Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 102

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95 ← Archive 100 Archive 101 Archive 102 Archive 103 Archive 104 Archive 105

Is William Eakin eligible?

A question for you guys, would William Eakin be eligible for DYK? Started the expansion in userspace in Nov 2010 and just recently finished this weekend, moved it back and histmerged it. It's well over fivefold of the original. – Connormah (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure looks like it in terms of newness and expansion. It was 610 prose characters in mainspace prior to the move you made this weekend; it's now over 6600 prose characters, more than a 10x expansion. Be sure to nominate it in the next couple of days. A quick glance shows no obvious sourcing issues with the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Was unsure about the "newness", thanks for the reassurance. Will nom it. – Connormah (talk) 06:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Help with the DYK for Kanako Momota

Could someone please review Template:Did you know nominations/Kanako Momota (and promote it if you please)?

It has been approved 3 times already, but there are two people who probably confused a DYK with a GA review.

I know Japanglish will never go away. We have already met at Template:Did you know nominations/Momoiro Clover Z and he did the same very thing, finding new and new faults eternally, and continued to attack me personally at Talk:Momoiro Clover Z (see this, etc.). I know he will never stop. Especially that the faults he has found included "ad as a source" (it was just a magazine issue and I linked the official profile on the publisher's site), "magazine cover as a source" (it was obvious that I used the actual magazine, how could I use the cover as a source?). And he wants to remove something and just suggests to remove it over and over. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this needs Admin intervention. I was one of the first, along with Launchballer who approved it first. Orlady approved it. And a lot of junk happened inbetween. Although it was today ticked for instability, I'd say the nomination is no more unstable than Pricasso, which took two months of arguing to get to the front page. I don't know who is right and wrong, because I am not familiar with the subject matter. But just eyeballing the nomination page says there's some Disruptivness from one specific individual. That's why I say this needs intervention. If the intent is to disrupt and impede, this could go on forever unless someone with authority steps in. — Maile (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Today was the second time the article was cited by an admin, Victuallers, as unacceptable due to instability, and there have been a few other reviewers who thought the article should be rejected for various reasons, so to blame this on "one specific individual" is not accurate, though that one has been particularly outspoken (and posted to this page above). It seems clear that there were significant content and source problems with the article as originally submitted; whether these have been adequately resolved is another question. Perhaps Orlady, another admin who removed some problematic prose a few hours ago, could comment on its state, along with Victuallers. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Crisco has moved it one step closer to approval, but hasn't gone so far as to tick it. I'm going to make another request to an editor who I believe can read and understand Japanese to satisfy major concerns still remaining, by verifying the status of the cited sources and that there is no misrepresentation or copying of them. Actually, I have no preference for the candidate, but just that some Japanese-proficient person does it. The outcome should allow us to close this marathon. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The massive volume of negative comments on that nomination page could be intended to discourage anyone from wading in to attempt to understand the issues there -- and much of the negative commentary is essentially incomprehensible. Whatever the merits of the article and nomination, we should not let any user destroy a DYK nomination via disruptive behavior on a nom page. --Orlady (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
In light of my post directly above, which I feel offers a solution to this issue, I'd like to understand further your desire to nod this through. Sure, your approval also solves the problem. This is not an objection, I'm just curious. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Enough is enough. The article subject is inherently inconsequential and noncontroversial. The article is currently only 17,333 bytes (of which just 3153 characters is DYK-eligible prose), but it has had 26 contributors, not including bots and anonymous IPs, and it lists 36 reference citations. A lot of those sources are of questionable quality, but some of them look OK, and the large amount of sourcing gives credibility to the basic fact of the article. That DYK nomination page is now at 103,090 bytes and has had 18 contributors over 1-1/2 months. A number of problems were identified with earlier versions of the article, but at this point the article has been vetted pretty thoroughly -- particularly for an article whose sources are in a language that few EN Wikipedians can read. There continues to be vehement criticism on the noms page, but much of that criticism is of no apparent relevance to the article, if not incoherent/incomprehensible (e.g., a person who finds Virgin Mary on a potato chip may get more press than Virgin Mary herself but no more than "man finds Virgin Mary on potato chip" (& it still wouldn't warrant mentioning on Virgin Mary's Wikipedia article)…"). IMO, it's time to pass this stupid nomination and move on. If there's still something seriously wrong with the article at this point, maybe the main-page exposure of DYK will call the article to the attention of someone who can fix the problem(s). --Orlady (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

in my own brief defense: this has gone on so long that my own contributions to the article are going unregarded/buried as moscow remains accusatory; any imagined "warring" going on is that i've made valid edits which were promptly reverted by moscow for "not liking them"... this is why i stopped actually editting it & instead provide instruction. apologies to all especially Orlady for whom this seems to be causing more ajida than me (by the way theres a major point being made in that incomprehensible entry of mine, sorry if it rubbed you wrong)! Japanglish (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Prep 2

The hook for Lund's Tower is presently in Prep 2, which is I think scheduled to run at midnight? As it is in Yorkshire is there any chance it could be moved to a UK daytime slot please? SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I moved it over to Prep 3. Is that OK? — Maile (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Maile66 - at least now I won't (hopefully) be sound asleep when it's on the main page! SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Reduce to two sets per day?

I know that March WikiCup is coming. However, that should not be a sole reason to wait until the number grows. For now, 120+ nominations remain, including nine verified. --George Ho (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to trialling two sets per day: I really like the idea of longer exposure (around all timezones) for good DYK hooks and articles. Tony (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
George, we've been maintaining a steady state of 130 hooks, plus or minus, pretty much since we changed to the current schedule of 18 hooks a day. Since we are at equilibrium, why on earth would we want to change what's working before we need to? Unlike Tony, I do have an objection to this proposal. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
BlueMoonset is correct. Back on February 13, just after we changed to the current 3 sets of 6 hooks/day, there were 126 outstanding hooks. At the time this response was written there are 129 outstanding hooks. The numbers do not support a change in run rate at this time. --Allen3 talk 18:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Winter Olympics

Hi, please can Template:Did you know nominations/Emma Lonsdale be subbed into Prep 3 please, so that it can go up in daylight in UK and evening Russian time? Thanks, Matty.007 19:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. — Maile (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is my hook not on DYK stats?

Laurel Run mine fire got 10426 views on the main page. Apparently DYKs with over 5000 views go to WP:DYKSTATS, right? Am I missing something? --Jakob (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The main way that hooks get listed at DYKSTATS is that the article creator or DYK nominator adds them there. We don't have a bot -- or selfless human volunteer -- to maintain the page.
Congrats on your results -- now you may go add yuor hook to the DYKSTATS page. It looks like your hook had some carry-over hits (probably from cached versions of Wikipedia) on the second day, so you can include those in the page-view statistics. --Orlady (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The DYK notice placed on a user's page tells how to check the number of hits and says "it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000". I think this should be changed to something like "you may add it ..." MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 04:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Good idea! I just changed the word "will be added" to "may be added" (in Template:UpdatedDYKNom and its companion template for DYKmake). --Orlady (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible problem with hook in Queue 5

Might bald eagle need to be capitalized in the hook for Dowa Yalanne, currently in Queue 5? Jsayre64 (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

According to the sources, it is indeed supposed to be capitalized. Maybe we can get an Admin here to change it. — Maile (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if Materialscientist is around right now. — Maile (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "bald eagles" in the last hook of the queue needs to be capitalized. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I won't stand in the way of another administrator who chooses to change it, but because I don't believe that common names of species should be capitalized, I'm not going to be the one to go the effort of enforcing that convention. --Orlady (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • That's the current convention for bird species. I disagree with it, think it's tacky, but there's a lot less drama in sticking to it than making a stand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Dorset buttons

No idea how the buttons DYK manged to get onto the front page today. The 'fact' seems to be untrue and unsupported by the article, which only says (unsupported) that handmade Dorset button making collapsed overnight. Very disappointing. Sionk (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps reviewer The C of E and promoter Ohconfucius could explain their reasoning. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I generally only spot check when promoting – one in two or one in three. As this was an AGF, I didn't think there was anything to check. So yes, my bad. -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Josephine Silone Yates

I just nominated Josephine Silone Yates, which article creator Mary Mark Ockerbloom notes is suitable for either Black History Month (February) or Women's History Month (March). We seem to already have a number of hooks for International Women's Day (March 8). — Maile (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Nominations needing DYK reviewers

Most of the nominations on the most recent list have been reviewed, so I've compiled a new set of 27 nominations that need reviewing. Three are from January (and one from early December!), so please take one of them on if you can. We currently have 134 total nominations, of which only 17 are approved, and we need 18 approved per day for the main page. Thanks as always for your reviews.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

UpdatedDYKNom and UpdatedDYK updates

I have updated the wording, grammar, and links on the templates, so there is no more reliance on the former stats page, which tended to go down periodically. In terms of parameters, nothing needs to be changed when using the substitution page, so if anyone has any other issues, please tell me so that I can update both templates accordingly. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Bolshoy Ice Dome Winter Olympics DYK

I'm sorry for such a late nomination – could someone please review Template:Did you know nominations/Bolshoy Ice Dome before Sunday (Feb 23)? I'd like it to hit the Main Page on that day as the men's ice hockey gold medal game takes place there that same day. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

checkY Done. Thanks, Matty.007 09:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

We have malware on the Nominations page

The Psychoexwife template under Feb 20 is a redirect malware placed there by an IP address. Someone knowledgeable please take care of this. — Maile (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I also posted this on the Village Pump.— Maile (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
@Maile66: Saw your comment on the village pump. As far as I know, redirects to external links don't work? I mean, I'm assuming a lot of spammers etc. would've tried that by now if it did. --Jakob (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, it redirected to the external site Psychoexwife.com, just by clicking on the template to open it. — Maile (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
It did not do that when I visited the page. I didn't even see a link to the site. --Jakob (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not an "instant" redirect. I clicked on the template, and it appeared completely blank. Without closing that I opened another browser window and came to this page we're on now.. When I went back to the browser window with the nomination template, it was on the external website. I'm glad it didn't work for you that way. But that template needs to be eradicated completely. — Maile (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This didn't do anything for me. Looking into the template it appears relatively normal - the only goof was that it was in the "Template talk" namespace which I have since rectified (this should fix the blank page problem). Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 13:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Me too. Not seeing anything. Maile, I'd check your computer to see if it was something else redirecting you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
A different issue is that I don't think IPs are supposed to be able to nomination anything.— Maile (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • They aren't supposed to, but IPs can still create talk pages (including template talk pages, apparently) so this may have been as a work-around. The IP should have asked for a nomination here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Doing it Victuallers (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Urgent help to load logo. Diogenes Logo.svg in the DYK queue is about to go to the main page and the bot is complaining its not protected. Is this an issue? Can someone load it please or protect? I cannot get my load to work Victuallers (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Panic over - cascade worked Victuallers (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is a plain text logo featured as a "picture" on current DYK?

I know there are way more noms w/pictures than picture slots, so why would anyone chose to feature this picture: which create zero visual interest? Perhaps we can do better in the future. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the reviewer even said "Please promote without image". --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is a bit boring, but the solution is to put some preps together. I have loaded the next picture hook but there are two more. So if anyone is inspired then have a go. Victuallers (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

To be honest I would suggest taking the image off and replacing it; I spoke with Gerda Arendt, and we agreed not to use the image, but that it was OK to leave it on the nom template. Thanks, Matty.007 18:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
No image would be better. Please just remove it and replace...nvm. After looking at the list, I'm reminded again of just how bad DYK is. Carry on. --Onorem (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Notifying article creators?

When tagging an article for DYK, is there any recommendation or even requirement to notify editors who have created the article involved? As DYK restricts itself to "new" articles, chances are that such an article is mostly or entirely one person's work at such time.

Do such editors get any sort of involvement with DYK, or a veto over whether it appears? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This has been bandied about on this talk page a lot the last few months. Here's one discussion. And in this RFC. What it comes down to, is there is no requirement and nothing has been decided about it despite all the talk page discussion. Personally, when I nominate someone else's work, I put a copy of the DYK template on their talk page. It's the easiest way to notify the article creator, and the easiest way for the creator to see what's going on if they need to offer input. Not only "new" articles at DYK, but "5X expanded" and also articles that have attained Good Article status within 5 days of the nomination. The veto idea was also discussed, but since there is no ownership of articles, they can't really veto. What the creator can do, is state on the template why this should not be at DYK. For instance, if the article is not finished or otherwise not ready to be on Wikipedia's main page. The nomination can be removed with cause. — Maile (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I do the same: notify on the article talk. I received one objection to a nomination and withdrew, after thinking it over, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
So article creators are just avaricious WP:OWNers trying to thwart the noble aims of DYK? How about seeing them instead as someone who might actually understand the subject and be able to judge a decent hook?
On the article I'm thinking of, I was notified only on the day it went live (so no real time to discuss anything), a week after nomination, and for a poor hook. When it actually went onto DYK though, it was with a different and almost nonsensical hook.
I have no time for DYK (and would much prefer if nothing I work on ever ended up near it) – simply because it produces such awful hooks, time and again. If you see article creators as the enemy, that's hardly surprising. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Please do not misinterpret what Gerda and I just posted. Neither of us even implied article creators are just avaricious WP:OWNers trying to thwart the noble aims of DYK. Nor did either of us say or imply that we see article creators as the enemy. If you are having issues about the Dorset button, then say so. But please don't come over here and attack editors who were only trying to answer your questions. Neither Gerda nor I had anything to do with that nomination. Don't take it out on us. — Maile (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Andy is upset, but I would question his melodrama. The fact is that article creators and sponsors don't have monopoly on common sense, or what represents a good or bad hook. We go through plenty banal hooks from both category of users as well as those who simply nominate. -- Ohc ¡digame! 00:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Ohconfucius, here at DYK we find out how human we are, so to speak. We are all volunteers just trying to enjoy what we do. However, none of us are anybody's doormat or punching bag and should not be treated as such.— Maile (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, as two editors who spoke up so soon in favour of notifying article editors, your approach is the one I'd like to see in place. However I still feel (and I'm well aware of OWN and phrased my question carefully to avoid it) that DYK is unnecessarily dismissive of editors and is so quick to avoid OWN (for reasons of self-promotion within DYK nominations) that it's now trying to exclude editors deliberately (I can see no credible reason why editors aren't notified as a matter of course, out of simple politeness).
This was a crap hook. It was just plain wrong. It has further discredited WP in a town where I didn't think such was possible (for other political reasons, WP's reputation here sucks). The article was written at all because Dorset buttons happened to be a subject of topical interest (for small values of interest, timescale and local region). I'm now getting IRL feedback that, "WP got it all wrong", at a time when outreach to this town was trying to repair WP's past problems here. It could have been avoided, had DYK simply notified the editor involved. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Prep 3 is filled, and needs to be promoted to Queue 5 within the next half hour. Hope an admin is around to take care of it. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Winter Olympics (last ones from me)

Hi, I would quite like these hooks to go up with one in Prep 3 or Prep 4 and the other in Prep 2 when it comes back around please, as they are competing tomorrow. Thanks, Matty.007 20:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. — Maile (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
There were two in Prep 3, so I moved one of them to Prep 2 so it would run on Feb. 23, the second day of bobsleigh competition, and then saw this, so I'm glad I did the right thing. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank youvery much to both of you, these are the last short time limit Winter Olympics DYKs from me. Thanks, Matty.007 07:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Prep area promotion for February 23

Could the admin promoting the prep areas into the queues promote Prep 2 before Prep 3? The lead hook of Prep 2 will be inaccurate if it isn't slotted into the 08:00 London (UTC) queue, as the Olympic men's ice hockey gold medal match will be long over at 16:00. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Prep 2 has been promoted and is currently scheduled for the 08:00 (UTC) update. --Allen3 talk 22:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Allen! —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly the last Olympic-themed DYK

I'm about to nominate List of people who have competed in both the Summer and Winter Olympic games here, and will try to expand it in the next hour or so, but is there any way to get this up for tomorrow's queue? Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have fixed up everything, so if anyone could review it, that would be great! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI

The RFC on QPQ for non self noms was closed in the archive by BD2412. Only the fifth proposal has passed, which states that "A bot would notify an editor if an article they had created/expanded was nominated for DYK by someone else." Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 09:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I have filed a bot request here. Thanks, Matty.007 11:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete, void template

I got an automatic message saying that Template:Did you know nominations/Aasa Helgesen had not been completed. I don't intend to complete that template because I made a mistake; writing "new" instead of five-fold expanded, so I nominated the article using the template "Aasa Helgesen 2" instead. If anything should be done with the first, now invaldid template, please say what I shall do. Iselilja (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Iselilja, there's really no need to abandon that template. The "new" parameter (and the others) only determine the text on the nomination page regarding how an article qualifies for DYK. You can change it after nomination easily. That being said, I'll delete this one as it's not being used. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I think that often people get that bit wrong, so I don't think it's anything to worry about. Thanks, Matty.007 12:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Then I know to next time. I don't really understand the principle behind templates, so I felt it was safest to start a new one. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Tuncay Mataracı on Queue 4

Why use his imprisonment as hook material? Do we have to focus on this one negative episode of his life and highlight it on MainPage? Not too nice, I'd say. Is he dead yet? There is no date of death in the article. --PFHLai (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Question on IP noms and reviews

I read the DYK rules to say "Any autoconfirmed registered user may nominate a DYK suggestion (if you are not a registered user, please leave a message at the bottom of the DYK project talk page with the details of the article you would like to nominate and the hook you would like to propose)".

And yet, the unregistered can, in reality nominate hooks.

The above-mentioned "Psychoexwife" was nominated by an IP. And we now have Savart wheel nominated by an IP, which also lists Cranial nerve as being reviewed by that same IP editor. The review doesn't actually touch on the basics it's supposed to. I think it's admirable that a new editor is doing a QPQ review, and that they are nominating articles. But... — Maile (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Opinion request

I would like a 4th opinion on Template:Did you know nominations/Fugging. The article was initially reviewed and cleared as good to go by @Surtsicna: however, today O'Dea overrode it. I contested this on the grounds that he had Fugging and Fucking mixed up. He persisted with his insistence that a source didn't support the hook, so I proposed a compromise which he rejected. So, I would like an opinion from DYK on Fugging if the hook is valid because I believed that if there was a problem, the original reviewer would have flagged it up. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

prep 3

Rosina Galli (dancer) is lead hook in Prep 3, the nom says to have her in March, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. — Maile (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we missed the DYK Update

I don't think we did the DYK update, and the bot hasn't told us we missed it. I believe the set on the main page has been there more than 8 hours. — Maile (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I updated Queue 1 with the hook set that Maile created. I'm hoping the UpdateBot will stop by soon and update the main page. If not, we can do a manual update. --Orlady (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I have filled the prep. Another admin please move to queue, as one of my nominations is in prep 4. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A grovelling request

Whilst I understand there is no obligation for anyone to do so or feel compelled to do so, I would be extremely grateful if a kindly editor could review my DYK nom's for County Wildlife Site and Stratton Park Moated Enclosure before the 26th that'd be great, as this is when the first round of the WikiCup closes. Thank-you! </grovel> Acather96 (click here to contact me) 22:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to the editors involved, this is now complete - I appreciate it. :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 20:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Feb 23 closing of RFC on QPQ for non self noms

I didn't see anything here that the RFC proposed by Matty.007 closed on Feb 23, 2014, but it did. You can look for yourself, but the only thing that "passed" was this

The fifth proposal is to have a bot "notify an editor if an article they had created/expanded was nominated for DYK by someone else". This was uniformly supported. This proposal (although not strictly an amendment to policy) has passed, and a bot request should be filed on this basis. bd2412 T 00:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

So, perhaps someone should file a bot request. How about a bot that just automatically places a copy of any newly created nomination template, when the nominator is not the creator, on the article creator's talk page? That would that care of that. — Maile (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There was a message by Armbrust in this section, so I placed a request at the bot request page (although if anyone is good with bots...) Thanks, Matty.007 19:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Matty.007. I added some info at the bot request that I thought might help. Let's hope somebody creates a bot. — Maile (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

GAs

Hi, I have been looking at the Good Articles log, where I have found several massive topics which would hugely benefit DYK. I propose that in the GA message delivered by Legobot, there is a note along the lines of "Don't forget, if this article hasn't been in DYK in the past, that it is eligible". Thanks, Matty.007 18:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Since that is generated by GA that have "passed", wouldn't WT:GA have a say in that?— Maile (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Good point. Asked there. Thanks, Matty.007 19:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
You know that cat on my talk page? — Maile (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Ha! Sorry about that, I copied the message and removed my sig, but forgot to sign it. Thanks again, Matty.007 19:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

BLP 2*

Hi, Mentoz86 told me that even External Links are enough to stop an article being eligible via 2* expansion. I would say that this needs to be clarified in the rules, and perhaps simply removed: if there are no cites, it is as useful as a google to find the source. 2* expanding it still takes as much effort with or without the EL, so am I alone in thinking that unsourced articles can have ELs? Thanks, Matty.007 20:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You should have a look at this dicussion from October 2013, when it was last discussed here. Cheers, Mentoz (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Per this discussion, BLP's with only external links and no references are considered unsourced. In my opinion, inline citations are what count, as they tell us where each bit of information came from. External links don't do that, so they shouldn't count against a 2× BLP expansion. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Just for my information, would BLPs with only 1 primary source/ref (from the BLP's own website for example) be eligible for the 2x expansion? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Must admit, I've always assumed that DYK would follow the definition of unsourced as used at WP:BLPPROD, i.e. "the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography" (bolding original), or at the maintenance tag {{Unsourced}}, that reminds us that a source incorrectly listed in the External links section is still a source. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. The 2x rule is an extraordinarily generous exception for the specific instance of a completely unsourced BLP, and is not extended when any sources in any form supporting any information about the person were present. In cases that I've seen, external links as sources appeared to be added by inexperienced users who created articles without knowing how to use inline references, but if you look at their articles with an unbiased eye, you'll realize that no neutral party could possibly fail to see those links as sources. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
When that 2x rule for unsourced BLPs was created, there were thousands of Wikipedia articles about living persons that gave absolutely no clue (no citations, no external links, no "further reading" -- nothing) as to the source of the information. The special 2x expansion rule was created to help motivate people to work on fixing those articles. As Mandarax has explained, external links are information sources. --Orlady (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree, as I explain at the discussion cited above. I would possibly approve the article depending on the context of the external link. Some external links (read: reliable sources) would prohibit 2x expansion, whereas others wouldn't. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

stats.grok.se replaced with wikiviewstats

Ktr101 has changed the DYK templates to link to the WMF labs Wikiviewstats, rather than the stats.grok.se it has used for ages (diff 1, diff2). I have reverted until a consensus can be reached. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Question: should we use wikiviewstats instead of stats.grok.se?

Support

  1. Support Per reasons outlined below, and only if we can use both sites so that everyone wins in the end. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose using this new tool. Although it is admittedly more attractive and easy on the eyes, and has a few nice features, for the point of record keeping it has one huge, fundamental flaw: it does not have archives of views prior to November 2013 and, last I checked, it purges its archive of page views periodically. This means that any and all links will be dead within 5 months, rendering this aspect of DYK record keeping useless. Until wikiviewstats supports archives with no time limit, I don't think we should use it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Conditional Oppose Please refer to Village Pump. Yeah, the new one is cool looking. There are issues with it, as mentioned on the VP discussion. There should have been consensus before the switch over happened. Wouldn't it be better to wait until bugs are worked out, and until (when and if) it goes site-wide? — Maile (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Crisco 1492. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose – per Crisco. Having a steady, reliable and constant flow of stats that'll be gone in just a few months does not outweigh a proper archive system that occasionally crashes from time to time. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I thought it was a different stats this morning! Ktr101: is it possible to archive view stats? Thanks, Matty.007 11:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    • As the template is substituted, this should not affect old occurrences (i.e. all my current DYKs should still link to Stats.grok). It should, I think, theoretically be possible to stop archive purging and add the seven + years of archives Stats.grok has; I think Henrik keeps the viewing numbers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Apart from 6 January when stats.grok crashed, it has been fairly reliable. I won't !vote either way unless I get a reason why we should change it because I always think if it isn't broken, don't fix it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Would someone mind summing up the main differences? Or is it just that the new one looks nicer? Thanks, Matty.007 12:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Not familiar with any overviews you can read yourself. If anyone knows more about the technical aspects, please comment. Basically, Wikiviewstats is on the official WMF Labs site (suggesting some measure of support), whereas stats.grok.se has always been run by Henrik. The new tool has some features that appear to be new (including hour-by-hour view stats), but lacks almost seven years of viewing stats which stats.grok.se has. Stats.grok, meanwhile, is limited to daily views, and both tools return slightly different numbers. Not sure of any of the other things. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
      • The only other thing I notice when I use it (to see DYK views on the day they're up) is that it has views for the day you are viewing, which is good. Matty.007 13:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Crisco 1492: so I am guessing I got this credit before you changed it back? Thanks, Matty.007 14:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I reverted right before posting here, so most likely yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The reason I changed it was because of the few times that it had crashed prior to when I had created it, and was relying on it to check page views for some of my articles. Most likely, the person expanding the article is not looking for long-term trends in page views so, before a certain date, but the WMF site does allow for long-term trends, beyond stats.grok.se's 90 days. Additionally, the labs site does give many long term trends, although I have noticed that it depends on the page. Another reason that I swapped it out with Henrik's tool is that his page crashes on certain days, whereas the tools site does not, which allows for a more reliable site in the long-run. If people would be up for it, maybe we could link to both the WMF site and Henrik's site in the template, so that people are able to get the best of both worlds, per se. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't mind it if both are used side by side. that way you can keep stats.grok's archives and daily viewcount while also using the WMF hourly update and trend tracker. Has that been suggested yet? I suppose people might be more amenable to the WMF site. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
      • It could easily be done, either by incorporating it and treating as an equal link within the template (so that everyone could use both links equally, without having to change the information), or putting it in as a link where the user could plug in the page information later on. Per this blog post touts the benefits of stats.grok, but I don't think we should throw out the new site, as it is an incredibly useful site, and it would be silly to throw out a perfect good site because it doesn't contain all of the data of the old one. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
        • That's what i'd support, have them equally used together while remaining as separate entities. I think the new site has a place but it should not take the place stats.grok when that still has a lot of use in future. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)
        • @Crisco1492:, what do you think about this idea? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Accuracy question. I just checked on Louis Braille which ran Feb 23.
  • Henrik's tool says 1,275 views. You can click on the bar and get an exact count.
  • WikiViewStats for Louis Braille on Feb 23 seems to have the bar in the graph at 500 . No exact count, just a guestimate from where the bar is. Nothing seems clickable. But there's a wide difference between 1,275 and 500.
  • I can't seem to copy the URL from Wiki ViewStats and paste it to a talk page, because the namespace doesn't appear in the URL. That in itself is counter to what is required to post a DYK on Stats. — Maile (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Somehow the 23rd is not showing up Wiki ViewStats. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It depends on how you run it. If you select "30 days" for Louis Braille, it gives you stats Jan 25-Feb 24. The Feb 23 has the bar at 500. Feb 24 is probably counting by the hour, because it's very low, just above 150. — Maile (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Views question – Bolshoy Ice Dome ran yesterday. WikiViewStats (the one listed on the DYK credit) said there were 5,130 views, while Stats.grok said 4,816. I usually wouldn't care, but this basically determines whether the DYK can be added to WP:DYKSTATS for 5,000+ views. Which viewing stat should take precedence? —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Wikiviewstats generally gives more returns than stats.grok. Not sure why. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I may be wrong, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that Wiki ViewStats includes hits for pages that redirect to the page in question. If so, this is a reason not to use it for DYK, as those views are not generated by someone clicking on the link in DYK.

        No matter which is used, Bolshoy Ice Dome does not qualify, because it was getting a very significant number of views prior to the DYK. See stats rule 3 for how to adjust the count in such instances. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolution

@Crisco 1492: What do you think about this mockup? We can change the links around as others wish, but it's just a mockup for now for testing everything. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Except the mock up is putting priority on one through its wording. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Again, feel free to change it, as I just wanted to distinguish between the two sites to the casual user. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@Maile66:, @IronGargoyle:, and @Bloom6132:, you might be interested in this resolution. If you guys have any issues with the name that I provided for the old site, please go ahead and change it, as two sites are better than one at this point. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem with it as long as we retain the information and links. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

We missed the DYK update

I think it's more than an hour overdue, and Prep 2 is not loaded with enough hooks. Nothing is in a queue. — Maile (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Prep 2 is now loaded with enough hooks and ready for Queue to the main page. — Maile (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Casliber Are you available to do this? — Maile (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Yup. hang on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Right - I've just got to read how to do it manually (been a long time!) - if some folks can load up some more prep areas, that'd be good (and I can slot into queues) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to fill up at least one more prep area. — Maile (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Casliber Prep 3 is ready. — Maile (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Cas Liber, just so you know for future reference: if the main page load is overdue, and a prep is moved to the next queue, the bot will automatically do the move to the main page at its next check, which I believe it does every 10 or 15 minutes, so a manual move isn't necessary. It does make sense to check that the bot follows through, though, because the new set might have an error, such as no DYKbotdo template at the top, or an unprotected image from Commons, and that might need fixing and clearing for the bot to complete the move. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that. It was late last night here (Sydney/Oz) when this happened - had to sleep...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Last minute special occasion request – Chopin's birthday

I didn't realize this at first, but tomorrow is the anniversary of Chopin's birthday. I'm sorry this is so last minute, but could we run the already-approved DYK hook for tomorrow? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

And a happy birthday to Chopin. Tis done. — Maile (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Coding problems

I've just created Template:Did you know nominations/Women's Premiership but there seems to be something wrong with the template coding. Can someone help fix this? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

On the "reviewed" line of the template, try removing the extra square brackets in front of Template:Did you know nominations/Nelson Mandela. I would do this myself but that would result in my name being listed as the nominator. --Allen3 talk 22:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, though there is still a problem that Women's Premiership isn't showing up as a link to the history. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
It opens fine for me after your last fix. — Maile (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I meant the Article history links. Womens Premiership, isn't showing up. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Mandarax fixed it. --Allen3 talk 22:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK publication alerts?

I'm wondering how I was supposed to know when my nomination was to be published. Just indirectly through an internal process [1]? If so, the submission was promoted before I had been able to see the reviewer's helpful query regarding the choice of hook [2]. I did put some thought into the question posed, and eventually responded in what seemed to me to be the appropriate place [3]. But it was too late: wheels were turning... In fact, the DYK was published without my knowledge.

I feel some form of plain language communication should be possible for the benefit of those DYK nominees (whether IPs or registered users) who are not altogether familiar with the various cogs in the process. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

1) Perhaps this is why the nomination rules state Any autoconfirmed registered user may nominate a DYK suggestion (if you are not a registered user, please leave a message at the bottom of the DYK project talk page with the details of the article you would like to nominate and the hook you would like to propose) Please see Question on IP noms and reviews above. I'm surprised this even got off the ground since it was nominated by IP 86.173.146.3. Is that you? I am also surprised that same IP appears to be re-writing DYK policy/guidelines, with no one questioning it: Are you also editing under IP 86.173.146.3? It's hard to tell from what you are describing.
2) Communication about any nomination is supposed to be on the actual nomination template. No one discusses it on the "talk" page of a nomination template. Until this post here, no one saw what you posted because no one would know to look there.
3) Anytime you see that green check mark, it signifies the nomination is cleared for promotion to a Prep Area for the main page. What you wrote beneath doesn't change that, because it's only about which hook to choose. When Allen3 promoted it, he made the choice because neither you nor the reviewer were definite about which one.
4) If you nominate an article, it is up to you to watchlist for changes. If the nominating IP on this particular template is not you, well, the DYK rules still say this nomination should not have gotten off the ground the way it did.
5) Would you also happen to be both those IPs 72.74.207.196 and 72.74.206.122 that created and nominated ThePsychoExWife.com?
6) Are you also IP 81.147.166.111, who added a comment after IP 86.173.146.3 on Cranial nerve?
Regardless of any general Wikipedia policies on IP editing, you must admit it's hard to keep track of who anybody is when their DYK edits keep hopping from one IP to another. It's certainly difficult to determine which IP talk page to post to. How are we supposed to know? — Maile (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I'm the one who created Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Savart_wheel. The IP had painstakingly created a perfect replica of a DYK nom by editing the noms page. After I found it, I created the nom template and removed the misplaced content from the noms page. It would have been far less work for the article creator -- not to mention me -- if they had become a registered (and autoconfirmed) user who could use the simple nom-template-creation process to create the DYK nomination. --Orlady (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I do thank (and indeed have thanked separately) Orlady for taking the time to help in this way. I also do take the point that submission is easier when editing as a registered user. On the other hand, I edit as an IP by choice and did what I felt most appropriate (after unsuccessfully requesting help from two experienced editors). However, my impression is that the IP/non-IP question is a separate one from the point I have been trying to raise in this thread, which I feel could regard DYK-newbies in general. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Maile: I appreciate your taking the time to make such a detailed reply. At the same I have to say I didn't expect to receive such a defensive response. I did try to craft what I thought might be a helpful suggestion in friendly language, believing that the issue depended on a DYK-newbie's comprehensible lack of familiarity with the details of the current submission process rather than on my contributing as an IP. (And frankly, I am somewhat surprised to be challenged for copyediting Wikipedia guidelines as an IP -- especially after not having been queried in this way when successfully tweaking as an IP the wording/content of a guideline like WP:MEDRS.) No matter... If carefully working up a page in view of DYK is going to be this arduous and ultimately unrewarding, in future I think I'll just pass on DYK. Though I most certainly will continue contributing to Wikipedia and editing in a constructive NPOV way, in line with what I believe are the rights of IP users.
I am sorry if I have misconstrued, or overreacted to, the tone of your comments -- the possibilities for such misunderstandings in online forums are seemingly endless. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Adding In reply to your point 5): No, I have nothing to do with ThePsychoExWife.com. Point 6) Yes, I did review Cranial nerve, as clearly indicated in my DYK submission -- fwiw, I spent my Sunday afternoon reviewing the page and trying to improve it (e.g. [4]) before adding a "comment" [5] (as you term it). 217.42.178.17 (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
My reply was not intended to be defensive, but to make very clear the DYK policy and the situation when editing with an IP. I don't know about WPMEDRS, although I also am surprised you weren't challenged. I can only say that at DYK when policy and guidelines are to be changed, it first requires a discussion and consensus on this page. Even if a registered user just changes policy/gudelines without a discussion here, there is a chance it will be reverted. Communication seems to work better if a user remains constant with one identity. While Wikipedia in general encourages IP editing "anybody can edit", the realities are that there is a distinct advantage to having a registered account. Your account name/handle is the same each time, and people know what editor they are responding it. Registering is helpful. — Maile (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My edits [6] regarded use of the English language rather than content (whereas at MEDRS I did of course engage in constructive dialogue on the talk page before making any substantial changes to the wording), and I notice that no-one has so far seen fit to undo them. Fwiw, the only IPs I have used (other than my current one) since starting to expand Savart wheel are 86.173.146.3 and 81.147.166.111. I routinely specify [in square brackets] on talk pages when my IP address changes, but on the DYK template and talk, it seemed rather too obvious to bother (though in retrospect I can see that was a mistake). My decision to edit as an IP is a carefully meditated personal choice, and I believe it is a reasonable and legitimate one; I do try to leave detailed edit summaries to facilitate the work of recent change patrollers, etc. Adding: One of several that persuaded me to edit as an IP is to avoid conflict (though I think the ANI thread linked above had nothing to do with being an IP contributor, or indeed DYK submisssion itself). 217.42.178.17 (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

IP or not, I still feel that terms such as "prep1" and "prep2", while perfectly functional for people staffing the DYK process, are likely to be somewhat opaque to DYK newbies. In my case, the final "prep2" stage was triggered before I got the chance to see the reviewer's query. Clearly, it was not my intention to make any form of accusation regarding this. Rather, I was trying to draw attention to what seems to me can be a potential issue for diligent DYK nominators/contributors. And, given the learning curve that all newbies to DYK have to face with its "many rules", I feel some sort of link/notice to alert nominators/contributors to imminent publication might be helpful. That's all. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, with regard to Maile's point 2 above (i.e. Communication about any nomination is supposed to be on the actual nomination template. No one discusses it on the "talk" page of a nomination template. Until this post here, no one saw what you posted because no one would know to look there), I think it might be useful to point out that the standard closure of DYK template page actually states:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

In practice it took me a while to spot that (and in the meantime I'd made inappropriate additions to the template, for which I apologized separately). When I did spot the header, I thought I was doing the normal thing by commenting at "this nomination's talk page".

I hope this feedback from a DYK newbie may be helpful. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Your complaint appears to be based on a fundamental misconception. Contrary to your apparent impression, DYK nominators and article creators don't have veto power or other ownership rights over the way their nominations are used. That's true for everybody, not just IP-hopping anonymous contributors -- but IP-hopping anonymous contributors, in particular, can't expect that anyone is going to go to the trouble of trying to give them courtesy notifications on any topic. --Orlady (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, then if I'm going to be implicitly classed as a nuisance (and my "feedback" redefined as "complaint") then I'll just go elsewhere. Instead of contributing to Wikipedia here. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedians are volunteers who had to learn. DYK is no different. The ANI you have linked above If carefully working up a page in view of DYK is going to be this arduous, is about a bot deletion on the article, more fully detailed on the bot's talk page. A bot is just an automated process. You have an ANI because a bot is not letting you do what you want. Sorry. Your issues are with Wikipedia as a whole, not just little old DYK. — Maile (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes I certainly experience unease when engaging on Wikipedia forum dialogues like this and , even more so, art ANI (one reason why I prefer to edit as an IP is because it seems to help me avoid similar conflicts). Please understand that the issues I raised here in gf, to provide feedback with the intention to benefit DYK, and, by extension, Wikipedia as a whole. I am unhappy because they appear to have been systematically ignored in favour of red herrings. For instance, above I explained how the template explicitly instructed me [7] to do exactly what you told me I shouldn't have done (point 2). I believe pointing out real issues in a processes is, in itself, a positive contribution. But if no-one's interested, then too bad... Let's just call it a day. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK - Glorious Revolution of 1688

An item appeared today in the "Did You Know" section of the Wikipedia main page that is historically inaccurate. The text reads: "... that the Glorious Revolution put William and Mary (pictured) on the Scottish throne and led to the dominance of Presbyterians in the Church of Scotland?"

The dominance of the Scottish Presbyterian Kirk had been established for quite some time before the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89. In fact, the Presbyterian kirk was not only the church of Scotland, it was also the ruling power for a time. (Please see topics such as the "Covenanters," the Scottish National Covenant, and the "Rule of The Saints.") These events occurred during the reigns of Charles I and II.

The appropriate sections of Wiki should be updated to reflect these historical facts. TY. Edit Centric talk 21:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The part of the hook to which you refer is from the Significance section of the article and is sourced therein . I am the nominator, but no expert on the Church of Scotland. Sabrebd, since you took this article through the Good Article process, do you have any comment here?— Maile (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
After the Restoration (Scotland) in 1660 episcopalianism was restored. The events after the Glorious Revolution finally settled the issue. So it is historically accurate.--SabreBD (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

"Missing" DYK nomination - Atopodentatus?

Hi, I expanded Atopodentatus 5x and added it as a DYK nomination at 1924 hrs on 02 Mar 14 (Indian Standard Time). However it does not reflect on Template talk:Did you know which shows the last edit at 1832 hours. I had used the typein box for automated creation of the nomination. Do I need to do something more? AshLin (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know isn't automatically updated, nominations need to be manually added to the page under the correct date. GRAPPLE X 14:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for informing me. AshLin (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Reviews

Hi, I have (another!) proposal: how about if you review an article over 2,500 characters, it counts as 2 QPQs? For each 2,500 it goes up, it is another QPQ. For example, a 1,500 nomination would remain 1 QPQ, a 2,500 character nom would be 2 QPQs, a 5,000 character nom would be 3 QPQs, a 7,500 character nom would be 4 QPQs... I think this will help when reviewers are reviewing new, long, GA articles. Thanks, Matty.007 19:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You won't get support from me. First off, I have little patience for the kind of gaming of the system that this proposal represents. Secondly, the length of an article is only one indicator of the difficulty of the review. Other factors that affect review difficulty include (but are not limited to) writing quality, number of sources cited, accessibility of the sources, and whether the topic is highly specialized or controversial. A longish article that is well-organized, well written, and appropriately sourced can be a breeze to review. --Orlady (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by "gaming the system"? Matty.007 20:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The proposed rule would allow an individual to gain multiple QPQ credits for only a nominal increase in effort. As Orlady stated there are a number of factors that affect the effort required to perform a review, and in my personal experience each of the items on her list of factors has a greater impact on the effort required for a review than the prose size. DYK has an almost constant shortage of reviews and reviewers. While this proposal would be a boon for an individual savvy enough to locate easier than average nominations to review which contain 2,500 characters or more of readable prose, it would just exasperate DYK's long term shortage of reviewers. --Allen3 talk 20:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanations. Matty.007 20:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
As an example, this nom involved two articles very close to the 1500-character threshold, but my review required a lot more work than two typical DYK reviews for much longer articles. --Orlady (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Oscar-themed DYK (special request for March 2)

Just in case Orlady isn't able to complete it, would someone be able to look at and finish reviewing this DYK, as I nominated it Friday for today, but that assumed that it would be reviewed soon and not moved out of the March 2 area. I'm going to move it back, to the March 2 area, but if someone could review this Oscar-themed hook, that would be wonderful. A big thanks to whoever can do this, as I would really appreciate having it up later today. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

After an inordinate amount of work on my part, I believe this is ready to go. So that it can go up at an appropriate time, it should be inserted into Prep 4 in place of one of the U.S. hooks currently in that prep. Since I added sources to both articles to help substantiate the hook, I suggest that whoever moves it there should do a quick check on the hook fact support.
Kevin, in the future, please take responsibility for checking sources when you incorporate content from other Wikipedia articles in a new article. Also, please note that "special date requests" should be placed on the noms page for the date that the article was created -- the special holding area is only for approved nominations. --Orlady (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I am sorry about that, I as was never aware that that was how everything worked for that section. In terms of the references, I was rushing a bit to get it out for you all, so I just massively assumed good faith on everything, and that was my error and I take full responsibility for my actions in that regard. Again, thank you for your edits, and I am sorry that I created the extra burden of work for you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out, since a lot of people seem to be ignoring it, that special occasion hooks are supposed to be nominated five days to six weeks before the event. There seem to be an increasing number of nominations a day or two before an event—people need to plan ahead, or accept that their nominations may not be reviewed in time. We've also had hurried reviews that have missed important issues, which reflects poorly on DYK when the articles have to be pulled from the main page or corrected there. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
My response to that is that in certain circumstances, WP:IAR applies. Even if there is a short time period, it is still possible to do a good and thorough review. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry again for my spate of short term nominations over the Winter Olympics. Thanks, Matty.007 19:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
BlueMoonset Actually, heard about them an hour or two before on the news, so I decided to write two articles that very moment. IAR is a good idea, but only because five to six weeks is very far out, and coverage will only increase exponentially until that time, so some things might get missed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Um, that's five days at the earliest, and six weeks at the latest. Not so very far out at all in the usual way of things. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • At this point, it would take Admin intervention just to swap it in Queue 6, the remaining set of March 2— Maile (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    Swap has been performed, placing the requested hook into the set scheduled to appear at 00:00 3 March (UTC). --Allen3 talk 22:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Wow. In Los Angeles time where the Oscars are, I think that's 4 p.m. on 2 March. You just made Ktr101 happy. — Maile (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone! I actually was conflicted about that one, only because that would be one day for most of the world, would be the previous day in Los Angeles. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Main page DYK error

For whatever reason, trying to pull up the Main page errors is coming up "File not found" . However, there is a typo on the main page for the Armatix iP1. It should not say "cannot access", but should say "cannot be accessed". — Maile (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, the Main page errors is working again, so I posted this over there. — Maile (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Nominations needing DYK reviewers

The most recent list has been archived, so I've compiled a new set of 30 older nominations that need a reviewer's attention. There are still three from January that need attention—and really shouldn't be that difficult—so please take one of them on if you can. We currently have 139 total nominations, of which only 15 are approved, and we need 18 approved per day for the main page. Thanks as always for your reviews.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The supply situation isn't quite as severe as you suggest, BlueMoon. There are also 38 approved hooks in the special holding area for dates between March 1 and March 9 (some of which can be used any time in March). --Orlady (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Orlady, it's severe enough when we're generally running with under a day's supply of regular approved hooks; let's not discourage people from reviewing the hooks on this list, okay? Right now the Women's History holding area has about enough to run one hook a day in March, assuming three per set on March 8. We have no business raiding that cache to make up a shortfall. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Whilst we are on the subject ..... the oldest hook in the queue has just been generously agreed to as a joint hook for April 1. Would someone please give a review so we can hopefully move this to the April 1st set? Cheers Victuallers (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
That's the Template:Did you know nominations/Thigh gap hook, which I've just added to the top of the list, since it was created November 12 of last year. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I also requested an opinion on Template:Did you know nominations/Fugging regarding a potential mix-up but no-one responded. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Extra dot

Queue 5: the The Saguache Crescent hook has an extra dot behind the "?", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Current DYK hook on Main Page is confusing

Hello, it may be just me, but the current hook about the Lombardi Grand Prix is very confusing. Here's the current text:

...that if not for a tank accident in Cyprus, the Lombardi Grand Prix (pictured) would have probably lasted longer?

For anyone who doesn't know it's a car (I would guess the majority of readers have never even heard of this particular model), it firstly makes sense to assume the hook is about a Grand Prix race, as that is the more commonly used appearance of this term. Therefore it also seems to sound as if a race was cut short because of a tank... While there is a photo, that could just be a photo of a car that took part in the race, at a casual glance of the thumbnail.

I know it's now on the main page, and probably too late to suggest an alternative, but I think it should be changed to clarify that due to the death of the major buyer the car ceased to be manufactured. Howie ☎ 22:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Queue 2 needs an admin edit

... that Argentine tango dancer, Carmencita Calderón, performed the milonga at her 100th birthday celebration?

Doesn't need the commas. — Maile (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Allen3 talk 12:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I the new Q2, a comma is missing after New Jersey in the quirky hook, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Gerda, this was two days ago and a different set. There is nothing in any of the queues right now. What New Jersey hook?— Maile (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
It was the set which is currently on the Main Page. Orlady resolved it in a different way. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

International Women's Day

Seems like a good moment to raise how we choose the hooks to be displayed

  1. We just allow it to happen as it usually does with volunteers packing the prep areas as they see fit.
  2. We allow three or four experienced editors to create their own prep sets free from their own or their mates nominations.
  3. Something else

We also need to decide how many sets of hooks should be used PFHLai seemed to have some views on this as did OhConfucious. Obviously it would be helpful if we could agree this within the next few days to avoid interventions on March 7. Can I thank all those who have contributed and those who continue to nominate for Women's History Month. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

We're going to also have a bunch of edit-a-thons going on in the days before that date, so we also might want to look into incorporating those into the queue if any show up. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I have no "horse", and would say the choice should be made primarily on the strength of the hook. I propose to choose three/four with the most attractive images for the lead slots, then pick the rest. If we can't decide by consensus, then we could go by preference votes. I assume that all slots will be IWD... -- Ohc ¡digame! 10:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
OhC - are volunteering to do all the sets? That would be great as there are a lot of editors involved. If you have any issues then we could find an assistant/partner? Am I correct? Victuallers (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't, but I will happily do the honours. An assistant would be good. If you peeps are alright with it, I'll get working on a current set to start, and start the IWD sets in about 12 hours from now. I'll go slowly to start, and whoever volunteers to help me can drop me a message on my talk, and we'll take it from there. -- Ohc ¡digame! 11:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In case any of you are wondering where your IWD hooks have gone, I've shortlisted four lead articles and a couple of sweeper hooks. Because some of the prep areas aren't yet available and I want to make sure they go in the right slot, I parked them at Template:Did you know/IWD Queue for eventual transfer to queues when ready. I'll leave these overnight and I'll pick a few more tomorrow. The order of the sets is also provisional for now, and is subject to change. -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • <Cross posted from User talk:PFHLai> I started preparation of four IWD sets, and have now completed three of them. I would like to ask you to help me look at them, and rebalance them if necessary. If you feel like it, you can complete the last one. I left out Elly Yunara because I think it can be the lead article for a later set. I am not so sure about set timings, but I suspect these can start going into the prep areas once you're done. -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Let me just add that there were some tough choices to be made. I tried to achieve a mix of nationalities and occupations, and of course contributors. And BTW, I slipped the double on the ballerinas into Prep 2. And because the third set is a lot shorter, I'v slipped in a seventh hook. Comments welcome. -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Just as a bit of selfish and shameless self promotion - I had an article reviewed [8] which was supposed to be slotted for IWsD but it never got to moved to the appropriate section (I wasn't sure if I was supposed to do that or if one of the regulars were going to do it - I assumed the latter). I just want to make sure that the nom doesn't get lost in the confusion. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I hope it's fine that I've just promoted it and it'll run a little early. There are two IWD articles in the set. Consider this a ramping up to IWD. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • UPDATE: Ladies and gents, 4 IWD sets prepped and ready. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thumbs up Great! — Maile (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Brilliant! .... and we seem to habe achieved this without any "drama" - I havn't looked at the set yet, but just pleased to see that we are about to give birth and mothers and daughters appear to be doing fine. Victuallers (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Ohconfucius, for taking care of that.

In Prep 3, you originally had Glòria Muñoz in the quirky slot. Then you swapped its position with another hook, presumably so that two hooks about painters wouldn't be next to each other. But the Muñoz hook is the only one in the set which is the least bit quirky, so can that be restored to the final position? (Normally I would just do it myself, but it's "my" hook.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That swap was out of concern for keeping the overall size of the DYK column-inches under control. I actually also preferred Muñoz in the bottom slot, but figured that longer hooks don't eject so many lines if lower down (because of the lead picture). If column size isn't that big a concern, I have no problem with undoing that swap. But one of you can do it because it's way past my bedtime... -- Ohc ¡digame! 17:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I've put Muñoz back to the bottom and I swapped two around to separate the painters. I'll now leave the final word to the admin who moves it to the queue. -- Ohc ¡digame! 18:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again! And thanks also to Victuallers for doing so much to organize IWD (and Women's History Month). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Ditto on the kudos to Victuallers for doing so much. — Maile (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This looks really nice. Props to anyone who helped organize it. Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

April Boston Marathon hooks

I see two Boston marathon hooks so far, just FYI. The event takes place April 21.

  • 2014 Boston Marathon, which seems to have stalled in the review process, with the nominator getting no response to asking for input.
  • Boston Strong has a request to be run on April 15, the anniversary of last year's bombing. Hook refers to that event.

— Maile (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of 34 older nominations that need reviewing. The first section is for nominations that have been waiting at least six weeks since the "review again" icon was posted, and the second for ones that have been waiting at least three weeks. Please give one these your attention. The rest are in order by date. Thanks as always for your reviews.

Over six weeks:

Over three weeks:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot stopped working

I have just updated MainPage DYK with what's on Q6. I have to stay offline for the next little bit. Can someone do the credits, please? Many thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Doing. Materialscientist (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Materialscientist, for so quickly taking care of everything. --PFHLai (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks like both DYKUpdateBot and DYKHousekeepingBot may be down for a while. The toolserver had scheduled maintenance last night for an OS update and it appears that things did not go well.[9] The bot operators will be unable to restart either bot until the OS issues are resolved. --Allen3 talk 20:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Shubinator has just posted that the bots are back up, and DYKHousekeepingBot has already done its first updates. If no one promotes a prep to queue within the next 40 minutes, DYKUpdateBot should place a notice on this page that it needs to be done within two hours... BlueMoonset (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I think two is one too many

There are two Girl with a Pearl Earring hooks in Prep 1. Was this intentional? I suspect that it wasn't. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

And there they are on the main page, two pearl earrings hooks.— Maile (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Although I thought it was probably due to carelessness, I figured there was a possibility that someone intended to create a "theme" set, and I didn't want to change it without getting other opinions just because I didn't like it. However, looking at the nomination page for Girl with a Pearl Earring (film), I see that it should not have been promoted, because there was no QPQ. Ruby2010 still needs to supply a review. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, I will complete my review shortly (it was promoted so quickly, I figured I would have a little more time to complete it; it wasn't my intention at all to avoid doing one). Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 21:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I should add that it was not my intention to have the film be a "theme". Must have just been a luck of scheduling, I guess (or the scheduling admin's personal preference). Ruby 2010/2013 21:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you did absolutely nothing wrong – you said a review was pending, and I have no doubt that you meant it. The reviewer and promoter were careless in letting this slip through before you'd done the QPQ. Thanks in advance for taking care of it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll just record it here since I don't think I can edit the DYK page anymore: my QPQ is now complete. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 23:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Formatting and bullets

On 2 January, I wrote here:

The template used to generate each nomination uses the wiki-code :* to indent various items. This is not good practice, and should be replaced using single asterisks

There were no responses before my comment was archived, but this still remains a concern. I've just seen a discussion where comments are indented in the manner: 

:* Foo
:*: Bar
:*:: Bas

which produces over-complex and inaccessible HTML markup.

Is there any reason we cannot implement my suggestion immediately? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that this would be a good idea. Graham87 07:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • i've never been able to work out how all the permutations of colons and asterisks work, and i suspect i'm not the only one. but i do know that if you indent with two asterisks, and the preceding line does not start with one asterisk, or if you have a blank line, you start creating a huge formatting mess. -- Ohc ¡digame! 11:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think the issue is that unthreaded conversations are difficult to follow, but wiki markup doesn't treat a simple return as a break, so people use bullets to force paragraph breaks. But then, you need to indent the bulleted breaks. So, let me put down the various ways things get threaded, and Andy, if you could clarify the best method from an accessibility standpoint, that would be great. Here are the options, as I understand them:

Foo

bar
bas

Written as: Foo :bar ::bas or

  • Foo
    • bar
      • bas

Written as: *Foo **bar ***bas

or, and I think the concern (which allows threading inside of indenting)

  • Foo
  • bar
  • bas

Written as: *Foo :*bar ::*bas

or

  • Foo
    bar
    bas

Written as: *Foo *:bar *::bas

Did I outline all the options? Which ones are the best, which are the worst? As a side note, when numbering, there appears to be only one way to do threading and preserve numbers:

  1. Foo
    bar
    bas
  2. Repeat

Thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 18:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of over-simplifying, we should stick to just colons, or just asterisks, incrementing by one for each response. There's no need to mix the two. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm prepared to give it a try. Now does the nomination template need changing for the "first comment"? -- Ohc ¡digame! 00:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes; would you like to do that, or shall I? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: ? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Theodore Katsanevas

Please could we have resolution at {{Did you know nominations/Theodore Katsanevas}}? A prompt review was requested on 14 February! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I have WP:SPLIT Jabari Parker's high school career from Jabari Parker

This version of Jabari Parker appeared on the main page on December 24, 2011. That version was 12121 characters of readable prose. The current size of Jabari Parker's high school career is 49773 characters of readable prose. I don't know how much of the 49773 is from the 12121 version of the article that has already appeared on the main page, but I know the current article needs to be a 5X expansion. I guess the magic number is 49773/5=9954.6 characters. However, most of the 49773 as been in Jabari Parker for a while. Thus possibly regardless of how much of the content is new to the main page, it might almost all be considered old content regardless. What is the relevant consideration here?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Tony, the new article won't be eligible. It doesn't matter that the parent article appeared before. What matters is that almost the entire content of the new article comes from the Jabari Parker article. By DYK rules (see WP:DYK 1a), For DYK purposes, a "new" article is no more than five days old, and may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article. There is an exception that if the spun off text is then 5x expanded—in other words, you take the spun-off material and add four times as much new material so the entire length is 5x the length—then it can qualify. Since this started with 49083 prose characters, there's no way you'll be getting to 5x, which is over 245K; it currently has 49773, basically the same size it was when you split it. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hooks which may be improved... Queue 2 issues

These hooks, currently at Template:Did you know/Queue (queue 2), sound plainly weird to me. If no one agrees, just leave them alone of course, but perhaps some of you agree and have ideas for a better wording.

  • "... that following the passage of the 1815 North Carolina hurricane, a Savannah, Georgia newspaper composed a poem lamenting its impact?" sounds like artificial intelligence was invented in 1815.
  • "... that the musical repertoire of the Macedonian folk instrument Šupelka mostly consists of improvising traditional melodies?" Perhaps better "improvisations on traditional melodies"? You can't really improvise a traditional melody, I think... Fram (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
LOL. Spot on, amigo. -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • There also needs to be a comma after "Georgia" in the first. Frankly, it also isn't quite supported by the article, which says nothing about lamenting in the poem. Since it's an offline source, I think the hook and article need to be more congruent. While the Macedonian source is online, it's in a 143-page book in Cyrillic, so the chances of finding the relevant page are slim to none, making this an AGF situation. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I consulted the Google Books version of the source for the hurricane hook (it's not an offline source) and edited the article and the hook based on what I read.
As for the Macedonian source, this is a case of a translation that doesn't make sense. I can't accept in good faith that something that doesn't make sense, due to a poor translation, is a verified fact. I'm going to pull it from the queue. --Orlady (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Admin will be needed to replace the pulled "quirky" hook with a new one in Queue 2. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You weren't patient enough, BlueMoonset. It took me a little while to find a suitable hook, but I loaded a new hook 40 minutes after I pulled the old one. --Orlady (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Orlady. Thanks for taking care of it. I figured I should mention the empty slot just to be safe, in case you'd been interrupted. (I was interrupted about 20 minutes later myself, and didn't return for nearly four hours.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all of you. Fram (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Zingiber barbatum

Zingiber barbatum (Template:Did you know nominations/Zingiber Barbatum) is currently in prep 3, but I have some misgivings about this one. The text is very close to the sources (half of the text is a straight quote from a 1830 book).

Article:

  • " Having collated 19 specimens from 5 of Myanmar's administrative subdivisions, the botanists denoted twenty-nine morphological characters, pertaining to growth habits, leaf, pseudo-stem, and rhizome characteristics. Of the twenty-nine several characters, 22 displayed a high degree of variation within wild ginger specimens, and 20 "contributed significantly" to morphological variation. Eleven amplified primer sets gave a total of 175 bands and exhibited 92.15% polymorphism across intra-special specimens."

Source

  • "In the present study, 19 accessions of Z. barbatum from five provinces in Myanmar have been utilized to characterize and assess genetic diversity. Twenty-nine morphological characters were noted, including growth habit, leaf, pseudo-stem and rhizome characters. Fifteen primer sets of P450-based analogue (PBA) markers were used to reveal molecular characteristics. Of the 29 morphological characters, 22 showed a high degree of variation within wild ginger accessions, whereas 20 of these characters contributed significantly to morphological variation. Eleven amplified primer sets gave a total of 175 bands and exhibited 92.15% polymorphism across Z. barbatum accessions."

The creator, @QatarStarsLeague:, has changed a few words, though less and less the further we go in the text, in a typical close paraphrasing fashion. This give results like "Of the twenty-nine several characters" (for "Of the 29 morphological characters") and the strange "intra-special specimens" (where intra-special is some neologistic form of "intraspecies"). Note how only "contributed significantly" is put into quotes in the article, even though nearly the whole sentence is a straight copy.

It is perhaps debatable whether this one stays too close to the original or not (in my opinion, it does), but it is typical that by staying so close but trying to avoid real copyvio, it makes the text only worse. I also dislike that source 2 and 3 are the exact same article, but from two different websites; that source 1 is used after a sentence it doesn't support (we have an old text supposedly giving three named regions, a new study giving 5 unnamed provinces (in the abstract), and this is supported by a source giving two regions? That's not a supporting source for that sentence at all) No idea why his quote of the Wallich book is formatted like it is, with words which appear in the original given in square brackets in the article without any apprent rhyme or reason.

More? "According to Nathaniel Wallich, the plant, a rhizome geophyte, is concentrated primarily in the Yangon, Bago, and Mandalay regions[...]" The actual book source states that "it grows on the hills near the banks of the Irawaddi, about Prome". Prome is Pyay, in the Bago region. WWhere the article gets the other two regions (and not, say, Ayeyarwady Region or so) is unclear to me, but if one states that a fact is "according to expert X", then one would expect to find that information in the source by expert X...

Note also that the article starts with Zingiber Barbatum, Sm. It took me a while to find out what the "Sm." supposedly stands for, but it is the botanical abbreviation of James Edward Smith (and should have been linked to make this clear). According to the rest of the article and the sources I could find, the plant is not a "Sm." though, but "Zingiber barbatum Wall.".

All in all, it looks like a rushed job, copying an old text, copying and slightly modifying a new abstract, and introducing a few errors or contradictory sourcing along the way. Not something we should have on the main page. Pull? Fram (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Fram, it's been pulled. The very large quote at the end should not have been counted in the total prose characters—and should have been a blockquote to boot—and the article is too short to qualify for DYK. I've noted the close paraphrasing concerns and added a pointer to this section, so future reviewers know what else they should check if the article is further developed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. When there is still time, like here, I prefer a second opinion over drastic action by me alone. Fram (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Appears to be giving the end time, not the start time.

Is this right? Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If you mean archives then yes, that is how it was set long time ago. Materialscientist (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Paralympics nomination needs hook review

The last event for Template:Did you know nominations/Mick Brennan (alpine skier) at the Paralympics is March 15, so if we're going to fulfill a special date request, it needs to be reviewed in the next 24 hours. The ALT hooks need checking, and since I suggested the wording for one of them, I'm not eligible to do the review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Orlady (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you know that snow shovels exist?

Apparently not, as this is in the prep area for main page appearance: " ... that special shovels are made for shovelling and pushing snow?", with "special shovels" linking to Snow shovel (Template:Did you know nominations/Snow shovel). What does the article give? A how-to-buy a snow shovel, and a how-to-snow-shovel-safely, with interesting information like "Appropriate clothing makes shoveling snow safer" (but no mention of the fact that inappropriate clothing makes snow shoveling more fun!). Nothing historical, no background (see e.g. here, about the hiring of snow shovelers by cities (with New Yorks uniformed snow shovelers!), and [http://blogs.mprnews.org/updraft/2007/11/snow_shoveling_trivia/ this blog can be a pointer for more interesting facts), none of the many nice photos and paintings we have about the subject, like File:John George Brown - Can I Shovel Off the Snow?.jpg or File:Snow removal; Wagons with Snow and men with shovels on snow covered street 44747v.jpg. And no mention of the Marcel Duchamp snow shovel ready-made, his first American ready-made...[10]. Instead, we get a boring article with probably the most boring hook to grace the main page in ages. Fram (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This is actually in Queue 5, which will go on the main page in about 2 hours. Just a thought - if you could source your sentence about shoveling in inappropriate clothing...you might find support for a real fun hook switch out.— Maile (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, that was, er, original research :-) Trying to insert some levity, not some sourceable fact, sadly. Fram (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I edited the hook to make it a little less lame. See Queue 5. --Orlady (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, Google has tons of results for nude snow shoveling... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks ;-) Fram (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Lent

Lent starts tomorrow, the look at graves might be a good idea, Waldfriedhof Zehlendorf would need a review first ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of Lent, there is All Glory, Laud and Honour and All Creatures of Our God and King at DYK at the moment for Palm Sunday and Easter respectively. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of 40 older nominations that need reviewing. The first section is for nominations that have been waiting at least three weeks. Please give one these your attention. The rest are in order by date, except a short April Fools section at the end. Thanks as always for your reviews.

Over three weeks:

Also needing review:

April Fools hooks:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

1935 Series

Copied from Template talk:Did you know/Preparation area 3#1935 Series at the suggestion of BlueMoonset

Could we change the hook for 1935 Series (in Prep 3), as in retrospect its rather drab. Here are two better hooks, in my opinion.

You can verify the first with this ref and the second with this ref (page 22) used as citations in the article. Thanks. Mindmatrix 00:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Done.— Maile (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Mindmatrix 01:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Alerting to undiscussed revisions of the nominations page

Igottheconch is currently doing considerable revisions to the nominations page, in spite of having been reverted by an admin. — Maile (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

As I was working on a different section, I just became aware of the change maile66. I appreciate your diligence and I have faith you considered the possibility that I was not aware of the change when you alerted other users to my edits. I hope that you will consider these bold edits on their merits. Thank you.
Large scale changes to Did you know

RE reverted: [11] and [12] I am not going to discuss my changes on Template talk:Did you know beyond this post.

If you care, please review my changes and decide whether they make the page better.

I feel they do.

Thanks. Igottheconch (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know: Revision history speaks for itself. Discussion needs to happen here on this page before such changes are made. When admin Allen3 reverted you with that message in the edit summary, you began a revert of his revert. 12:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Maile66 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Maile66 - please assume good faith. I don't know where the hostility is coming from, but it is not because of what I did to this page.
As I mentioned, as I was working on a different section, I just became aware of the edit change.
Please look at my edit after Allen3: [13] "you began a revert of his revert" is not true.
I feel hurt that I am accused of such things. Again, I don't know where the hostility is coming from but its not because of anything I did. Igottheconch (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Chill. It's not intended hostility. It's the way it looks on the history page. Don't worry. We assume good faith. It's just that when Allen3 reverted, that would have been a good time to take a step back and come over here. No hard feelings, no hostility. Everybody knows you meant good when you did it. — Maile (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The thing that earned a quick revert was the reordering of the Older nominations, Current nominations, and Special occasion holding area sections of the nominations page. One of the nomination page's functions is to serve as an input file to DYKHousekeepingBot as it updates Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count. The bot's code is not published so I am unable to answer many potential questions, but there is no reason to believe the bot would be able to handle this reordering without some kind of problem. --Allen3 talk 12:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  • We finally have a filled prep set (Prep 3)—calling on an admin to promote it as soon as possible. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

We have a problem with checking copyvio

Please see VP: What happened to Duplication Detector? — Maile (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The toolserver version is apparently still available for use: http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I edited Template:DYK tools to link to the toolserver version again. --Orlady (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

10,000 edits-thank you

The Original Barnstar
With my 10,000 edit I would like to thank the project that has been one of my primary reasons for staying on wiki. Crisco 1492 guided me through my first steps, Mandarax fixed all my errors, BlueMoonset has alerted me to issues, and I admire Maile66 for all her work at DYK. Of course there are other sterling contributors, and I have had communication with many people through DYK, and I would like to take the opportunity to thank everyone who works on the project for making this such a brilliant place to work. Thank you! All the best, Matty.007 21:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
And congratulations to you for all your dedication over here. I find you a very good person to work with. Forward into the next 10,000. — Maile (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Ping away

I had posted about five months ago, pointing out that user notifications were not generated for user mentions in Template space, so pings on nomination pages had no effect. Well, now they work! I'm not aware of any official announcement about this, and the documentation still says it only works for talk and Wikipedia pages, but it does work for DYK templates now. (Hopefully this is a permanent feature and not a temporary fluke.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, good news with a misleading header, - ping there ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I hadn't considered that "ping away" could mean "ping is gone".

"<Something> away" is an expression whose meaning may not be apparent to those who are not native speakers of English. (Or is it just an American thing?) According to Wiktionary, it means on, or without delay ("sing away"), or without restraint ("You've got questions? Ask away!") MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

In British English we have 'take it away!', which means 'go for it'. Matty.007 08:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We are late. Can someone review the hooks on Prep 4 and, if it's okay, move the set to queue, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Belated thank-you to Materialscientist. --PFHLai (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of about three dozen older nominations that need reviewing. The first section is for nominations that have been waiting at least a month. Please give one these your attention. The rest are in order by date, except a short April Fools section at the end. Thanks as always for your reviews.

Over one month:

Also needing review:

April Fools hooks:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

An admin needs to put hooks in a Queue soon, there is only about 10 minutes until the update it due. Matty.007 18:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Article moved to prep with wrong hook

Re Template:Did you know nominations/Alessandra Marianelli. This was moved to Preparation area 1 with the original hook which was not approved by the reviewer, and quite rightly. The reviewer approved both ALT1 and ALT2 as being suitable. Could someone please fix this ASAP? Voceditenore (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Ooops... Sorry about my copy-&-paste error. It's now fixed. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Wow. That was fast service. Thanks so much :) Voceditenore (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. Thank you for pointing out my careless mistake and not let it creep onto MainPage! --PFHLai (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Have just filled Prep 4 (moved a hook from P1 to P4), and it should be ready for promotion to Queue 2, where the bot will see it within ten minutes and move it to the main page. Admin needed; many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Just doing a couple things - happy to load another queue soonish if someone can fill prep(s). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ride On, Ride On in Majesty!

A fine point in Ride On, Ride On in Majesty! about whether or not to include a date. Can an uninvolved experienced DYK reviewer weigh in on this, please? — Maile (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Ride On, Ride On in Majesty!

I'd like to state a formal objection to the idea that saying "It has been called one of the most popular" is sufficent to not have to state that it was called that in 1907. A century-old source is simply worthless to back any claim of current popularity, and trying to weasel around that by merely implying the false fact instead of outright stating it is no better. We should never, ever allow such poorly-backed claims to go on the main page, and I'm shocked that other people don't have a problem with this kind of thing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, if this was promoted, I would go straight to main page errors, and ask for it to be removed, because it's simply wrong. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
If it had 1907 in it, would you be happy? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this a BLP issue?

I am afraid that I don't know BLP in depth enough to say if putting this BLP on the main page would be some sort of defamation, I know that I wouldn't like to be this lady and see this on the main page. Sorry if I am mis-interpreting anything! Thanks, Matty.007 20:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The proposed April 1 hook does not appear to be defamatory because it uses the accepted name for the sports position she plays (see Rugby union positions#Hooker). A similar double entendre is in the title of the book Bob Hope's Confessions of a Hooker: My Lifelong Love Affair with Golf. --Allen3 talk 21:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I get the joke, but it's not funny. The BLP issue is not helped by the fact that 'hooker' has multiple meanings, for most English-speaking people it means something else. --Soman (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I don't really think we should be using a dirty joke which can be quite offensive, especially not with a BLP. Thanks, Matty.007 08:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. While not defamatory, a risqué joke at the expense of a named living person is not consistent with the principles of WP:BLP. January (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Yup. A weak joke is no reason to ignore WP:BLP policy on our front page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not a BLP issue. It is based on the rugby union position hooker and is a correct fact, what's the problem? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
It's misleading, and implying that the women is a prostitiute. Matty.007 11:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The 'problem' is that the DYK is gratuitously offensive. We do not go around labelling people as 'hookers' on our main page. Frankly though, this strikes me as yet another example of why Wikipedia needs to get rid of DYK entirely - the whole thing is a facile exercise involving little more than the promotion of poorly-sourced trivia, to the detriment of encyclopaedic standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I have made a new hook to make it more obvious as a sporting hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Update has been missed by an hour now 3 hours

Anybody out there? Looks like we missed the Update by an hour. And there are only 2 hooks in Prep 1. — Maile (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just filled Prep 1. ~HueSatLum 14:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria do you happen to be around, and can you promote what HueSatLum loaded in Prep 1? We're about 3 hours overdue on this one. — Maile (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I had just logged off, sorry. Perhaps given the number of late updates we should consider throttling back again? Number of nominations is all well and good, but if the noms aren't making their way into the preps and then the queues in a timely manner, it's not much help. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Issues with hook currently on the Main Page

There is a report on WP:ERRORS about the last hook of the current set, for Liliaceae. The issue discussed there could be solved simply by removing "in Belgium". But there's another issue. The hook says "they were mistaken as vegetables". This fact does not have a reference immediately following it in the article, as required by DYK rules. There's a ref in the same sentence, prior to the hook fact, which does not mention the fact. The next sentence has two refs; one is subscription-only, and the other one makes no mention of the DYK fact. So, depending on the content of that inaccessible ref, the hook fact may be unsourced. (This is why you should not verify your own hooks.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, are we really so low on verified hooks that we need three Belgian hooks in one set? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

  • All good points. And does Belgium really need a link? Edwardx (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Since this is being discussed I'll note this here rather than slipping a note to someone on their talk page as I had planned ... I just fixed a grammar issue and the Belgium anachronism in both the article and the hook. I left the wobbly antecedent (trade - they) as clear in context, although it got a complaint at Main Page/Errors. The cited source does not say "Belgium". The person who passed the nomination was also the person who had proposed the hook, as an alternate; if (what used to be) the rules had been followed, an additional pair of eyes would have vetted the hook and presumably found the problems, but in any case, that person does not appear to have verified referencing for the hook, or any of the other criteria - do GAs, as this one is, get a pass on the DYK checks? I have not been involved with DYK for a while now; procedures may have changed; but it looks like this one slipped through. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
No, GAs are subject to exactly the same rules (except that they're new GAs rather than new or newly expanded articles) and should have the same checks done as any other DYK. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

There's another issue. The hook is about tulip mania, but the article and link is to the family the Liliaceae. Minor issue, but it's as if after spending all that time bringing the article to Good Article status, the authors had no clue what the article was about. It makes me seriously doubt that it is a good article, if, in the end, nothing interesting could be said about the entire topic, the family, and the hook had to take you to the family article, but was about a minor part of it, a topic of another and different article.

Research in the Liliaceae is one of the most important areas of Angiosperm research for the past 20 years. If you bring that article to Good Article status but wind up with no interesting information on that specific topic, the article is probably not very good. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC))

I have added a link to the article to a book that does seem to say that they were confused as vegetables. I have been told that the starving Dutch during WW2 did eat the tulip bulbs.Victuallers (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Admin desperately needed to promote Prep 2 to Queue 4; the set is filled and waiting, and over six hours overdue for a turn on the main page. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Theodore Katsanevas hook

Now in prep 4, Theodore Katsanevas (Template:Did you know nominations/Theodore Katsanevas):

  • "... that the Greek politician Theodore Katsanevas was called a "disgrace to the family" in the will of his father-in-law, former prime minister Andreas Papandreou?"

This hook violates Wikipedia:Did you know#The hook, section "content", bullet 4: "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided." This is not some criminal where the hook can not focus on anything but that aspect of his career: this is a politician with a long and ongoing career, who has received extra attention because of what the will of his father in law is alleged to have said, and his reaction to it. A hook that focuses on that negative aspect of his notability, instead of anything else (e.g. his founding of Drachmi Greek Democratic Movement Five Stars, which wants to drop out of the Euro and return to the Drachma), is not compliant with our DYK rules. Fram (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Pinging Nemo the nominator and Pigsonthewing the article's creator. Fram, would you like to suggest a hook? I was looking at the nomination, and all the suggested hooks focused on the "disgrace" issue. — Maile (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I pulled the hook back to the noms page for further discussion. Given the current litigation over the way this man was described in another Wikipedia, it would be atrociously bad timing to run a negative hook here. I think that the Streisand effect could be a good topic for an interesting alternative hook. --Orlady (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
• Nemo here. This page wasn't begun or nominated by me. Maybe you mean Nemo_bis who didn't begin it either, but at least has edits dating back to when the article was very new? --.../Nemo (talk • Contributions) 14:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The key word in the rule [sic] quoted by Fram is "unduly". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
sic? It's in the section "DYK rules", so it's not my invention to call it a rule. And yes, I think this (the hook and the article) focuses unduly on a negative aspect, perhaps because of the Wikipedia link and because of recentism. Fram (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Not to be a dick about this, but I agree with Andy. This is not "unduly" negative, it's a news story, and we've run hooks on prostitutes, murderers, and other malefactors who did a lot worse than get called a disgrace by his ex-wife's old man. Also, the asshole this hook is about had an uninvolved Wikipedia admin dragged into court under the threat of arrest to force him to censor the article... and you're upset that the hook points that out that a reliable source called him a disgrace? Sorry, but some of you people are a little too thin-skinned, afraid of your own shadow, and are misinterpreting the bullet 4. Also, "should be avoided" in no way means "must". This hook met the rules, and I approved ALT7 as such. --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Please respect WP:BLP and don't insult people. Secondly, someone's will is not a "reliable source" to call someone a disgrace, it is the opinion of one family member about another one, not some fact like someone being tried and convicted for a crime. Fram (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see insult in the above. The opinion is a fact, and the opinion is the content of the hook, which does not claim that this opinion is a fact. I would also support ALT7. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
You don't think calling a BLP an "asshole" is an insult? You may consider it mild, or well-deserved, or whatever, but it obviously is an insult (you may simply have missed it of course, so then my reply is hardly relevant either). Fram (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
As I've said on the noms page, an underlying issue is that this BLP article was seriously unbalanced. This is a respected academic who served 15 years in his national parliament, has written numerous books and articles[14], and apparently is a leader of an active movement calling for Greece to abandon the euro, but the article was almost entirely about a dispute involving his former in-laws -- which spilled over to a dispute with Wikipedia. Recent edits (by Andy Mabbett, an anon, and myself) have added some content about his career and the background that helps explain the statement in the will, but the article is still rather unbalanced. --Orlady (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Information on his career in English language sources appears to be somewhat limited but I note that his Greek Wikipedia page el:Θεόδωρος_Κατσανέβας appears to have some updated information such as journals he has edited and more information on his founding of Drachma Five Star but my understanding of that is based purely on google translate and Greek language sources so I am not comfortable adding that myself but perhaps someone with the appropriate language skills might. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The hook has been moved to the prep area. I've reverted - given that the hook is contentious, and it was proposed by Nemo, (with a slight change to the final), it seems that someone uninvolved to should make the final call. - Bilby (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Contentious or not, the nominator of a DYK should never be the one that promotes it. Fram (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

April Fools Day

I just thought I'd point out that we have 15 approved April Fools day hooks and 6 waiting to be approved at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know so we may need to expand the size of the sets if any more arise. Also since we're getting close to it, it would be great if we could get those waiting approved. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this works, but Template:Did you know nominations/Southern Cross (wordless novel) if approved for April Fools. Thanks, Matty.007 18:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we need a blitz on the current AFD hooks waiting to get them all cleared in time. I would also suggest not accepting any new nominations because I think we already have more than enough to fill the areas. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Prep 3 is ready to be promoted to a queue — Maile (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that the hook for Frontier Series appearing in Prep 3 was specifically for April Fool's Day, and is not appropriate as it stands for a regular DYK. (Partially my fault, as I forgot to amend the DYK nomination page to state ALT2 was also for April fool's Day. Mindmatrix 15:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
OK. I took it out. — Maile (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Could someone push a last one in and I'll promote it Victuallers (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The nom Template:Did you know nominations/Dorit Cypis is good to go, but since I reviewed it, someone else should promote it.Mindmatrix 16:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Done. — Maile (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Now if we could just load a few more then we might miss a a "DYK is Overdue" notice. I believe the system operates without them :) Victuallers (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Whatever happened to the time when we used to have full queues and prep areas regularly? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
We had this same kind of lull around Nov-Dec 2013. Then it picked up again. I was wondering about it, also. But I guess people just get occupied with other priorities. — Maile (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Do we credit for pictures?

Hi, Victuallers credited LauraHale at Template:Did you know nominations/Jade Etherington for a nice picture. However, as far as I am aware, we don't credit for images: am I right? Thanks, Matty.007 18:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey @Matty.007 And if we did? Would the world end? Are you worried we will run out of good will..... its infinite, so lets share it. Why worry about the rules if it offends no one? By all means revert it if you wish, but I don't think you should feel good about it. Why not thank Laura? I smiled at a stranger by mistake.... is that a mistake? .... and Laura travelled all the way to Sochi to get that pictures like this for wikipedia.... Our thank yous cost nothing but carry great value. Victuallers (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I was merely curious, as it begs the question where we draw the line if we credit for pictures, do we credit for reviews, for making preps... (Just to note, that picture was taken at the 2013 IPC Alpine World Championships in Laura's native Spain.) I have no issue with crediting Laura, but we cannot merely credit people willy nilly, we need clear cut rules of who can be credited and who can't. Thanks, Matty.007 20:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
If we don't have rules then we would give them out like barnstars?? I think you need to worry when they are given out "willy nilly"... no need to woory until then I suggest. Victuallers (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Captain Ahab (Moby-Dick)

Maybe it's just me. Template:Did you know nominations/Captain Ahab (Moby-Dick) - would an uninvolved party please look at the hook for this one in Prep 3. I don't see anything in the article about censorship. And all the sourcing is offline, so that doesn't help me either. I don't understand what the hook has to do with the article. As I say, maybe it's just me. But in case it isn't just me, please somebody look at this. — Maile (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, the entire "Biography" section is unsourced. — Maile (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 Done I found a statement about censorship in a footnote in the article. The footnote didn't describe the situation quite the same way as the hook. Hook facts should be findable in the bodies of articles, not in obscure footnotes, and the hook should be clearly consistent with the article. I replaced the hook with the ALT2 hook from the nomination, which was clearly supported by both the article and online sources.
The "Biography" section doesn't need to cite its sources, because this is a fictional character's biography and it comes from the book about him (Moby-Dick). --Orlady (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. — Maile (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Paul Hansen in Prep 3

Sorry to nitpick. The Paul Hansen hook in Prep 3 - that opera singer Paul Hansen was also a copper-engraver and silent film star? - in the article, the sentence about his being a copper engraver is not sourced. — Maile (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done I added an extra footnote for that sentence. (I found the copper engraver fact in the source that was footnoted at the end of the following sentence.) --Orlady (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, good. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Orlady, was he really a copper engraver? The source says "Ziseleur (für Kupfer)", and the translations I've been finding for Ziseleur are chasing, which seems to be something other than engraving. (They have separate Wikipedia articles, and seem to be different ways of working.) Under those circumstances, I'm not entirely sure the hook is accurate. (If we do remove "copper-engraver and", I think we also get a more effective hook: "opera singer and silent film star".) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a Ziseleur is an engraver. It appears to me that the word is closely related to the English "chiseler." See DE:Ziselieren and [15]. The page Übersetzungsbeispiele aus fremden Quellen für 'Ziseleur' (Examples of translations for 'Ziseleur' from foreign sources) has examples that translate the word as "chaser," "engraver," and "chisel worker". Reading those examples and seeing the word in context, I believe that translations that render the word as "chaser" are mistakes. --Orlady (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Orlady. Glad you took a look. The dictionaries I checked just had the "chaser" translation, but I guess I'm not too surprised that they weren't more comprehensive. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Les fleurs dédaignées

I don't know if anyone actually checked this article, but the majority of it is a direct copy/paste from Hilda Rix Nicholas#Second trip to Europe, 1924–1926. It's even worse that the part that was copied, (the last two paragraphs, quote included) is the only part of the article that is actually discussing the painting in question! In my opinion, as the article stands now, it should be deleted because it quite literally added no information whatsoever that could not be found on the article about the artist. 149.32.192.34 (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is an unattributed copy and paste from the article about Hilda Rix Nicholas. Perhaps an admin should pull this from the main page.— Maile (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Suggest this is reported at WP:ERRORS then. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Done.— Maile (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Pulled from the main page, article redirected, thanks! Fram (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
No-one wanted to mention any of this to the nominator / author of the text? Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe they should have. But it appears that you didn't actually author much of the text that was in the article... -- Ohc ¡digame! 12:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Not sure I follow you. Apart from the quotes, I wrote everything in both articles. Also, I think this was possibly relevant: Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Where_attribution_is_not_needed. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Queue 4

Hi, Anna Turney had the wrong hook promoted, the first was due to a misreading of the source and is not correct. Please can an admin fix this ASAP? Thanks, Matty.007 17:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done I note that the nomination page did not include an explicit statement that the original hook was bad. Also, the approved ALT hook didn't include the (pictured) bit. --Orlady (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I said I had "misread the source" and needed to "fix the article", fairly explicit. However, I can appreciate it is hard to distinguish which hooks are approved, hence the below preposal. Thank for changing it. My mistake with regards to the picture. Thanks, Matty.007 18:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Martin Elkort

Who authorised this for the main page and as the lead DYK at that!!? The sourcing is a shambles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Please review my hook before it rots.

I've nominated my first DYK hook and it seems to be being ignored. Hooks are being reviewed above and below it. Can somebody please check it out in the March 23 section. It's called Flying Lions Aerobatic Team. Nathan121212 (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Nathan121212, 67 hours is nothing when it comes to reviewing. Even a week or two is not unusual. Please be patient; your nomination will be reviewed sooner or later, and which it will be is impossible to predict. Thanks for submitting your article to DYK, and best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks BlueMoonset.

Nathan121212 (talk) 08:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry this happens regularly, I've had Template:Did you know nominations/All Glory, Laud and Honour running since the 14th and no one has touched it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
If you look at Template:Did you know/Queue and scroll down on the left-hand side to "List of DYK Hooks by Date", the column for # of Hooks are those that have not yet passed a review. It goes back to January 7, so yours is not so old in comparison.— Maile (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
That's a bit misleading: most of the older hooks have been reviewed, but there are still issues outstanding. The oldest unreviewed hooks date from March 4, which at over three weeks isn't good. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Prep3

Maria CarmelA Leco or Maria CarmelO Leco? Carmelo in the hook, Carmela in the image caption, Carmela in the article, Carmelo in its title, Carmela in 3 references, Carmella (2 L's) in another and no middle name in most references, and not much preference in a Google search. Perhaps we should flip a coin and then be consistent. Art LaPella (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Seeing that she is a woman, was born in Italy, and apparently never married, I think it's a safe bet that this name was her second given name, not a surname in the Spanish style. That would indicate that the feminine name "Carmela" (possibly spelled "Carmella") is correct. All of the online sources that I can see have the "A" (albeit sometimes with two Ls). I agree that the article and hook should spell the name the same way throughout. I'd go with Carmela. --Orlady (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

In need of assistance

I'm having difficulty adding this rejected DYK [16] that has been passed to GA (so it should be eligible) to the correct date queue (March 27). For some reason, it's not coming out right and I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. Could someone please help--either do it for me or tell me how to do it? Thanks, I appreciate it, and am sure that some helpful soul will help me. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Christine, it's a rejected DYK. You shouldn't be editing it. Instead, make up a new nomination template (you'll probably have to differentiate the name, unless the software does it for you), and add it to March 27. Thanks. (While you're at it, please revert the edit you've made to the first template.) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I filled out the nom template but didn't differentiate the name. I'll go ahead and do that now, and revert the edit as per your instructions. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
FYI - the template differentiated the template nom for you. Open it, and you'll see (DYK 2). Without that, the software would be confused as to what template is transcluded, and which should open to edit.— Maile (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Women's History Month hooks and April Fools Day hooks need immediate attention

Women's History Month ends in two days on March 31, and April Fools Day is the day after, so there are a number of hooks for both that need immediate attention. There are seventeen still needing to be completed between the two. Thank you for your reviews.

Women's History Month hooks: (please review before March 31!)

April Fools hooks: (please review before April 1!) Please visit Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know#Awaiting verification to see all the ones needing approval. At the moment there are eight hooks in this section; some are being reviewed already, but might need extra attention:

Please cross these off as they are approved. Many thanks.

I'll post a new list with older everyday hooks at the beginning of next week; the current list can be found here. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Flask, Highgate

Would be most grateful if an experienced DYK reviewer could have a quick look at The Flask, Highgate. The ALT2 hook would seem to satisfy all but the most pedantic and over-literal interpretation. The debate has already taken far too long. Edwardx (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Edwardx, I've been there, and ALT2 has the same problems as the earlier ones. Phil and Adam seem to be agreeing on the use of "once", which appears to me to be workable solution, and one you were willing to accept a couple of hours ago, if not your preferred version. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Okay, I'll go with Philafrenzy's revised wording.Edwardx (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly more urgent: women in March

With concentration on women in March, I know of two articles not even started to be reviewed, and one review not completed, and those are just "mine". Look out for women when you consider a review, they are listed above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Links? — Maile (talk) 12:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Never mind. The links are in the section above. — Maile (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
(ec) just above, thanks to BlueMoonset, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I have just created a new Women's History Month section in the special occasion area of T:TDYK, and moved eight approved hooks there so they're easy to find. (As always, hooks should not be moved until they have been approved.) People creating prep sets should look there first for bios, but I believe the usual limit of 50% bios should still apply to hook sets. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Rings of Chariklo

Appropriate for DYK? (did you know that an asteroid has been discovered to have rings?) — kwami (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, DYK articles must contain at least 1500 characters of original prose; much of this article's content was split out from 10199 Chariklo. The article will have to be expanded further within the next five days to be eligible for DYK. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
There's another possibility, Kwamikagami. Per Wikipedia:Did you know, Eligibility criteria g. Articles designated as Good articles within the past five days, regardless of whether they were expanded, are also eligible. Of course, you would have to put it through the GA process. And who knows how it would change and expand in the process.— Maile (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Half of it was split off the Chariklo article, but it was original material just added there as well. Does it matter where it was added? — kwami (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I put an attribution on the Rings of Chariklo talk page that says where the text came from. I've never done an attribution before, but if someone with more knowledge would like to talk a peek and see if it looks right, that would be good. May I suggest you first take the Rings of Chariklo through Wikipedia:Peer review, and feedback you get there will help you get through your questions. You might want to mention when you submit it for Peer Review that you are doing it to subsequently put it up for Good Article review. This should help point you in the right direction.— Maile (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the question here is whether the Rings of Chariklo material, which was initially added to the 10199 Chariklo article starting March 25 and then split off into its own article on March 27, should count as new for DYK purposes—it's newly created within the past couple of days—or if its initial placement in the original article prevents it from being considered new in its new home. It currently has 4849 prose characters, long enough if it counts for new, and Kwamikagami's initial efforts were 1448 prose characters. If all these were originally in the parent article, the Rings article would need to grow to 7240 prose characters; if no more than 970 of those 1448 were copied, then the article could qualify as a 5x expansion.
Kwamikagami, I'd say it's worth nominating now. We can get some folks who do the fine parsing to determine whether this is eligible as is or requires additional prose. In no event should it be more than 2400 additional prose characters, unless some of the recently added material also comes from other Wikipedia articles. Taking the Good Article route would only be necessary if the article doesn't qualify now, and additional prose isn't added in the next week or so. (Once an article is nominated, we consider that a good faith effort has been made; Doctor Kubla's "next five days" would not apply. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
It was nominated by someone else. It's not a big deal either way – the reason I don't know the procedures is that I haven't paid much attention to DYK – but I thought it was interesting. — kwami (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any active nomination, so if someone else was going to nominate it, they haven't done so yet. Someone ought to. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
An additional wrinkle: The topic has been nominated for WP:ITN. If it's also been nominated for DYK, the DYK nomination should be held until the ITN candidacy is resolved. --Orlady (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, what would you think if we put it into Current events / In the news? Newone (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • DYK doesn't put news items into DYK that have also appeared in the In the news feature on the main page. This item is under consideration for the ITN feature and it is listed in Portal:Current events. This DYK talk page is not the page for discussing additions to ITN (or the current events portal). You might want to join the discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Rings of Chariklo. If the ITN proposal doesn't succeed, it could be used in DYK (assuming the article has enough new content to qualify). --Orlady (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I've nominated it, per a request on my talkpage. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I asked Rosiestep to nominate it without knowing it had been nominated for ITN. If I knew this would create such a fuss, I wouldn't have bothered her with so little. It doesn't matter which DYK or ITN is solved first if they go on different days. Splitting or pinching something from another Wikipedia does not disqualify the nomination either. But regardless of any comment of mine here, it was nice to be part of the team and work with people who know how to work together without criticism or disregard for those who know less about the subject. It's a good article, now in order and up-to-date, thanks to all those involved in the event. Best ya'll, Krenakarore TK 23:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Need to switch to three hook sets a day, at least temporarily

We will need three large DYK sets on April Fools Day—there are 21 hooks already passed, and another eight or nine awaiting verification. I suppose we might even need to go to four. Either way, the first set needs to start at 00:00 UTC on April 1, and at the moment we're off cycle for that.

In addition, we have an increasing number of Women's History Month hooks, and only three or four more sets to feature them in before April Fools Day starts.

My suggestion would be to let the current set remain on the front page until 08:00 UTC on March 30 rather than the scheduled 09:30 UTC, giving it 10.75 hours rather than 12.25, and then switch to eight hour intervals at that point. This would give five sets to post the remaining available Women's History Month hooks along with other regular hooks (08:00 and 16:00 on March 30, and 00:00, 08:00, and 16:00 on March 31), before switching to April Fools. After April 1, we can decide whether we need to revert to twice a day (which is best done with the 00:00 set, since the bot will shift 15 minutes per set until it gets back to 00:00), or stay at three times daily for a bit. We're currently at 223 hooks excluding the April Fools ones, with 29 approved, so there's a bit of a surplus at the moment. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've been noticing we're having an uptick in nominations, in addition to the hooks being reserved for special occasions.— Maile (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I can perform the needed changes. Things will be a little smoother if I wait till after 00:00 (UTC) so expect implementation to take place in two to three hours. --Allen3 talk 22:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Allen3, many thanks. That will be ideal. In the meantime, I can plan prep sets knowing that they'll definitely be up for eight hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Required changes have been performed. --Allen3 talk 00:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Overlinking

Looking at the current queue and prep areas, I can see links to scissors and Japan. Surely both are such familiar words that WP:OVERLINK applies and they should NOT be linked? Overlinking seems to be happening more often of late. Edwardx (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Tom Wills hook

Can my Tom Wills hook be removed from Queue 3 and be the first hook (with accompanying image) in a new queue? Maybe I'm biased, but I think the Tom Wills image looks better, and the fact far more interesting, than the French general with a "lack of impetus". - HappyWaldo (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

  • The use of any image in a nomination is not guaranteed, owing to the number of image hooks which are nominated vs. the number of open slots. That the hook is placed last is actually considered an honor, as it is the "quirkiest" of them all (i.e. the most interesting, the most unique... you know what they say, close with a bang).  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
That makes sense. The anniversary of Wills' suicide is just over a month away (2 May). Could the hook be saved for that date? Or is that too far away? Sorry, I should have added this as a comment to the nomination. The reason I worked on improving the article to GA status was to get Wills on the Main Page. Yeah, crazy. - HappyWaldo (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The hook is already on the main page; I'm afraid it's too late to save it for May 2. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

More Women's History Month noms approved

Could some of them be switched with hooks in Preps 2, 3, 4 so they'll air in March? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest 7 hooks per set. But I don't want to have two dance-related hooks in the same set. --PFHLai (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
And Template:Did you know nominations/Lily Bristow still needs approval. --PFHLai (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Prep 2 is already on the main page, and Prep 3 is set in a queue. I have taken PFHLai's suggestion and promoted Gwendolyn Killebrew to Prep 4 as its seventh hook; it's the last set of the month. The subsequent April Fools sets are already filling up. Unfortunately, we have a couple of approved hooks left over, but they're all newly reviewed, or on topics we had a surplus of. As noted above, we need to balance our sets, so we can't justify more than one dancer per.
Since the month is over for DYK, I'm going to close up the special occasion section and move the unused hooks back to their creation/expansion dates. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Urgent: April Fools Day reviews

with April Fools Day just 3 days away, we have 8 hooks awaiting review at the April Fools DYK page. Please can everyone review all of the ones in the queue so that none miss out. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Fugging really needs a review . The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The C of E, Fix the link on Ref 1, and this one should pass. — Maile (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
To anyone else who is reading this. The C of E and I are on different sides of the Atlantic Ocean, and there might be some hours between what I just posted and he is available to fix Ref 1. As I noted on the template, that nomination is good to go if he fixes Ref 1. Should he do this while I'm off line for several hours overnight, please feel free to give that nomination the green tick. — Maile (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I have just fixed the link issue so can someone please pick this up and give it the green tick? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Fugging has passed the review and can go in a queue for April 1.— Maile (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


If anyone's up for it, Johnnie Boden has also had issues fixed, and the reviewer seems to have let it slide, making edits since and ignoring a ping and talkback. Thanks, Matty.007 10:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Feedback question at Bot requests

Orlady, BlueMoonset and otherwise admins who have been involved in DYK for a while. Please respond to Ceradon at Wikipedia:Bot requests#DYK_noting_bot. How does Ceradon program that bot to be selective as to distinguish which article contributor to notify if they are different than the nominator? Some editors in the article history don't need to be notified. Can you please supply Ceradon with some guideline on this?— Maile (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Midnight Rider (film)

The older nominations thread looks like it got archived. But Midnight Rider (film) has a couple of hooks that need to be looked at, and otherwise the review completed. — Maile (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on assembling a new one, and it should be up within an hour or two. I just didn't want to post a new one while Women's History Month and then April Fools needed reviewer attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of 39 older nominations that need reviewing. The first section is for a nomination that has been waiting at least five weeks, and the second is for those waiting at least three weeks, the latter of which includes several completely unreviewed hooks. Please give one these your attention if possible; if not, the remaining 30 are also available. Only 36 of 233 are approved for promotion, enough only to fill two days of prep sets. Thank you for your reviews.

Over five weeks:

Over three weeks:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

internal server error on DYK notification templates

It seems to be only on this current batch now on the front page. If you click on "live views", it's fine. Something is wrong with "daily totals" or "check views" that goes straight to stats.grok And it's only if you try to access stats.grok from the notification template. If you go to the article and access stats.grok, it works fine.— Maile (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolved. — Maile (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

April Foos Day - keep it clean

I am an OTRS volunteer who has been having to deal with the complaints about the crudeness of the content chosen this year for April Fools' Day.

I've had to explain WP:NOTCENSORED and such, but come on people, this is the main page. Can we try to keep it clean, and avoid the foul language, mysogynistic entries and so forth? The selections just end up creating needless extra work for OTRS volunteers already burdened with a large backlog.

Just sayin'. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

What complaints where? I think that this years was cleaner than last years. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Umm, did you read what I wrote? Do you know what WP:OTRS is? Do you know where complaints end up when users decide to send email instead of post on talk pages? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Considerably cleaner than last year's. There are some real complaints at WT:MP... well, two real complaints. One about Gibraltar, one about how Feminist Hulk should have been run with a serious hook during Women's History Month. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure how many emails were received. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I have a solution. No April Fools jokes. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Your solution has no consensus behind it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Nah I'm sorry HiLo. Computer says no. There is nothing wrong with this serious encyclopedia having one day of humour. And also consider that this years was toned down a lot from last years. This year ITN and FA weren't AFD based. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • <psst> This year's TFA was special for April Fools. It was just played straight. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I still have a right to express the view that it's an appalling display of some of the worst aspects of our systemic bias, and adds nothing positive to the encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That you do, though I question how systemic bias features into this. What, are articles X% more likely to be written if they have a swear word in the title? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I generally only have to explain systemic bias to those who are part of it. It's often a fruitless exercise. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I don't think you do understand. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so certain in your position. HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Un... huh... If you say so. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
April Foos Day
  • On a more positive note, most of our 1 April hooks got 8k views (give or take). Good going, all. The favourites, in terms of page views, are also those which appear to have drawn the most complaints. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Although I can't imagine there were many about United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls, which broke the DYK non-lead hook viewing record. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I misread that. I didn't notice there were five zeroes. Wow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Amatulic: out of interest, how many complaints in total for DYK on fools' day are we talking about? Thanks, Matty.007 15:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hard to tell, since I'm not the only OTRS volunteer answering tickets. A fulltext search for "April Fool" in the ticket database shows 20 that have been handled, although several of them were 'junk' tickets (spam or rants that don't need a reply). The problem here is the work involved in answering them in an environment that has a backlog in the hundreds. Typically we have boilerplate responses for common complaints. Maybe we need one for April Fools' day.
This isn't really a big deal, I guess, but any small way to reduce the load is appreciated. One way would be to have more OTRS volunteers, and any trusted experienced editor is welcome. Another way would be to change the information people find in Wikipedia:Contact us to discourage emails and encourage more talk page participation.
To be fair, the people whose complaints I answered were appreciative for the response. One even apologized for coming across as a prude. Most of them thought the main page had been vandalized and were just trying to file good-faith reports about it. My main purpose in starting this thread was just as a heads-up, that stuff we do to the main page has unseen consequences. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

David Ehrenfeld on April 1 nominations

Emm031, a new editor since Feb 2014, has created a nominations template for an article that is still in draft space: Draft:David Ehrenfeld. I've never created anything in a Draft space, so I don't know if the creator needs instructions on how to move this to mainspace, or if this is one of those things that gets approval first. It is apparent this user plans to make this a DYK nom. Can someone advise this editor on how to get the article into mainspace? — Maile (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"that you are safe and just a contract is not enough to make you suable?"

I have an issue with the second item in Prep 2 (the Boschetto v. Hansing hook), specifically the hook is deliberately vague in a way that is tolerated on April Fools' Day but generally looked down upon on all other days. I think that a more conventionally worded hook is needed. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Pinging Montanabw, who added the hook to the queue. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Are the sourcing rules different for court legal decisions? Two full sections have no inline citations. However, in the first section, end of second paragraph, there is an external link to Cornell University — Maile (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The hook currently in prep 2 is:

So, am I safe? Perhaps, perhaps not, the article says nothing that confirms the hook for me. You may be safe, depending on where you live and what kind of contract you are talking about, but please don't tell me that I am safe when the "evidence" for that claim has nothing to do with me and many, many other readers of this hook. Fram (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I've read the article twice, and I'm not much the wiser. Is this "you" the buyer or the seller? Does it matter? In any event, this "you" seems very US-centric. Any lawyers out there who might better be able to figure it out? Edwardx (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It looks like Orlady and I crossed paths while pulling this from prep: I got to the nomination template first, and she got to prep 2 first. At any rate, it has been pulled. One issue I noted is that the article is exclusively made up of primary sources—there isn't a secondary source anywhere, just cites to various published court decisions. So far as I know, this renders it unacceptable to DYK without a major rewrite. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • And Firefox crashed due to our edit conflict on the nomination template, but all's well now! As for your concerns about the article, note that court decisions often are suitable as references; in particular, appellate decisions often include an explanatory synopsis that is tantamount to a secondary source. --Orlady (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • They are suitable as references, but the only independent source (the Harvard Law Review external link) returns a 404 error, so that we are stuck with an article solely based on primary sources. Not a good thing for DYK. Thanks all of you for pulling it. Fram (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The hook was approved, I thought it was weird, but I did the promotion with a cursory glance and saw no structural deficiencies not to. That said, I'm not butt-hurt the promotion was rescinded so someone can redo the hook. I found it rather challenging to find approved hooks to fill the non-image slots in the two preps I filled yesterday, so admit to scraping the bottom of the barrel a bit. Montanabw(talk) 20:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Preps full, queues not

Just an FYI that all the preps are full, but only one queue, an admin could load the queues now if desired and save the bots hitting the panic button for a change ;-) Montanabw(talk) 03:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}}

I just filled all of the prep areas. If an admin could move them (all of them, because if you only do one, I'll be back in an hour looking for someone to do this again ) to the queue section, it would be appreciated. Please note that the four filled prep areas are the first four prep areas I have ever filled, so while I don't think I screwed up, it can't hurt to check. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like someone moved three of them up. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
hmm someone moved all four up. Thanks Sven. Solid. Victuallers (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Banking QPQs

I built seven sets of DYKs in relatively short order, and it appears that I've burnt through our supply of biographies. While I don't think I can add in biographies that I reviewed, I'm in the process of reviewing a bunch of them so that we have a supply to work with (to be clear, we've got a lot of biographies pending, it's just that they weren't being reviewed as quickly as other things). My question is this: can I bank reviews? If I do ten now, can I store them and use them to fill the QPQ requirement a month or two from now? I didn't see anything about that in the rules, but I don't want to come across as gaming the system. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It's done all the time.— Maile (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_102&oldid=1142665735"