Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Did you know?
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}
	v; t; e;

Error reports

Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.

Template:FixBunching

Queue 6

Hi, I think it would be more appropriate to write: Edward Gal and his stallion. Yoninah (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on DYK noms, including the declining rate

Gatoclass, myself, and others have foreseen the declining DYK nom rate and that we'd have to change the number of hooks per queue, queues per day, etc. However, not all agreed at what point we should do that. In that vein, here are some thoughts and observations:

right now there are 139 noms + several in on that page up for special dates, only 56 of those 139 have been approved
the problem of reviewers focusing on newer noms and ignoring older noms is perpetual and will never go away, towit: right now Oct 7 has 33 noms, 18 of which are approved (over 50%) but Oct 4 has 23 noms only 7 of which have been approved (less than 33%), likewise, Oct 5 has 20 noms, only 9 approved (not quite 50%), for both 4 and 5 Oct most of the unapproved noms haven't even been looked at
Halloween has two noms pending on the noms page, one of which has not been looked at, and over 30 on the special Halloween 2010 approved page
Oct 8 only got 17 noms, very low
Finding good quirky noms for the last queue slots is getting very hard

At this point, I now support changing the queues back to 8 for queues/prep sets not yet put together. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 8 noms per queue. Right now (as of 13:57, October 9, 2010 (UTC)), there is an average of 17 noms per day. In regards to the old noms, ~~a lot~~ some are obviously problematic, even at first article/hook glance. I think that may dissuade some reviewers, myself included, but I have been trying to work through some.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some are problematic, but many simply are untouched or have notes saying they're fixed and no one has rechecked them. Thanks for helping. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Count me among those supporting a reduction to 8 hooks/update. --Allen3 ^talk 17:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One reason that newer hooks get reviewed over older hooks is that they are at the top of the page. Now, this may be a radical idea, but how about reversing the order of the hooks, so that the newer ones go to the bottom of the page. If this idea is adopted, I'd suggest an admin fully protects the page for the 10-15 minutes it would take to re-order, rather than keep getting edit conflicts. Mjroots (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this idea. Mspraveen (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea too. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. This would encourage older noms to be reviewed first, but also has the potential of discouraging both nominator and reviewers when they see problem noms when they load up the page (not to mention the pitched battles that seem to happen every few months). Shubinator (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about how much effort will be needed to retrain nominators to place new submissions at the bottom of the page. Probably the best course forward is to make the change and see how many corrections need to be made after a week or so. As long as people are willing to revert to current practices if more problems develop than are resolved, then I am willing to support a trial to see if the reordering will help. --Allen3 ^talk 17:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt somehow that the page re-format will be of any real help. People are still going to review the same number of hooks. Wether a reviewer takes the time of doing one up top or down below, it all pans out in the end. If they only were going to review one article and that one eventually reaches the bottom then it all amounts to the same thing. What we really need is people taking time to review more hooks. That's the only real sollution to lightening the load on the regulars.4meter4 (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the 139 hooks sounds low, it's not as bad as it sounds. If you factor in the six queues as well as the four preps (why do we have four now? That seems pointless imo) that's an extra 90 hooks, so 229 hooks really isn't too bad. Reducing to eight is a given, I'm actually not sure when or why it was raised to nine. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the prep areas, I would support keeping four. I do lots of gnomish work, and I try to check hooks as much as possible while they're still on the nominations page, but there are so many that I can't thoroughly check everything. One can easily give better scrutiny to hooks when they make it to prep. They can be checked for typos, formatting problems, facts, hook appropriateness, etc. Before the expansion to four, hooks would go from prep to queue quickly and I'd have to post queue fix requests here, sometimes letting the most minor things just slip past. Since we went to four, I've had more time to review hooks and have been able to make all of the edits myself, without having to post any correction requests here. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The increase to nine occurred in early August (see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 57#Backlog). With WikiCup in full swing, we were seeing 35 to 45 new submissions per day and had a backlog of over 370 nominations [1]. --Allen3 ^talk 17:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As consensus to go to 8 hooks per update appears fairly clear, I have modified Template:Did you know/Clear and placed only 8 hooks in the update at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. --Allen3 ^talk 19:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Are we gooing to try the dates inverted on the noms page? — Rlevse • Talk • 19:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suck it and see, that's what I say! Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse asked me to comment here. In regards to the backlog, I think that not only do we need to go to 8 hooks, we will also probably have to go to 8-hour updates at the current rate of decline. As for reversing the order of hooks at T:TDYK, I'm not terribly keen on the idea myself for a variety of reasons, but perhaps it can't do much harm as an experiment. Gatoclass (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support 8 hooks, and 8-hour update at a later stage. Will resume writing :) Other DYK problems mentioned at the very top are perpetual. I had once a thought that those editors who care about providing interesting hooks, images and articles tend to be auto-promoted by quick reviews, and those who post boring ones sink to the bottom (of the T:TDYK page). Maybe this is "natural selection", and at this state of my mind I'm hesitant to promote bottom reviews .. A second thought. The reversal idea has its merits and I would support it, but. Our conservatism is a problem here, and the mess with nominators keeping adding to the top will last for quite a while. Materialscientist (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's very much a case of "natural selection", which is one reason I'm not keen on the idea. I have my doubts it will change my own reviewing habits, and in any case I think too much fuss is made about clearing out the old hooks, but I don't feel strongly opposed to the idea and I don't think it can do much harm to give it a try. Gatoclass (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One way or the other, they have to be cleared, we can't leave them there forever. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly they should be given priority, but the top priority of course is to create the best possible updates and if that means taking some more recent hooks, updaters should not be hesitant about that. When I was regularly doing updates I took them from anywhere on the page, and the "tail" never seemed to get any longer then. They all get processed eventually. Gatoclass (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the idea of placing newer hooks at the bottom of the page is more sensible. Another idea to increase new DYKs is to allow newly premoted GA and FA articles to be candidates. The idea of DYK is IMO to provide interesting facts from well written articles. However the current criteria of new articles or articles 5x expanded is a little specific IMO. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the idea of DYK is IMO to showcase new content IMO, not fun trivia IMO. From WP:DYK: "The DYK section gives publicity to newly created or expanded Wikipedia articles." It will require widespread consensus to change that, and such consensus has not been demonstrated yet despite numerous proposals (here and at WP:VPP) over the past couple years. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One week trial

So let's try a one week trial with the "old noms on top" idea. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. I like the idea of widening the DYK criteria as well (per LilUnique above) but I realise that is substantially more revolutionary and might need wider consultation and buy-in. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is for "wikipedia's newest articles" and GAs don't necessarily qualify. This is a perennial proposal that has always been rejected. Gatoclass (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's add it to WP:PEREN, meanwhile back to the "old noms on top" question. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A trial seems to be agreed, just need to work out when to try it. How about starting midnight UTC Monday 11th or thereabouts. Mjroots (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make that specific, at 23:59 Mon 11 Oct 2010, as some may misinterpret what day midnight falls on. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they might. I did mean midnight Sun/Mon, but Mon/Tue will be fine. Mjroots (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implemented. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on new format

I like the new format. I believe it will encourage reviewers to look at the articles that need some attention first. Also reviewers that are not inclined to get bogged down in a lengthy discussion over the merits of a hook can still do what they've been doing. I guess that might be the point. Dincher (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I dislike the new format and found the earlier system easier to navigate. This organization feels counterintuitive to me. I would prefer that we change it back.4meter4 (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One of the problems with the oldest-to-newest sequence is that the "Older nominations" section break is missing, which means you can't easily see which days are open for new nominations and which are closed. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "Older nominations" section as it seemed to be redundant. Maybe a "newer nominations" section could be added for hooks less than 5 days old. Mjroots (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could do something like this:

2 Old nominations

2.1 Articles created/expanded on October 6

2.2 Articles created/expanded on October 7

3 Current nominations

3.1 Articles created/expanded on October 8

3.2 Articles created/expanded on October 9

3.3 Articles created/expanded on October 10

3.4 Articles created/expanded on October 11

3.5 Articles created/expanded on October 12

3.6 Articles created/expanded on October 13 —Bruce1ee^talk 10:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the newer and older nominations for a certain day are all over the place, this new system is completely chaotic, if a trial is to be properly started NEWER nominations on a particular day SHOULD be placed on the end since we're doing everything chronologically. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:31pm • 10:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reversed format seem to be encouraging the review of older noms first. Re the order of noms per day, I don't see it as a problem. As long as a nomination is under the correct day, what does it matter in which order they appear? Mjroots (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes it's working fine as far as I can see. I already knew I had to scroll down near the end to find the new and exciting nominations to review. (Just kidding, I review half at one end and half at the other, whichever way up it is - but I know most people don't. And actually, for reviewing the older things, it really feels easier the way it is now.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the new format and think it is having the desired effect. It did seem as though it confused a few people though. I would suggest running for longer than one week as it appears that people are just now getting used to the new layout. I would also like to suggest that an additional note be added to the notice a few days before it gets switched back, to give people a chance to be ready for it. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am of mixed feelings about the new format. On the plus side, older nominations appear to be receiving more reviewer attention. On the down side, I have noticed an increase in the number of new nominations being placed under the wrong date (e.g. [2] and [3]). As DYK regulars have the technical skills and understanding to adjust to different formats, I am more concerned with the format causing confusion for relative newbies about where to place new submissions. A secondary concern is the effective loss of the "Older nominations" header removes the visual reminder of which days are still open for new submissions and which days are beyond the five day window. --Allen3 ^talk 01:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can put the older noms thing in and I'm sure Shub can do any code tweaks. Wrong placement of noms hasn't been that many and is fixed with a little time and people reading the notice and date headers. Also note the number of noms is creeping back up. A few days ago it was in the 140s and today it was over 180. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also like the new setup, which seems to be working quite well. The older days seem to be being worked through a lot faster now than they did before. And I agree with Bruce1ee's suggestion of how the Old/New nominations format should be made. I think it would work better like that. Silverseren^C 01:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've had a go at adding in the older / current noms split again. To do this, I've had to use lvl 1 hdrs for the main hdrs. The alternative was to move all hdrs down a lvl. Mjroots (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that looks fine. I've tweaked the levels a bit and adjusted the TOC limit. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support not that I see a vote yet, but this is definitely an improvement :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It works for me. Looking at other entries, I still added a nom at the top of a given date. If adding at the bottom was desired for chronological order, that should be stated clearly. I like about this order from old to new that it raises attention for the Special occasions section, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I haven't been during the trial, the new order makes a lot more sense to me and the page is currently a lot smaller than normal so it would seem to have had a positive effect. In particular, often the older hooks are those that are borderline for some reason, so having more editors see them and hopefully comment, can only be a good thing. Smartse (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time's almost up

The one-week trial ends tonight, are we in agreement to leave it as it is? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it as it is for now, but maybe make a final decision in a month. First impressions are that it is going well, but I don't think a week is long enough. Mjroots (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I put my crat hat on, I'd say consensus is to accept the new format. But, whatever the group wants to do is okay. Right now I'd agree with MJR to go another week. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should make it clear that the newest hooks for a day should be on the bottom in the edit notice, the layout right now is muddled up. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 11:30am • 00:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters where within a day's section the nom's are as long as they are filed under the correct day. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like it that much...you expect to go to the bottom of the page for the rancid stuff. ResMar 01:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the whole point we've been trying to avoid. Under the old system, with all the stuff with problems at the bottom, very few people were willing to tackle it. By listing them at the top they get more prominence and, accordingly, more views; more second, third, fourth, fifth opinions. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the notice at the top of the suggestions page. Let's give it another week, then make a decision. Noms in the coming week will all have been made under the alternate system, rather than a mixture of the two systems as happened in the last week. Mjroots (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fine to me. I tend to just review whatever hooks are on top of the pile, and when the old hooks are on top, they are the ones I'm reviewing, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. So it seems to me that it's doing what it was intended to do, which is bring more attention to the older hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only a very occassional contributor to DYK so my opinion probably isn't worth that much, but FWIW I think the new layout is a big improvement. Giving the oldest hooks priority can only be a good thing. Interesting to note that the oldest nomination is only seven days old at present, which is about the lowest I've seen it, so it seems to be working. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely in support of the new format. Although I don't do much reviewing here anymore, I tend to glance through and see if anything of interest catches my eye (this is DYK afterall!) Having the old nominations at the top makes it more likely that I'll look at them and offer a view, help or review. I certainly haven't been confused by the change, and I think it is all pretty well explained. Harrias ^talk 13:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I like the new format as well. 28bytes (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see that Wikipedia still can not make a concrete decision on anything, without a dither, blather, hang on a minute, etc. Good job we do not sit on the United Nations Security Council.... hell we do. So that's why ! 21:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I support. It's a step forward for those who just scroll down when reviewing. The only problem I have seen, occasionally, was a new nom placed up top. That should go away with time.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support In full favor, it'll help with older nominations not getting lost at the bottom of the page. Miyagawa (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems to be going well so far, with little if any confusion caused by the change. -- Cirt (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as commented above. Reviewers going for the new ones see the Special occasions more easily - where a 24 October hook is still waiting, smile --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as this makes good sense. Schwede66 02:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good change really. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Page is definitely easier to navigate for reviewers looking for the older hooks. Yoninah (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is easier working from the top down instead of the bottom up – for reviewing and promoting hooks to the prep areas. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent change?

I suggest that the experiment has worked, and that the "older noms at top" system be adopted permanently. Mjroots (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, it's pretty much unanimous, looking at the comments in the subthread immediately above. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the experiment did no harm, is a good idea and I support it but I can't say far certain or quantify for that matter whether it was a good success. Anyone notice an improvement?--NortyNort (Holla) 09:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rule change proposal

the current rule stands at a new article or a massive expansion of 5x in 5 days, however, i think this is a little unfair on bigger articles. Currency war was 30k when i started an expansion, and that would require it to go to 250k to feature (which is massive, requires multiple splits and neary impossible), however, articels that are say 5k-10k have an unfari advantange that they need a much smaller expansion to 25k (which is still smaller than when i started the aforementioned article). Therefore i think somethign like an expansion of 50% for articles over some number (say 25k for thes ake of this) or 5x would be a fairer proposal.Lihaas (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the idea at the very start was to lengthen stubs? f o x 13:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rule is fine. I see no reason it should be changed, but if it must, perhaps a decreasing rate of expansion the larger an article is would suffice. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason for a 30K article to be 5k expanded. That's too big. It should be subarticle if there's that much to write about. The purpose of the rule is to get stub/starts expanded so they are in at least some semblance of decent condition. DYK's purpose is not to enable every article to possibly be DYK eligible. That being said, there is some leeway for the large articles, but for something 30K, I'd just say skip DYK and go to GA/FA. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EDIT CONFLICT)The main page says: "From Wikipedia's newest articles:" Expanded a stub into an article is in essence making an article: what was there before was more or less a placeholder. Expanding something that started off at 30k is already an article. Therefore, it should be that much harder for it to qualify, because it's not really one of the newest articles, just an article with some work done. So, in summary, I don't really think it should be changed at all.Harrias ^talk 13:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good news, a 30K article would only have to go up to 150K to be 5x expanded. Bad news, I see no reason to change the rule no matter how large the size of the original article. Yes, this means many articles I've written or expanded over the years never had a chance at DYK but it's for "Wikipedia's newest articles" not "every article on Wikipedia". If you take a 30K article up to say 60K, go for GA/FA instead. - Dravecky (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias has a good point: it's for articles that previously didn't exist in much of a decent condition. Occasional exceptions happen when bigger-than-stub articles get expanded greatly (look at Eastern chipmunk's history last December and January), but I agree with the idea of requiring major expansion for already-existing articles. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Rlevse and Draveky. For the occasional exception, we can always ignore all rules. cmadler (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is such a perennial complaint that maybe we should add a note to Additional Rules or something. DYK is for new content. If an article is already 30k, maybe you should focus on trying to improve it to GA/FA rather than DYK. (And to be honest, GA/FA are more "prestigious", in the award-collecting sense, than DYK, so I don't see why people complain about taking a GA instead of a DYK. It's not like the couple hours on the main page buried underneath other stuff is a huge deal.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That note is called Wikipedia:Did you know/Meanies. Art LaPella (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I knew it sounded familiar! rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crediting photographers

It just occurred to me — we have no way of recognizing the photographers whose images appear in DYK. Would it be reasonable to expand {{DYKmake}} to have a parameter for photographers? Not all lead images are photographs or the work of the uploaders, so I would see it as reasonable for the template to contain instructions only to give credit to the person who uploaded it if that person has an en:wp account. Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do other projects aside from TFP do this? I think if a user contributes a photo, they contributed to the article and should get make credit as well. I think, on occasions where the picture appears in the lead, such credit could be given.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would be impossible to apply consistently, since obviously not every single image would have been taken by someone from enwp. It would also seem to me to be a bit of a hassle for the nominator to have to check who uploaded an image at commons, to see if they have an enwp account, just to use a 100px thumb in a DYK. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that we require the nominator to do anything; instead, I'd just like to see it as an option. The article that led me to think of this is Winton Place Methodist Episcopal Church, which is scheduled to be in the lead tomorrow; the photo was taken by Greg5030, but he added it to the article more than two years ago, so I don't think it appropriate to call him a contributor to the article itself for DYK purposes. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

{{edit protected}}

In Queue 6, it should read "Gabriel's Oboe" and not Gabriel's Oboe. 22:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. (As I understand, themes are not italicized). Materialscientist (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise for Nella Fantasia (same hook), which should read "Nella Fantasia". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Why didn't I notice it earlier? Materialscientist (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarakan riot

This found its way onto the Main Page, via DYK, while still in desperate need of substantial copy-editing (I've not finished yet) and also with at least one of its paragraphs completely unreferenced. I think more care is needed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK rules requires refs, but it does not require a ref for every paragraph. I think this is part of a trend to turn DYK into mini-GAs. I agree that this particular article should have had its grammar errors caught (I checked the two edits you made so far), but I also think some of the edits you made go beyond what is required for DYK, though they do improve it, they're not required for DYK. We need to keep in mind DYK is for new articles, not perfect ones. Yes, the standard should be higher than that for any new article, but we should not require them to be mini-GAs. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had approved the nomination and prior to doing so, did some copy-editing; mainly spelling and basic grammar. There was a lot of spelling and grammar errors and I obviously missed some. The author clearly isn't proficient in English but worked hard on the article.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that "one ref per para" was an accepted standard for DYK. Mjroots (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Must be an unwritten rule because I checked the written rules and additional rules. Perhaps we should codify it if it is an unwritten rule. Sort of like "last hook must be quirky" is an unwritten rule. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's D2. Shubinator (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I stand corrected. I'd searched for "refer" for reference and that D2 uses "sources/citations". — Rlevse • Talk • 14:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween Prep Sets

I started putting the 37 approved Halloween hooks into 5 queues last night. There are none left on the noms page nor holding area, all are in the prep sets. Links are at: Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Halloween_2010#Halloween_DYK_Hooks_-_Prep_Sets. I went with 5 sets as instead of 4 as we'll probably get more noms in the coming week, it gives us more diversity, and the 5th set will run when it's still Halloween in North America, which is a big Halloween region. (Now April 1st we need to stick to the UTC times strictly). Right now sets 1 and 3 have 8 hooks and the others 7. The set's number (1-5) is the order I think it best for them to go live in. More eyes appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3 hook topics

I think Prep 3 has too many scientific hooks. The lead hook is Earth's shadow, there's one about a mushroom, Mycena maculata, and three about marine animals: Protemblemaria perla, Marivagia stellata, and longhead catshark (the last two right next to each other). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earth vs marine amimals vs mushrooms are vastly different. But I do think the three marine animal argument has merit, so I've moved Marivagia stellata to P4; swapping with a hook about cars. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shared authorship

Just curious as to whether this page history entitles me to a co-authorship credit, or does it just go to the article creator? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning on nominating it or something? Credit is really something that is up to you guys. If you feel that you are one of the significant contributors, feel free to nominate yourself as one. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Prep 1. I did mention it when nominating - but if it's been forgotten, it doesn't matter. Sniff. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You listed yourself as nominator rather than co-writer. In the future, if you feel you have made a substantial contribution and it's uncontroversial, you can just go ahead and list both yourself and the other writer as writers. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False messiah

At queue 5, does "Jewish false messiah" have a consensus here? 50,000 Frankists thought he was a real messiah, so should it be "alleged Jewish messiah"? Art LaPella (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "Jewish Messiah claimant". Gatoclass (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get the facts straight

Just an idea. For future credits, should the fact they nominated and appeared on the front page also begiven to them as a reminder as part of the template? I.e.

instead of (taking one of my DYKs)

On August 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article New henge at Stonehenge, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

It is something like

On August 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article New henge at Stonehenge, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was "... that archaeologists have detected what they believe is a wooden henge underground near to Stonehenge?" You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Simply south (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to the credits you get on your talkpage? The tags on the article talkpages already do include the fact. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea: it won't be much extra work for the bot programmer to add this as a setting, I assume, and it has a small housekeeping advantage for those like me who keep a list of their hooks as displayed on the main page, in that we won't have to check the article talk page or the Recent Additions archives to see the final wording used. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bencherlite, this would make my DYK housekeeping easier. Sasata (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible enough. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Shubinator, someone needs to add a parameter the {{UpdatedDYK}} template before he can implement the bot. Simply south (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hooks for specific dates

With the change to oldest-first at T:TDYK, I am wondering if there is a danger that hooks for specific dates will be skipped when preparing updates because the hooks are being selected from the top of the page. There are presently two unreviewed nominations (disclosure: one is mine) that I think are now past their requested time-slots. There are also quite a few nominations for the next week or so in the special timing section, so it seems to me that there is a potential for further examples. Would someone experienced with preparing updates please have a look? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EdChem, the 28 October hooks were only nominated on 24 October - less than 5 days before they are due to appear. So far, they still haven't missed a timeslot, but nomination for a specific day is best seen as a request rather than a guarantee. Mjroots (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do realise that my nom was only a request for 28 Oct, and that I may need to think of a different hook(s) for other dates. It is of course entirely up to reviewers to decide if my nom is even accepted. As for the more general point, Gerda Arendt's suggestion of some signal to remind editors preparing updates that a date-related request is pending sounds sensible and potentially helpful. EdChem (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions: a signal (at the top of the page?), both for unreviewed hooks in that section (disclosure: one is mine) and for the date of the next one coming up. One more suggestion: to place such hooks in the middle of the day when it is that day for most of the world. But in general I am quite happy, 1.2k for the last Bach cantata (BWV 109) was not bad. (That one was in the middle of the day, thanks!) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to be honest, I'm getting a little worried about the process now. Mine and EdChem's timed hook hasn't received a single review despite us asking for a slot in less than 24 hours. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you review each other's hooks? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The six-article multi-hook nomination was a joint nomination from Paralympiakos and me, so we can't review them. Paralympiakos' stand-alone hook has had a comment made, and I have made additions to the article to address the concern raised, so I consider myself ineligible to review it. Also, our collaboration over the previous month disqualifies me as a reviewer due to potential conflict of interest. EdChem (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination procedure for special timing hooks

A lot of the hooks in the holding area are yet to be reviewed. Should we make it clear (a written rule) that all new nominations, including ones for special timings, are to be nominated the regular way? The nominator can always add the request for the special time in his nomination. Once passed, he or the reviewer can then make the move to the holding area. This would seem to me to solve the issue of lack of reviews for special time hooks as has been raised here. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 12:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that may work better, ie, put them in the regular nom sections, only moving them to holding after approval. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably be made clear in the instructions then. Str Pby (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had done so, nominate the regular way a hook about the St John Passion, asking for Good Friday, - it got "on" well after Easter, which made no sense. Then I asked if I should nominate in Special occasions to start with, so I did, and with some reminders it worked for all but one. Well, too bad that the 22nd Sunday after Trinity is also Halloween. I skipped Reformation Day for this year, to not make it even more complicated. Should I nominate now for 31 October 2011? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a year from now. But if you want to wait that long, go ahead. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8 hooks or 9?

It seems to me it may be time to go back to 8 hooks per? Since it's getting hard to find a sufficent amount without overloading on bios. (And 8 hooks makes it easier to go "half bios/American, don't put bios/American next to each other if it can be helped"). - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stay with 9. We went to 8 about a month ago at this point and hooks shot over 200, that's with 4 prep sets constantly full. I think we don't need to go to 8 until we hit 140 noms or so. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that there are currently 36 Halloween hooks that will soon be moved to the queues. Combined with the current submissions, this means we are effectively around 200 hooks in the backlog. --Allen3 ^talk 21:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's 37 hooks, in 5 sets, slightly over a day's worth. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I know we've had GAs on DYK before, but I wonder what list of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners will make it to first, FL status or the Main Page? :) On a more serious note, in the unlikely event that it is promoted to FL before approval here, it wouldn't affect its eligibility, I hope. Str Pby (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think so. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 12:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question / Proposal re Prep 4

The lead hook in Prep 4 presently is:

... that ophanin, piscivorin, ablomin and triflin found in the venom of the King Cobra (pictured), the water moccasin, the Mamushi snake, and the Habu snake, respectively, are all cysteine-rich secretory proteins that can reduce muscle contractions?

I noticed it a couple of hours ago at T:TDYK and thought it was a nice example of collaboration (four articles from four different editors) and also that it was a shame it wouldn't have the fifth article to make it into the DYK Hall of Fame. So, I have started a new article cysteine-rich secretory proteins and I am suggesting that it might be added into this hook (assuming the other authors are agreeable, and that it meets DYK standards, of course).
I recognise that thie request is somewhat unusual - and I apologise if it is inappropriate. If the suggestion is unreasonable, I am willing to simply nominate cysteine-rich secretory proteins through the regular process and have it as a stand-alone DYK nom. However, I thought that combining it with the existing hook seems reasonable to at least suggest. I am suggesting the hook be changed to:

... that ophanin, piscivorin, ablomin and triflin found in the venom of the King Cobra (pictured), the water moccasin, the Mamushi snake, and the Habu snake, respectively, are all cysteine-rich secretory proteins that can reduce muscle contractions?

All of the venoms are mentioned in the CRISP article, all referenced. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked it out, and cysteine-rich secretory protein meets all of the DYK requirements. (Note: as a stand-alone, I think an interesting hook could be constructed about snake venom and human reproduction.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked PHFLai about this. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And PHFLai gives his STRONG SUPPORT to this proposal. Nicely done, EdChem. I was thinking of doing the exact same things this past weekend, but I ran out of time. (Spent too much time playing with Chinese scorpions..., now on Q3) It's always nice to see things done the way I want without actually doing it myself, and I don't even have to ask anyone. Excellent! Thank you. If anyone feels like turning this quintuple-DYK into a sextuple-DYK hook for even more awesomeness, please add 450+ characters to the Latisemin article and add this to the hook with the Erabu sea snake. This snake has a cool pic, too. (pictured right) Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Latisemin expanded (but will still need independent review / approval, of course), so the proposed 6-article hook would be...

... that ophanin, piscivorin, ablomin, latisemin and triflin found in the venom of the King Cobra (pictured), the water moccasin, the Mamushi snake, the Erabu sea snake and the Habu snake, respectively, are all cysteine-rich secretory proteins that can reduce muscle contractions?

Or, we could go with two hooks, one for now and one for the queue for later, being:

... that ophanin, piscivorin, ablomin, latisemin and triflin found in the venom of the King Cobra (pictured), the water moccasin, the Mamushi snake, the Erabu sea snake and the Habu snake, respectively, are all proteins that can reduce muscle contractions?

and

... that CRISPs are found primarily in mammalian semen and some snake venom?

This approach has the advantage of shortening the first hook, and it is still 5-articles, and allowing the catchier stand-alone hook for CRISPs. It has the disadvantage of being two hooks rather than one. Obviously, if the two hook approach is taken, the second hook would go back to the queue with a 28 October nomination to wait its turn. Either approach is fine with me. :) EdChem (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latisemin Rules OK! And I support the Six-a-One Solution. ;) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarax, thanks for checking it out. As a stand-alone, I was planning to nominate the article with a hook like:

... that CRISPs are found primarily in two vertebrate products: mammalian semen and some snake venom?

or

... that CRISPs are found primarily in mammalian semen and some snake venom?

Whatever everyone thinks is best is fine with me. :) Thanks. EdChem (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll strongly support adding it to the Prep 4 hook, for great awesomeness! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the 6in1 hook in prep 4. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Rlevse for updating the hook and The Bushranger for updating the Prep 4 dyk-makes. I was wondering whether PFHLai should also get dyk-nom credits for the two extra articles? EdChem (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, IMHO he shold for latisemin, since he suggested it here. But you came up with the CRISPS suggestion above. ;) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a DYKnom for latisemin, as suggested. EdChem (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, EdChem. :-) --PFHLai (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Althea Garrison

In regard to the hook for this article (an article I created and nominated), which is now at Prep area 3, I have been wondering for several days whether it is appropriate to use for a biography of a living person, in light of the fact that the person herself has never publicly confirmed the information. Granted, there are reliable sources which support the information, but I would appreciate it if some editors would take another look at the hook and the article itself before it goes live on the main page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I am formally seeking to withdraw this hook from DYK consideration. I have removed it from Prep area 3 because I have too many doubts about its appropriateness in connection with a BLP. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for exception

I recently created an article on the tenor Andrew McKinley and I could nominate it now. However, I have plans to create articles on baritone David Aiken (currently a redirect to another person) and the bass Leon Lishner. These three men were the three kings in the original production of the classic Christmas opera Amahl and the Night Visitors. I would like to nominate them together and perhaps have it up on Christmas Eve this year at DYK, since the opera premiered on NBC Televison on December 24, 1951. I'm not sure how soon I can get to the other two. It may be a few weeks, at which point McKinley will be past the nomination deadline.4meter4 (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a special occasions holding area on the nominations page. I would recommend nominating the McKinley article now and putting it in the holding area for December 24. I would also recommend adding a comment that you expect to be able to have an alternate hook later that will incorporate two other articles in the works about other performers in the same premiere of the same opera so that anyone reviewing the hook will understand your plan. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I followed your advice.4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Hear You, I See You

I rejected this nomination earlier today for being submitted past the 5 day deadline... yet somehow it is now in the queue. Why is this?4meter4 (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No idea (I didn't build the set), but can you post a diff of your rejection? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume that Additional Rule D9 might have been in play? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

checks* Yeah, pretty sure it was D9'd... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. See the difference here. I'm not incredibly upset over having it included, but it seemed a mystery to me that there was no comment made by the person who reversed my decision.4meter4 (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Swahili, I enforce the 5-day rule. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I. lol Hence why I brought this up here.4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The hook appears in prep 4 this time yesterday, so maybe there was a double nomination of it? Str Pby (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was originally nominated 12 hours after creation, and approved about five days later. Perhaps after it was moved to prep, the user didn't realize why it was no longer on the page, and renominated it with a slightly different hook. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1366 Technologies

This article is currently in queue 5 but there was an unresolved issue with the hook (see the section in this version just before it was moved to prep). The "cutting costs for such cells by 40% and making the power generated from the cells cheaper than from coal" is not suitably sourced IMO as it is based on what the company has said and obviously they will be trying to big up their own product. I suggest removing this from the hook, but that makes it rather dull. Shall we move it back to T:TDYK so it can be discussed properly? Smartse (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised the 40% claim is totally unsourced in the article as well, so it definitely needs removing from the queue. Smartse (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3

{{editprotected}} T:TDYK#Dragan Tešanović has been reviewed and it is requested that it be on the main page on 29 October, 1:00am (queue 3). Can an admin please slot it in? Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with this. If a nomination is approved late, we shouldn't be bending over backwards just to accomodate a special request timing. Furthermore, the usage of the editprotected template and subsequent intervention by an admin who does not normally frequent DYK was inappropriate. A hook already in queue should not be retrned to the nom page if here is nothing wrong with it. Furthermore this hook has been waiting in the noms since Oct 21 and will now have an extra wait. I call for this action to be undone and consider this a very strong protest from someone not involved in that article, nom, review or promotion. Str Pby (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, the hook was swapped in twice, by two different people, and is now in Queue 3 twice. Also, the first time it was swapped, the credit templates were not taken care of, so there is an erroneous DYKmake and DYKnom for Mac Morgan. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think we can make an effort to fit hooks into time-sensitive slots such as this. It won't hurt Mac Morgan to wait a few more hours; she's been in the queue for a week. And using {{editprotected}} for urgently needed interventions is also appropriate, although I apologise for forgetting to change the DYKmake templates. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of Mr. Mac Morgan's article (he is male) I personally don't care when he hits the mainpage just as long as he does eventually. However, when swapping hooks please make sure you select topics which are diverse from the ones in the various queues. I had to move Mac again because there were too many opera singer hooks together. Cheers.4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9 minutes to go and still not added to the queue

I hate to be "that guy", I really do, but myself and EdChem added our joint hook days ago, yet it has not received any sort of view. We asked for a specific time and that time is 9 minutes away, yet the hook hasn't been moved to the queue. Can someone please deal with this now as it is rather urgent. Apologies for the nagging, but this has been kept waiting too long. Thank you. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, my other hook for Dragan Tesanovic is currently in queue 3, which wasn't what I requested. I requested queue 2, so if that change could possibly be made, it would be great, otherwise I'll have to change the wording of the hook, as the event will be passed. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan Tesanovic has been moved to Q2, and one of Q2's hooks sent to Q3. Courcelles 12:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, as I mentioned two threads above, the hook was in the queue twice, so it's still in Queue 3 once. Also, the DYKmake now in Queue 2 is for Dragan Tesanovic, and I don't know if the bot properly handles the redirect to Dragan Tešanović. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 12:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caught that. Removed it from Q3, and promoted something else. Resolved redirect for the bot. Courcelles 12:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's an erroneous DYKmake left over for My Week with Marilyn in Queue 2, as well as the two credit templates for Mac Morgan in Queue 3 which I mentioned in the thread above. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 12:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What do you suggest now for the joint hook with me and EdChem? Are we going to have to alter the hook wording and apply for another slot? Paralympiakos (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can't have two MMA hooks in the same queue, sorry. Courcelles 12:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not much we can do now, but the original slot requested for the joint nom was the update that is presently live. Just noting we didn't ask for two MMA hooks in one queue, FYI. EdChem (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paralympiakos, I agree it is disappointing that the hook will need redrafting, but it's not the end of the world. We can redraft once the results are known fairly easily. Remember that everyone here is a volunteer, and we should have made the nomination a couple of days earlier - blame me if you like. Reviewers are free to review what they choose, and I am certainly grateful for their efforts. I think the issue here (other than some tardiness on my part) is the change in page layout making the date-specific nominations less prominent. I am glad your Dragan Tešanović hook will get its requested slot, it was nominated in plenty of time. Moving our nom back to the regular queue isn't too difficult. Personally, I think the concern here is whether the new layout of T:TDYK makes the DYK community less aware of those date-specific nominations, and how to reduce the chances of nominations like yours of Tešanović slipping through the cracks. EdChem (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether something on the page has changed or whether I monumentally screwed up, but the Dragan nom is now in the wrong queue. If this is my fault, then I apologise wholeheartedly, but I hoped for the London 1am queue, whereas it is in the 7pm queue presently. If possible, could you revert the previous changes and put it back in queue 3? I'm sorry about this. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on second thoughts, it's going to create too much hassle for admins and too much displeasure towards me, so if things are in order at the moment, then just leave them as is. We just need to sort out the joint hook that is still over the time limit. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Adabow's original request above was actually correct? I'd change it over but I'm afraid of making a mistake again! And anyway 6 hours does not make much difference I think. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, yes. That was some terrible eyesight by myself and I take full responsibility for this screw up. Anyway, as before, if someone could recommend the next course of action regarding the 28 October 1AM hook, I'd appreciate it. I'm no longer in a rush since the event is taking place now, but I'm keen to avoid the hook being disqualified for hook timing reasons. Paralympiakos (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to stress about the hook being disqualified for hook timing reasons as we have until the end of 29 October (UTC) - more than 24 hours from now - to place the nom in the regular queue and still fulfill the rules, assuming it presently being in the special area were taken as insufficient for satisfying the 5 day rule. We'll soon have the fight results, and we can re-cast the hook, update the articles, and hopefully get the hook into the queue. EdChem (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3 fix

Queue 3 has an erroneous DYKmake and DYKnom for Mac Morgan. The hook was moved and is currently in Prep 2, with the proper credits. (I mentioned this above, but I guess it got lost among other discussions, or people assumed someone else had fixed it.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removed. Courcelles 19:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween Hold on Prep Set building

The two queues (4 and 1) just built by Alansohn will go live on 31 Oct, which is when the 5 Halloween prep sets we have saved up will start going live. Therefore, I'm putting the two he built into temp holding pages and will start moving the Halloween sets in. Of course, others are welcome to move the Halloween sets in too, but keep in mind I built them in the order I thought best to see them on the main page, ie, Halloween P1 gets loaded first, HP2 loaded second and so on. The 5th set will appear on 1 Nov UTC time but it'll still be Halloween in North America. Cheers. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to where I've stored the two sets he created is here: Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Halloween_2010/After_Halloween — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize how far ahead the entries I put into prep would appear. I'll hold off until the Halloween DYK sets are completed. Alansohn (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go to T:DYK/Q and near the top you can see a sked of when the queues will appear on the main page. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that already, but knowing and remembering are two different things. My bad. Alansohn (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No biggie. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Malta Test Station

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Malta Test Station, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from {{{url}}}, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Malta Test Station and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Malta Test Station, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Malta Test Station with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Malta Test Station. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Malta Test Station saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!

Not a very good stock template, but apprently I was expected to notify, so I'm doing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See thread at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I'm starting to feel that it's a tad bit more than grating that you appear to attack DYK at every chance you get (at Utahraptor's RFA, and then this thread at ANI). How about trying to help instead of randomly accusing us of not doing enough on X, Y or Z, or that we're too lax on A, B or C? For what it's worth, when I review DYK nominations I do check for close paraphrasing and possible copyvios; as can be seen from the talk page archives of one of our more prominent copyright-dealing admins, I've approached her before for advice when reviewing DYKs. Str Pby (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be dificult to know where to start, and a waste of effort anyway given the resistance to change everywhere on wikipedia. I've looked at a significant percentage of main page DYKs over the last six months or so, and too many of them are absolutely dreadful. Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ecx3) Given our turnover rate (we have 140–200 nominations at any one time), DYK (correctly imo) works well on WP:AGF (including WP:AGFC). Those that do slip through can be brought up as Sandy did, albeit not in the "the world is ending, DYK is the problem" manner that she did. Str Pby (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MF-No article starts as an FA. The FA you helped so much with, Grace Sherwood, was a stub when I expanded it 5x, made DYK, and then FA and will be the TFA in less than three days. If we required new articles to be at FA level, hardly any would get written. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well blow me down, I never knew that; is this "patronise Malleus week"? Believe it or not, despite what Camelbinky says and others appear to believe, I've created articles and taken them all the way to FA, more than just the one. Who knows, I may even do it again one day if I can be arsed. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should remember that a little more often. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should remember what a little more often? So far as I recall I didn't drop any of them off at kiddies corner, aka DYK, didn't see any point. Malleus Fatuorum 00:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

StrPby, try reading through Sandy's comments at the ANI rather than just looking at the header. She specifically said she's not out to bash DYK and that the problem is not with the reviewers but with award-collecting editors who abuse it. There's no reason for everyone to start fighting here. In fact, I'm not sure I see any reason to be having a discussion here at all—is there an issue that needs to be discussed? rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she did say that. But coming right after Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Utahraptor 2#Oppose, it's a little hard to buy. It's probably unfortunate that my last two interactions with her have seen her taking a very negative view against DYK. Str Pby (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Passerby, if you will read critically and adjust your AGFometer, you will detect that I am trying to help. At FAC, we had to change the instructions to put the brakes on the effect the reward culture was having on production. We're a smaller community, so we were able to do that. DYKs are a much bigger part of the reward culture, and those people are demanding their DYK prize, while turning out shoddy content and overwhelming your review process. But we can't blame it all on the reward culture, the wikicup, RFA, whatever, because long-time participants who have come and gone from here tell me it has always been a haven for plagiarists. You need a change in process here, or for a light to be shone on the problem so the reward seekers will stop, and we can have "real" DYKs. You're welcome for the help. And drop the Utah RFA biz-- it's not my fault y'all passed a DYK that was not only plagiarism but didn't even use a reliable source. Address the problem, not the person who pointed it out. Unless you really think Utah needs to be an admin, in which case ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But here's where you're missing the point, Sandy. There is no "y'all". More often than not it's just one reviewer on each nomination, and the people compiling the hook sets simply AGF and take the reviewer's word that there's nothing wrong. My point all along has been that you seem to be tarring all of DYK with the same brush when in reality it's likely only one or two reviewers who aren't getting caught. Str Pby (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true; it's been happening for a very very long time. Detecting plagiarism is not part of your process. DYK is being gamed by the reward culture and RFA-- I don't pretend to know how to tell you to solve the problem, but I know you can't solve it by ignoring it, you will solve it by recognizing it and by shining a light on the abuse that has been hoised upon you, and the mainpage shouldn't display plagiarism and non-reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least we agree on something. :) No, ignoring it isn't going to work, but simply complaining about it isn't either. Maybe a good place to start would be to require each nominated hook to have two reviewers pass it before it gets approved. Just throwing an idea out, might not be feasible but it's a starting point. Str Pby (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should reduce the number of DYKs and make them of higher quality. Maybe change to 8-hour intervals and increase min number of characters. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That won't necessarily solve the problem of copyright issues or non-RS. With our 160-200 article backlog at all times 8-hour sets with less hooks in each is going to result in a growing backlog. 8-hour, 8-hook sets do happen, simply not at the current time. Str Pby (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher: how would increasing the minimum number of characters increase quality? Do you think someone who is willing to plagiarize 1500 characters (or write 1500 characters of junk) wouldn't be willing to plagiarize 2500 characters?

The problem is not in how DYK is handled, but in how people use it and what people think it means. There will always be a problem with award-seeking editors flooding the project, as long as people believe that having DYKs is a ticket to RfA success or something like that. Get the word out at RfA that having DYKs doesn't automatically get you the bit (and back up that word by actually rejecting candidates who have a lot of DYK but wouldn't make good admins) and you would much of what motivates bad writers to submit DYKs. (I suppose WikiCup is also one of the big problems, so something would have to be done about that too.) But increasing the length requirement is certainly not going to change anything. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get the word out at RfA that having DYKs doesn't automatically get you the bit (and back up that word by actually rejecting candidates who have a lot of DYK but wouldn't make good admins) and you would much of what motivates bad writers to submit DYKs. That's the ticket :) DYK is being abused by incompetent editors who want to climb the ladder at RFA, so shine a light on it. It is embarrassing to have plagiarism on the main page, and there are many competent editors who run their articles through DYK-- let them have more time again :) That may slow things down here, and give you all more opportunity for scrutiny. Anyway, I'm unwatching now, and I do hope this turns out to have been helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(redent) I can't see any way round the problem while DYK is seen as some sort of a right for articles, judged solely on supposedly objective standards. There are enough nominations and enough editors to choose the best eight articles/hooks a day and keep them up for 24 hours, but that would obviously be a very radical change and one for which I've never seen any real support around here. Physchim62 (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in spirit, Physchim, and I too have often told people that I don't think DYK should be an entitlement and that uninteresting or poorly-written articles shouldn't get promoted. But, as you suggest, I don't think any of the ideas I've ever had along those lines are workable. In particular, interestingness criteria would be prone to gaming ("i'll review yours and you review mine") and this page would quickly get filled up with people throwing fits about how their article wasn't promoted. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much the idea I see as unworkable as the change it would involve. DYK isn't starting from scratch but from where it is today, with the accumulated expectations of editors (both those who write the articles and those who review them). Any change that would address the problems you mention (and that are mentioned above) would have to be stepwise. Either that, or we just shut down DYK altogether and replace it with something else. Physchim62 (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A higher character limit would mean less submissions and so more time for reviewers to check articles properly. It'll also make it harder for hat collectors to get articles through. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK isn't a hat.... those are crats, and meaningless job titles by people who are actually inactive. But on that note, I bet if you gave out silly titles, "Inspector-General of DYK", "Sub-editor", "section-editor" of DYK, then more politicians would join in. Whether they would bother to actually check anything or just claim membership of some steering party on their worthless CV.... well... YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a higher character limit on its own is the answer. For a start, number of characters is a fairly poor measure of article quality, especially when DYK discounts things like lists, infoboxes, picture captions... Nor do I think that reviewers would automagically spend more time on each submission if there were fewer in the queue: I think that many reviewers would just review in the same way as before and use the time saved for something else. One possible first step would be to get every article reviewed by two separate editors before it is posted. Physchim62 (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing the minimum article length definitely wouldn't prevent plagiarism/copy-pasting in DYK nominations. Indeed, I believe it could encourage more plagiarism, because contributors would be eager to pad their articles. I just checked the history of a particularly egregious piece of plagiarism that I encountered as a DYK reviewer back in 2008, and I find that it was over 28,000 characters of readable text (much of which was complete paragraphs copied verbatim from copyrighted sources -- not individual sentences copied primarily from public domain US-government sources, as is the case with the Malta Test Station article). --Orlady (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I review a DYK and check the refs, I do look for plagiarism, as I am sure do many other reviewers. When I saw a borderline case, I raised it and other editors expressed a view. So, I hope that we can avoid tarring all reviewers with the actions of (what I hope is only) a few. I believe that most editors here would support avoiding putting plagiarism being posted to the main page. As a suggestion for detecting plagiarism, could a bot that works on this problem (such as CorenSearchBot, for example) be adapted to check a single article on request? That way, reviewers would have a test they could add to their standard review practice. Alternatively, maybe a check could by added to the DYKcheck script? EdChem (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is that most reviewers don't even check for basic spelling and grammar. There are some phrases that just jump out as having been copied from somewhere, and it usually only takes a Google search to find out from where. Hardly rocket science. Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He he, WP:FAC has shown itself incapable of detecting blatantly ungrammatical sentences in the opening paragraphs of articles before now, as well as many other obvious article problems. It also recently promoted an article which was heavily "plagiarized" from a PD U.S. government source, not that I consider that anything like as much of a problem as some other editors seem to. So I shouldn't take those high falutin' Southern manners too much to heart, but rather concentrate on trying to improve the service we provide to our readers. Physchim62 (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of spelling, I managed to mis-spell plagiarism three times in one post... embarrassing. :( Now corrected.

Malleus, I can assure you that I wouldn't pass an article full of spelling and grammar mistakes. Have a look at the x5 expansion of actinide that is presently in the DYK queue, or my expansion of the Hans Freeman stub or the rhodocene DYK (now a GA)... there is some really good work highlighted by DYK. Please try to recognise that DYK has both wheat and chaff. EdChem (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider that when you agree to consider the possibility that DYK is overwhelmingly chaff. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rather get the impression you would consider the possibility that Wikipedia as a whole is overwhelmingly chaff, so the distinction seems meaningless. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't share my view then I will have to consider you an idiot. Do you really believe that the overwhelming majority of the 3 million or so articles on the English wikipedia alone are worth spit? Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now, children... Physchim62 (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do (think they're worth something). And somebody who says "If you don't share my view you're an idiot" is somebody I will speak no longer to or with. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your loss, not mine. Blocking your ears to what you don't want to hear can hardly be considered to be the response of an adult though. Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I certainly accept that there is good stuff featured on DYK – and not just in chemistry ;) So why is it only featured for six hours? So that DYK can also feature the "chaff" as Malleus puts it, or the "Did you care?" hooks as I tend to put it? Surely not. So DYK needs a better wheat–chaff separation procedure. In my mind, the process should be more focussed on throwing out the chaff than on not risking to throw out a bit of wheat with it. And, of course, no process is perfect, nor can it please all the people all of the time. Physchim62 (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My three cents: DYK is not overwhelmingly chaff, however there are too many editors who are RfAming the system with chaff, alas; raising the character limit wouldn't help (as it is, sometimes a article on an obscure subject at 1000 characters is better than other articles at 3000); and I for one make a point of not plagaraising, never want to be an admin, and submit every article I possibly can to DYK. Why? Becasuse it's fun, and because it helps people learn things about things. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<-I just gave a cursory read to the rules and additional rules. Apologies if I missed something, but I didn't see any admonitions to check for copyvios. I fully understand that all article submitted for DYK must meet all policy requirements for articles, and it is not feasible to repeat all those requirements in the rules for evaluating a DYK. However, given the strong allegations, and the prominence of the DYK articles, perhaps it would be good to remind DYK evaluators that checking for plagiarism should be one of the steps. I confess I've evaluated a number of suggestions, concentrating on length, timing, hook, verifiability of hook, general readability, and only pursued copyvio possibilities if it reads too good to be true. I plan to check more carefully in the future; does it make sense to encourage others to do the same?--SPhilbrick T 17:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween queues - wording

Should "From Wikipedia's newest articles:" be rephrased for Halloween to something else? They aren't technically our "newest articles"... Str Pby (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"From recent spooky articles on Wikipedia:" ? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK as it currently operates makes no real sense if you think about, not for any day of the year. Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Object, "my" Bach cantata among them - intentionally so - is new and not spooky. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Bach is long dead, so he is now arguably a spook, in some sense. :P EdChem (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did my October 23 nom get lost?

Hi folks. I nominated United States Ambassador to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture, created on October 23. It was approved and then in this edit and this edit yesterday moved to the prep 4 area. Then in this edit later yesterday it was replaced by a set of Halloween items. But I've looked at all the queues and other prep areas and I don't see it anywhere now, unless I've missed it. Did it get lost in the shuffle? Thanks! Wasted Time R (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Did you know/Halloween 2010/After Halloween. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 11:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, that's fine. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hook with Oct 28 request date

As those who follow this page would be aware, Paralympiakos and I had a six-article hook in the time-specific section with a request for an Oct 28 date. It was not reviewed in time and cannot be used in its present form on any other date, so we have been considering what to do now. I had intended to do a small redraft of the hook, but events have made that impossible (one fight was postponed, and hence two articles no longer fit in the hook). So, I am posting here to outline our suggestions / requests in the hope they will be found satisfactory. Our intentions are as follows:

Move the existing hook to the regular queue, with a 24 October nomination date (the date the articles were moved to article space).
Recast the hook to take account of the now-known results of the championship bouts, and remove the two articles relating to the bout that was postponed.
Move those two articles to a nomination for the date of the new bout (10 December) - we would ask that these not be disqualified later on timing grounds, as they were nominated on the day they reached article space, but the nomination has since been overtaken by events.
Hold off on reviewing the hook in the regular queue for 24 hours, as I think a x5 expansion of an existing article may allow us to make that hook back into a 5 article hook, and hence eligible for the DYK Hall of Fame. With the Halloween hooks being added to the queues presently, we hope there is time for this period of grace to be allowed.
It is our intent that the 11 December nomination will be expanded closer to the date, as there are Championship bouts in two other weight divisions to be included at that event. This would make the 11 Decemeber nomination potentially a 6-article hook.

Is this an acceptable way for dealing with the existing Oct 28 request? Paralympiakos and I thank you for considering our suggestions / requests. EdChem (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some feedback / comment on this proposal would be very much appreciated, or should we just go ahead? EdChem (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're willing to wait six weeks, yes, otherwise tweak the hook as necessary and it can go into a queue now. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I will start making the changes now. Paralympiakos and I are happy for two of the articles to wait until 10 December, as outlined above. EdChem (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1366 Technologies hook presently on the main page

There is a discussion at talk:Main page about the hook for 1366 Technologies. It contains a claim reliably sourced to the New York Times, but if you read the article the 40% saving stated in the hook as definitively occurring is actually just a claim / prediction from the management. We should either take this hook down and re-assess / re-draft it, or at least change it on the main page to show that the saving is a prediction, not a fact. Someone please intervene quickly, this looks like a really dubious hook to me.

Details: The hook presently on the main page is:

... that 1366 Technologies has created a technique to cast solar cells directly from molten silicon, cutting costs for such cells by 40% and making the power generated from the cells cheaper than from coal?

1366 Technologies article:

"The company's management predicts that the new approach will be able to produce wafers at costs 40% below current methods" (followed by NYT reference)

and

"Company president Frank van Mierlo estimated that solar power generated using wafers from 1366 Technologies would be cheaper than power generated using coal" (followed by NYT reference)

These statements do not support the hook, in my opinion. EdChem (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I pointed this out at T:TDYK and further up this page yesterday. Materialscientist has removed the "cheaper than coal" but I think that the 40% should also go. Smartse (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Materialscientist for making a change, but I suggest the following:

... that 1366 Technologies has created a technique to cast solar cells directly from molten silicon which they predict will cut the costs for such cells by 40%?

would be a reasonable and accurate new version of the hook. EdChem (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks ok to me. Smartse (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate problem resolved - Materialscientist has changed the hook to:

... that 1366 Technologies has created a technique to cast silicon wafers from the melt rather than sawing them from an ingot?"

which addresses my concerns. Smartse's point that we dropped the ball in passing the hook in the first place remains, however. EdChem (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i (newspaper)-Very bad call

I'd like to know who approved this one. The article is made up almost entirely of quotes from persons whose job it is to promote this paper. It's a terrible article that borders on being speedy delete-able as blatant spam and should never have been allowed to be featured on the main page in it's current state. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "dyk" part is funny, it basically boils down to "did you know that this publication uses a format of summary followed by expansion on its inside pages that has been commonly used by print publications since the early 20th century?" At any rate, as some here may know, i've been criticizing DYK a little lately. Here's a simple idea for reform. Change the "dyk" template slapped onto talk pages to include text like "reviewed by____" which would lead to more transparency and accountability.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been edited to remove all the spam quotes. The article's creator did this themselves and acknowledged the problems. If he can see and I can see it why couldn't the user reviewing the submission see it? It is also now about 300 characters too short to be a DYK. Is there any way to remove it? I'm frankly embarrassed that this is linked on the main page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like DYK just rolled over so at least it is no longer linked to the main page. I would still like to know how this got through the DYK process without anyone noticing the obvious flaws. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hook was approved by Yoninah and moved to prep by Rlevse here [4] --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same editor who added non-reliable sources to Black Eyed Kids, which as far as I can tell from Google, does not meet notability (and is still in the queue). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the small size of the article and prevalent use of quotes, the nominator should have been asked to expand it as well. Quotes shouldn't, but are sometimes used to put an article barely above 1500. I won't knock Yoninah (not saying anyone is), the reviewer works hard and often takes the extra and unnecessary step of improving an article instead of asking the nominator too.--NortyNort (Holla) 06:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not telling the nominator of i (newspaper) about the above problems. I, too, noticed that an oft-quoted citation was self-advertising. But it was late at night and I was trying to work my way through many hooks that no one else seemed to be looking at (there were almost no verifications in the older nominations section on the queue statistics chart), and I didn't pay close attention to that point. Now I have added it to my mental list of "things to do when checking nominations".

Regarding Black Eyed Kids, I did try to beef it up since it lacked secondary sources. In researching it on Google, I noticed that the topic wasn't receiving coverage in the mainstream press, but I found some sources that had been accepted in other "supernatural" topics that I've reviewed for DYK, so I used those. If it were up to me, I'd send the whole article to AfD, but I didn't think that was the role of a DYK reviewer.

Regarding taking "extra and unnecessary steps", I find that it often takes too long for a nominator to respond to my query — after all, I'm working on nominations that are 7-9 days old, and non-regular nominators can reply 2 or more days later. And once s/he does respond, the page still remains in less-than-perfect shape. The editor in me just goes ahead and edits it before approving it. Even after several months here, I still haven't figured out all the dance steps around here. Yoninah (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting

Are we now applying stricter standards for reference formatting? If so, that must be fully disclosed in the rules. I don't think we should, as that would have the effect of excluding newer users who may be unfamiliar or uncomfortable with fancier techniques such as citation templates.

The review for the General Union of Ecuadorian Workers hook stated that "the bare URLs need to be formatted per WP:Citation templates before this nomination can be approved." I pointed out that there were no bare URLs. But the hook was removed with the edit summary "yes they are bare urls, disapproved".

Am I missing something? http://abareurl.com is a bare URL. Not a bare URL isn't. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should not demand citation templates at DYK for the reasons you said. I don't understand the decision to reject General Union of Ecuadorian Workers. Perhaps it needs to be discussed and reconsidered. Offliner (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we should not require use of citation templates, we can and do require citations contain enough information to locate the cited source. Vital information missing from the majority of this articles citations includes who authored the source, who published the source, and when was the source written/created. These are vital because titles are not guaranteed to be unique and there could be multiple sources with the same name, author and publisher are required for Interlibrary loan requests and many other forms of library searches, including them in the citation allows an article reader/reviewer to determine the nature of the source before obtaining access to the actual source. --Allen3 ^talk 18:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Allen3. Templates aren't required, but proper formatting and basic info are. Furthermore, while we don't need to require GA/FA level of standards, we do need to set a certain level of standard to ensure quality new articles are on the main page. Look at all threads on this page right now about junk that made it through. DYK has enough reputation problems without us adding fuel to the fire. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing my main point. The author of the article was told that they had to add citation templates, which is not true, to fix the bare URLs, of which there were none. Then the hook was removed with a reason of "bare urls", which, again, is not the case. It is extremely unfair that the hook was disapproved after the author was told to fix a specific problem which doesn't exist, without being informed of or given the opportunity to correct the true concerns. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah also said there were bare URLs and I agree with her that there were. So there's a difference in the definition of bare URL. Also, the author's last edit was 24 Oct and he/she made no attempt to answer the concerns, including not asking questions if there was confusion, and we disapprove hooks all the time for that. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were bare URLs in the article and while it doesn't need citation templates, at least the title of the reference and the publisher should be present. Per the recent concerns of using reliable sources, having the publisher easily seen for reviewers and readers should be required.--NortyNort (Holla) 06:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarax, I make a special effort to format the references on most articles that I review. Too many first-time nominators have simply never read WP:Citation templates. I spend a lot of time tracking down ISBN numbers, too, for people who cite "Google Books" as the publisher. When it came to this article, however, I was stuck: All the references were in Spanish. That's why I asked the nominator to format them himself. I've been monitoring the suggestions page ever since to see if he answered me, but received no reply. I wasn't online when the nomination was removed from the page. Yoninah (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your efforts are greatly appreciated. (I, too, format refs when I see the need.) As mentioned in my post at the end of this thread, I felt that the author may have believed that they had already fixed the problem when they edited the article to convert the barest of bare URLs into their current form. But their lack of responsiveness was problematic. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the five that I looked at Jameela Jamil (BLP) had no article title on the third source, just a publisher. I'd be less worried about how pretty the article looks (in terms of formatting the citations) then whether the information meets WP:V if we don't even have an article name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V example: information has to be published and verifiable, whether that involves a trip to a library, it has to be something in print somewhere accessible somehow. Where the heck does one find this source at Acheron class torpedo boat?

Naval Historical Society of Australia

That is all of the information given. No title, no date, nothing to indicate anything was published. Are we expected to call Australia to verify this article's content? This doesn't meet the barest policy requirements of WP:V, and it's on the mainpage now, I think. I'm worried that you all are verifying only the hooks, but passing on articles that shouldn't even be ... well ... articles yet, because they don't meet core policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I googled "Naval Historical Society of Australia" and this first hit was their website (www.navyhistory.org.au). I could also have found their website from the wikipedia article Naval Historical Society of Australia. I went to their website and searched "Acheron class torpedo boat", and found this:

"Australia's First Warship - The Torpedo Boat Acheron". navyhistory.org.au. Retrieved October 30, 2010.

I am guessing that will give you more than enough information to go on with, and it has taken longer to type this post than it did to find the information.

Maybe you will take some friendly advice... if you want to try and improve the situation with DYK referencing, you might consider an approach that is less likely to put everyone on the defensive. I think you have some relevant points, but I am also finding some of your comments irritating, and I suspect I am not alone. Telling us that everything DYK does is awful without recognising the efforts of the editors here (both in content development and in reviewing) is not helping you towards your stated goal (at least, not efficiently). EdChem (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was nice of you to do that editor's work for him, but teaching 'em to fish before giving out prizes rather than giving them the fish might be more beneficial to them and the Wiki in the long run. And, the editor who adds the content has to say where they got it, and neither of us has any idea if his source was a website or a hard-print publication. Nothing here is about my stated goals; it's about Wiki policy and how it's being undermined by the reward culture. If DYK wants to further that (and plagiarism), I'm really not inclined to be offended if we don't see eye to eye on the overall goal. Editors should be here for common goals-- don't shoot the messenger. I ended up peeking in here because of plagiarism, and that's a serious matter, not to be taken lightly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually sent you a post on your user talk already, but for the record here, the entire citation regarding the Acheron class link in question was present originally, just below the inline cite in the next sub-section below, with a link to the article. The inline cites using the {{reflist}} showing were in "Notes" under "References", while the link was just below in "Bibliography" under "References". - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

← Getting back to the original article in question, I'd like to apologize for some assumptions which I made. I took the term "bare URL" literally and assumed that it referred only to links which look like unadorned URLs. Because of the crude ref formatting, I assumed that the author was an inexperienced user submitting their first DYK and that they were thus in need of a little extra support and nurturing, when in fact, according to their user page, they've created over 3000 articles and received 244 DYKs. Because the author originally used unambiguously bare URLs by anybody's definition and then changed them to their present form after nominating the article, I assumed that they thought they had already fixed the bare URL issue, perhaps thinking that the comment in the review was based on the earlier version. It is regrettable that they never responded. And finally, I'd like to apologize for inadvertently adding links to a porn site! When I provided an example URL (which I've now modified), I should have realized that anything beginning with "bare" would be trouble. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Y'all can't be putting BLPs sourced to "guampedia" on the main page-- I just blanked most of José Sisto, which is on the mainpage now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from the mainpage. It's negative, but it's actually not about a living person... I transposed the numbers when reading it. Whoops. Courcelles 19:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Nor can Sandy go blanking large parts of content linked from the main page with out the most basic of research or discussion. A little bit of research would show that Guampedia entries are peer-reviewed under the auspices of the University of Guam, and so just as acceptible as any other webpage. But no, Sandy thinks she's above all that sort of hard work... off to WP:ANI, blanking, anything to get her way without ever considering she might actually be mistaken. All of that while claiming that this is a BLP issue, for someone who was in political office in 1899! If this editor were not so troublesome, the whole thing would be laughable. A newbie would be blocked for this sort of stuff. Physchim62 (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHOA José Sisto is DEAD, he was in office over a hundred years ago. This is NOT a BLP. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict), I put it back, with the date added to make clear this isn't a current issue or a living person. Courcelles 19:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to SandyGeorgia's concerns at the article's talk page; even though the article was removed as a mistake (the man, though I could find no date of death anywhere, has most certainly been dead for awhile given his time spent in office) it is still nice to see what was thought of as a negative BLP on the main page removed so quickly. A mistake made in the interest protecting the encyclopedia and its rules to protect BLPs is a mistake made in the best of faith for sure. And I say that as the creator and nominator; I suppose what I'm saying is that removing the entry and THEN the inquiry happening AFTER was the right thing to do given what Courcelles believed the issue was. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, my apologies for the BLP misunderstanding and the resulting kerfuffle-- I wasn't aware we put up bios of dead persons without dates in the lead-- I thought that was standard. Second, my first click led me to one of those horrid webcitation links, which don't take you to the original source, so I thought I was at archive.org. Third, Pyschim, get over a wayward "s" that no one but you saw years ago on a FAC (or donate to my new eyeglasses fund) and lay off of the personal attacks like telling me to Shut the Fuck Up-- we have WP:NPA and WP:AGF for reasons. At Talk:Sisto, though, what makes Guampedia not a tertiary source? Wiki articles should be built around mostly secondary sources, but we can resolve that at Talk:Sisto. Courcelles, my apology for putting you through extra work ... and Scapler, too! Phsychim, get over yourself. PS, why do y'all put up DYKs without the dates in the lead? Isn't it good practice ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many things that are good practice. DYKs are not supposed to be perfect (the mythicial "mini-GA"). We'd rather use our reviewing manpower checking for things like copyvios. You're welcome to help out. Shubinator (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, missed this (specifically the last sentence). Thank you; we appreciate it. Shubinator (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you can also screen articles up to 2.5 days before they get to the Main Page here. Shubinator (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Shubinator, but that (very long) page isn't helpful for screening for plagiarism, sourcing, BLP issues, etc., because it doesn't show editor name-- I'd have to click to the article and then to the history to see who wrote it. When I check the DYKBot's contribs and see accomplished writers whose work I'm very familiar with, I don't have to check those, so it's faster. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking any of the headings for a queue will show a list of authors below the hooks. 28bytes (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ha ... I see! So, if I always check Queue 6, is that the farthest away, so there is plenty of time if I find a problem? And if so, would it be helpful if others checked Queue 6 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The farthest will be whichever of the Prep queues is at the bottom of T:DYK/Q (Prep 1 as of now). Those get rotated as the queues go live. But yes, the more eyes the better! 28bytes (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to keep troubling you, but I'd like to have one place to click for the farthest away to look at-- are you saying the number of the next Queue up constantly changes? Sorry, I've never followed how DYK works-- is there any way I can one-click check the farthest away? Just looked at Black Eyed Kids, and it is doesn't meet WP:V; this is a volunteer community contributor site (with a misleading name of "Sacramento Press") and this is certainly not a reliable source. So, more than half of the article isn't reliably sourced. It's in Queue6-- when does it go up? Should I tag the non-RS now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Queue 6 will go live just over 24 hours from now (there's a little chart at the top showing the schedule), so fortunately there's a little time to look into that one. There are really two sets of queues: the "main" queues (Queue 1 goes live, then Queue 2, through Queue 6 and then back to Queue 1), and the "prep" queues that populate the main queues as their contents are transferred to the live T:DYK template. 28bytes (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the queue numbers change, it sounds like there's no way for me routinely look at these way in advance with one click, unless I follow all of DYK, which I really don't have time to do. I was using the BYKbot contribs, because it gives me one click to look them over, but by then, they're already live. Don't know what I can do except periodically peek in at the different queues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be 4 clicks, not 1, but checking the 4 prep queues on a regular basis would show all the hooks that would eventually appear on the front page. Some template could probably be worked up to always point to the "further back" prep queue, but since each prep hook is refreshed every 24 hours that might be overkill. 28bytes (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, in the future, I'll try to work in advance, but Jameela Jamil is a BLP on the mainpage now, and it's sourced to online blogs and gossip rags. Nothing highly derogatory, but I think it still needs to go per BLP. But I'll let Psychim62 the expert handle how to solve the problem, since he has such a good faithometer, and I wouldn't want to cross him by, um, actually engaging our BLP policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not BLP but WP:RS. Thank-you for raising your concerns about the reliablity of the following sources: Sky (UK & Ireland) and the Internet Movie Database. At least you didn't just do a drive-by tagging of an article on the Main Page. By my estimation, the sources you tagged as possibly unreliable are actually reliable (in the Wikipedia sense): they are certainly at least as reliable (in the general sense) as other sources we would accept for this type of article. Hence, disagreeing with your tagging, I have reverted it. Physchim62 (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)2[reply]

Not BLP? Drive-by? Physchim, you are one exceptionally fine fellow. OK, we put BLPs with piss poor sourcing and plagiarism on the main page; I guess my work is done here, and rather than trying to collaborate with y'all in advance, I'll just deal with the egregious issues as I see them, come what may. Phsychim62 already assured that a POV article ran on the mainpage of ITN, told me to STFU rather than use high quality sources, and reverted due weight sourcing there, resulting in POV and the article being removed, and now he's assuring piss poor citations on BLPs here. Ok, carry on then, but the criticism I've seen of DYK is most certainly valid, and y'all need to clean up the process here to check sourcing and copyvio. Bye. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes shows the full ordering of the sets. Here's a 1-click link for the queue set furthest from going live: queue 3 (you have to copy the wikitext since the link changes as the sets go live). Shubinator (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neat! I didn't know about that. Is there an analogous template for the prep queues? 28bytes (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@SG Pulled for discussion. It's borderline; the article is well-referenced for a DYK. The sources aren't the best, but they aren't terrible either.

@28B Prep area 2. They're both helper templates for the local update times table. Shubinator (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shubinator. Sandy, I think that's what you were looking for: the farthest back queue. Catching bad hooks/articles in a prep queue is the optimal approach since it allows the most time for fixing the problem, and more editors can fix/demote a problem hook since the preps aren't fully-protected like the main queues are. 28bytes (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shu and 28-- I posted above before reading this, but I can't work collaboratively in any area where Psychim62 is present and gets to tell me STFU and revert my work when I'm trying to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm AGFing too much, but have you two tried to have a calm discussion about this? Shubinator (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup :) Physchim62 has an eons-old beef with FAC because he once found a wayward "s" after a word (making it plural rather than singular) in a featured article that no one else saw. The horror! After telling me to STFU, he's now decided I'm "traipsing around Wikipedia like a little diva", and it's unlikely that further conversation with him will improve anything. At any rate, regardless of his behavior towards me and that I won't be collaborating here, y'all do have some issues to clean up here. You put content on the mainpage, so it should be BLP- plagiarism, and copyvio-clean. Standards for DYK should at least conform with core policies, since the articles go on the mainpage. If the "reward culture" is affecting you all too much, then I hope you can find a way to slow down the turnaround to allow better scrutiny of what you do put up. Or, discourage participation here of abrasive editors so that others will want to help. I've been hearing about the bad rap DYK has for a long time; it's unfortunate that when I came over to see if it was true and how I could help, I found Physchim62, but the BLP and copyright problems do need cleaning up anyway, as the DYK reward culture is fueling the grease pole at RFA and WIKICUP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I hate to revive an age-old discussion, but I'd suggest it's the WikiCup's "reward culture" that's affected DYK negatively, rather than us fuelling them. But I digress here. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 02:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't disagree-- I thought/think we were saying the same thing. Unfortunately, DYK is the easiest place for "reward culture" adherents to get their points, so you all may need to figure out how to account for that. FAC had to put procedures in place to lower the effect they were having on us. But Wikicup is subsiding now, yet the DYK issues are continuing. Recent cases I've found aren't related to Wikicup, and Physchim62 is assuring that progress won't be made here. RFA candidates are also using DYK as evidence of their writing ability so the "reward culture" effect goes beyond Wikicup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope Sandy and I have been able to smooth off some of the sharp edges on my User talk page so I shaln't reply to those comments directly. I do think that many of the problems with DYK are caused by the fact that it "promotes" too many articles without sufficient oversight (in practice). Physchim62 (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. And it can't be entirely blamed on the reward culture or Wikicup, because RFA candidates also seek the DYK prize. I hope you all can find a way to slow it down and get better review; I don't understand why editors think they're entitled to their day on the mainpage. BLP vios, plagiarism and copyvios are serious, and if I've only been looking at this for a few days and have found five problems, it's a problem. (User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Identified DYK problems) Non-notability and non-reliable sources is another problem; why reward for article expansion if the expansion is based on a non-RS? I got interested in this is because I'm concerned about the decline in the admin corp and the lack of adequate scrutiny of candidates at RFA, and I kept seeing DYK being evidenced for writing ability and offered up as "prizes", and finding big problems in those DYKs. Standards were raised at GA by shining a lot on some of the one-editor passes years ago, GA is now respected, and standards are always increasing at FAC. Methinks y'all need to turn some people away, focus on screening in the truly worthy content, and slow down the turnover. FAC changed to address the effect of the reward culture and the increasing number of children on Wiki-- so can DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am just getting caught up with these discussions - I became an uncle yesterday. I have reviewed a bunch of nominations on DYK and have been active here since July. I have seen some blatant instances of copyvio (cut/paste), not an enormous amount though. I address them within the review but it is surely difficult to catch every one. I used to c/p then reword/format some text with my first few article starts but I stopped because it was too easy to mess it up. Normally when I review, aside from the basics (1500+, etc), I check to see if the article looks sound, has formatted citations, grammar, spelling, etc. Note: I am not perfect. The only references I open and really look at are those pertaining to the hook. I do look through the list of references and if I see a wiki, forum, social network or blog, I bring that up in the review. Aside form that, I sometimes cannot tell what is/is not a reliable source. If the source is in my area of interest, yes I can pick out the good and bad. Otherwise, it is difficult.

The problem posed at DYK is the amount of hooks, reviewers and time. At GAN, some nominations can sit for a month or longer while here at DYK, they can become a problem or even eye sore as queues are rolling through the main page. This occurs well within a month. In regards to reviewers, there are not enough to double-check every hook. With that, DYK assumes a calculated risk, just like this entire encyclopedia does. The goal of DYK is intended to encourage new content, so there is a level of courtesy one has to use when reviewing hooks and articles. The review has to occur in a relatively short period of time and there are a lot of nominations to go through. The only real solution would be to slow everything down and increase the standards or recruit reviewers. Some people abuse the system and often here at DYK, it is highlighted and handled accordingly. Other users create great content deserving of a main page appearance. DYK is reward-based and users have made great content and deserve a pat on the back for their effort. Using DYKs in an RFA can be the same as highlighting one's edit count, it can mean ~~absolutely nothing~~ little. Only the users that work with the potential admin know the quality of their work and can attest to it. DYK isn't perfect but users are also invited to review nominations and the queue as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 06:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the new nephew! Your post makes a good argument for slowing the process down. One thing confuses me: it is my understanding (I helped on the DYK Dispatch years ago) that to qualify for a DYK, certain word count or expansion is required. Well, if that expansion is based on non-reliable sources, how can it count towards meeting the rules? How can you verify that a DYK meets the criteria if you don't check that the expansion is based on reliable sources? If it's not based on RS, it's just garbage anyone can put up. I looked at one that is still in the queue, and unless someone has some offline sources, it needs to go to AFD-- there are only a few sentences based on reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it is was my niece. Boys are better though, right? In the few cases where I noted a non-RS that wasn't cited in addition to an RS, I asked the nominator to provide an another reference. I personally haven't come across an instance where a good portion of an article was cited to a non-RS. I would assume the information could be challenged and removed, taking away from the character count. I remember some instances were nominations were refused because of this but I was not involved in them. Then again, it takes someone to recognize the validity of the source and flag the nomination. Not every reviewer can do that every time. Maybe it would be a good idea to have a short and basic check-list accompany every nomination (like GAN) to make the standards more clear to nominators and reviewers. Such a checklist can be fit into the nomination template.--NortyNort (Holla) 06:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basics (if you've never heard of a source) are just to go to the source and dig around for a page that looks something like an "About Us" page to determine if they have any info there that addresses WP:V (fact checking, journalistic oversight, etc); if not, query the editor to provide that-- if not, send them away ! Somewhere at Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)'s subpages, you will find a list she uses for sources that have already been challenged at FAC, but sourcing always depends on the statement being sourced, and sourcing requirements at FAC are much more stringent than they will be for DYK, so you won't be able to directly use her list, but it may be a helpful starting place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This type of verification for every reference is hard with limited reviewers and time. The obvious non-RSs and implausible statements are one thing. I remember one time an editor used a blacklisted site as a reference but altered the URL so it couldn't be filtered out. I think the only way for such attention would be to slow everything down. I am grateful that the articles at least do have references, when compared to other material on Wikipedia without references that can be equally dubious.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an intermittent regular nominator and reviewer/toucher-up both at DYK and FAC I have a lot of sympathy with both positions here. One thing that I have hardly ever seen before is Sandy's brutally effective raising at Rfa of specific new concerns over the content created by two editors. I think Rfa is much too prone to examine interactions with other editors minutely & take a record of content creation at face value. I'm not sure how much DYK is being used as a launch pad for RFA, but if it is these sort of challenges to actual RFAs are probably a much more effective way of stifling this. On another point, quite a large % of DYKs (like FAs) are by a small number of regular contributors, nearly all I think to be found at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs (headed by Alansohn at 813). If someone were to audit random contributions by people on the list, and pursue concerns, it would over time be likely to improve quality, perhaps more effectively and easily than trying to search the traffic flashing by on the suggestions page. Regulars will recognise that this has been done in the past with some people near the top of the list, with varying degrees of eventual success. Johnbod (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<eeek> Brutal :/ But Johnbod, you've got my number on the ultimate issue I'm trying to address, which is the reward seeking path that ends at RFA or WIKICUP. I'm trying to help stop the flooding of marginal content here by reward seeking editors who don't know diddly about Wiki policy, but use DYKs to pass RFA. (And the poor article writers who do know policy get the crap beat out of them at RFA because they have actually, ummmm, engaged and maybe even lost their temper.) GA used to have huge issues, and when lights got shone on the problems there, it turned around and became a very respectable process, and editors realized they couldn't game it on the path to RFA. I've been hearing for years that the DYK rules reward editors who plagiarize and doesn't detect plagiarism, but I don't read the mainpage and never even checked for myself; I've been surprised to find WP:V and WP:BLP breaches here as well, but I also believe there are some great editors working here, who simply are turning the queue too fast and being overwhelmed by the reward seekers, so if they recognize the problems here, they may get solved. Also, the reason I'd rather check the DYKbot contribs than the six queues is that I know who most of the quality editors are whose articles don't need review-- it's much faster for me to follow the bot and watch for names I don't know and BLPs in particular. But, that's not fair to DYK, because by the time they show up on the bot, they're on the mainpage already, which doesn't do these folk much good; checking 'em days before would be better, but this queue business is labor intensive! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hook in Q3

A hook in Q3 caught my eye on two points. It reads "...that Indian badminton player P. V. Sindhu reported on time at the coaching camps despite traveling 56 kilometres (35 mi) on a daily basis?" 1) "the coaching camps" seems vague, and 2) is a 56-km (35 mi) commute interesting? Perhaps he walked it or jumped it on a pogo stick, but if this is the case, it needs to be explicitly stated. Cheers. Haus^Talk 00:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the sort of hook I'd like to see phased out. There's nothing wrong with the article (that I can see), but the hook might as well be "...that P. V. Sindhu is a promising young Indian badminton player." I sort of leaves me thinking "so what?" (although all credit to the 15-year old girl in question). Physchim62 (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty mundane. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to eliminate these "pretty mundane" hooks from DYK? I think this would be a start to addressing the concerns raised in the last couple of days, and it would certainly be a start to addressing my well-known concerns about the section. I accept that it has to be done progressively, starting from where DYK is now (not some imaginary perfect DYK), and that not everyone is going to agree about what is "mundane" and what is not. Physchim62 (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have a problem with something along the lines of "...that Indian badminton player P. V. Sindhu began training at age eight?" Haus^Talk 01:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mundane too, not uncommon at all with all the youth leagues around. And I agree we need to tighten up the "boring factor" and the article quality standards, though we don't need to go to the mini-GA level. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing article info clash with hook

This claim – "... that the Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster has included Allens, Bateses, Covingtons, Delahantys, Ennises, Fultzes, Greens, Hamiltons, Jacksons, Kennedys, Lees, Morgans, Nicholsons, Powells, Robertses, Schmidts, Thompsons, Vukoviches, Watts, and Youngs, but never a player whose surname begins with X?" – is obviously WP:OR synthesis, as the fact can be gathered from the source although it is not specifically mentioned as a fact in the source. If I were to remove the para containing this synthesis from the article while the DYK is on the main page then the DYK fact would not be supported by the article. How to proceed? Ericoides (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall commenting on this "so what?...X is not a common last name letter at all." I'll find it and remove it from the queue. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I can't find it, was it already on the main page? If so, just rm the material, if not, where is it now? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick check of Wikipedia:Recent additions shows that hook was in the update that rotated off at 12:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC). --Allen3 ^talk 12:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then just go repair the article. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point has been missed; it was, is it OK to alter the article while the hook is up, such that the article and the hook no longer correspond? (Now the hook is down the article can be altered with a clear conscience.) Ericoides (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the limitations imposed by Wikipedia:Speedy keep on WP:AFD nominations of articles link to from the Main page, the same rules apply to current DYK articles as to any other article on Wikipedia. Thus, yes it is permitted and would not be the first time it occurred. --Allen3 ^talk 13:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, any article linked from the Main Page should be editable by anyone. That's not an absolute rule: occasionally we link to semi-protected and even full-protected articles, but I think the consensus is that that should be exceptional (especially in the latter case). So yes, your good-faith edits to an article linked from the Main Page are something that the project welcomes and encourages. If your edits lead you to remove the basis for a DYK hook, I would think that's a problem with quality control at DYK rather than a problem with the editor. Physchim62 (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting screwed for Oct 27 noms

The entries at October 27, starting at PC Ramakrishna and below, no longer correspond to their edit section buttons. I am afraid that I would cause more problems with page by monkeying with it myself. Could someone with more experience with the Suggestions page maybe try to fix? Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 19:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try refreshing the page and if necessary Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. The usual cause of what you describe is someone adding or removing an item above the section where you are working. The edit tab passes a numeric parameter telling the Wikipedia servers based upon section locations at the time your browser loaded the page. An added or removed section changes the needed values but your browser will not know this until it obtains a new copy of the page. Reloading the page allows the browser to obtain the updated information. --Allen3 ^talk 19:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Allen3. Will remember this for the future. The Interior (Talk) 20:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The large page can take a while to reload, so what I usually do instead is use the edit link for a nearby section, determined by the relative position of the section I was "erroneously" taken to. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do the same, there's no point in waiting 20 seconds for the whole thing to reload if you can just figure it out where it is :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I ended up doing. I also am of the impatient sort. Thanks for the feedback. The Interior (Talk) 20:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody REALLY screwed up with an alt hook

I'm referring to Acheron class torpedo boat, where there was a virtually incomprehensible originally-suggested hook, and a much better (and rather intriguing) Alt1 hook. The Alt1 hook was the one that was stated as being approved. But somehow, the original, steaming-pile-of-crap hook was put into the queue and ran on the Main Page. We need to start striking out non-approved hooks when an Alt is selected (or Alts if the original is preferred) so that this doesn't happen - and yes, I need to do that too, as I was the editor who approved the Alt1 for this article in the first place. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I sometimes do is I put

next to the failed hook and

next to the approved alt. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 22:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good ideas, not the first time this has happened. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK raised at AN/I again (or rather, the thread just hasn't died yet)

I know many people here have already looked and given up, but just a brief note that the long rambling thread about DYK at AN/I now has a new section [5] suggesting the removal of DYK and characterising its output as "lots of new content of shit quality that is mostly plagiarized" amongst other things.

Calmness and a recognition that there are issues that need addressing, might be advisable :)

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just sick of all the people who think they know what's best when I don't see them doing any DYK reviewing themselves. I think roundly ignoring the thread (whilst not ignoring the problems) is best. Str Pby (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you guys have a lot on your plate, and I readily admit I don't work in this area, however if you don't do speedy deletions that doesn't mean you aren't qualified to comment when you see someone screwing one up. I certainly don't favor scrapping DYK, but what about lowering the number of articles per day and tightening the requirements a bit? This may discourage the more marginal candidates and will make it easier for reviewers to separate the wheat from the chaff more thoroughly. Again, I am not really an expert in this area but maybe some of the regulars have suggestions as to how the qualifications might be made slightly more stringent. DYK is a great motivator and a great way of showcasing the project's newest content, but we need to make sure it is showing off our newest good content. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on ignoring the AN/I thread (or at least not getting baited into arguing on it), and on the need for "calmness and a recognition that there are issues that need addressing." I'm not sure where the idea that all the notable subjects have been covered is coming from. Never mind WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, is the thinking that there aren't going to be any new or newly-notable things or people in the future? Odd. 28bytes (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just told the jaw flapping malcontent exactly what I think. Now I'm ignoring them. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for trial

Taking into account everything that's been said in the past two to three days here and at ANI, I think we should probably put some checks in place. Regarding BLPs and plagiarism, I propose that each nominated hook require two reviewers to approve before making it into a prep area. Furthermore, in light of what has been said about "boring hooks", maybe if two-three reviewers agree that a hook is "boring" or "dull", a new hook is to be found. We could, like the reverse timing trial, run this for a week. Str Pby (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about slowing things down to the point of constipation. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it myself but we have to start somewhere if we want the complaints to stop. Str Pby (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]