![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 110 | ← | Archive 113 | Archive 114 | Archive 115 | Archive 116 | Archive 117 | → | Archive 120 |
The previous list is nearly used up and about to be archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 24 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 12 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.
As of the most recent update, 65 nominations are approved, leaving 265 of 330 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest.
Over one month:
Also needing review:
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 14:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
my edit Art LaPella ( talk) 16:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed the discussion came to the same conclusion. Art LaPella ( talk) 16:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I know none of you like to hear from me, but right now we're seeing something like one or two errors per day from DYK at WP:ERRORS. Can you guys pick up simple things like dab links and diacritics and English variations please? The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Today, I got a notice of a DYK nomination [1] for a nom from 15 May 2014 which was withdrawn later that day. It was delivered by APersonBot run by User:APerson. Not sure what's going on here. A one-off glitch? Voceditenore ( talk) 06:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 06:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 08:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
There are problems with the last hook of Queue 6: ... that The Guardian thinks Nigel Farage is better at eating a bacon sandwich than Ed Miliband?
The article says no such thing. According to the article, " The Guardian said that the sliced bread which Farage ate was easier to eat than the bread roll which Miliband had", which is not even close to what the hook says.
The source, which is a four-sentence blog entry, says "Farage couldn't miss an opportunity to show him how it's done", which is a little closer, but still not good enough to support what the hook says.
More minor issues: a newspaper can't "think", and the Queue's lead hook is about a UK politician and it would be better not to have another in the same set.
The hook was proposed by Ritchie333, who also reviewed and approved the nomination. This is why one shouldn't review one's own hooks.
The Queue is set to hit the Main Page in about 20 minutes, so please take care of this problem quickly. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
How about one of the other hooks instead of pulling? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
May I again remind colleagues to use {{ Lang}} when including non-English text in hooks, like this, for the important reasons explained in the template's documentation? We need to get this right, especially on such a high-profile page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does anyone else agree that this article is nothing more than a collection of random examples, with no sources directly addressing the subject itself in any significant way? EEng ( talk) 22:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Can a did you know have a wild card entry? Charlotte, the baby monkey, has gained lot of attention, can any news by the royal family can be there at any time
117.198.184.5 (
talk)
23:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 10:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 23:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Just a note that the hook for John Wilton (general) as originally written (ALT1 by the way) read "Australian General", not "the Australian General" and I think it still works better without the definite article... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 05:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
In the sixth hook of Queue 1, the song title "Girls Talk" should be in quotation marks. Note that the quotation marks should not be bold.
Also, since the eighth (quirky) hook is also about a song, I think this should ideally be swapped with a hook from another queue (or at least moved higher up so it's not just one hook away). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there an article about how many times blurbs about University of Michigan sports have occurred on DYK? If not there surely should be. Saratoga Sam ( talk) 02:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The previous list has been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 24 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 14 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.
As of the most recent update, 50 nominations are approved, leaving 261 of 311 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest.
Over one month:
Also needing review:
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 07:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Wait a second, I nominated the Timeline of tyrannosaur research as an image nomination. Why is it listed down in the plain text entries? Abyssal ( talk) 00:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Now in Queue 5:
"the al-Qaeda"??? Really??? Isn't this the preoccupation beyond the pale now? EEng ( talk) 22:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Why not just get it right each time before it's posted to the main page? Looks like quality of DYK is heading south right now. Any one of you give a toss about that? Avoid redirects, avoid disambiguations, avoid grammar fails, pay attention to English variations. That stuff is simple; for you Americans, let's call it DYK 101. Please try harder, and (as you have done with me) avoid chasing people away who are trying to help stop making DYK the regular laughing stock of the main page. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
...need filling. Just did one. Will move the one I just filled to Q5 soon. Might give us a better idea of content and frequency of cycling hooks. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 07:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I was going to review the nomination for Ralph H. Cameron (May 1st) but the review template is blank. The same is true of The Icelandic New Business Venture Fund (April 30th). Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 08:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I wrote an article for Pentecost - celebrated today and in some countries also tomorrow - but then I had to be offline for several days. Template:Did you know nominations/Komm, Gott Schöpfer, Heiliger Geist is now reviewed, but queues and preps for both days are full. Is there any chance to get it in, without image, perhaps as an exceptional additional one in the next set? - It's never too late for creative spirit but would make most sense today ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
This was recently promoted as GA...and I went to create a DYK template and found...... this. So should I just put something at the bottom? Or get consensus here? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
How come that RfC got archived? While it had stalled, it hadn't been closed yet. Is it OK to unarchive? Eman235/ talk 17:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
As many of you know, I have tirelessly and tiresomely advocated that when our approved reserve (approved noms not yet in prep + prep + Q) drops below 50, it's time to cut back to one set per day. We're not at the point yet, but we're awful close, after several weeks of steady decline. May I suggest that we cut the burn rate back from the current 2x8/day to 2x7/day, which may stem the tide just enough? This is easy to do because there's no fooling with the bot and update schedules needed. EEng ( talk) 07:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Drive what number up? The approved reserve? If that's what you mean you're confusing two different things. We control the size of the approved reserve by adjusting the burn rate, like we're doing now. The purpose of a review drive, or change to QPQ rules, is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed nominations -- but you're right about a drive having only a short-term effect on anything. If we don't want to have to keep having these discussions about the bloated backg we need a systemic fix such as I've proposed.
If you like we can start by requiring double-QPQ for nominators with 20+ credits (instead of the cutoff of 10 that I'd proposed) and see whether that's adequate. Does anyone really believe there ar more than a handful of editors active here with 25+ credits? EEng ( talk) 22:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The approved reserve is at 118 now, so if we don't go back to our normal burn rate quick we'll be bursting at the seams again. EEng ( talk) 18:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I updated the Main Page code, and by extention, recoded all the preparation areas, inluding the master template
Template:Did you know/Clear. However, some editors keep clearing the prep areas with old code. Either I have missed a template, or those editors are using some private code storage (or the old history). Please use
Template:Did you know/Clear only when resetting the prep areas. Thank you. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
13:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Dr. Blofeld has 1,500 credits. That's a huge accomplishment. Do we have an award for that, and if we don't, can someone create it? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 13:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The previous list is mostly used up, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 8 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 30 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.
As of the most recent update, 112 nominations are approved, leaving 204 of 316 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest. (There's one from March that could use some attention.)
Over one month:
Also needing review:
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Keyser Creek, currently on the main page, has one section full of imperial units unconverted. How did that happen? Tony (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I think what's worse than a few missing conversions is the current inclusion of links to no fewer than three (3) disambiguation pages. The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a
wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to
be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out
how to edit a page, or use the
sandbox to try out your editing skills.
New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to
log in (although there are
many reasons why you might want to).
EEng ( talk) 07:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm concerned about the accuracy of Affair of the Dancing Lamas. While bees dance, and kangaroos box, llamas to my knowledge do not dance. EEng ( talk) 16:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Llamas may not dance, but apparently Lamas do. Besides, I'm sure if you google "Dancing llama" you'll get something. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 18:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
What's really sad is that this article (no kidding) would have supported the hook
or something like that. Breaks a hooker's heart. EEng ( talk) 20:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We've been having a spate of misleading hooks, with 'funny' phrasing and misleading piping in links. Why on Earth are we continuing to mislead our readership? Is it just to show off how clever the editors are? Maybe we could pretend to be an encyclopaedia and act maturely by posting only normal hooks? Fgf10 ( talk) 09:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Fgf10: It isn't pointless, it's a discussion that needs to be had. In fact, EEng started such a discussion on my talk page recently, although it hasn't gone anywhere. I think perhaps that discussion needs to happen here, with not only the DYK folks, but a number of the regulars from ERRORS, particularly those with concerns about strongly misleading hooks. One way or another, we do need to find the line, otherwise we'll just keep chuntering for the rest of DYK's existence. Harrias talk 16:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
For those of us keeping score at home, could we have some examples of offending hooks plz? Herostratus ( talk) 16:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, you guys need to let this go now. Let's get back to the real work here, and leave the cat fights to the children! MeegsC ( talk) 02:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
In some such insidious form there is at present a strong tendency to this narrow theory of life, and to the pinched and hidebound type of human character which it patronizes. Many persons, no doubt, sincerely think that human beings thus cramped and dwarfed, are as their Maker designed them to be; just as many have thought that trees are a much finer thing when clipped into pollards, or cut out into figures of animals, than as nature made them. But if it be any part of religion to believe that man was made by a good Being, it is more consistent with that faith to believe, that this Being gave all human faculties that they might be cultivated and unfolded, not rooted out and consumed, and that he takes delight in every nearer approach made by his creatures to the ideal conception embodied in them, every increase in any of their capabilities of comprehension, of action, or of enjoyment. There is a different type of human excellence from the Calvinistic; a conception of humanity as having its nature bestowed on it for other purposes than merely to be abnegated.
Just to check if there are volunteers to offer an opinion: Template:Did you know nominations/K Street Bridge suggests to make an entire hook set on streets, based on a picture that shows them all. I am one of the supporters but this is probably going nowhere. If you could give us a piece of your mind we could end that discussion and move on. -- Pgallert ( talk) 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 00:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 21:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 23:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 09:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 19:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Is the last hook misleading by bolding the same article twice? I clicked on the second link to see what the baron was mad about, and then clicked on the first link to see who the baron was – and got the same article:
Opinions desired. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Why was the Guryong Village hook changed significantly since it was passed? Compare: Template:Did you know nominations/Guryong Village to what we have now on the Main Page. Crucially, someone (who? I can't figure it out on the main page history...) replaced the well-known Gangnam District that people might have actually heard of (due to Gangnam Style viral video) with the "Dogok-dong" district nobody knows of ("that the Seoul slum of Guryong lies across the street from the luxurious Dogok-dong district?" vs "that the Guryong Village, the last slum of Seoul, is located next to the luxurious Gangnam District?"). This is a MAJOR change that I am sure reduced the visibility of this hook (people who might have been curious about Gangnam are now not going to notice this hook) and should not be done on administrator's copyediting whim. I accept that neutral wording changes (grammar, etc.) are within purview of the admins maintaining Main Page, but this goes beyond it. Changing of "next to" to "across the street" is less controversial, but I don't think it is fully correct (which is why I purposefully did not suggest it in the hook). Whoever made those changes should have at least informed me and the reviewer; as it is now I think that person needs to be friendly cautioned not to change the hooks too much; it sets a bad precedent, particularly considering that such changes may often requires days or weeks of discussion at DYK - not something that should be sidestepped after the process finishes. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I simply checked the hook against the text in the article, something I thought reviewers and promoting admins were supposed to do. Then I brought it up here as an issue. It's really not up to me to go chasing after nominators to ask them nicely to do their jobs better. As EEng has suggested, if you really cared about it, you'd follow its progress from nom to prep to queue to main page. Really, the title of this section should be renamed: "Good news, hooks are being checked!" The Rambling Man ( talk) 04:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Something strange seems to have happened to the template for the Chicken in the Rough nomination and consequently, I was unable to promote the hook. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 05:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please pull my Trout Run hook from prep 1 and replace it with something else, as it has been overtaken by events? This needs to be done ASAP as the prep is next to move into the queue. I'll submit a new hook shortly once the article has been updated. Prioryman ( talk) 11:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I can't see a reference in the Sense and Sensibility (soundtrack) article for it being Doyle's first BAFTA nomination. The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 10:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Another DYK on the main page without metric conversion (although it does appear in a caption). Why aren't people checking for basic accessibility? Tony (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
"a mile, exiting Newton Township, passing through Ransom Township, and entering Scranton. The creek then turns southeast for about a mile, crossing Interstate 476. It then turns southwest for several tenths of a mile and receives Lindy Creek, its first named tributary, from the right. The creek then turns south-southwest for several tenths of a mile and receives Lucky Run, its last named tributary, from the right before turning southwest. After a few tenths of a mile, it turns south-southwest again and eventually turns southeast for a few tenths of a mile before turning south. Several tenths of a mile further downstream, it southeast and then south-southwest. After several tenths of a mile, ...”.
That whole section is unworthy of WP—it reads like a bad attempt at a pirate map (with the unfortunate end that the measurements are awkward in original and putative converted forms ("a few"? Treasure hunt, anyone?).
It also has incorrectly converted gradients. No one in the metric world would write: "120 metres per mile": "400 feet (120 m) per mile. However, in its lower reaches, once it flows off Bald Mountain and into Keyser Valley, its gradient is only on the order of 40 feet (12 m) per mile." Surely there's a better way. Everyone can understand a 1:12.5 gradient, but someone needs to work it into that simple, universal form. The article still has unconverted feet: "reaching 3100 cubic feet per second. The peak annual ...".
I'm sorry to be persistent, but this is going on the main page and should be an example. Not all en.WP readers are in the US, Burma, or Liberia. Tony (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
{{convert|400|ft|m}} per mile
, it should be {{convert|400|ft/mi}}
.
MANdARAX •
XAЯAbИAM
21:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Tony1 sorry that I missed those other conversions in the Keyser Creek article, but I've at least addressed the "miles" in the Waco one. On one point that you've made above, you're absolutely right that the prose in that article was lamentable, I'm pretty sure I could meet the character count criteria of any such article by giving such a turgid and uninteresting account of the path of a minor creek. I'll happily try to fix up these issues as you find them. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Currently Embodied bilingual language sitting in Prep 2 is a genuine mainspace orphan. Besides the fact that hook is dull, (i.e. that the words "kick" and "run" relate to the leg, who knew??), we shouldn't be posting articles at DYK with big "orphan" tags at the top. Suggest this is pulled, a more interesting hook is thought of, and the article actually demonstrate its utility within Wikipedia. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I put two requests for assistance on the Wikiproject Linguistics talk page and at portal|Mind and Brain. Added links to one or two articles. Our ignorance and unfamiliarity with the subject matter does not mean it is a universal attribute. We just need the right audience. they might even be able to give some help on the hook. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 20:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
If folks could start filling preps that'd be great. I was going to but realised I promised to copyedit something.....and not sure how long I've got. Back later. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 5 that have been waiting for a reviewer for a month or more, and the remaining 31 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.
As of the most recent update, 121 nominations are approved, leaving 213 of 334 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest.
Over one month:
Also needing review:
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe there was a semi-organized effort here to run relevant articles for Women's History Month in March, but I'm not a DYK regular and I don't remember how I found out about it. Is there a similar effort for LGBT-themed articles for Pride Month in June? Opabinia regalis ( talk) 06:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks like User:Opabinia regalis has already come across Wiki Loves Pride, but yes, there is a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia. We do encourage participants to nominate DYK hooks, but of course this can be difficult for new contributors to understand. I encourage DYK project members to be on the lookout for new content and to add DYK hooks to the Results page for Wiki Loves Pride. Needless to say, all are also welcome to assist the campaign by creating and improving LGBT content. Thanks for your consideration and assistance. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 22:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 10:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Google Photos has two bright orange maintenance tags on it, is this generally acceptable these days, particularly as the rules state "Articles must meet the neutral point of view policy" and the tags say "This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source" and "The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints"....? The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The article says a computer with 16 TB of RAM was used for strategy development. It doesn't say what kind of computer Claudico runs on while actually playing poker.
Also, there's no space between "of" and "RAM", but this isn't apparent on the Main Page because the link causes a line break. Ian01 ( talk) 16:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 18:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 08:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The picture in prep 6 File:Badawi Jabal, 1954.jpg claims to be public domain. It says that it was made in 1954, but the rules seems to say that it is only public domain if published prior to 1954. So is it free or not? If not we could use under fair use, but not at DYK. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 23:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I tried to create a submission for Karymshina, however, my template has come out empty. What do I do to either put the detail in or resubmit. Op47 ( talk) 13:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 23:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 12:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please promote Tombs of Battashewala Complex. It's been properly reviewed for weeks and has just been sitting there. I would promote it myself if I knew how, but it's been a very long time since I've done anything at DYK and I no longer know how that system works under the new page structure. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 03:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The Ayes have it. http://i.imgur.com/IkdRP2g.png seems to be the final consensus version, but beware: consensus in this case is a tiny number of people so please be open to reviewing your opinion based on reader and editor feedback post change. Guy ( Help!) 11:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Some people on the main page don't like the formatting of the Did you know section, and have proposed an alternate wording and are looking for a bold admin. See/participate in this discussion. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 18:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Did you know… From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content: ... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?
Those who feel that the “From Wikipedia's new or recently improved content:” disrupts the sentence “Did you know that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?” suggest that any of the following flows better / avoids fracturing the syntax:
Did you know… ... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram? From Wikipedia's new or recently improved content
From Wikipedia's new or recently improved content
Did you know…
... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?
Did you know…
... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?
... that the above are drawn from Wikipedia's new or recently improved content?
As we know, very few people participate in discussion concerning the Main Page, but of those who have voiced an opinion, six say the present sequence is broke and needs to be fixed, two say it ain’t broke.
Cheers, Awien ( talk) 12:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
14:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
16:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. This combines "archive" and "from recently improved content" http://i.imgur.com/IkdRP2g.png I think we are getting somewhere. At this rate we might even get bumped above "Featured Article". Fractal618 ( talk) 19:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Your example is exactly what I think it should be changed to.
— Maile (
talk)
21:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there a metric for determining when a vote is over? Fractal618 ( talk) 01:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone read the articles they promote? Currently in prep 5 we have Tie the Knot (TV series), with the opening sentence of the Production section thus: "The series was the first for veteran actor Zhang Peihua in fifteen years without filming in Taiwan, playing the role of Nylon Chen's father, although he occasionally involved himself in theater" and goes on "Cheryl Yang, on the other hand, came back to SETTV once again after separating for four years, although she was consecutively given the female lead by other networks since her career break on My Queen"... grim. Any chance that we could write this article in English before it hits the main page? It really needs a {{ clean up}} tag on it, which I'm reluctant to do unless I have to. The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
You saw it on the Main page: it's Carl Nielsen's 150th birthday. I nominated four articles for the occasion and then forgot about them. Two are approved, two are waiting, today I wrote one more, - please just look for Nielsen on the nom page and do what you can to make them appear within the next 3 days ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing. As of the most recent update, 146 nominations are approved, leaving 217 of 363 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 06:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 22:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 10:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Currently sitting in prep 2, an article called " Oru Second Class Yathra", includes a sentence thus: "the issue of refining a proper balance between drama and comedy was the task set for themselves by writer/directors Jexson Antony and Rejis Antony, as a means of juggling between the two modes in order to not wear down the viewing audience". Really? Really? Does anyone read and copyedit these articles before they're up for the prep queues? The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
My participation here is largely in copyediting hooks, which takes plenty of time and (as you are well aware) is an almost hopeless task -- I try to eyeball every prep set before it goes to Q but I can't always do that, and sometimes I see something that I don't like the looks of when there's just too much else needing attention to take the time to figure out how to right it. If you'd pitch to help with this, instead of waiting until problems make their way to MP so you can have one of your daily apoplexies, it would really help.
Injecting a bit of humor here and there makes the task go easier. The DYK criteria are very clear on what is and is not required, and there's precious little about article content. The only DYK provisions even vaguely related to content are these:
It's clear from the above that, rightly or wrongly (wrongly, I think) there's no requirement that articles' writing be good or even decent, no requirement that MOS be complied with, nor are ther any number of other requirements that you and I might wish for. So, I repeat, if you think the criteria should be changed make a proposal for such a change, but you're indeed wasting everyone's time with your constant demands that articles meet requirements not in the criteria. EEng ( talk) 06:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
It doesn't have to be a rule. I always carefully edit everything I submit or review for DYK. It is just common sense and should be common and expected practice. However, we are all volunteers here, and we need to try being more civil and less contentious (or snarky) in these discussions. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC) + 1 Victuallers ( talk) 15:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Can we all agree that, as a start, we want something like B-class Point 4? It reads
But I think that last bit re MOS is too vague. Maybe we need more like what GA calls for with respect to writing quality, which is
In fact, maybe what we want is some subset of GA, not of B? EEng ( talk) 21:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
|
The proposal on the table for discussion is to add the following to the DYK criteria:
Thoughts? EEng ( talk) 23:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Article classification is a waste of time. It's awarded and ignored as arbitrarily as a DYK is passed as good to go. I have to say that the example I provided at the top of this thread is a shocking indictment of the process here at DYK, and the thoroughness that the editors apply. The nominator,
MichaelQSchmidt is an admin with over 54,000 edits since 2008, the
passing editor,
Epeefleche has more than 147,000 edits over nine years of editing to their name, the promoting
|
With 142 nominations currently awaiting promotion (excluding special occasion hooks) and 361 total, it's easy for prep set builders to overlook the ones that have been waiting for a long time since they were approved, since they aren't listed in any order. (One of these, the eldest, is mentioned in the previous section, but all were approved during the final week in May.)
The following are 14 nominations that were approved at least two weeks ago. Since we're promoting 102 per week, these 14 have been waiting longer than average.
I have not checked these to be sure they're fine, so you'll need to do the usual double checks before promoting any of these to prep.
*May 31:
Template:Did you know nominations/Raid on Manila (1798)
Please remember to cross off entries as you promote them, or discover that it isn't eligible for promotion at the present time. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Yunshui and others: this has a NPOV maintenance tag (applied yesterday), so should be pulled or have the tag resolved. There are comments on the talk page. The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed Dimension 5 (film) sitting in prep 2 right now, along with its barely parsable hook. It's a pretty weak article, written badly with grammar and typo issues, etc, but what I really noticed was that the majority of the fivefold increase came from the addtion of a verbose description of the plot which, per our general approach to film articles, requires no sourcing. This seems like a bizarrely simple thing to do to achieve a fivefold increase in film stubs, the addition of swathes of unreferenced text that can only really be checked by watching the movie itself. Just wondering if that seemed okay with everyone. The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
What's up with the DYK criteria? So, if I create a stub (such as the Erfurter Bahn), and then return to expand it in a month, but not fivefold, it is no longer eligible? Should I then have let it sit in my sandbox, to nobody's benefit, till I've had the time to write more? Who is this system supposed to benefit, honestly? Alakzi ( talk) 20:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@ The Rambling Man: You clearly want something from me, or else you wouldn't have pinged me. If you have a question for me, say it clearly. I don't care for doublespeak, as I think I have said to you before. If any of these were the question you couldn't bring yourself to ask: Yes, the article's abysmal. Yes, the article was significantly worse before I touched it. No, I don't care if it's pulled. Yes, it meets the guidelines as far as I can tell. Yes, the guidelines are terrible. (Also, Yoninah, I'm not new here.) I'm not watching this page- if anyone has anything to say to me in particular, ping me or contact me on my talk page. Josh Milburn ( talk) 21:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't the point at all.Fuebaey ( talk) 07:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I have a disagreement with Philafrenzy concerning hook source placement in Martha E. Sloan and Template:Did you know nominations/Martha E. Sloan. My reading of the DYK rules (especially 3b) is that the hook source does not need to be placed immediately following the hook claim, but can be deferred until the end of the same sentence. Philafrenzy (the DYK reviewer despite having now made significant edits to the article) disagrees, and has been edit-warring to "fix" the article so that the source is immediately following the hook claim, first by using the same footnote twice on the same sentence [12] [13] and then, after being reverted twice, instead splitting the sentence into two in order to use the DYK rules to force the footnote to be placed immediately after the hook statement [14]. Is this really an appropriate reading of the DYK rules? It seems over-bureaucratic (not to mention a conflict of interest between the reviewer and editor roles) to me. (Additionally, the new version feels awkwardly worded to me, with the repetition of "also" in two sentences in a row, and I don't see a good way of fixing that without reverting to a single sentence that includes both of the novel features of her presidency.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
(There have also been some minor changes to the wording by both of us.) Philafrenzy ( talk) 21:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
DYKUpdateBot, which handles the automatic promotion of queues to the main page and archive of the old DYKs, is apparently down. It's been 100 minutes since the last update was supposed to be made, and the bot hasn't edited since finishing the most recent update at 15:08 on June 17.
In addition, DYKHousekeepingBot, which generates the tables of hooks (total and approved) by date on the queue/prep page and the nominations page, is also down; it's last update was 00:17 (a bit over four hours ago), and it usually updates every half hour.
I have notified Shubinator, the owner of the bots, on his talk page. In the meantime, we're stuck unless an admin knows how to do a manual full update of the DYK section of the main page: not just moving the hooks, but archiving the old set, and handing out credits to the people who created and nominated the hooks in the newly promoted set. If you can handle it—I've pinged Allen3 who usually does the manual updates, but hasn't edited since June 16—by all means go ahead. Otherwise, we'll have to wait for Shubinator or Allen3. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
A question: When Template:Did you know nominations/Fred Baker (physician) was promoted to Prep 4, the promoter ( User:Cwmhiraeth) used Alt1. However, the reviewer ( User:Yunshui) had said they preferred the original hook. Not a big deal, but can we use the original hook, or was there some reason for using the alt? Thanks. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
FYI - At least from my computer, the "List of DYK Hooks by Date" is over 24 hours old since it was updated, and the purge function does not appear to fix it. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 09:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 01:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 110 | ← | Archive 113 | Archive 114 | Archive 115 | Archive 116 | Archive 117 | → | Archive 120 |
The previous list is nearly used up and about to be archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 24 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 12 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.
As of the most recent update, 65 nominations are approved, leaving 265 of 330 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest.
Over one month:
Also needing review:
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 14:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
my edit Art LaPella ( talk) 16:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed the discussion came to the same conclusion. Art LaPella ( talk) 16:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I know none of you like to hear from me, but right now we're seeing something like one or two errors per day from DYK at WP:ERRORS. Can you guys pick up simple things like dab links and diacritics and English variations please? The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Today, I got a notice of a DYK nomination [1] for a nom from 15 May 2014 which was withdrawn later that day. It was delivered by APersonBot run by User:APerson. Not sure what's going on here. A one-off glitch? Voceditenore ( talk) 06:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 06:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 08:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
There are problems with the last hook of Queue 6: ... that The Guardian thinks Nigel Farage is better at eating a bacon sandwich than Ed Miliband?
The article says no such thing. According to the article, " The Guardian said that the sliced bread which Farage ate was easier to eat than the bread roll which Miliband had", which is not even close to what the hook says.
The source, which is a four-sentence blog entry, says "Farage couldn't miss an opportunity to show him how it's done", which is a little closer, but still not good enough to support what the hook says.
More minor issues: a newspaper can't "think", and the Queue's lead hook is about a UK politician and it would be better not to have another in the same set.
The hook was proposed by Ritchie333, who also reviewed and approved the nomination. This is why one shouldn't review one's own hooks.
The Queue is set to hit the Main Page in about 20 minutes, so please take care of this problem quickly. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
How about one of the other hooks instead of pulling? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
May I again remind colleagues to use {{ Lang}} when including non-English text in hooks, like this, for the important reasons explained in the template's documentation? We need to get this right, especially on such a high-profile page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does anyone else agree that this article is nothing more than a collection of random examples, with no sources directly addressing the subject itself in any significant way? EEng ( talk) 22:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Can a did you know have a wild card entry? Charlotte, the baby monkey, has gained lot of attention, can any news by the royal family can be there at any time
117.198.184.5 (
talk)
23:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 10:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 23:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Just a note that the hook for John Wilton (general) as originally written (ALT1 by the way) read "Australian General", not "the Australian General" and I think it still works better without the definite article... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 05:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
In the sixth hook of Queue 1, the song title "Girls Talk" should be in quotation marks. Note that the quotation marks should not be bold.
Also, since the eighth (quirky) hook is also about a song, I think this should ideally be swapped with a hook from another queue (or at least moved higher up so it's not just one hook away). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there an article about how many times blurbs about University of Michigan sports have occurred on DYK? If not there surely should be. Saratoga Sam ( talk) 02:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The previous list has been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 24 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 14 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.
As of the most recent update, 50 nominations are approved, leaving 261 of 311 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest.
Over one month:
Also needing review:
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 07:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Wait a second, I nominated the Timeline of tyrannosaur research as an image nomination. Why is it listed down in the plain text entries? Abyssal ( talk) 00:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Now in Queue 5:
"the al-Qaeda"??? Really??? Isn't this the preoccupation beyond the pale now? EEng ( talk) 22:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Why not just get it right each time before it's posted to the main page? Looks like quality of DYK is heading south right now. Any one of you give a toss about that? Avoid redirects, avoid disambiguations, avoid grammar fails, pay attention to English variations. That stuff is simple; for you Americans, let's call it DYK 101. Please try harder, and (as you have done with me) avoid chasing people away who are trying to help stop making DYK the regular laughing stock of the main page. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
...need filling. Just did one. Will move the one I just filled to Q5 soon. Might give us a better idea of content and frequency of cycling hooks. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 07:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I was going to review the nomination for Ralph H. Cameron (May 1st) but the review template is blank. The same is true of The Icelandic New Business Venture Fund (April 30th). Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 08:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I wrote an article for Pentecost - celebrated today and in some countries also tomorrow - but then I had to be offline for several days. Template:Did you know nominations/Komm, Gott Schöpfer, Heiliger Geist is now reviewed, but queues and preps for both days are full. Is there any chance to get it in, without image, perhaps as an exceptional additional one in the next set? - It's never too late for creative spirit but would make most sense today ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
This was recently promoted as GA...and I went to create a DYK template and found...... this. So should I just put something at the bottom? Or get consensus here? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
How come that RfC got archived? While it had stalled, it hadn't been closed yet. Is it OK to unarchive? Eman235/ talk 17:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
As many of you know, I have tirelessly and tiresomely advocated that when our approved reserve (approved noms not yet in prep + prep + Q) drops below 50, it's time to cut back to one set per day. We're not at the point yet, but we're awful close, after several weeks of steady decline. May I suggest that we cut the burn rate back from the current 2x8/day to 2x7/day, which may stem the tide just enough? This is easy to do because there's no fooling with the bot and update schedules needed. EEng ( talk) 07:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Drive what number up? The approved reserve? If that's what you mean you're confusing two different things. We control the size of the approved reserve by adjusting the burn rate, like we're doing now. The purpose of a review drive, or change to QPQ rules, is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed nominations -- but you're right about a drive having only a short-term effect on anything. If we don't want to have to keep having these discussions about the bloated backg we need a systemic fix such as I've proposed.
If you like we can start by requiring double-QPQ for nominators with 20+ credits (instead of the cutoff of 10 that I'd proposed) and see whether that's adequate. Does anyone really believe there ar more than a handful of editors active here with 25+ credits? EEng ( talk) 22:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The approved reserve is at 118 now, so if we don't go back to our normal burn rate quick we'll be bursting at the seams again. EEng ( talk) 18:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I updated the Main Page code, and by extention, recoded all the preparation areas, inluding the master template
Template:Did you know/Clear. However, some editors keep clearing the prep areas with old code. Either I have missed a template, or those editors are using some private code storage (or the old history). Please use
Template:Did you know/Clear only when resetting the prep areas. Thank you. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
13:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Dr. Blofeld has 1,500 credits. That's a huge accomplishment. Do we have an award for that, and if we don't, can someone create it? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 13:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The previous list is mostly used up, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 8 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 30 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.
As of the most recent update, 112 nominations are approved, leaving 204 of 316 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest. (There's one from March that could use some attention.)
Over one month:
Also needing review:
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Keyser Creek, currently on the main page, has one section full of imperial units unconverted. How did that happen? Tony (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I think what's worse than a few missing conversions is the current inclusion of links to no fewer than three (3) disambiguation pages. The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a
wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to
be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out
how to edit a page, or use the
sandbox to try out your editing skills.
New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to
log in (although there are
many reasons why you might want to).
EEng ( talk) 07:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm concerned about the accuracy of Affair of the Dancing Lamas. While bees dance, and kangaroos box, llamas to my knowledge do not dance. EEng ( talk) 16:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Llamas may not dance, but apparently Lamas do. Besides, I'm sure if you google "Dancing llama" you'll get something. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 18:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
What's really sad is that this article (no kidding) would have supported the hook
or something like that. Breaks a hooker's heart. EEng ( talk) 20:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We've been having a spate of misleading hooks, with 'funny' phrasing and misleading piping in links. Why on Earth are we continuing to mislead our readership? Is it just to show off how clever the editors are? Maybe we could pretend to be an encyclopaedia and act maturely by posting only normal hooks? Fgf10 ( talk) 09:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Fgf10: It isn't pointless, it's a discussion that needs to be had. In fact, EEng started such a discussion on my talk page recently, although it hasn't gone anywhere. I think perhaps that discussion needs to happen here, with not only the DYK folks, but a number of the regulars from ERRORS, particularly those with concerns about strongly misleading hooks. One way or another, we do need to find the line, otherwise we'll just keep chuntering for the rest of DYK's existence. Harrias talk 16:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
For those of us keeping score at home, could we have some examples of offending hooks plz? Herostratus ( talk) 16:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, you guys need to let this go now. Let's get back to the real work here, and leave the cat fights to the children! MeegsC ( talk) 02:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
In some such insidious form there is at present a strong tendency to this narrow theory of life, and to the pinched and hidebound type of human character which it patronizes. Many persons, no doubt, sincerely think that human beings thus cramped and dwarfed, are as their Maker designed them to be; just as many have thought that trees are a much finer thing when clipped into pollards, or cut out into figures of animals, than as nature made them. But if it be any part of religion to believe that man was made by a good Being, it is more consistent with that faith to believe, that this Being gave all human faculties that they might be cultivated and unfolded, not rooted out and consumed, and that he takes delight in every nearer approach made by his creatures to the ideal conception embodied in them, every increase in any of their capabilities of comprehension, of action, or of enjoyment. There is a different type of human excellence from the Calvinistic; a conception of humanity as having its nature bestowed on it for other purposes than merely to be abnegated.
Just to check if there are volunteers to offer an opinion: Template:Did you know nominations/K Street Bridge suggests to make an entire hook set on streets, based on a picture that shows them all. I am one of the supporters but this is probably going nowhere. If you could give us a piece of your mind we could end that discussion and move on. -- Pgallert ( talk) 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 00:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 21:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 23:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 09:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 19:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Is the last hook misleading by bolding the same article twice? I clicked on the second link to see what the baron was mad about, and then clicked on the first link to see who the baron was – and got the same article:
Opinions desired. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Why was the Guryong Village hook changed significantly since it was passed? Compare: Template:Did you know nominations/Guryong Village to what we have now on the Main Page. Crucially, someone (who? I can't figure it out on the main page history...) replaced the well-known Gangnam District that people might have actually heard of (due to Gangnam Style viral video) with the "Dogok-dong" district nobody knows of ("that the Seoul slum of Guryong lies across the street from the luxurious Dogok-dong district?" vs "that the Guryong Village, the last slum of Seoul, is located next to the luxurious Gangnam District?"). This is a MAJOR change that I am sure reduced the visibility of this hook (people who might have been curious about Gangnam are now not going to notice this hook) and should not be done on administrator's copyediting whim. I accept that neutral wording changes (grammar, etc.) are within purview of the admins maintaining Main Page, but this goes beyond it. Changing of "next to" to "across the street" is less controversial, but I don't think it is fully correct (which is why I purposefully did not suggest it in the hook). Whoever made those changes should have at least informed me and the reviewer; as it is now I think that person needs to be friendly cautioned not to change the hooks too much; it sets a bad precedent, particularly considering that such changes may often requires days or weeks of discussion at DYK - not something that should be sidestepped after the process finishes. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I simply checked the hook against the text in the article, something I thought reviewers and promoting admins were supposed to do. Then I brought it up here as an issue. It's really not up to me to go chasing after nominators to ask them nicely to do their jobs better. As EEng has suggested, if you really cared about it, you'd follow its progress from nom to prep to queue to main page. Really, the title of this section should be renamed: "Good news, hooks are being checked!" The Rambling Man ( talk) 04:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Something strange seems to have happened to the template for the Chicken in the Rough nomination and consequently, I was unable to promote the hook. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 05:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please pull my Trout Run hook from prep 1 and replace it with something else, as it has been overtaken by events? This needs to be done ASAP as the prep is next to move into the queue. I'll submit a new hook shortly once the article has been updated. Prioryman ( talk) 11:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I can't see a reference in the Sense and Sensibility (soundtrack) article for it being Doyle's first BAFTA nomination. The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 10:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Another DYK on the main page without metric conversion (although it does appear in a caption). Why aren't people checking for basic accessibility? Tony (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
"a mile, exiting Newton Township, passing through Ransom Township, and entering Scranton. The creek then turns southeast for about a mile, crossing Interstate 476. It then turns southwest for several tenths of a mile and receives Lindy Creek, its first named tributary, from the right. The creek then turns south-southwest for several tenths of a mile and receives Lucky Run, its last named tributary, from the right before turning southwest. After a few tenths of a mile, it turns south-southwest again and eventually turns southeast for a few tenths of a mile before turning south. Several tenths of a mile further downstream, it southeast and then south-southwest. After several tenths of a mile, ...”.
That whole section is unworthy of WP—it reads like a bad attempt at a pirate map (with the unfortunate end that the measurements are awkward in original and putative converted forms ("a few"? Treasure hunt, anyone?).
It also has incorrectly converted gradients. No one in the metric world would write: "120 metres per mile": "400 feet (120 m) per mile. However, in its lower reaches, once it flows off Bald Mountain and into Keyser Valley, its gradient is only on the order of 40 feet (12 m) per mile." Surely there's a better way. Everyone can understand a 1:12.5 gradient, but someone needs to work it into that simple, universal form. The article still has unconverted feet: "reaching 3100 cubic feet per second. The peak annual ...".
I'm sorry to be persistent, but this is going on the main page and should be an example. Not all en.WP readers are in the US, Burma, or Liberia. Tony (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
{{convert|400|ft|m}} per mile
, it should be {{convert|400|ft/mi}}
.
MANdARAX •
XAЯAbИAM
21:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Tony1 sorry that I missed those other conversions in the Keyser Creek article, but I've at least addressed the "miles" in the Waco one. On one point that you've made above, you're absolutely right that the prose in that article was lamentable, I'm pretty sure I could meet the character count criteria of any such article by giving such a turgid and uninteresting account of the path of a minor creek. I'll happily try to fix up these issues as you find them. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Currently Embodied bilingual language sitting in Prep 2 is a genuine mainspace orphan. Besides the fact that hook is dull, (i.e. that the words "kick" and "run" relate to the leg, who knew??), we shouldn't be posting articles at DYK with big "orphan" tags at the top. Suggest this is pulled, a more interesting hook is thought of, and the article actually demonstrate its utility within Wikipedia. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I put two requests for assistance on the Wikiproject Linguistics talk page and at portal|Mind and Brain. Added links to one or two articles. Our ignorance and unfamiliarity with the subject matter does not mean it is a universal attribute. We just need the right audience. they might even be able to give some help on the hook. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 20:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
If folks could start filling preps that'd be great. I was going to but realised I promised to copyedit something.....and not sure how long I've got. Back later. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 5 that have been waiting for a reviewer for a month or more, and the remaining 31 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.
As of the most recent update, 121 nominations are approved, leaving 213 of 334 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest.
Over one month:
Also needing review:
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe there was a semi-organized effort here to run relevant articles for Women's History Month in March, but I'm not a DYK regular and I don't remember how I found out about it. Is there a similar effort for LGBT-themed articles for Pride Month in June? Opabinia regalis ( talk) 06:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks like User:Opabinia regalis has already come across Wiki Loves Pride, but yes, there is a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia. We do encourage participants to nominate DYK hooks, but of course this can be difficult for new contributors to understand. I encourage DYK project members to be on the lookout for new content and to add DYK hooks to the Results page for Wiki Loves Pride. Needless to say, all are also welcome to assist the campaign by creating and improving LGBT content. Thanks for your consideration and assistance. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 22:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 10:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Google Photos has two bright orange maintenance tags on it, is this generally acceptable these days, particularly as the rules state "Articles must meet the neutral point of view policy" and the tags say "This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source" and "The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints"....? The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The article says a computer with 16 TB of RAM was used for strategy development. It doesn't say what kind of computer Claudico runs on while actually playing poker.
Also, there's no space between "of" and "RAM", but this isn't apparent on the Main Page because the link causes a line break. Ian01 ( talk) 16:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 18:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 08:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The picture in prep 6 File:Badawi Jabal, 1954.jpg claims to be public domain. It says that it was made in 1954, but the rules seems to say that it is only public domain if published prior to 1954. So is it free or not? If not we could use under fair use, but not at DYK. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 23:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I tried to create a submission for Karymshina, however, my template has come out empty. What do I do to either put the detail in or resubmit. Op47 ( talk) 13:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 23:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 12:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please promote Tombs of Battashewala Complex. It's been properly reviewed for weeks and has just been sitting there. I would promote it myself if I knew how, but it's been a very long time since I've done anything at DYK and I no longer know how that system works under the new page structure. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 03:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The Ayes have it. http://i.imgur.com/IkdRP2g.png seems to be the final consensus version, but beware: consensus in this case is a tiny number of people so please be open to reviewing your opinion based on reader and editor feedback post change. Guy ( Help!) 11:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Some people on the main page don't like the formatting of the Did you know section, and have proposed an alternate wording and are looking for a bold admin. See/participate in this discussion. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 18:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Did you know… From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content: ... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?
Those who feel that the “From Wikipedia's new or recently improved content:” disrupts the sentence “Did you know that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?” suggest that any of the following flows better / avoids fracturing the syntax:
Did you know… ... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram? From Wikipedia's new or recently improved content
From Wikipedia's new or recently improved content
Did you know…
... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?
Did you know…
... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?
... that the above are drawn from Wikipedia's new or recently improved content?
As we know, very few people participate in discussion concerning the Main Page, but of those who have voiced an opinion, six say the present sequence is broke and needs to be fixed, two say it ain’t broke.
Cheers, Awien ( talk) 12:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
14:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
16:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. This combines "archive" and "from recently improved content" http://i.imgur.com/IkdRP2g.png I think we are getting somewhere. At this rate we might even get bumped above "Featured Article". Fractal618 ( talk) 19:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Your example is exactly what I think it should be changed to.
— Maile (
talk)
21:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there a metric for determining when a vote is over? Fractal618 ( talk) 01:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone read the articles they promote? Currently in prep 5 we have Tie the Knot (TV series), with the opening sentence of the Production section thus: "The series was the first for veteran actor Zhang Peihua in fifteen years without filming in Taiwan, playing the role of Nylon Chen's father, although he occasionally involved himself in theater" and goes on "Cheryl Yang, on the other hand, came back to SETTV once again after separating for four years, although she was consecutively given the female lead by other networks since her career break on My Queen"... grim. Any chance that we could write this article in English before it hits the main page? It really needs a {{ clean up}} tag on it, which I'm reluctant to do unless I have to. The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
You saw it on the Main page: it's Carl Nielsen's 150th birthday. I nominated four articles for the occasion and then forgot about them. Two are approved, two are waiting, today I wrote one more, - please just look for Nielsen on the nom page and do what you can to make them appear within the next 3 days ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing. As of the most recent update, 146 nominations are approved, leaving 217 of 363 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 06:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 22:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 10:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Currently sitting in prep 2, an article called " Oru Second Class Yathra", includes a sentence thus: "the issue of refining a proper balance between drama and comedy was the task set for themselves by writer/directors Jexson Antony and Rejis Antony, as a means of juggling between the two modes in order to not wear down the viewing audience". Really? Really? Does anyone read and copyedit these articles before they're up for the prep queues? The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
My participation here is largely in copyediting hooks, which takes plenty of time and (as you are well aware) is an almost hopeless task -- I try to eyeball every prep set before it goes to Q but I can't always do that, and sometimes I see something that I don't like the looks of when there's just too much else needing attention to take the time to figure out how to right it. If you'd pitch to help with this, instead of waiting until problems make their way to MP so you can have one of your daily apoplexies, it would really help.
Injecting a bit of humor here and there makes the task go easier. The DYK criteria are very clear on what is and is not required, and there's precious little about article content. The only DYK provisions even vaguely related to content are these:
It's clear from the above that, rightly or wrongly (wrongly, I think) there's no requirement that articles' writing be good or even decent, no requirement that MOS be complied with, nor are ther any number of other requirements that you and I might wish for. So, I repeat, if you think the criteria should be changed make a proposal for such a change, but you're indeed wasting everyone's time with your constant demands that articles meet requirements not in the criteria. EEng ( talk) 06:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
It doesn't have to be a rule. I always carefully edit everything I submit or review for DYK. It is just common sense and should be common and expected practice. However, we are all volunteers here, and we need to try being more civil and less contentious (or snarky) in these discussions. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC) + 1 Victuallers ( talk) 15:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Can we all agree that, as a start, we want something like B-class Point 4? It reads
But I think that last bit re MOS is too vague. Maybe we need more like what GA calls for with respect to writing quality, which is
In fact, maybe what we want is some subset of GA, not of B? EEng ( talk) 21:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
|
The proposal on the table for discussion is to add the following to the DYK criteria:
Thoughts? EEng ( talk) 23:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Article classification is a waste of time. It's awarded and ignored as arbitrarily as a DYK is passed as good to go. I have to say that the example I provided at the top of this thread is a shocking indictment of the process here at DYK, and the thoroughness that the editors apply. The nominator,
MichaelQSchmidt is an admin with over 54,000 edits since 2008, the
passing editor,
Epeefleche has more than 147,000 edits over nine years of editing to their name, the promoting
|
With 142 nominations currently awaiting promotion (excluding special occasion hooks) and 361 total, it's easy for prep set builders to overlook the ones that have been waiting for a long time since they were approved, since they aren't listed in any order. (One of these, the eldest, is mentioned in the previous section, but all were approved during the final week in May.)
The following are 14 nominations that were approved at least two weeks ago. Since we're promoting 102 per week, these 14 have been waiting longer than average.
I have not checked these to be sure they're fine, so you'll need to do the usual double checks before promoting any of these to prep.
*May 31:
Template:Did you know nominations/Raid on Manila (1798)
Please remember to cross off entries as you promote them, or discover that it isn't eligible for promotion at the present time. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Yunshui and others: this has a NPOV maintenance tag (applied yesterday), so should be pulled or have the tag resolved. There are comments on the talk page. The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed Dimension 5 (film) sitting in prep 2 right now, along with its barely parsable hook. It's a pretty weak article, written badly with grammar and typo issues, etc, but what I really noticed was that the majority of the fivefold increase came from the addtion of a verbose description of the plot which, per our general approach to film articles, requires no sourcing. This seems like a bizarrely simple thing to do to achieve a fivefold increase in film stubs, the addition of swathes of unreferenced text that can only really be checked by watching the movie itself. Just wondering if that seemed okay with everyone. The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
What's up with the DYK criteria? So, if I create a stub (such as the Erfurter Bahn), and then return to expand it in a month, but not fivefold, it is no longer eligible? Should I then have let it sit in my sandbox, to nobody's benefit, till I've had the time to write more? Who is this system supposed to benefit, honestly? Alakzi ( talk) 20:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@ The Rambling Man: You clearly want something from me, or else you wouldn't have pinged me. If you have a question for me, say it clearly. I don't care for doublespeak, as I think I have said to you before. If any of these were the question you couldn't bring yourself to ask: Yes, the article's abysmal. Yes, the article was significantly worse before I touched it. No, I don't care if it's pulled. Yes, it meets the guidelines as far as I can tell. Yes, the guidelines are terrible. (Also, Yoninah, I'm not new here.) I'm not watching this page- if anyone has anything to say to me in particular, ping me or contact me on my talk page. Josh Milburn ( talk) 21:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't the point at all.Fuebaey ( talk) 07:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I have a disagreement with Philafrenzy concerning hook source placement in Martha E. Sloan and Template:Did you know nominations/Martha E. Sloan. My reading of the DYK rules (especially 3b) is that the hook source does not need to be placed immediately following the hook claim, but can be deferred until the end of the same sentence. Philafrenzy (the DYK reviewer despite having now made significant edits to the article) disagrees, and has been edit-warring to "fix" the article so that the source is immediately following the hook claim, first by using the same footnote twice on the same sentence [12] [13] and then, after being reverted twice, instead splitting the sentence into two in order to use the DYK rules to force the footnote to be placed immediately after the hook statement [14]. Is this really an appropriate reading of the DYK rules? It seems over-bureaucratic (not to mention a conflict of interest between the reviewer and editor roles) to me. (Additionally, the new version feels awkwardly worded to me, with the repetition of "also" in two sentences in a row, and I don't see a good way of fixing that without reverting to a single sentence that includes both of the novel features of her presidency.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
(There have also been some minor changes to the wording by both of us.) Philafrenzy ( talk) 21:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
DYKUpdateBot, which handles the automatic promotion of queues to the main page and archive of the old DYKs, is apparently down. It's been 100 minutes since the last update was supposed to be made, and the bot hasn't edited since finishing the most recent update at 15:08 on June 17.
In addition, DYKHousekeepingBot, which generates the tables of hooks (total and approved) by date on the queue/prep page and the nominations page, is also down; it's last update was 00:17 (a bit over four hours ago), and it usually updates every half hour.
I have notified Shubinator, the owner of the bots, on his talk page. In the meantime, we're stuck unless an admin knows how to do a manual full update of the DYK section of the main page: not just moving the hooks, but archiving the old set, and handing out credits to the people who created and nominated the hooks in the newly promoted set. If you can handle it—I've pinged Allen3 who usually does the manual updates, but hasn't edited since June 16—by all means go ahead. Otherwise, we'll have to wait for Shubinator or Allen3. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
A question: When Template:Did you know nominations/Fred Baker (physician) was promoted to Prep 4, the promoter ( User:Cwmhiraeth) used Alt1. However, the reviewer ( User:Yunshui) had said they preferred the original hook. Not a big deal, but can we use the original hook, or was there some reason for using the alt? Thanks. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
FYI - At least from my computer, the "List of DYK Hooks by Date" is over 24 hours old since it was updated, and the purge function does not appear to fix it. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 09:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 01:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)