Try to list a sport only once per set, and definitely no more than twice

What we need to decide is which of the above are crucial, which are good to attempt but not crucial, and which are optional. Also, if there's a definite order, or if more than one can be considered co-equal. (Are country and gender equally important, or is gender or country more important?) Make sense? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The first two priorities on BlueMoonset's list should be at the bottom of the list, not at the top.
There is a DYK rule (at Wikipedia:Did you know) that says "No DYK installment should have more than two entries relating to one country, topic, or issue, and no more than one is even better"; U.S hooks are a long-standing exception to that rule because there are so many of them nominated. BlueMoonset has expressed concern about an edit I made to the hook set now in Queue 3, where I objected to having 3 Australian Olympians in one set. Putting three hooks in one set related to Australian Olympians violated that DYK standard rule with respect to both country and topic. Additionally, the similarity in the hooks was emphasized to the reader by the fact that all three started with the very same words: "... that 2012 Australian." We've agreed to make an exception to the general rule regarding topics so that we can have three Olympics hooks per set (and some sets also have another sports-related hook), but we should try to avoid clustering Olympics hooks from a particular country -- and we should try to avoid making it obvious when there are so many similar hooks.
There has never been a rule about not running hooks when the geographic region related to the hook is a sleep. That's nothing more than a nicety. The rule about topical and geographic balance trumps the nicety (not a rule) about not running hooks when the people most interested are going to be asleep. As it happens, we run hooks all the time in time slots when the people of the country most interested are asleep. (I've nominated a few US-specific hooks that endued up running for 6 hours in the dark of the U.S. night on a weekend-- small wonder that those hooks didn't get many hits!) Please don't make this nicety into a new rule.
IMO, the most important thing is to maintain an impression of topical balance in these hook sets that are loaded with Olympics hooks. The longstanding DYK rule about balance is more important than timing hooks to run before the first day of competition in a sport. That aspect of timing is important only for hooks about 2012 competitors, and the real goal is to ensure that hook facts that anticipate their participation aren't falsified by the results of competition. Thus, it is most important for people who will compete on only one day -- and could win or lose that day, thus changing their story. For competitions that go on for several days, such as basketball, it's less important, as most Olympians will compete several times. For topics related to past Olympics (for example, a 2008 winner in badminton), timing relative to this year's competition in the sport is unimportant.
Ideally, there would be no more than one hook per set about a particular country and no more than one hook per set about a particular sport, but it looks like there will inevitably be some doubling up -- do try to avoid putting three of the same in a set, though. Gender balance should not be as big a concern as country and sport. Half the world is female and half is male, so having three females (or three males) in a hook set doesn't look nearly as unbalanced as having three Australians or three beach volleyball competitors. --Orlady (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This is why I asked: I thought there might be other considerations. Based on the experience earlier this year with Monmouthpedia, where we made exceptions for the country and topic rules, I had thought the same thing would apply for the Olympics, but I can certainly appreciate the rationale why it should not, and apply it. Past Olympians can run at any time, I agree—we have an early 20th century Finn coming up—but care needs to be taken: just because the hook says someone won in 2008 doesn't mean they aren't also competing this year, so timing way well be important.
I'll definitely keep the DYK rules of balance in mind, but one that seems to go by the wayside far more often than I'm comfortable with is the one about not doing two similar hooks in a row: bios and countries are specifically mentioned in the instructions, yet I've seen three, four, even five bios in a row over the past several days. Yes, we're putting three Olympics bios in some sets, but they are separated, and it should never be necessary to have more than two bios in a row even with five bios in a set, a technical violation of the rule that there should be no more than half bios or half US hooks in a single set. I think a maximum of five bios is reasonable for the Olympic duration whenever there are three Olympic bio hooks, but there's no reason why a set can't be balanced to prevent a clump of three bios. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding biographical hooks, I believe you are talking about supplementary rules J2 ("Make sure you choose a varied selection – don't choose half a dozen biography hooks, for example, or a bunch of hooks about one particular country or topic...") and J4 ("Mix your hooks up. Try to avoid having two hooks of the same general type next to one another in the update (for example, two US hooks or two bio hooks together)....") Note that the "two hooks" part of J4 is a "try to" item. Since a large fraction of the DYK nominations (and almost all of the Olympics hooks) are biographies, IMO it often is impractical to avoid juxtaposing two or even three biographical hooks. However, we can make sure that juxtaposed biographical hooks are different in topic (for example, a 1000-years-ago Chinese general, an early 20th century US baseball player, and a young Indonesian actress are all biographical, but the topics are very different) and in style/structure (for example, avoid juxtaposing hooks that start out with the wording pattern "... that John Doe..."). --Orlady (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I was also talking about rule J3, which ends ("However, as a general rule you should never have more than 50% of hooks on US-related topics, biographical topics, or any other topic, except when it seems unavoidable.") My experience with J4—and I've had a lot of it lately—is that it's quite possible and practical to avoid placing three biographical hooks in a row when assembling a set. Pre-assembled sets with a sequence of three bios can be problematic to untangle, and when there are six of eight bio hooks in a set, virtually impossible, but there shouldn't have been six to begin with: there have always been reasonable non-bio alternatives approved and available for selection when I've run into this situation. If all the prep areas are full, though, options for movement are highly limited, since new hooks can't be promoted to improve the balance. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Queer views at First Motion Picture Unit

FMPU, which is lucky to get 50 views on any given day was on the main page on 7/1/12 and got 2538 views. But then for no apparent reason it gets 4467 views a week later on 7/7/12. Anyone know what happened? – Lionel (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Anaheim police shooting and protests

Anaheim police shooting and protests has been promoted and is currently in Queue 1 set to go up on 29 July 01:00 Los Angeles time. For those in the know, it really needs some sort of lede prior to going "live". Thanks! Location (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I wrote a lead sentence. --Orlady (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I gave it some structure. It would be really good to find a free (or at least fair use) image for the article.VolunteerMarek 14:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks good! Thanks! Location (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Request hook pull

Please pull the hook for Amanita excelsa from the queue (currently q3). It has some major problems with sources being interpreted incorrectly, text not supported by cited sources, and (possibly) use of nonexistent sources—in short, not ready for main page. Sasata (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Having looked closely at the sources for Amanita eliae, I have similar reservations about this article too (currently in prep 1). Sasata (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I pulled Template:Did you know nominations/Amanita excelsa. You can pull the other one yourself. (Actually, you could have pulled A. excelsa, too, since it was "only" in the prep area, but once I figured that out, it was easy enough for me to deal with it.) --Orlady (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for doing that; I'd have done it myself, but figured I shouldn't as I've never done so before and would probably botch it. Will add my concerns to the nom templates shortly. Sasata (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. I remember the first time I pulled a problematic hook, because no one else was around to do it: it was nerve-wracking, but I figured out how. At this point I've pulled nine hooks in July, just over a third of the total: it's straightforward now that I'm used to it. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Update: the author has withdrawn and formally rejected both nominations, and had both articles deleted. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, the articles are both in the author's user space. --Orlady (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK pics

Maybe it's my old monitor, but I can't really tell what is pictured in Queue 2. 100px maybe too small for this pic. Is there an alternative image to use? One that would work better at 100px? Also, in the pic in Prep 1, the subject's face looks very dark and shaded on my screen. I have to get off the computer soon, so I can't fix it myself. I thought I should leave a note here before logging off. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see easily that it's an illumination of a group of people but at that scale it loses all context. Perhaps trimming the top and bottom a little would help the actual central illustration be easier to see as the decorative border elements and text aren't needed at that scale. You could easily halve the height and reduce the width by 1/4 to 1/3, making the image a lit easier to see. GRAPPLE X 15:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The medieval illumination looks like a medieval illumination to me, perhaps because I'm used to seeing pictures of them, but I agree that File:Charlie 'Hoss' Singleton (crop).jpg looks awfully dark, not to mention magenta. I hate to ask someone to do something I don't understand, but can anyone perform a bit of picture magic on it before it goes into the queue? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I created a cropped version of the image from the illuminated manuscript (at right). I agree that Singletonn looks awfully dark; I would not have selected that image for DYK. --Orlady (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I picked a different image for prep 1. --Orlady (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Orlady, for fixing the image problem in both hook sets so quickly. --PFHLai (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

A really biased review by Orlady

If possible, I would really like someone else to review Template:Did you know nominations/Are All Men Pedophiles? after Orlady has provided a review which looks to me more like being motivated by a strong opposition to the subject than a neutral assessment of the article's standing before a would-be DYK presentation. __meco (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination block proposal

I would like to propose that PFHLai be blocked from nominating any articles by Tigerboy1966 for DYK unless a QPQ has been done. Allowing a user to nominate with out doing a QPQ should be focused on encouraging new contributors by not requiring them to nominate themselves and allowing others to do that for them. When some one has over 20 DYKs and some one is consistently nominating pretty much only nominating one person's articles, it looks like an abuse of a process. --LauraHale (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Something similar was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2012/1#Creating an unfair DYK burden, skirting the rules, neglecting obligations, and gaming the system a few months back. GRAPPLE X 02:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Technically, PFHLai is still acting within the rules. There is no policy on the limit of non-self noms/QPQ reviews per user with over 5 DYKs. Perhaps we should finally decide on a new rule in regards to QPQ reviews and non-self noms once and for all. To single him out for a rule that doesn't exist can also be seen as unfair. Froggerlaura ribbit 02:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
PFHLai currently has many QPQ reviews going on the noms page. Can one of these Weltfish, LaMothe, Vicky Holland, Brittany Borman be used to satisfy the three offending articles? There are also other editors besides Tigerboy on the page that PFHLai nominates articles for. Froggerlaura ribbit 02:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Froggerlaura. I don't know why the other Laura can't see them. I even reviewed one of her noms two days ago! --PFHLai (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This means it is time to add to the rules. Perhaps we can have a rule that says that more than 5 nominations from a user for the same user requires a QPQ. So if we get a nomination clique with members that nominate each other's articles, it can only go so far before some evaluations are needed. Even when I was nominating articles written by students I did some evaluations too. And there is not necessarily a problem in this particular case. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Why make rules that are not needed. If we have a problem deal with it then? Secretlondon (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I thought that blocks were meant to stop people disrupting the project. I can't see who or what is being harmed by the PFHLai's actions. It also seems a bit odd to sanction someone for what another user thinks the rules ought to be.  Tigerboy1966  05:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Just done two reviews, is that OK? Maybe someone could just ping me when an article gets nominated. Would save a lot of fuss. Tigerboy1966  06:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
That's very generous of you, Tigerboy! (Says the person who loathes reviewing articles.) Maybe the simplest thing is for you to nominate your own articles? But in any event I don't see anyone talking about blocks, just about tweaking the rules on an aspect of QPQ that we've gone back and forth on several times. ...... Aaaaah now I see it, in the header. Kind of a loose use of the term, there. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I nominate whatever goodies I find in places such as User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult. I don't really care who typed it up. I don't understand the word "abuse" here. According to the rules, a QPQ review is not required. By nominating, I am simply trying to increase the supply of potential hooks. I wish there can be more nominators around to bring in more hooks on more different topics. DYK could use more diversity. I did propose a rule change a few months ago to address this so-called "abuse". That went nowhere.... --PFHLai (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I think a range of authors is great. I only got involved in this after someone nominated one of mine. We certainly need more diversity. Secretlondon (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Reviewers needed

We're getting very low on available non-Olympic, non-Paralympic approved hooks: at the moment there are 205 hooks of which only 15 are approved. If some reviewers who have been working on Paralympic hooks could switch over to working on ordinary hooks for the next few days, we might be able to build up a bit of a reserve. Many thanks.

While it should be easy to find any number of hooks from the past week needing action, there are also a number of older hooks that need a re-review after some issues were fixed; here's a list:

PS: Thanks to LauraHale, who reviewed several of the ones I had on my list, and were edited out during a final check before hitting "Save page". BlueMoonset (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: forgot an old one, for which Yngvadottir recommends that the reviewer have "a background in psych or human sexuality". Anyone like that here?

—BlueMoonset (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Done a load. I'll never use all these QPQs. Must write more! Secretlondon (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Good to have more ready to go. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Brevipalpus phoenicis

Template:Did you know nominations/Brevipalpus phoenicis has been promoted to prep area 3; the hook is "that Brevipalpus phoenicis are almost entirely female because the species is parthenogenetic"; παρθένος + γένεσις simply means "virgin birth" with no implication of resulting gender; parthenogenesis, seemingly kidnapped by biologists though a cultural phenomenon, allows for ensuing males; the cited source [3] makes no claim of causation but says parthenogenetic and largely female, can this be unpromoted please, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Now in Queue 1; this will require the attention of an admin. If a replacement hook is wanted from the world of nature, the final Prep 4 hook had a picture attached to it, as did the third Prep 1 hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Pulled. Image may need to be protected on Commons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you - will pick it up at the nomination template, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Vitamin D for office C.H.U.D.s like myself

This is not a medical question. I was wondering if anyone can point me to some scholarly article which discuss the amount of Vitamin D a person should be taking if they basically have almost no contact with sunlight and (eat very oily little fish). I m almost a Dilbert character, going to me indoor cubicle and then to me indoor apartment. I am mostly a couch potato on the weekends as well. So my total sunlight is a five minute walk to work, with usually only my face showing, and maybe half an hour on weekends commuting to indoor venues. Please don't tell me I should change my ways, get outdoors more. I am well aware of those arguments. Take it as a premise that the sunlight restriction will remain unvarying.--108.54.25.10 (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps try asking here; this venue is for discussions relating to the front page and you may not get the response you're looking for; otherwise I'd try going outdoors more, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Well if you are a veiled, Moslem woman from Denmark you should probably be getting greater than 600 IU/day (recommended 1000 IU/day). Actually, if you are not from an area with continuously low UV levels, you are probably getting enough sunlight anyway (over supplementation of vitamin D can cause calcification of organs). Froggerlaura ribbit 18:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Aurora, Colorado related article

This is perhaps peripheral, but Template:Did you know nominations/Steve Hogan is about the Mayor of Aurora, Colorado and is good to go.Maile66 (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Early use of Olympic hooks appropriate?

August 2, 3, and 4 have 11, 12, and 12 Olympics hooks respectively, but we've finished off the fewer August 1 hooks early. Is there any reason we shouldn't start adding extra hooks onto the open prep areas, a day before planned in some cases, to reduce the load later this week? Prep 2 has two hooks and could take one more, and Prep 3 has one hooks and could take two more. The ensuing prep areas, not yet available, will be running during the day on August 2.

Let me know soon, since these two (partially) open prep areas will certainly fill up over the next several hours. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Just did a closer reading of the dozens of Olympics comments at the top of the page, and it appears that people felt hooks could move earlier if necessary. As it appears to be necessary, I'll start the ball rolling shortly, but will check back before saving in case someone registers an objection. Thanks for your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I've already been pushing hooks into earlier slots than they were slated for -- in order to maintain a steady flow of Olympics hooks. Not only are there large numbers of hooks waiting for some of those dates, but some of the dates had collections of hooks that are mostly one country and/or mostly one sport. --Orlady (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong picture in Prep 4

The finger

  • ... that monkeys give each other the finger (pictured) by showing each other their erect penis?

The hook says "monkeys" but the photo shows a human hand. Something is wrong here. --69.158.118.187 (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, the hook references the human act of giving the finger (pictured) and explains how monkeys convey the same meaning through their wab-oriented gesturing. GRAPPLE X 05:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly. I don't think we should pictures of monkey penises on the main page (although I don't doubt Commons has some) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that hook is patent nonsense. Is the reader really expected to believe that monkeys are somehow replicating human hbehaviour by doing this. Nor is it possible to argue that the finger gesture may have had its origins in monkey behaviour, as that implies ancient Greeks having studied South American primates. There is some very vague similarity between the behaviour of two species that, while remotely related, evolved in very different situations. What research is there that the monkey behaviour serves the same social purpose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin McE (talk • contribs) 09:06, 30 July 2012 UTC

In its current version, the article does not support the hook fact. The article says the gesture is "reminiscent of the manner male baboons and squirrel monkeys gesture with an erect penis ..." and the BBC source makes it clear that this is a speculative observation (I can't see the other cited source). The hook needs to be revised. --Orlady (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The author, Muboshgu, preferred that hook or ALT1; ALT2 was criticized by a reviewer, but there's also ALT3 and ALT4. That's three possibilities ready to go, assuming they are better supported. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, the reviewer who actually approved the hook said "Preference for no picture and alt2 for less drama but it is the head of the mover on the block." I'm uncomfortable with ALT1, as it is inherently offensive to many readers, I haven't seen the source, the San Jose Mercury News is not a good source for what's essentially a scientific inference, and this is the kind of statement that is likely to be disputed by other scientists. ALT2 is interesting enough for me, but it looks as if others of you are determined to be outrageous. If people insist on using the original hook, the article and the hook should not present it as fact, but should attribute it to Desmond Morris (a scientist whose conclusions are not universally accepted by his peers), as in "... that Desmond Morris has compared the finger (pictured) with the way that monkeys gesture by showing each other their erect penis?" --Orlady (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • If the present hook needs to be rewritten as something "reminiscent" per Orlady's suggestion, I understand. I don't agree ALT1 is "inherently offensive", but I can see how that might be too much drama. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I like ALT2. The current hook is blatantly false. The monkeys show their erect penises to warn other monkeys. None of the sources even refer to this as giving other monkeys the finger, instead they state that it may be one of the origins of the sign. This hook should be pulled if we can't decide on a replacement. On another note, is it even necessary to include this with an image? This image does nothing to improve the reader's understanding of the hook. It is blatantly obvious that the only purpose of this is to shock viewers. Ryan Vesey 15:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I moved ALT2 into the prep area. That should not preclude further discussion, but in the meantime the prep area contains a hook that is not problematic. --Orlady (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Now that the hook has been changed, the only question is the usefulness of the picture. Does "... that the Connecticut Supreme Court found that giving the finger (pictured) was offensive, but not obscene?" give any more information than "... that the Connecticut Supreme Court found that giving the finger was offensive, but not obscene?"? I don't believe it does. I completely understand that Wikipedia is not censored and that the picture should appear in the article; however, I feel that the image is not necessary in this context. Just because we have the ability to use the image doesn't mean we should use it. Ryan Vesey 19:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, as the article states, the finger is not a universal sign across cultures. Americans and some non-Americans know what it is, but not all cultures may view it as offensive. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) By the same logic, though, there's also no pressing reason to remove it; if the person creating the prep had had the same opinion it would have bothered no one to see it omitted but I'm generally not keen about actively bowdlerising things after the fact. GRAPPLE X 19:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Raising a ... hand ... in support of including the picture. A large proportion of readers will not know what "giving the finger" means. This falls under global perspective. I also think the current hook (ALT2? - about the Connecticut Supreme Court) is less pointlessly shocking than ... raising ... monkey penises in this connection. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
        • I think this really is just done for the shock value, and because we can, rather than whether we should. I'm sure people justify these on the page views, but it's juvenile. Secretlondon (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
          • If anything, I consider it more juvenile to think that the brief appearance of a culturally-limited gesture of middling offence will actually cause any harm to anyone; most people are made of sterner stuff than you seem to assume. The hook refers to a visual gesture that only the anglosphere understands; the picture does add understanding to our wide audience from other cultures. GRAPPLE X 20:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Only the American anglosphere, I believe, which is why I advocate running the pic. (The gesture in the UK is a reverse V-sign. But I admit I have never quizzed Canadians, New Zealanders, or Australians as to what their gesture is.) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The middle finger is common enough over here in Ireland so I imagine it's known beyond the US, but the point does still stand. GRAPPLE X 20:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Only the American sphere? So it doesn't matter that Americans find it offensive? --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
No. Some Americans might find it offensive, which is more than outweighed by the fact that a greater proportion of the world would find it informative. GRAPPLE X 20:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
How is holding up a finger informative?--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
As already explained above, it's a gesture that's not used in much of the world; rather leaving non-Anglosphere readers wondering "what is this finger gesture", we show it and explain with an image what the hook is actually talking about. Simple. GRAPPLE X 20:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

At its essence, the image is nothing more or less than a photo of a human hand. With the current hook, it helps readers make sense of the hook. As an illustration of an article about the gesture, the image doesn't bother me. I would feel differently if the image of the finger were still associated with the proposed hook about erect penises or the proposed ALT1 hook about anal intercourse. --Orlady (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Is it really that much of a burden for them to just click the link and see it for themselves? And whose judgement are we using to determine that this is not offensive? GrappleX's? This is something that is censored on American television. Posting it on the main page is not worth whatever informativeness you believe comes from it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
My deeming it unoffensive carries exactly as much weight as you deeming it offensive, not more or less; the fact that several others agree with my position and not yours, however, would indicate that you're in the minority. Consensus is what we use to determine these things, and it seems clear which side holds it. GRAPPLE X 20:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Not really. I actually stated a fact about the offensiveness of the gesture; you merely stated your opinion. Appealing to consensus doesn't prove your point since readers are not the same as editors. Can you defend your assertions with facts?--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
"X is offensive" is most certainly not a fact, and I fail to see the relevance of US television censoring the gesture when it's clear that we don't do that. This is a matter of opinion vs opinion, not of facts. GRAPPLE X 21:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The fact that U.S. television censors the image and considering the conclusion of the Connecticut Supreme Court, there is significant evidence behind the assertion that the image is offensive to Americans. If you feel that that is as much a personal opinion as your opinion based only on your personal speculation, then there's no use in arguing with you. If you agree with me, then you should conclude that it is not necessary for wikipedia to effectively tell American audiences, "fuck you".--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Special request for Olympics hook placement (Queue 1)

I just ran across a newly approved hook for Devendro Singh, an Indian boxer whose first bout is July 31 at 14:30 UTC. The reviewer was hoping that the hook could run before the bout began. By that point, however, I had already finished inserting Olympic hooks into the available prep areas from the holding area, meaning that the next available hook slot wouldn't be until midnight at the start of August 3.

Serendipitously, Queue 1, which only has two Olympic hooks in it, is set to run at 08:00 UTC on July 31. If an admin is willing, I would suggest inserting Template:Did you know nominations/Devendro Singh (currently sitting in the August 2 section of the special holding area for the Olympics) into Queue 1 in place of the Kochi Tuskers Kerala players hook, which could then be moved to an open spot in Prep 1 or Prep 2.

I also recommend doing a check of my suggested ALT1, which fixes a grammar problem in the original hook and, I think, makes it more interesting. (It also varies the hook beginning from the typical one, which is used by the subsequent Olympics hook in that set.)

If an admin can take this on, it would be a nice thing to do. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much. I also like the improvements you made to the hook wording. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Albertus Soegijapranata

Could I get another image review for this nom? I've changed the image and it shouldn't have any problems, but for the sake of transparency we should have another image review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Queue 5 image

On Template:Did you know/Queue/5 we have File:'Birds and Flowers, pair of six-panel screens by Kano Koi, 17th centory Japan, Honolulu Academy of Arts.jpg however it is really too small to get any idea of what we are seeing. How about someone crops off a small part of a tree branch or flower or bird to give a better glimpse of what this painting style is about. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The file actually contains two separate six-panel screens (two separate -- and different -- works of art). I split them out and uploaded them at Commons.

. I've pasted them here at 120px width, which would be an appropriate size for display in DYK, given the shape of the images. Choose one and stick it into the queue! --Orlady (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Are we allowed to go above 100px if the images are narrow in one or the other dimension? I had no idea; I thought that 100x100px was it. I admit I kind of like the whole screen rather than fractions thereof, and was rather taken with the original pair as they were displayed in the template. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The 100x100px dimension is too small to effectively display two large works of art together; as Graeme Bartlett noted, the pair of images was too small to see. I've inserted the image of one of the screens in the queue. --Orlady (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Extremely narrow images often get their dimensions increased by wandering admins while they are in the queue. --Orlady (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I liked the pairing too... and it's not unusual for such screens to be paired, distinct objects but not entirely autonomous works of art: this looks like spring and autumn (as marked by the tree in blossom and the geese in flight) with hints also of transience vs longevity (blossoms will fall and the doves have a hawk in close proximity; while pines are a symbol of long life, the pheasant's tail in poetry is long, long like nights spent alone, and mandarin ducks represent conjugal fidelity); any chance of both again? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
That's all very nice, but none of that detail is discernible when the two-screen image is displayed at 100px. --Orlady (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Here are two crops of the image. Froggerlaura ribbit 16:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm embarrassed to say that I just discovered that the image we have been discussing here isn't even used in the article, so it's not eligible for use in DYK. I have boldly substituted a different image from the article. --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Queue 6 has seven hooks; needs eight

The queue was promoted with seven hooks shortly after the eighth was removed for paraphrase issues. I'd suggest that one of two hooks from Prep 3—either "A Town Called Mercy" or "Intihuatana"—be inserted between the two adjacent Olympics bios (Zoe and Wodjan), since they should not run one after the other.

Many thanks to the admin who gets the queue back up to eight hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Augie Wolf

I have tried to get the attention of BlueMoonset (talk · contribs) on his/her talk page regarding Template:Did you know nominations/Augie Wolf. He has been quite active in editing since I left the talk page message. As a potential Olympic hook, we don't have long to get the issue resolved. Can someone take a look at this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I have been working on it between other things, which have taken priority because Wolf's nomination isn't urgent just now: there's a glut of Olympics nominations that must run on certain days, and Augie, being a 1984 Olympian, is unlikely to be able to run before August 6 at the earliest because these others clearly have priority with 2012 events scheduled for August 4 and 5. As it is, I've been looking for other sources to help stitch together the article's Personal section in better fashion (I see Ruby2010 has improved the prose a bit), and add info about Wolf's post-Olympics sports career. But there are factual errors in the article now; I don't think it makes sense to have someone duplicate the work I've done so far, or to do a quick review, since I'd have to step in again because of the issues I've found. I'll finish sometime before the end of August 1, UTC. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

October Baby

Based on the main page appearance on 3/26/12 and 3/27/12 and views I calculate 7400. Right?– Lionel (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'll add the credit. Thank me! – Lionel (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Image of the finger

I find it rather disturbing that anybody thought it was a good idea to post an image of somebody giving the finger on the Main page.[4] The Main page of the English Wikipedia is essentially telling the world to fuck off. Note that there is a difference in ensuring the project doesn't suffer from censorship and going out of the way to post offensive material on our front door step. Maybe a little more tact would be beneficial in the future. --auburnpilot talk 03:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

See the discussion above Secretlondon (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Queue 5 credit mess

If you look at the current Template:Did you know/Queue/5 there is a bit of a problem with the credit DYKmake template, probably with an imaginary subpage= parameter. Is this fixed by just removing the subpage bit? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

For an explanation of the "imaginary" parameter, see User talk:Mandarax#Subpage. I had added a correct subpage parameter, but the nomination page was subsequently moved and the subpage parameters were incorrectly "fixed". As we've said many times here, do not move nomination pages! The correct credits should be:
Credits
*{{DYKmake|John Adamson (physician)|Dr. Blofeld|subpage=John Adamson (physician), Robert Adamson (photographer), Thomas Rodger}}
*{{DYKmake|Thomas Rodger|Dr. Blofeld|subpage=John Adamson (physician), Robert Adamson (photographer), Thomas Rodger}}
*{{DYKmake|Robert Adamson (photographer)|Rosiestep|subpage=John Adamson (physician), Robert Adamson (photographer), Thomas Rodger}}
I don't know if Dr. Blofeld intended to have a credit for himself for the photographer, but he did not put one on the nom page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I fixed it in the queue. As Mandarax notes, the nominator messed up the template here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Need fresh eyes on Gene Weltfish hook

I added a green approval tick somewhere in the midst of the novella-length nomination discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Gene Weltfish, but after my extensive involvement with the article and hook, it needs a set of fresh eyes. ALT3 is the hook to use. --Orlady (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

factum est, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Temple Emanu-El (Helena, Montana)

This article seemed to get a significant review, yet there is nothing in the article to support the hook's claim that Miky "helped to revitalize the Jewish community in Helena, Montana" ... Also note this article is on the main page right now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The original wording was "helped efforts to revitalize", I tried to shorten, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, there's nothing to support that either. This is the full paragraph, without references:

In 2008, local interest in Judaism was revived when the city of Helena bought a surplus bomb-sniffing dog for the price of a plane ticket from the Israel Defense Forces, who had gotten the puppy from an animal shelter in The Netherlands, but upon arrival, the Helena police department discovered the dog only responded to Hebrew commands and, though given a printed vocabulary list of commands, the officer in charge of the dog could not get "Miky" the German Shepherd to respond. When Rabbi Bruk came to the state capitol for a Hanukkah ceremony, the officer asked him some questions. Bruk taught the officer how to correctly pronounce Hebrew and then Miky began to respond.
There's absolutely nothing there about revitalizing the Jewish community. To me, that implies that the community was expanded through converts. The intended meaning ("local interest in Judaism was revived") isn't exactly accurate either, as that would imply that local interest was kindled – yet only Slate and the New York Times appear to be interested, and then the NYT is only interested in the story of the Israeli dog, with the Jewish part being a filler. There's no evidence that local interest was revived in the sources. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
By "without references" you meant that you omitted them here, right? - I don't think that "revitalize" is equal to "expand". - What can we do? Montana is sleeping. I was only involved in the wording of the hook because I was interested in seeing the article name in it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. The closest WP example I can find is Language revitalization, which is the attempt to reverse a language's decline by getting more speakers for it. I'm not sure what to do; I don't want to pull it because I'm not familiar with DYK anymore (I was active on this page pre-2010). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Suggest to word "raised interest", if you think "revitalized" is too strong, - to me it just means "adds life to" and seems not too strong (but English is not my first language), certainly no reason to pull. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Revitalised means more like expanded numbers of Jews, increased attendance at the synagogue - something permanent. This is just 'drew media attention'. Secretlondon (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
(learning language - is "more vital" equal to "higher number"?) How about "drew attention", then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
It's more like 'bring back to life'. An event that had a permanent, positive effect on a dead/dying community. Drew attention is better, I think. Secretlondon (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
the admins seem also to sleep - in general, it might be a good idea not to run a hook when it's bedtime for the people involved, - once I asked to have a hook about three living composers at a different time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
off the Main page - I should have noticed ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a moot point now, and yes, I was not only asleep, but didn't even realize it was up. Pick up the thesaurus and use whatever words you want; and FWIW, the dog story was also extensively covered in the local press, but seemed a better idea to cite to NYT. I didn't get real involved in the DYK nom, just worked on pics and sourcing the article itself. Montanabw(talk) 17:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Old unreviewed hooks

Here is another list of the oldest unreviewed hooks:

These nominations are now so old that I got surprised to find them completely unreviewed after 14 days, and I thought I should list them here. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Protection bot doesn't work

After I started keeping an eye on the DYK images getting protected, I've more and more noticed it doesn't work. I just protected File:Annie Martin.JPG, which is on the main page as we speak. The bot never picked it up. I'll go check others in the queues now. If the bot owner can't get this to work, we need to find another users who have Commons admin rights, will need to do more protections, or admins upload a copy to en temporarily to protect it. One or more of these options need to happen or we'll have a slew of unprotected images on the main page. PumpkinSky talk 23:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Byron Christopher.png is only on en wiki. I can't protect it. It's also eligible for moving to commons.PumpkinSky talk 23:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
same deal File:Review Tower Spokane-crop.jpg. Free images should be put on commons so all projects can use them. PumpkinSky talk 23:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
How long do you need these protected for? -- Dianna (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Oh never mind. Wehwalt is on it. -- Dianna (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
They are both cascade protected. Materialscientist (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Annie Martin.JPG was added for cascade protection here. Cascade protection can be delayed, but this is a tad long delay. Strange that DYK bot didn't pick this up. Materialscientist (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
That's my whole point, the bots aren't working, causing unneeded work. @DIanna---they only need protected on the MP, 8 hours. I ususally protect them once they enter the queue, so usually 1-2 days is plenty of time--admins are always around at the moment they enter the queue. PumpkinSky talk 23:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
←I'm a bit confused about what happened vs. should have happened. If I understand this correctly, the bot thinks some files are protected when in fact they aren't? In the specific example of Annie Martin, was it not protected by cascading protection? (MatSci's link) Shubinator (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
PumpkinSky says that around 23:00 it wasn't protected and the DYK update bot hasn't detected that. I've got to the image only around 23:30 and saw double protection: cascade and by PumpkinSky. Delays in cascade protection are random, thus we can't recreate the situation now. Perhaps it is moot for now, and we can ask this: anyone who notices that a DYK image is not protected 0-2 hours before the update, please post a note here, but don't protect the image, so that others could debug the protection problem. Materialscientist (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Krinkle is on vacation for 3 more weeks. Wunnerful.PumpkinSky talk 20:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
PumpkinSky, Krinkle's bot was working fine; Krinkle can't do any more to help. Going back to File:Annie Martin.JPG, how did you know it wasn't protected? Shubinator (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
PumpkinSky, please take this merely as a wild guess. When a file is cascade protected, nothing changes in the page appearance. You only see it when you click "edit" and try to save (take [5] for example, and keep in mind that as an admin you can edit even protected pages). If I'm right then PumpkinSky only looked at the file page, but not clicked "edit", and the file was actually protected. However, I might be wrong, because I recall, very long time ago, a glitch that looked like this: I could save my edit in a file that was supposed to be protected (don't remember how exactly it was supposed to be protected). Thus my moot note above. Materialscientist (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
My experience has been that, when a DYK image file is cascade-protected at Commons, two things indicate that it is protected: (1) when I look at the file page and click on "Edit", I see a notice about the protection and (2) the file is in Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en. --Orlady (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
That auto-protected list looks new, it's earliest edit is 28 July this year, so that's news to me. As of viewing the autoprotect in edit mode, that's either new to me or I forgot about checking for that since I last messed with this, which was some time ago. Sorry for muddling things, but at least we're all more educated now. I'll save a link to that auto protect list on my Commons page.PumpkinSky talk 11:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
That particular page may be new, but something very much like it existed under another name. I was told about it back in December at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 9#Please protect some images on behalf of the EN main page. --Orlady (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Given that the current version of the Commons page was new at the end of July, shortly before image-protection issues surfaced here, and seeing that only the current DYK image and the next queued image are protected, I wonder whether the bot's operating rules changed when that page name changed. For the other main page features, Commons protects the current main page image and the next one in the queue, as those features update on a 24-hour cycle. However, since DYK updates every 8 hours (and sometimes every 6 hours), it's best for everyone's nerves if the bot looks ahead in the DYK queue and protects the next several images due to go up on the main page. In one of the "Please protect some images on behalf of the EN main page" discussions I had on that Commons noticeboard back in December (see section 25 on archive 9), Krinkle indicated that the bot looked at the current main page and Wikipedia:Main_Page/Tomorrow to find out what needed to be protected. Since that time, the bot usually seemed to be looking at the whole queue, but that might not be happening any more. --Orlady (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Side comment: Going by Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en isn't foolproof because cascading protection isn't instantaneous. It is possible for an image to be on that page and yet not be protected. However, DYKUpdateBot should be able to tell if it isn't protected, even in this edge case. Shubinator (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Bank of Dave (Burnley Savings and Loans) in Queue 1

Not really sure this article is ready to go to the main page. This page appears to be an ad for this "bank". The hook incorrectly refers to the institution as the "Bank of Dave" whereas the article refers to "Bank on Dave". Hack (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think any bank where "the key to the safe is kept behind the bottle of cherryade in the cupboard" needs all the help it can get; I don't envisage a mass rush to invest as a result of a few hours on the main page, perhaps just a slight defamiliarization, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It is not legally a bank, and the claim in the blurb should be in a conditional voice, not the present tense: they have not yet reported any profits. Such claims of profits to charity are open to abuse: it does not publicise the degree of returns that are considered just remuneration. Kevin McE (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Re your edit summary: "if it makes profit, by its own definition of cost levels" - don't they all: the Environmental P&L is still in its infancy, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I pulled the hook out of the queue to allow further discussion. --Orlady (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I've added a little bit to the article and proposed an alternate hook at the nomination page. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Pre-expansion approval?

Could I get away with "that a field ( example pictured) can be used for growing crops? Well, okay, you probably did :)", or would it have to wait for April Fools' or something?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 08:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

  • LOL. I wouldn't mind for fish day. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Genius! Perfect for fish day. Miyagawa (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for being dopey and spoiling the joke, but wot's fish day? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
He's referring to April Fool's Day. I can't explain the association with fish, though. --Orlady (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Poisson d'avril. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • There are some interesting hooks that you could probably create after expansion that wouldn't be april fools' jokes. For example, I was in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania and it was great because the landscape felt similar to rural Minnesota, but something just wasn't right. I finally realized that out in Pennsylvania, they don't plow their fields. A hook related to that might be of more interest to people from rural areas than those of urban areas, but it would probably be more interesting overall than the obvious. Ryan Vesey 07:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
    • In fact, it appears that fields weren't in use until 5500 BCE. Check out Timeline of agriculture and food technology. Find a source for that statement and your hook is golden! This page could do great to have an expansion that is much larger than 5 times. Perhaps this might be eligible for an expansion in userspace to be added to article space later. Would a history merge (if more than one person helped in the sandbox) make the article ineligible for DYK? Ryan Vesey 08:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
      • No, but it should probably be noted at the nom so people don't dismiss it out of hand. (DYK Check doesn't pick that up) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Thanks, I'll ask Gilderien. Ryan Vesey 20:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Garrick Agnew

Just wondering if I could get a review on this Olympic-related nomination so it could run during the Olympics. Hack (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It was only posted today.. Secretlondon (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Miyagawa (talk · contribs) took care of the review. --PFHLai (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Virgil Goode presidential campaign, 2012 pulled off main page

The hook about Template:Did you know nominations/Virgil Goode presidential campaign, 2012 was recently pulled, leaving seven hooks in the setı. I have to agree with the admin that pulled the hook. Seems like it was endorsing candidate. Froggerlaura ribbit 16:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

How the fuck was it endorsing the candidate? It was stating a fact.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
merged in singleton section comment:

There was no discussion and no reason to remove the hook for the article above. Please restore it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I restored it, it was approved by the reviewer and the admin putting the queue together, while being removed without discussion... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll have to add that I completely object to it being pulled without discussion. I haven't had a chance to read this, but assuming the article itself isn't promotional I feel that it would meet our NPOV requirements. Ryan Vesey 21:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
We deliberately go to especial lengths to show that we're not partisan on the Main Page beyond and above our normal standard of NPOV. If DYK wants to be part of the Main Page (as I'm sure we all want it to), it should be held to the same criteria. One of these is (and has been practised for a very long time now) that we don't talk about only one side of a political debate or campaign - if we're going to talk about them at all, we discuss the field, or the issue (e.g. linking to the article about the 2012 Republican nomination process for US President, or about Gay marriage). This removal should stand. Additionally, I would hope that I wouldn't have to remind editors about our rules on temperate language and being civil to each other; please don't swear at each other. James F. (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
How is stating a fact about polling partisan? --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
If you're not going to allow political articles to be posted on the main page any more, then it should be noted somewhere so that I no longer waste my time at DYK.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, thanks for the lecture. I'm sure it felt good for you to say that from your high horse.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. James F. (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It could have been more interesting, but I wouldn't have pulled it, it doesn't seem partisan in the slightest to me, but then, I'm not American. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 21:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
While I also wonder if we could've found a more interesting hook (lots of third party candidates poll that well in their home state, and then bring in a tiny fraction of that in actual results), I don't see the POV problem here. It was a verified fact in that hook, and did not suggest preference for any particular ideology. It didn't even state Goode's ideology. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
An example of us doing this before is when we had both Obama and McCain's articles as the "Today's Featured Article", the first (and last?) time we had two FAs at once on the Main Page. This isn't new, and isn't novel, but poses particular problems for DYK because it's less easy to mention (in this case, when talking about an individual candidate) the other two or however many candidates. But just because something's hard doesn't mean we get to ignore our principles. James F. (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
You really think that Obama vs. McCain is akin to listing a blurb about a third party candidate polling at 9% in a state? Really? You think that mentioning the fact that a third party candidate is polling at 9% in a state is somehow endorsing that candidate? That's complete bullshit. You mention sticking to our principles, so why are you ignoring the "not censored" principle?--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I think that all viewpoints in this discussion have merit, based on my reactions when I saw the approved hook on the noms page. My first thought was that the hook sounded promotional. When I read the article, I concluded that the hook wasn't promotional, and I was interested by the realization that Virgil Goode could be a spoiler who would help Obama win Virginia. I was bothered by the statement that Goode was "polling at 9%", since that was only one poll, and I didn't promote the hook because I wanted to word it differently to make that clear and to reduce the promotional-sounding character of the hook. --Orlady (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This is simply ridiculous. User:DragonflySixtyseven has removed many hooks in the past year or so without consensus (see [6] [7] (This removal was brought up in other forums: [8], [9]), [10] [11] [12]). I thought that Dragonfly's removal of hooks would have stopped after the extensive discussion we had about this problem two years ago (see this discussion at DYK for the last large discussion about this back in late 2010, and this old WP:AN discussion as well), and although this is nothing compared to what it once was, I find this removal of content to be disturbing. I don't know what course of action needs to be taken but this sort of behavior is unacceptable. Nomader (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify: I'm not singling out Dragonfly (contrary to what it may seem like above), I'm just using him as an example. Is it appropriate for administrators to remove hooks without a report from WP:ERRORS or consensus from WP:DYK? Should they be required to note it on this page if they've removed a hook? I understand where Dragonfly's coming from when he removes these hooks, but I worry that his removals set a dangerous precedent and I just want to clarify what our rules should be in these sort of situations. Sorry if I came off strong. Nomader (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Dragonfly certainly doesn't communicate. His last removal spurred discussion on T:MP but he never showed. I'd expect an admin to be willing to defend their actions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I was just about to add the same comment. I started one of the above-linked discussions, and Dragonfly failed at any point to comment on their removal of content when it was raised on several fora. At this stage I don't believe a topic ban would be out of the question; it would at the very least force removals to be performed by an admin more willing to actually communicate. GRAPPLE X 04:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • As a side note, there is no policy/guideline against including articles about current political candidates. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Well I'll be a monkey's uncle. Don't remember seeing that last time I read the whole page (but then again, I don't write about living politicians so I wouldn't have paid attention) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Remind me never to write about politics here; there's seven or eight viable parties that'd all need hoofed into a hook. :/ GRAPPLE X 05:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • While I understand the concern when something is on the main page, we need to remember that being an administrator doesn't give someone the right to edit protected pages based on personal opinions when consensus has not been reached. Ryan Vesey 04:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Looking through the above diffs, I see a grand total of one (this one) I could stand behind. The other removals look pretty disruptive. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think a single page ban from Template:Did you know might be the necessary solution. Have single page bans been done before? If not, I believe WP:IAR applies. We've got enough administrators that someone will be able to take action if Dragonfly leaves a note at Main Page/Errors. Ryan Vesey 05:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That sounds like an idea. A ban several years in the making — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to note, I wasn't a fan of the hook because it was rather boring, actually. (no offense intended to anyone!) However, it certainly should not have been removed without discussion, and the commenters about are correct in saying that this is a recurring pattern. This may be a matter for ANI, however, as WT:DYK is not exactly a community page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Do you think that DYK has extra responsibilities if it has access to the front page? Several things that have been approved make me question the collective judgement - We've run some things that we really, really shouldn't (the finger picture being the most recent) and seem blind to the advertising potential of some hooks. If we can't keep our quality acceptable then others will feel that they need to get involved. Secretlondon (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes it does, but no more than the other sections - yesterday at TFA we had a Microsoft advert for a game where you go round shooting people and I'd suggest OTD as the biggest area for improvement as it seems to be much more sparsely staffed and is unbalanced, with most days a wall of 19xx and heavy leanings towards the Anglosphere, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Am doing something about it... but difficult when reviews take two months. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Didn't we establish this during the 2008 American election campaign? DYK entries on candidates who are currently campaigning, or on those campaigns, are to be avoided unless the hook covers all candidates. Otherwise, it can be perceived as unfair advantage for one candidate or another. No matter how careful you are about phrasing the hook neutrally, about not actively endorsing one side or the other, the fact remains that a DYK entry increases public awareness of the subject, just like advertising does -- and in election campaigns, managing public awareness is crucial. It's all about making people recognize the candidate's name.

Like it or not, a DYK entry on an electoral candidate effectively serves a platform to increase the candidate's public profile, and we cannot be seen to be acting in favor of any one candidate. "Did you know that George Fakename pronounced 'fah-keh-nah-meh'. It's Japanese! is running for mayor on a platform of reducing financial waste and building a new hospital in Ward 5?" "Did you know that Elaine Pseudonym's campaign for state senate has been described as a 'waste of time and resources' by her opponent, incumbent Alan Fictional?" "Did you know that lawyer and community activist Maureen Example is the first triple amputee to run for a seat in the national assembly?"

We already know that politicians (and their staffers) edit articles to puff themselves up and derogate their opponents. We try to minimize that, we ensure that the articles are neutral and nuanced, and we revert as necessary. DYK entries are effectively sound bites -- short, concise, attention-grabbing, and perhaps most importantly in this context, nuance-free. The intent of the "hook" is to seize hold of the casual browser's interest in the pertinent article: "Wow, really? Cool! Let me find out more about that!"

A mention on Wikipedia's front page -- one of the most highly visited pages on the Web -- can far too easily be perceived as partiality, as non-neutrality, as promotion and support of one candidate or another. I regret the hurt feelings that resulted from my decision and my abrupt action; however, I felt, and still feel, that it was strongly necessary. As for my not having notified William S. Saturn -- mea culpa, I thought that my edit summary would be sufficient explanation, but it clearly was not. I must point out, however, that William's hard work was hardly 'wasted', as this quality of sourcing and citation is what we strive for in all our articles; William, I commend you.

I'd also like to apologize for not having participated sufficiently in the previous discussion spurred by my actions; I typically am willing to defend my actions if it's brought to my attention that there's a debate, but I don't always follow it in detail, particularly if I'm busy with backlogs (which I often am). DS (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand your argument; however, a decision like that (in the general sense) needs to be discussed and made a requirement for the DYK criteria. The removal should have been mentioned either here or on WT:Main page prior to removal. Right now, we have a unilateral decision to remove an article which policy doesn't prohibit and which other editors had approved. In this case, I will agree with you that we should have a policy against putting a campaigning politician on the main page. If we would like DYK's they could be something along the lines of (Main page November 7) "Did you know... that that the U.S. third party presidential campaign of former Congressman and current Constitution Party nominee Virgil Goode (pictured) was polling at nine percent in the swing state of Virginia in Early August?" Ryan Vesey 13:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't get too excited about it, it's only about America and you're acting as if the audience are all locals; featuring some also-ran for a regional event months beforehand isn't that big a deal, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly. If this article were about a Filipino or Kazakhstani politician I doubt this would have happened. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Wrong. If there were to be a DYK entry on a politician who was running for office, and I saw it, then I would remove it, whether that politician was American, Bolivian, Croatian, Danish, Eritrean, Filipino, Greek, Haitian, Icelandic, Japanese, or Kazakh. And I would hope that any other administrator would do the same. I have no involvement with American politics in any way, shape, or form. DS (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
All well and good, but is a politician ever not "running for office"? Another mass shooting ... and up they pop with their rueful looks so as not to miss out on a good photo op; sure, no plug for the front-runner(s) on election day, but where do you draw ze line? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Politicians not currently standing for election might seek office in the near future. The line must be drawn somewhere, and we currently do so at "30 days before an election in which they are standing". Whether the line should be drawn elsewhere (e.g. all current political candidates or all politicians) is a reasonable topic of discussion, not a decision to be made unilaterally. —David Levy 21:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I would hope that no administrator would ever act so unilaterally in a gray area like this without consensus, especially in a protected template that's transcluded onto the main page. The hook went through the reviewing process and was then put into a queue by another editor who had to place it there (and made the choice to). Removing content once its on the main page in the DYK section should be reserved for something that violates WP:BLP or if its categorically untrue (or if its a patent advertisement, or etc.). A better solution for hooks that don't violate any of the DYK rules is always to bring up the problem hook here at WT:DYK first where other editors can comment on the precedent it sets and decide whether to remove the hook or not... or, if the problem is super urgent and you have to remove it, that you immediately bring up the removal on this talk page and restore the nomination to the suggestions page so if consensus is decided against removal, it can be restored. And on a totally unrelated note, thanks for commenting here Dragonfly, communication always makes these things better. Nomader (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The counterpoint to that is that it takes awhile, e.g. #Temple Emanu-El (Helena, Montana), to discuss them. :-) But yes, I agree with you. If it's serious enough to warrant immediate removal, a discussion needs to be started by the removing admin, and the article should be eligible to reappear in a future queue if the problem is not serious. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Discussion: the best time to start a discussion is in the nomination while it is still open. I routinely go over the nominations list with a few search keys in my area of interest and discuss even small points. Next is in prep, where anybody can fix minor problems . If more people would do that, we'd have fewer problems with hooks already on the main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I was referring firstly to #Temple Emanu-El (Helena, Montana) mentioned above, secondly in general. Temple Emanu_El was a "quirky" hook, they typically are tolerated taking a bit of liberty, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
That would not have helped here. Looking at the above, I see very few people sharing Dragonfly's concern; the hook was passed, promoted, and then moved with the rest of the prep set to the queue, all by people feeling it was not unacceptably promotional, and that's the predominant feeling here, too. Remember, the admin who moves the prep set into the queue is a 3rd level of checking; that's why my contribs tend to show a flurry of copyedits to articles in a prep set before I promote it to the queue, I'm checking them for hook accuracy and referencing, suspicious wording, bare URLs, etc. The hook problem with Temple Emanu-El (Helena, Montana) should have been caught at that stage if not before (but nobody's perfect!), and note that Orlady chose not to promote this particular prep set to the queue because she was considering how to re-word it (I also looked at the article when it was in prep and decided it wasn't unduly promotional). But this isn't an instance of lack of consideration but more of DS having a very high personal standard. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Odd question

So, I know how there's the whole "It needs to be expanded within the previous five days in order to nominate it" thing, but I was wondering if I could ask for a pass on this. I am currently mass-expanding Loring Air Force Base-related articles and at least one has already been expanded to DYK potential. In two days, I will not be able to expand on the rest of the articles until next week, so I was wondering if I could ask for a pass on that rule, as I would like to incorporate some articles in a single hook, and will probably not be finished until next week at the earliest. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Nominate your article with a note on your intention of adding other articles to the hook. Given the current backlog here, the nom will still look pretty fresh by the time you finish the other articles. --Orlady (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Given that a lot of hooks are already in holding for Olympic events, even if your initial hook is reviewed quicker than you'd like it'd still likely be quite some time before it is processed into a queue so there's plenty of room to return and add more articles to it. GRAPPLE X 02:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Advice on fiction sources

Could someone who has more experience with fiction than me help with Template:Did you know nominations/MV Yulius Fuchik? Can you use a novel as a source about itself and real world objects? Thanks. Secretlondon (talk) 11:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Cowgirl in the Sand in Template:Did you know/Queue/1

The comma within "Cowgirl in the Sand," [sic] is misplaced. The title does not include a comma, and there should be a comma after the quoted title as it part of a list, therefore the comma should be moved. See MOS:LQ. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Long waiting older nominations

There's quite a few nominations at the top of the review list that have been tagged for re-review ( ) or are waiting for questions to be answered by reviewers, but they all have been waiting for quite a while, some far, far more than others. Mainly the top 5 or 6 days on the list. I'll just list some of them below, in order from the oldest waiting for review or answer. Can we get some reviewers on them? I don't think me doing them all would be appropriate, especially considering they seem to have issues that need to be checked and would require a more experienced reviewer to look over. Anyways, following:

Not to mention that there is 28 days of backlog, not counting the 6 days of current noms. Quite a lot to do. :/ Are we just getting more noms than usual or have less reviewers to work on them or what? I would have thought the review one for every one you nominate thing would have made this a lot easier by now. SilverserenC 23:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Upright video

I've just nominated Implosion of Radio Network House and it comes with a very cool video clip, but the 100px thumbnail doesn't work that well because it's upright (hence, what you see is rather tiny), and because I wasn't able to choose the thumbnail (there are much more impressive thumbnails possible than what the conversion software chose by itself). With the nomination, I have suggested a possible workaround and that would certainly need the input of a tech-savvy DYKer. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Schwede66 05:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hook edit help needed

The "parental brain" hook that I just added to Prep 1 has a problem with lack of subject-predicate agreement. I hope someone will edit it! --Orlady (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"... that parental experience, as well as changing hormone levels during pregnancy and postpartum, causes changes in the parental brain?" - It might look less odd turned around: "... that the parental brain is changed by parental experience, as well as by changing hormone levels during and after pregnancy?" - but other than the adverbial use of "postpartum" I can't fault it - "as well as" doesn't trigger 1 + 1 = 2 i.e. plural verb, the way "and" does. The way the article lede has it is the ungrammatical way (to this former freshman comp teacher). .... So I have left both alone '-) --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Crisco 1492 had already resolved the basic grammatical issue with the original hook, but your rewording improves it significantly. I was feeling pretty brain dead (probably unrelated to parental brains) when I loaded that one into the prep area. --Orlady (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed, Yngvadottir's is better. And then she ended up making be blush by fixing errors in a GA which slipped past both me and the reviewer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Female parental brain, unless we are arguing that male parents also get changing hormones? Secretlondon (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems odd to say that the parental brain is changed by parental experience: the parental brain owes its existence (as a parental brain) to parental experience. So the parental brain is changed by coming into that particular form of existence: is that not a truism? Kevin McE (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

San Martín

August 17 is a national day in Argentina, remembering the death of José de San Martín, the leader of the war of independence. For this purpose, I made Template:Did you know nominations/Later life of José de San Martín, requesting it to be displayed on that date. I nominated it a week ago, but so far it was not reviewed. There's still another week, but it would be positive if the article was reviewed as soon as possible, so I can fix any potential problem that may be spotted and it may placed in the special day section with enough time to spare Cambalachero (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed this, but before it's ready, it needs a copyedit. Schwede66 19:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Review stalled

I could use some comments at Template:Did you know nominations/International Sociological Association. It has been expanded to be over 5x. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This one has been up since August 1, 2012

And nobody has even glanced it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/stimulus_modality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guptakhy Khyati Gupta (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that you are newish to Wikipedia, so it's great to see that you have found DYK. As it's your third DYK nomination, there isn't a requirement yet for you to return another nomination in return. However, there's a backlog with nominations, because there aren't enough reviewers currently, so it holds up your article and many others. The best thing to do about it is to get into the mode of reviewing other articles yourself. Schwede66 19:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Which articles are acceptable?

I'm new to DYK but I was confused about the statement "DYK is only for articles that, within the past five days, have been either..." on the project page. This implies that someone would have to nominate an article within 5 days of its creation/expansion.

But, if I understand your procedures, it's OK if the nomination is inserted in your pending nomination queue (T:TDYK) anytime after the start of the queue. For example, right now the queue runs back to the middle of July so it's OK if an article is nominated for, say, August 1st. If that's true, wouldn't it be better if the sentence quoted above was phrased more like this: "DYK is only for articles that, within a recent five day period, have been either..."

On the other hand, maybe it has nothing to do with your backlog. Let's say that someone created a 5000 prose-character article, meeting all other DYK criteria, three months ago and somehow it was missed. Could I nominate that article? What about an article four years old? If you really don't care how old the creation/expansion is/was, perhaps the "recent" should be taken out: "DYK is only for articles that, within a five day period, have been either..."

Of course, DYK's purpose is to attract and give kudos to new or active editors. I don't know if showing a three-month old article on the main page fits this purpose. Maybe we should leave it as "within a recent five day period" and not define what recent means.

Also, if any of the above is true, you'll have to work on some of the criteria. For example, criteria 3c states "All facts mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article." Which version of the article? The article when it was created/expanded? Five days after it was created/expanded? When it was nominated (in real time)? Five days after it was nominated?

I think you mean the current article. Remember, that's the only version anyone can correct. Then 3c should say: All facts mentioned in the hook must be cited in the current article.

I don't mean to be a bother but things like this may prevent other editors from becoming involved with DYK. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I keep meaning to rewrite the rules all on one page, and then other stuff comes along that I need to do fast :-) Also it may be a factor that the rules were previously rewritten by an editor who took out phrasing about the "Swahili rule" and stuff ... I think it was clearer before that rewrite that: articles should be nominated within 5-6 days of creation or five-fold expansion; exceptions are considered on a case-by-case basis (one factor being whether there are old nominations still on the nominations page, but that's just one factor. We normally have quite a lot of nominations that were put up in a timely fashion.) The hook question is easier to answer; before the article gets passed, one of the things it must have is a reference on the sentence that states the hook fact. Have a look at T:DYK and you'll see articles being checked against both the newness and the hook reference criterion. Short version: if you have been thinking of nominating an article you've written or expanded, do it. :-) I see there's one there now that you co-wrote or co-expanded and someone else nominated a bit late; the reviewer(s) will determine whether it can be accepted. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Why (other than tradition) do you even have a 5 day rule? Does consensus believe that will attact more editors than, say, a 30 day rule, with exceptions? You would still have to create/expand the article to sufficient size in 5 days. Just asking. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Thge idea is that this is supposed to be Wikipedia's newest material. We allow plenty of time for checking or allowing the nominator to arrange an improvement. If this is your first nomination we may give you a bit of a leeway, but it still has to be quite new. We get enough nominations with the shorter period. If we got desperate we may increase the period or invite more people to participate in DYK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

More opportunities for you to access free research databases!

The quest for get Wikipedia editors the sources they need is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now:

  • Credo Reference provides full-text online versions of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are 125 full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
  • HighBeam Research has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries. There are 250 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
  • Questia is an online research library for books and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries. There will soon be 1000 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.

In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by my talk page if you have any questions. Now, go sign up! Ocaasi t | c 18:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Question for DYK experienced editors

The above sounds great. However, when reviewing DYK nominations, I notice the hindrance of something that is only accessible by subscription. Personally, I think DYK has good standards on citations, but realize not all citations on WP need to have online accessing. Someone please tell me the value of the above, other than background research.Maile66 (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It might just count as background research :-) But my take on it is ... the only college/university library I have access to is not very good; my personal library only goes so far; and I only have access to a very limited interlibrary loan consortium. What I can't see on GoogleBooks I very often can't access at all, and newspapers and reference books are letting the hoi polloi see less and less (plus very few newspaper archives are online before the internet era in any case). If I can't interlibrary loan it and it doesn't happen to be in my residence or on the shelf at one of the two local libraries I use, it has to be online or I can't see it. Credo Reference hasn't helped me much - too limited in scope. But anything that does, is invaluable, for researching; for referencing; and for checking refs when I have to do a quid pro quo. (I had to bow out of one quid pro quo review in a field I know a bit about, because absolutely none of the referenced works were accessible to me; and I frequently have to replace all the references in a French or German article when I translate it because I can't access any of them). YMMV, but for some of us it's not so much that we're expecting everything to be online, it's that we're personally very dependent on the internet to overcome geographical isolation and paywalls of various kinds. (I cannot, for example, see any of the increasing number of books that that university library near me has replaced with electronic resources for its faculty and students. Nor can I use that library's subscriptions to paywalled newspapers and academic journals.) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Articles want the best references possible. The best work in my field isn't available free online, I suspect this goes for most academic work. Databases like Eastview are invaluable for me. I only have access to these when I physically take myself to an old university library and use their alumni access terminal. Thankfully there, and at the LSE library (free public access!) you can save papers onto a USB stick. No such luck at the British Library :-(. Google scholar is great, and the LSE library now has a database searcher 'Summon' that doesn't need a log in. We do suffer writing academic articles without the backup of a university library. A few online databases containing mainly news media isn't going to help much - the best sources are books and journals. London is full of good university libraries but the vast majority exclude us. *sob* Secretlondon (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Rules on reviewing translations from other language Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Abutiu This is not the first time this issue has come up, and stumped me the first time I did a DYK translation from another Wiki. It would be helpful to have the policy on this in writing in the rules. Thanks. Maile66 (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This is such a long standing practice that I just went and did it. See eligibility rule 1-f. BE BOLD! diff here PumpkinSky talk 02:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, PumpkinSky. Maile66 (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps mention, that of course they have to meet the other criteria, - the typical result of a machine translation from German for example - funny seenseless English without inline citations - will not ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Felice Bauer 13 Aug

This is in holding for 13 Aug. I participated so I should not move it. Can someone move it to prep as it's time? Thank you. PumpkinSky talk 02:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The first slot of the day is not the one to go for, Europe will sleep then, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
It should go into Prep 2. I don't believe I am eligible to move it there because I participated in the review at Template:Did you know nominations/Felice Bauer. --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
If no one is going to move I will because prep 2 is next.PumpkinSky talk 21:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I put a hidden comment in the prep2 template to indicate where it should go. --Orlady (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, Yngvadottir moved --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Impulse control disorder

A user asked on my userpage for a prompt review of Impulse control disorder as his/her class is almost over. I am not a medicine/psychology type, so is anyone here able to look into the article's content? Chris857 (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Im in the same class. Khyati Gupta (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympic hook overflow

The Olympics are winding down and it seems like we have a small excess of hooks. Should we go up to 4 hooks per queue or plan a couple of full slates of Olympic hooks for the closing ceremonies?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we're going to be OK. We've been running 9 Olympic hooks daily at 3 hooks per set (although I sneaked a 4th one into one of the upcoming queues). There are six more Olympics-day queues left to be created (18 slots for Olympics hooks) and 17 approved Olympics hooks in the special holding area, plus a couple more awaiting approval. Thus, we'll be able to accommodate all of the approved Olympics hooks before midnight UTC on the day that the games end. It's inevitable that there will be a small trickle after the end of the Olympics, but that's partly because people keep generating new articles and new nominations.
However, I'd like to propose that we start running Paralympic hooks at very a low rate (for example, one or two per day at first) shortly after we finish up the Olympics hooks. There are at least 58 approved Paralympics hooks on the noms page right now, plus a bunch awaiting review. If we save all of them for the 11 days of the Games, we're looking at 6 Paralympics hooks per day with the inventory that we already have, and we could end up with several dozen more. I don't think that the user population will have nearly as much interest in Paralympics hooks as we have assumed it has in Olympics hooks, so I think it would be best to space them out a little more than we have done for the Olympics. --Orlady (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
That sounds good; I had to look it up, it starts on 29 August. Has anyone any data on how much interest there's been in the Olympics hooks? Do we have any idea whether they've drawn relatively more or less interest than, say, other sports hooks? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I think mine have gotten more interest than a lot of the other amateur athlete articles I have done, but still not good enough to crack the 5000 hit mark.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Most of mine sat around the 2000 to 3000 although a couple slipped over the 5k mark (although I attribute my most successful hook down to the fact that it was accompanied by a picture of a Canadian women's beach volleyballer. The most successful was Philip Hindes, but I think that was more down to the controversy regarding his fall during the heats. The hook simply happened to be up on the same day, and so became the third most successful non-lead hook of all time. Certainly I saw similar patterns in some of the articles I put up - Zara Dempney got a huge number about three days after she was on DYK and it popped up in a couple of other places (I haven't checked yet as the graphs don't load property at work but I'm sure Samantha Murray got a fair few hits after her silver medal yesterday, but her DYK hook went up a couple of days ago). I'm expecting to creep over the 5k with the 1912 Summer Olympics simply because it was getting about 4k hits on a normal day during the games. I think there's some lessons to be learnt here - with the Olympics hooks the athletes were placed up on the day of their first competition in most places. This means in most terms, they were put up for the heats. Now the big numbers come from when the athletes medal - which means you have to gamble that they don't simply get eliminated in the heats and stay on till the final. But it is a gamble - and I'm not sure if it's worth it. After all, we're here to make people raise thier eyebrows in surprise over a good hook rather than get some bigger numbers due to some outside Wiki actions. But certainly from comparing the articles I nominated prior to the Games regarding athletes - we were getting numbers between 50% to 33% higher than before. Miyagawa (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Currently there are 66 approved Paralympic hooks in the special occasions area, and more are waiting review on the noms page. Even if we start running them early, I think this will become be "too many" to digest. Is anyone interested in looking at the collection in search of opportunities to combine singleton hooks into dual hooks (or other multiples)? --Orlady (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps if there are any historical athlete hooks they can be designated "fair game" to be posted prior to the Games in order to prioritise those articles about athletes at the 2012 Games themselves. Miyagawa (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Running the Olympics hooks on a schedule without overwhelming any one hook set with similar topics (and similar hooks), while accommodating various special requests, was a challenge that I don't particularly want to repeat. The world is not equally interested in the Paralympics, so we cannot justify 2 or 3 Paralympics hooks per set over an 11-day period. Only one of the 66 approved hooks is historical. Accordingly, I believe that we must spread out the Paralympics hooks by running some hooks about 2012 athletes before the Games begin. Additionally, there undoubtedly are hooks that could be combined. For example, currently there are at least 5 approved hooks about Australian goalball participants; rather than running 5 hooks about unusual items in each of the 5 persons' biographies, maybe some of these could be combined into a multi-article hook that tells a little about goalball and how several of the participants got involved in the sport. (I'm not saying that this group of hooks needs to be combined; this is simply a cluster of similar topics that I noticed, and the sport is not widely known because it apparently is one that only blind people participate in.) --Orlady (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with Orlady on this: it was a major challenge to deal with prepping the Olympics hooks, and it's not one we should be repeating with the Paralympics. Also, one hook per set is plenty. We need to start running them soon, though: in addition to the 66 in the special area, there are another 10 from LauraHale awaiting approval and subsequent relocation, so we should be thinking in terms of 76 articles to be run, with the real possibility of more appearing in the next couple of weeks. Multi-article hooks combining existing nominees (and any future ones) would be most welcome, to reduce the load. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • You are talking about Olympics in the past tense, there are still a handful of Olympic hooks requiring review. Hack (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

San Martín 2

As I mentioned some days ago, I made a nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Later life of José de San Martín, and it would be ideal to have it on the main page on August 17, as that day is the death of the man of the article, and a national day of Argentina for that reason. A user began a review, but neither approves it nor point specific and actionable changes to have it approved. I request a review from some other user, time is running out, and if there are things to fix, I need to know exactly what needs to be fixed to do it in time. Cambalachero (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the reviewer said the article needed a copyedit—a specific request—before it was ready to be featured on the main page. It has not had such a copyedit, and in my opinion Schwede66 was correct in saying that the article needs it: the prose does need work. Perhaps someone here can take on that task; the copyeditor Schwede66 asked to look at the article has not been around for a few days, and as this is a rush job, would probably not get to it in time. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Lost nomination

Victuallers notified me this morning that he had nominated my article Marina Bay, Gibraltar for DYK. However, I've never been able to find the nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Marina Bay, Gibraltar in the DYK list. I was able to make minor changes to the hook, but can't find it on the date the article was created, August 11th or on the adjacent dates. I've seen this happen once or twice before today. Where o where is DYK limbo? Thanks. Anne (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It's on the noms page under August 10. --Orlady (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I was about to say the same thing. At the top. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like Victuallers didn't remember to add it to the nominations page until four minutes after Anne posted here that it was lost. Glad it showed up and all is now well. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Indonesian independence day

Just a reminder to prep builders, there are five hooks in holding for Indonesia's independence day. They should be loaded into the preps within the next 48 hours or so. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I initially miscounted, so I've moved Prep 4 into line before the first of these in Prep 1, which should be posted the morning of August 17, Indonesia time. I put two into prep 1, and Hawkeye77 put the remaining three into preps 2 and 3. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech

Do people agree with me that we should not be putting President Obama (or Mitt Romney) into one of the DYK slots at this time? Ryan Vesey 04:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone had a problem with putting Virgil Goode up there. I'm taking that article to AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and that is probably the least hook-y hook I've ever seen. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the article will survive AfD, and I would be OK with having this (if it's a question of WP:NPOV and either the President of Former Governor being on the main page) not being on the main page until after the general election.
Hooks are to be short, and for the hook to remain clearly neutral I have kept it strictly factual.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
We will see about the AfD, it's been 12 hours, most of them overnight in the US. You did keep the hook short and factual, but hooks are also supposed to be interesting, and Obama and Romney are both giving speeches all over the country in an effort to win the election, so the fact that he gave a speech in Roanoke, Virginia, a swing state, isn't particularly surprising or interesting. Given the "You didn't build that" aspect of the speech, I don't know if an appropriately interesting hook can remain neutral in this case. I'd leave that to others to decide if this does survive AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Muboshgu is correct, a hook needs to be both neutral and hooky. I feel that a hook of this nature is hard to keep neutral. At the same time, I feel that the threshold of neutrality would be different after the election than it is before. Perhaps it will be best to wait until after the election and then reference the "You didn't build that" aspect. Ryan Vesey 16:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, providing it's kept at AfD, I agree; special-case waiver of the newness requirement, use the "You didn't build that" meme for the hook. But it will require a waiver of the newness requirement, so the editor was correct to nominate it now. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll get back on the review then assuming we can put it in the special occasions holding area for November 7 American time, we might want to wait until November 8 UTC. Ryan Vesey 16:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Holding it until after the election might be the way to go (assuming it's kept, of course). That way, the "final verdict" of the message can be more fully examined. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree we should avoid candidates in the DYK slot. Secretlondon (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it practical to filter content based on an election cycle. At any given time there is an election somewhere in the world. Where does it end? This smacks of WP:NOTCENSORED. I don't know how 10--20--or even 30 thousand pageviews will make any difference with anything. DYK is an important incentive for creating and expanding content. Let's keep it that way.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 05:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Teeology

This hook has just come off the main page. It is too short (only 1306 characters) and the lead section appears verbatim (albeit broken up into smaller pieces) in the rest of the article. Both reviewer and promoter should have picked this up. Mikenorton (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. I'm sorry, I looked at this article and asked for more information on the talkpage but didn't count the number of characters. We have also had an article appear recently that had already been featured on DYK when it was originally created - a rare thing, but worth noting that the rules also prohibit that. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
That's why I like DYKcheck: it checks to see whether the article has previously been on DYK or ITN and looks for stub templates or ratings in addition to checking length and age. It saves a trip to the article's talk page at the very least. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping that the reviewer and promoter might comment here, I wasn't trying to blame anybody, more to be a reminder of what can go wrong - I could have noticed it myself before it was mentioned at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Mikenorton (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the history and it was 1,528 characters when I finished copyediting it; its length was reduced below the minimum by someone shortening the lead paragraph. So it was presumably not too short when passed and promoted. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I moved that one from the prep to the queue. I normally take a quick look at each article to make sure it doesn't have obvious flaws at that point, and sometimes I will run a DYKcheck, but apparently I didn't run DYKcheck on this one. --Orlady (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC) At the time that I moved it to the queue, it had >1500 characters. --Orlady (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Apologies to all, I should have checked the recent edit history before bringing it here. Mikenorton (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Only the hook needs a review!

Hey guys! This nomination template has been looked over and since the reviewer suggested a hook, ONLY THE HOOK needs to be looked over by another new reviewer. The rest of the article has been surely taken care of. So if anyone has the time to just check it out, please do so. Thanks. Khyati Gupta (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Orgastic potency desperately needs experience reviewer

We are now in the awkward situation of having one of our newest reviewers, who is still learning the ropes and not yet comfortable with paraphrasing checks, attempting to take on this nomination, which has been languishing for four weeks since a red arrow requested a re-review. We may not get someone experienced in psychology, but we definitely need a savvy, experienced reviewer.

PS: If that's too thorny, there's always a re-review of Template:Did you know nominations/Capture of Mazatlán, first submitted July 7. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's fringe stuff. Best to redirect to Orgone or the article on Reich.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Good grief! I confess that I never more than glanced at this one -- I figured it would be tackled by one of the DYK contributors who likes to create hooks about sexual topics. I didn't realize that this was an article about one of Wilhelm Reich's ideas -- and that DYK was in danger of stating his ideas as if they were scientific fact. This is most definitely WP:FRINGE stuff. If it is used, it should be made abundantly clear in both the article and hook that the topic is one of Reich's theories. --Orlady (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
It's up to you, then, to do what's necessary: I wouldn't know where to start. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok I'll take care of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 03:58, 16 August 2012 UTC
  • Unless negotiations somewhere else are proceeding towards a resolution, we still have this problem. The article has been blanked and restored; I was the first reviewer and have been following matters since then, and I still concur that it needs to be further rewritten, but I don't agree that it should not be an independent article. (That is, however, a layman's view; for more on what I think should be done, see my review comments up till I bowed out.) --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Most of the references don't talk about the presumed topic and it's a content fork from "Orgone" the metaphysical non-thing a few deluded people people is actually science. Well, I did try to help. Good luck.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Queue 2

I think it might be expedient to alter the quote in the The Secret River hook, ending the quoted text after the word "barrier", and then removing the erroneous apostrophe in "1950's" as it would no longer be quoted text; I'm just uncomfortable putting a typo like that on the main page and a little reworking to remove it would probably be a better idea than marking it with {{sic}}. GRAPPLE X 12:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've changed it in both the article and the hook; GoogleBooks shows it without the apostrophe. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Mary Roach

Two things: it's been pointed out that the image may be a copyvio as we have no evidence of that license. Considering we have photos of her that we know are PD this is bad. This should have been checked! Flushing what, exactly? Strange expression. Secretlondon (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
File:MaryPonyRide.jpg is missing permissions, and should never have been approved. --Rschen7754 19:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Why did I get trouted? *sob* Not my hook.. Secretlondon (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I assumed it wasn't you :) --Rschen7754 20:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Image has been pulled under IAR. --Rschen7754 19:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The user who reviewed the hook determined that the image was on Commons and apparently assumed that meant its license was OK. The reviewer did not look into the validity of the permission on Commons. The Commons image wasn't tagged for a license problem until today.
IMO, the lesson from this is that people who build the prep areas -- and the admins who move hooks to the queues -- should double-check image licenses. --Orlady (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Back to 7

Should we bring the preps back to 7 hooks, as the Olympics are over? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Still the Paralympics to go, with a surfeit of hooks to run there as well. I'd say keep it as is for now. GRAPPLE X 05:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
We're also at 239 hooks, 34 of which are approved, excluding all the special occasion hooks. That's a pretty huge backlog, even if a lot of it needs reviewing. Eight hooks seems like a good idea for now, unless we run out of approved ones for the prep areas. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
This is absolutely not the time to reduce the number of hooks. If anything, we should increase the throughput, not decrease it. Hook production is up, and people are complaining about the lag from nomination to review and publication. There currently are about 110 approved hooks on the noms page, based on your report of 34 regular hooks, my count of 66 paralympic hooks, and various additional special occasion hooks. --Orlady (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
We need more approved hooks, then, before we increase throughput. Of those 110 approved hooks, all but 34 (now 37) are sequestered, and we have 32 open slots in the four prep areas, with another eight in an empty queue. That's not enough ready to fill what we have, though we can certainly continue at eight in the hopes that the review rate increases. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, back in the day we could create a hook set by reviewing 8 hooks on the spot... If there's a problem now, it may be because QPQers have been reviewing sports bio hooks in preference to reviewing noms that are less predictably easy to review. ;-) --Orlady (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should go back to 7 hooks/set till the Paralympics. Don't want to use up the Paralympics hooks before the Paralympics open. --PFHLai (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK credit for a blocked user?

The Brian Wong hook, currently in Prep 3, gives credit to User:Beezybeets who has been blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry. Should we be giving this user credit? Should this DYK be promoted at all? —Bruce1eetalk 05:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I may be a softie, but I don't see why not, especially since it was nominated by someone else and the article itself received an unusually thorough vetting. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I feel the same. We should deal more with content, less with people, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Gerda and Yngva. Let's not make the worsening self-defeating wiki rules even worse. If good content is here, leave it; good content is why we are here. As for him getting credit, so what? If he created it, he deserves credit. PumpkinSky talk 12:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Totally agree with the above. Credit where credit is due. Prioryman (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Odd question

So, I did this once in 2010, and wondering if it was still possible to do it now. There is an article I would like to have set up for the 20th (the 100th anniversary of Marine Corps aviation), and could easily write a short blurb right now if need be. Is there any way it could be incorporated then? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktr101 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 2012 August 18 (UTC)

Sorry, when is that day X? You can write something short now, expand it 5* let's say two weeks before day X, up to six weeks before day X, to my understanding, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
If you mean the 20th of this month, get writing! The IAR decision can only be made after you nominate it :-)--Yngvadottir (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Have at it, friends. Thanks for the help! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Now on T:TDYK#Articles created/expanded on August 18. --PFHLai (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A point: this will have to be done very quickly if the hook is to appear on the 20th, because both sets have already been built for that day: Prep 4 and Prep 1 (soon to be Queue 2 and Queue 3) hit the main page at 12ET/9PT and 20ET/17PT respectively, and this hook would have to be swapped with one of those. We'll need:

  1. Someone to review it, and then
  2. Someone to arrange to get it into the right prep. If the preps have been moved to a queue before the nomination is approved, that someone will have to be an admin.

—BlueMoonset (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Prep area 4

"... Delavan Terrace Historic District (Otis and Borland Houses, pictured) ..." But the caption says "Charles Otis and Griffith John Houses". The same picture in the article says "Charles E. Otis and Griffith North houses", so that makes 3 different names for the second house. Delavan Terrace Historic District#Buildings distinguishes the Reuben Borland House from the Griffith John House, so they aren't the same. Art LaPella (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Good catch on that. I'm emailing the creator of the article. Daniel Case is the only one who could clarify that. Maile66 (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I have fixed everything save the filename, which I'll have to ask for a rename at Commons on. Daniel Case (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little confused, because it looks like you changed it to Otis and North Houses. Yet, in the article, there is no "North House" in the text. Is there? Maile66 (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, the image filename was indeed correct. I outsmarted myself. It should all be consistent now. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

22 minutes in prep is not long enough

At 20:50 UTC, Hawkeye finished filling Prep 4. At 21:12 UTC, Graeme Bartlett promoted the set to Queue 1.

Unless it's an urgent situation, it's better to leave at least a few hours after a prep set is filled for editors to correct grammatical mistakes and the like. For example, the final hook could use a comma after "ballad", but only admins can make that correction now. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. (And I also try to make a quick check of the articles before moving the set to a queue, as I've mentioned above; past discussions here have indicated that's expected. It has the side effect of adding time before I actually make the move.) In this instance, he was probably clearing space so that the 3 special occasion hooks to run on the 17th could be loaded all at once and not conflict with others loading preps. But I've gone ahead and added the comma; and put quote marks/inverted commas on the name of the ballad. (The article itself has it in italics; I think that's incorrect but haven't messed with it.) I'll look back here for any other changes that should be made to hooks in the queues (as I usually try to; I used to have to propose them here till I was handed a mop, and I remember what that was like). Yngvadottir (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I should leave it till several editors have had a look and an edit before moving. When the queue is almost empty I might move it any way. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Leopold Pilichowski

On the Leopold Pilichowski nomination, I stopped short of approving it as a Good To Go. Everything checks out, except I have that old nagging question of what really qualifies as a QPQ. The author of this nomination began a QPQ for Template:Did you know nominations/Forced evictions in Baku with questions, but did not follow up. Other editors have weighed in on the Forced evictions in Baku nomination, but it remains open. Do I count this as a QPQ, or not? Does browsing a nomination and asking questions, without follow up, count as a QPQ? Please advise. Maile66 (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. Well, I did not follow up on the Forced evictions in Baku simply because my original concerns were not really addressed in the process. Sorry. I took time explaining what needs to be done with regard to run-away quotes in reference section and what policy/guideline it applies to. I am still waiting, although other editors (who have weighed in) are free to give it a go-ahead if they want. Poeticbent talk 18:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. This is not a new issue here, and you're not the only one who ever did this. I hoping the senior folks at this site can give something definitive about this. Hopefully, you can either hold on until someone decides - or cite a different review as a QPQ. I enjoyed reading about Leopold, by the way. I love reading about artists. Maile66 (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
DYK reviewers (whether or not they are doing QPQ reviews) should not be expected to make a commitment to follow a nomination all the way from the initial review to the final acceptance or rejection. The point of QPQ is to get people to contribute to the process. It's just not realistic to expect every reviewer to arrange to be available whenever an article author or hook nominator gets around to responding to review comments. Furthermore, an expectation that the QPQ reviewer must take the review to its conclusion would create a strong incentive for QPQ reviewers to limit their reviews to easy-to-approve hooks or to approve hooks in spite of problems. --Orlady (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Orlady for clarifying this. As the QPQ reviewer I did follow the nomination from the sidelines nevertheless. The issues which I raised were in my opinion serious, which in turn prevented me from attempting to fix the article myself (risky business most of the time). I wanted the author to deal with the excess of copyrighted material in the reference section... But other people have minds of their own also. Poeticbent talk 07:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
This has been of great help, Orlady. Thanks for the information. Maile66 (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Queue 1

There's a problem with the hook "...that an episode of the 2012 nature documentary series A Year in the Wild featured Britain's largest national park, Cairngorms?" in Queue 1. There should be a "the" before Cairngorms.--SGCM (talk) 06:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that is correct. The park name is Cairngorms National Park without a "the", if the British National Parks website is to be believed, though I think the mountain range is the Cairngorms with the article. However, the mountain range and the park are not the same thing. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
If you look at prose, rather than the index, it is regularly preceded by the. Kevin McE (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I added in the "the" but BlueMoonset you are welcome to take it out again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, so I can't remove it, much as I believe it doesn't belong. Can another admin take a look? If two of you disagree with me, then perhaps there's a point I'm not seeing here, but this was an issue I investigated when I revised SGCM's hook from the ALT2, which needed a bit of work at the time of promotion. I think this list is strongly indicative: one park has an uppercase "The" and seven have a lowercase the at the beginning of their names, while six have no "the" at all and one has an internal "the": Cairngorms is one of the six without any "the" at all. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I think Cairngorns without the 'the' feels ungrammatical. Secretlondon (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I looked through their website and it looks like both are acceptable. It's written (in prose) both with and without the 'the', even on the same website. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to Cairngorms National Park without a definite article if the name was fully written out, but if shortened as Cairgorms, there does need to be a "the".--SGCM (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. Good to know: the "the" stays. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Rush job: re-review needed

Can someone please re-review Marblehead Harbor? As discussed theoretically above, this is an attempt to get a centennial hook onto the Main Page tomorrow, August 20. (Ideally Queue 2.) I have reviewed it but have now made changes that disqualify me from passing it. Could someone else have a look? If it passes, it's then up to some third kind soul to bend the rules and promote it, ideally an admin who would be willing to swap it into an already assembled queue to run tomorrow. (I'd be willing to do the swap, but it would be wrong for me to promote it.) Anyone willing to make a few exceptions, and hopefully agree with me that it's ready? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Reviewed and passed. Maile66 (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Yay, thanks! Now needs to be promoted, either directly into Queue 2 bumping something else, or into a prep and I will swap it in. ... Providing there's general agreement this anniversary merits waiving the rules? [looks around] Yngvadottir (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
How about you put it into Queue2 and say I approved it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment for whoever does put it in the queue: I don't think this should be given the lead spot, displacing the much superior image that's already there. I believe it's sufficient that we're giving it a special promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I put it in the queue, sans picture. --Orlady (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. (I just got up. Also, this needed a demonstration of general agreement. I agree about running it without the pic.) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Help with submission

Would Barney Ruditsky be ok to submit for DYK? I've read the guide and it seems to meet all the criteria. 72.74.218.230 (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any major problems, as it meets the major requirement of newness and sufficient length. Go ahead and submit. Chris857 (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
However, now that I think about it, you probably need a registered user to create the nomination subpage. Chris857 (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I nominated it with proposed hook. Template:Did you know nominations/Barney Ruditsky. Can suggest another hook by putting ALT 1 ... that? Froggerlaura ribbit 21:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Adam Steltzner

I would appreciate it if someone with DYK knowledge and experience about putting images on the main page, would have a look at Adam Steltzner and post a "yea" or "nay" about same on the template. Thanks for your help. Maile66 (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ottla Kaffla

Could someone have a second look at Template:Did you know nominations/Ottla Kafka, I'm not certain if Ottla Kafka is notable, from my point of view the only claim of notability is that she is the sister of Franz Kafka and receiver of Letters to Ottla. Instead of starting a deletion process I simply want someone to assure me that the subject is notable. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Well if Fanny Imlay can have a featured article just by existing and occasionally being written to and wrote about, then Ottla is notable by the same logic. Froggerlaura ribbit 22:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Mayer Zald

Could use a second opinion on my DYK nom, the first reviewer complains about a boring hook. I agree, but I cannot figure out a way to use existing content to a better effect (the reviewer has some suggestions, but without specific references, it would be OR to use them, IMHO). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Old issue on reviewing - specifics about what points are checked

While trying to help with old nominations, I happened across an old issue - should there be something in the rules that requires a reviewer to specify what they checked in a review. I'm not saying that it should be a checklist. But I am saying everybody communicates differently, and whoever promotes a hook needs to know if all the bases were covered in reviewing. Here, you can see what BlueMoonset was trying to resolve/accomplish. Scroll down to the last entry , right after mine. What I was referring to was This, which I had reviewed just to get it out of the way. So, here's my viewpoint on these kinds of things:

  • An editor saying they reviewed something, without being specific, is not helpful to promoting a hook.
  • You can't get blood out of a stone - A reviewer who doesn't want to give specifics, will not be budged
  • QPQ policies need to have teeth, otherwise potential promoters can spin their wheels forever
  • Nominated hooks backlog indefinitely when there is a stand-off on the reviews

Is there anything in the rules that a reviewer should cite specifically what points they checked? If not, maybe that should be in the rules. Just my viewpoint, having stumbled into this one. Maile66 (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the reviewing guide does lay out what a review should cover, and says that the reviewer should explain points. And what you see at the top when you open a nomination to review it is a checklist of what your review should cover. The longer version - and the response to the issue of whether there is a policy of specifying what you checked - is that this was one of the points of contention when people last tried to "reform" DYK. We had a lengthy checklist inserted in a number of nominations, many people felt it overwhelmed the page and made it hard to explain the nuances of a review, a shorter one was substituted - and consensus was that most people didn't like checklists of that kind, but reviewers should be responsible for demonstrating they'd checked everything either by placing a marked up checklist of some sort in the nomination template (LauraHale is the only person I've noticed doing this recently) or by explaining in their own words what they checked. The checklist visible at the top of the window in editing mode was added to help people remember, and was kept as brief as possible so it would not vanish off the top of the screen too fast. In practice, some people are just giving what looks like a rubber stamp, but are in many cases being asked to specify, and I suspect that's the right balance, to allow for differences in communication style while finding out as soon as possible whether anything was indeed forgotten. The resulting to and fro causes long discussions in nomination templates, but I don't think that's so very bad, myself - it gives us all an idea of what may arise and how to talk about it, as well as facilitating people helping out at nominations that are still open. (Now what's missing in that long answer is a link to the relevant discussion here. Maybe someone with a more orderly mind than mine can track it down. :-) ) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I did dig up this discussion in the archives. OTOH I found it because I remembered roughly what I had said there, so there may well be a more apposite or more recent discussion where I just didn't open my big mouth :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Am I the only one who has noticed that when you open a nomination to comment, the Group Notice criteria above it is duplicated, one right on top of another? That having been said, if I followed your links correctly and actually got a look at what the template looked like, I understand why people thought it was confusing. What I saw looked like a table horizontally across the page in two places. And, yes, I also believe there is rubber-stamp reviewing happening in some cases, and sometimes by experienced reviewers. But when something like that becomes evident, I think it's fair game to say it doesn't count as a QPQ. Mostly, because it defeats the purpose of a QPQ, which is to help clear the backlog. A rubber-stamp review just means somebody else has to come in and do the real work on a review. And therein is real life...those who dig in and get it done, and those who pretend to.Maile66 (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm no, I'm not seeing any duplication. But I think the problem you've identified is that just a checkmark looks like a rubber stamp - there's no way of knowing what the judgement was based on. That doesn't mean it is a rubber stamp. And QPQ, like any coerced task, will produce varying responses. Including the tendency to pick an easy one to review. But much as I hate it, we haven't come up with anything better. So I think all we can reasonably do is keep asking people for specifics and/or noting when something seems to have been left out during the checking. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
As QPQ is there as a requirement to get submitters to become reviewers, I don't see why we don't require that QPQ reviews, in order to get credit for being actual quid pro quo, have to specify what was checked. Typing it out should take a couple of minutes at most beyond the actual review. And it gives the person looking to promote the review something to work with in terms of potential missed checks before promoting it. (I rather imagine that Maile66's copyvio check was the first done, though I don't know for sure, because the reviewer never said, even when pressed.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe just a sentence at the end of the "Group notice" that displays when you're editing a nomination. Something like: Please enter or ONLY if the nomination meets all of the criteria above. Then having just a checkmark and four tildes means the reviewer has passed everything that's on the notice. Anything else and you'll scare away new reviewers (like me). You gotta AGF. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Good faith is assumed, but all the good faith in the world can still mean that things are overlooked or just not understood, and that list of criteria above is not, alas, exhaustive. It's a lot easier, and more reassuring when assembling a set of hooks, if the person says that they checked A, B, C, D, and E. I've learned the hard way while assembling hook sets that "good to go" is sometimes synonymous with an article that is under 1500 prose characters or not 5x expanded, or contains close paraphrasing, or is listed as a stub, etc. What I don't understand is why it's so scary to type a couple of lines listing what you've just done in your check? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it is (scary I mean). Because a new reviewer is doing you (really the DYK community) a favor. You can't treat them like they're paid employees. DYK is so complicated and yet so undefined that I would guess that less than 10% of the people that find DYK, and are bored enough to try to write a review, actually get to saving the review, however sloppy, on T:TDYK. 90% give up in frustration. (When I learned that English syntax might be part a DYK review I almost gave up.)
As an outsider, I think the question you have to ask yourselves is: Does a consensus of DYK contributors want to have either more (but less highly-trained) reviewers or less (but more highly-trained) reviewers? If the former, get rid of most of the rules and say anyone can review based on common sense. Then train them, slowly and politely. If the latter, establish a cadre of experienced DYK editors and say that one of them must review the initial reviewer before the nomination passes.
If you can't/won't do either one then what are we doing here? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  • On the QPQ point, have we considered an article/talk page banner inviting reviewers for that article? More eyes checking is surely a good thing,that they are open for review needs awareness and few people would check the what links here tab. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 16:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

List of United States federal officials convicted of corruption offenses

Need a little guidance re the section "Inclusion criteria and organization" in the List of United States federal officials convicted of corruption offenses. The section explains the methodology of the author of this article. Obviously, this is not something that can be referenced. But in DYK, I'd like to know, if everything else passes DYK, can this section remain as is, ot does it need to be in a different place in the article, or formatted otherwise. Thanks for your advice. Maile66 (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Information about the scope of a list can (and should) be included, but there are better ways of presenting it. The lead paragraph should provide a clear, crisp statement of the scope, as in "This is a list of high-level officials of the federal government of the United States (President, Vice President, members of Congress, Cabinet-level officials, and Supreme Court justices) who were convicted of corruption offenses." Note that I did not use the term "Article Three judges" because I can't figure out what it means. Also, there should be an indication (possibly in another sentence) about what offenses are defined as "corruption-related"; it's not entirely clear from the current article how this inclusion criterion is defined. Note that the article currently has a lot of verbiage that does not belong, such as the statements to the effect that the list doesn't include state and local officials, nor people who were acquitted of crimes. --Orlady (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I think these suggestions are for the most part disimprovements. While I welcome any comments you might have about the article, I fail to see what any of these have to do with the DYK criteria. As for your first suggestion, this seems to amount to combining the true lede (the short overview of federal public corruption crimes) with the inclusion criteria. Your comments fail to explain why mixing these together is an improvement. Being as both are immediately visible to readers, I don't see the point. Nor is there a point in saying the same thing twice in the intro and the inclusion criteria section. As for "Article Three judges," it means a judge within the meaning of Article Three of the United States Constitution. Life tenure, salary protection, etc. Article Three is linked. Further, as to your proposed first sentence, there are no Presidents, Vice Presidents, or Supreme Court justices on the list. As for defining corruption, in the abstract, as a substantive matter, it's very difficult. As the main article tries to indicate, law professors and courts often can't really agree on what it means. But, for the purposes of the list, it's very simple. The specific crimes listed in the intro are corruption crimes. These are the ones that courts and academics universally refer to as such. And finally, explaining what the list doesn't include, in this case, is verbiage that does belong. By distinguishing similar things, it gives the reader a better idea of what is included. Savidan 01:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Queue 5 needs an eighth hook, and Queue 3 needs a hook edit: admin(s) needed

There are two issues that need fixing, the first rather more urgently than the second:

  1. There are only seven hooks in Queue 5 due to one being removed for close paraphrasing issues. The new one should be inserted between the second and third hooks, which are both sports bios, so a non-sports non-bio would be ideal. Please do not take the Bach hook from Prep 3, since it is supposed to run at that particular time. The new hook needs to be inserted within the next 12 hours.
  2. In Queue 3, the Nadia Santini hook needs a rewrite. The facts are fine, but the wording is not good, and there shouldn't be quotes around the name of the restaurant. (Remember that the restaurant earned the stars, not Nadia herself.) A quick stab at a revision:

Thanks for anything you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Heslington Brain

I just nominated Heslington Brain (see Template:Did you know nominations/Heslington Brain) but it subsequently occurred to me that it might be worth holding the article over for Halloween (braaaaaains). Is it too early to hold it over? Prioryman (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone please advise on this? Prioryman (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it's too early. Six weeks is the standard ceiling on holding for special occasions, and this is more like ten weeks. (April Fools is the one formal exception.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

26 August

I just approved Template:Did you know nominations/Iipumpu Ya Tshilongo. The hook was requested for 26 August, which means that it would be a good fit for Prep 1. --Orlady (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I've promoted it to prep2, since it's in the middle of the night in Namibia when prep1 is run. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on misleading DYK hooks at Talk:Main Page

I started a discussion on misleading DYK hooks, like the one on North Mole, Gibraltar Harbour. See Talk:Main Page#Misleading DYK hooks. -- tariqabjotu 01:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Another US political nomination

Another DYK nomination highly related to the U.S. presidential election nearly sneaked into the queue today, disguised as a boring hook about a documentary film: Template:Did you know nominations/Dishonorable Disclosures. Not everybody involved with DYK follows this talk page, and the initial nom reviewer was not tuned in to the angst that can arise over politicized topics. Additional perspectives on the appropriateness of the article and various possible hooks would be useful. --Orlady (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

With the US elections coming up, I suspect that we'll be seeing more hooks like it soon. I've already noticed a couple of similar hooks on the nominations page. Perhaps we should explicitly forbid DYK nominations of articles related to current political candidates on Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules? Even if the actual article is neutral enough to fulfill criteria 4 of the eligibility criteria, DYK is essentially being used as a venue for promotion.--SGCM (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The nominator is asking for action on the Dishonorable Disclosures nomination. Our rule restricts election-related hooks only within 30 days before the election, but since a couple of US election hooks have been pulled from main page or queues, or otherwise rejected recently, this one needs several sets of eyes. --Orlady (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Down to six reviewed hooks; can't fill prepare areas

We have more empty slots in the prepare areas than we have hooks to fill them, even adding a single approved Paralympics hook per set in advance of the games. According to the list, we have 188 unapproved hooks, most of which have never been reviewed at all. Here's a list of the oldest that could use either a re-review, or a first attempt:

If you want something a little newer, there are plenty of untouched nominations on August 10, 11, and 12. Happy hunting, and thank you! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This one might have been reviewed, missing the tick. Maile66 (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There are several dozen approved hooks in the Paralympics holding area. We likely will need to run two Paralympics hooks per set around the clock for most of the duration of the event (which starts on 29 August). The burden on prep-area builders of balancing sets during that period can be reduced by running some of those hooks sooner, in anticipation of the Paralympics. --Orlady (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Last night's count was 66. It would definitely help to cut that number down a bit over the next three days. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Reviewed 2. I think one problem is that I'm expected to single handedly deal with a nomination once I comment on it. This acts as a deterrent to work on nominations that I'm not interested in, or which are not simple. I don't want the stresses of having to extensively NPOV something, but I'd like to be be able to comment without having to give up the time I don't have to fix it.Secretlondon (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Mongolian shamanism

These are all part of a little drive that we had on Mongolian shamanism/Buddhism at User talk:Drmies#'sup. It would be good if they ran together, rather than one at a time as currently scheduled. Uncle G (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be very unusual for three hooks on the same topic to run in the same set, especially three multihooks. DYK tries to run balanced sets that don't concentrate on any particular type of hook. I don't think I would be in favor of special treatment in this case, especially to take over so much of a single set. We did it for the Olympics, of course, but that's a very special case of worldwide interest (not to mention a boatload of hooks). Plus, of course, the Mongolian shamanism hook is already promoted to the lead hook in Queue 6, while the others aren't approved yet. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm with Uncle G, naturally (it's a family thing), and I would like to have been able to discuss this before one of them got promoted. DYK writers do sometimes feel like not all the comments are read or taken into account, and this is one of those instances (and there is no particular rush to get these up). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
We now have five hours before the first one hits the main page, so the clock is ticking down. I would have liked to have others chime in here, too, in case mine is a minority view. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, you are supported by Wikipedia:Did you know/Onepage, down in the section "Rules of thumb for preparing updates", "N4: Make sure to choose a varied selection – don't choose half a dozen people hooks, for example, or a bunch of hooks about one particular country or topic." What would be the justification to run all of these together? Maile66 (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I can be really obnoxious and say that IAR is a good enough reason. But seriously, we've worked on a whole bunch of these things after it turned out that our coverage in this area was sorely lacking. The eleven articles (and a ton of redirect, never mind minor edits in other, related articles) are no more than a drop in a bucket, but we are hoping to point some attention thattaway. We're not going to have a (ridiculously long) series like biographies of Olympic athletes, so enumeration over a couple of days or weeks is not a rhetorical option here; we were hoping for a kind of impact based on concentration. But I can't speak for Uncle G. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A third (and hopefully final) request for now

Hey everyone! So, I have a question for everyone. I wrote a bunch of DYK articles a few weeks back, and have been expanding another. Three of those articles, the Loring Air Force Base Double Cantilever Hanger, the Loring Air Force Base Alert Area, and the Loring Military Heritage Center were recently listed for a merge proposal, with the discussion evenly split right now between those who support and oppose the move, with those of us opposing citing the reliable sources and the fact that the article they want to merge it into is pretty large (thanks to some major expansion on my part). Since all three of them are in separate hooks, I was wondering if someone could move to close it, as three hooks are being held up right now. My second request is that I have been expanding Loring Air Force Base on and off for three weeks, and I added it to a hook. I was wondering if it could be exempted from the "5 days" rule, as it was mid-size to begin with, and now it is pretty thorough in its coverage. I will have no problem if it isn't exempted, but I was just wondering if it could be since I haven't had the most opportune blocks to expand it. Thanks for any and all help, everybody! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarification purposes, Kevin, are you requesting help to close the merge proposals on the individual articles affected? It's not the DYK nomination you want closed, but the merge proposals. Did I read that correctly? Maile66 (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you have read that correctly. If you guys would want something done in return (say, a few extra reviews for your time), I am more than willing to do that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I have closed the discussion at Talk:Loring Air Force Base#Merger proposal. Cunard (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk page banner for DYK review

As per the discussion at the top of the page, if DYK review needs more eyes (and surely the wisdom of crowds is the founding principle of WP) then perhaps a banner on the nominated article's talk page inviting readers to review while guiding them through the process would be of help. QPQ could still stand but extra reviewers might solve the "thanks for the review but I don't care/can't understand/don't have time to reciprocate" problem. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 12:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to jump right in and be one of those reviewers.69.237.147.179 (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd be only too happy to if I came across something that was of my own bailiwick. And that surely is the point; the people best qualified to review articles are those sufficiently interested to read them rather than the limited pool of DYK submittees.Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 13:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
There's a practical limitation here. Because most DYK nominees are brand new articles, neither their articles nor their talk pages are seen by a whole lot of people. Most nominated articles get more attention from being listed on the nominations page than they would get otherwise. Anybody can skim through the noms page at any time to look for items to review for DYK. It's not necessary for the item to be in your "own bailiwick" (although background knowledge of the subject matter is usually helpful) to review it for DYK. If online sources exist in a language the reviewer can read, a person without previous knowledge of the article subject should be able to verify most hook facts. Some esoteric or technical topics do require specialist reviewers, but in those instances a nonexpert reviewer can help out by flagging the nom as one needing specialist review. --Orlady (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
"Best qualified", I should add, in the sense of being most motivated. I think we would agree lack of motivation is a problem amongst reviewers. Also, would there be any harm in having an invitation banner?Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 14:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I fully support the motivation behind your suggestion, but I don't see it working. The typical DYK-nominated article averages about a dozen hits per day during the time between its nomination and its main-page appearance, including hits from DYK project participants who are reviewing it or considering reviewing it. The talk pages for those articles average about one hit per day during the same period. IMO, the effort required to put banners on pages that almost nobody looks at isn't a productive use of my time, particularly when I consider that the DYK noms page averages more than 600 hits per day. DYK is effective in calling attention to new articles; the converse isn't true (that is, new articles aren't effective in calling attention to DYK). --Orlady (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I dare say it's true that new articles don't draw attention to DYK, but I'd suggest that's because there is no mechanism to alert the article reader that it's a DYK nom. And far from wishing to make work for you it need only be voluntary. But let's not make this about what you or I think and see what the consensus is. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 18:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect to this proposal, methinks Twospoonfuls would like us to hurry up and review Penguin, which is just fine because we all want our nominations reviewed. However, I would like to comment on these points.
  • In accordance with the points already made by Orlady, nowhere will these nominations get more attention than from clicking the "Nominate an article" link under DYK on Wikipedia's front page. That takes the visitor directly to the nomination page where all are listed. The traffic statistics show 19,239 views in the last month. Short of creating an article about something dominating the day's world news headlines, those kinds of views cannot be beat by the lone article creation.
  • A lot of nominators put a copy of the nomination template on the article's talk page. Isn't that all you really want? Banner/template, all the same thing. Maile66 (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Motivation and "best qualified" represent Twospoonfuls' perspective. I haven't seen anything that gives away personal information about the secret identities of the DYK contributors. Not even gender is guaranteed by the user name. For all we know, we could be dealing with somebody at Buckingham Palace who just happens to be interested in environmental architecture (or horses). I'm not mentioning any names, there, but possibilities are endless. Or maybe somebody's date life just picked up, and they'd rather be in a dance marathon than editing at DYK. Best qualified? You will find some of Wikipedia's best editors, best writers, most gifted with words...cutting corners once in a while because they have that need at that particular time. What you have at Wikipedia are human volunteers who do whatever human beings do. There's no guarantee of anything, except that these editors are donating their time and expertise at will.
Thanks for your time. Maile66 (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
An additional perspective ... I appreciate the spirit in which the suggestion was made, but let's also remember that reviewing isn't easy. Another constant theme on this page is "Whoops, one got passed that shouldn't have" or its variant, "How can we get reviewers to check everything on the checklist - or report what they did check so we can spot what they forgot, because I'm seeing bare ticks again?" At least two additional pairs of eyes are supposed to evaluate the article and the hook, however cursorily - the promoter and the admin who moves the set from the prep to the queue - to guard against slip-ups, and we still get slip-ups reported. Newbie reviewers sometimes find it daunting; it's something most of us have to learn how to do (after all, even teachers have to learn how to assess students); and while some editors active at DYK seem either to have got used to the task or to actually enjoy it, most of us have to grit our teeth. There are statements still on this page from people who dislike it, or some aspect of what seems to be expected (pointing out problems with the English; following the nomination after making an initial review ...) I think the editors who could be induced to do the task with any pleasure who are not already doing it or shortly to be doing it as a quid pro quo is small indeed. And they'd still have to learn to do it, the way those of us who do quid pro quo reviews have to. Editing articles on topics one is interested in is a different thing from reviewing them, after all. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Eligibility criterion 1 (b)

I have a question regarding Eligibility criterion 1 (b), specifically that "The content with which the article has been expanded must be new content, not text copied from other articles." I have been writing an article in userspace, and only after a large portion of its content was written did I notice that there is a nontrivial summary of the bridge on U.S. Route 23 in Michigan#Historic bridges. If it were interpreted that I had copied US-23's content, the expansion would be about 3.25x. Should it be interpreted as a new article, or an expansion of existing content? Chris857 (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: I have rendered the point moot with an article 5x the summary, but as a hypothetical, I would still like opinions. Chris857 (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
That's a real tough one. I think that if you copied it and didn't attribute the article, it should be removed. If you can prove that you didn't know the other one existed (which is pretty damn near hard to do, unfortunately), then you should be all set and it could be considered a new article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm glad you wound up writing 5 times what was originally there, because that's the way the rule has been interpreted - even if you only discovered the other coverage after writing your article, it's technically an expansion. (I usually declare in the comment section where such passages are to be found.) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I think this is about copying text, not the subject matter. If you wrote about the subject in your own words then it's fine. If you copied and pasted it then it's not fine. Secretlondon (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately not: supplementary rule A4: "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it was up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article." Writing a new article and then discovering there was a section about the topic in a previously existing article falls under "no matter whether you kept any of it" - or that's how I've always understood the issue. (I'm working on one right now that is technically an expansion of a section of an article I wrote myself. I'm making it easy for everyone by flagging in edit summaries that I have imported information and references from there - even though I'm going into more depth.) One of the reasons this can arise is that a topic was not previously felt to be notable enough to stand alone - sometimes it was even AfD'd and merged. I took Techno Viking to DYK - that was deleted at least three times and when I started the article, there were something like 3 lines at Fuckparade that I was technically expanding - successfully, as opposed to everyone who'd previously started a stand-alone article on the topic! (I found German sources.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
In a similar vein, can someone please take a quick look at Template:Did you know nominations/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show and see whether the material prior to the initial AfD deletion and the later AfD merge disqualify the current nomination, which is not much larger than the first and not even 3x the second? I thought it would. If I'm wrong, fix things; if I'm right, then the orange X should probably be applied. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The mislaid napkin

The last hook of Queue 6 refers to a "missing" napkin. The source, the article, and the hook in the nomination all use "mislaid". While "mislaid" may mean put in a place where it's missing, it may also mean placed incorrectly. See Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. When I read the source, I interpreted it as meaning that the napkin was there, but just not placed exactly where it was supposed to be. It's a subtle difference, but we shouldn't say it was "missing" when we don't know for sure how "mislaid" was intended. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Good call, Mandarax. I don't know how things work around here so I can't change it, but I agree that it needs to be taken care of. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I changed the napkin from "missing" to "mislaid". --Orlady (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, sorry to have caused this; I went to the article to check because the hook originally said "finding a mislaid napkin", which was ambiguous but might most obviously mean he found the napkin, but the wording there was the same, so I checked the source and having confirmed my hunch that he found it was not there, changed it in both places to say that unambiguously. "found a napkin mislaid" is less clear but also means it wasn't there, so fine :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

QPQ new question

This DYK template was approved on August 23, at 04:57. Twenty-one hours later, a second reviewer ticked it off as approved under their own name. The second reviewer is using this as a QPQ on Sally Tanner. I have struck it out as a QPQ. With the lapse in time between the two, this could not have been a case of two reviewers happening to review without knowing the other was doing the same thing. Especially since the second "review" isn't so much using DYK criteria as they are just sort of whatever. It looks to me like one person decided to piggyback on an already reviewed nomination to claim it as their own QPQ. Advice? Maile66 (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Giving that that is her (his?) fourth DYK (as far as I can see), we should approve it, but it looks to me like she did the same thing on the previous DYK-nomination. So whatever we do, we should definately tell the user how not to do a review. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Special holding request for Aug 29, Michael Jackson's birthday

Hairstyles in the 1980s has been reviewed and approved. However, the authors have requested this be run on August 29, in commemoration of Michael Jackson's birthday. Maile66 (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I moved the approved hook to the special holding area for August 29. As hook approver, you could have done that yourself. --Orlady (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Excessive use of images

I have a question regarding a nomination I'm reviewing. I think that article in question has too many images for its text size. Nominator says this isn't a valid concern at DYK. How to proceed? Also I noticed that one of the users mentioned to have created or expanded haven't done any of those. QPQ wasn't required as well. Mohamed CJ (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen that used as an objection, but yea, it's too many.PumpkinSky talk 01:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Layout is wrong and I think we should raise issues with MoS and other policies at DYK, I do all the time and I've had done to me.Secretlondon (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I moved the extra pictures to a gallery at the bottom of the page. I think both pictures are relevant to the article and should be included. I think Bidgee is credited because that user provided the pictures. Froggerlaura ribbit 01:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. It looks much better now. Also thanks to PumpkinSky and Secretlondon for providing your opinions. Mohamed CJ (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Exception to 7-day rule?

I'd like to submit Charles Boarman to DYK and I was hoping to have it feature a photo. I submitted a public domain photo of Boarman to WP:IFU but it's been on there for a few days. If I wait more than seven days for the photo to be uploaded will the article be invalid to send to DYK? Are there exceptions to the 7-day rule? 72.74.209.17 (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The DYK process is generally "tolerant". I would still nominate the article assuming it meets the rules and would add a note to hold it till the image is uploaded and added to hook. Mohamed CJ (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Nominate now (or have someone nominate) then add the image when it becomes available. BTW, the article is rather heavy on quotes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Do I nominate it here? 72.74.209.17 (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Since you don't have an account, I'd suggest adding a hook here and let someone nominate for you (or registering...). I'd be happy to make the page for you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • By the way, the rule is five days, not seven. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright then.

Thanks for the help. 72.74.209.17 (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Looks like Mohamad got it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yep, I picked the first hook. I wonder if Admiral should go with an "A" or "a"? In its article, the title uses "a" and lead uses "A". Mohamed CJ (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_83&oldid=1139988570"