![]() | 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 40 | ← | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
I found a series of "History of christianity" articles by Carlaude, but when I asked on their talk page about nominating them, they haven't responded. I'm not sure if its appropriate to make nominations on their behalf, so I've posted the articles here.
There are ~18 articles in all, but I'm tired now and so I shall "nominate" the remaining articles tomorrow. My question is, are these articles DYK worthy? Smallman12q ( talk) 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The poor old bot just fired a blank as there were no updates in the queue. I've fixed it now, but there is still only one update in the pipeline so if someone could put an update or two together, that would be nice. Gatoclass ( talk) 14:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me for being a neophyte here, but how exactly would one "do a set/update"? I would be inclined to help but I'm not sure what you're talking about. Mahalo, Skomorokh 23:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to mention that I am almost done a large DYK set on Samuel Coleridge's early poetry. All of them are over 5k before leads, pictures, and formatting. I have also placed the corresponding poems on Wikisource. The hook will be something along the lines of "... that the topics of Samuel Coleridge's early poems included: cannibalism, death, pain, gambling, an Otter, Bars, Pixies, prison raid," etc. The hook is 60 characters for the base and an average of 9 characters for each poem with approximately 16/17 pages. I estimate that the total size will be near 210 (an alternate intro - "the young Samuel Coleridge (pictured) wrote on many topics including:" would be the same amount of characters). The attraction to the hook would be the variety of the descriptives (who would not want to click on cannibalism, for instance?) If anyone was curious about the prep, they can look User talk:Ottava Rima/Samuel Coleridge's early life here and User:Synergy will be working with me on leads, some copyediting, formatting, etc. (with joint credit). Note - some of the pages are long, some are only about 6k. They represent either important moments within his life or within his poetry. Not all of them are complete (Monody is way too large to be finished, and the "Pain" poem needs a little work on the reception and organization. I plan to finish these pages by Friday. Ottava Rima ( talk) 03:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
This may be a topic that's been raised here before, and if it has I apologise in advance for raising the issue again.
Out of curiosity I've looked at all of the main page DYKs over the last few days, and with only a few exceptions their quality was pretty abysmal, including serious grammar and spelling errors. Are these the types of articles that really ought to be featured on the main page? Does nobody check them for such basic errors first? -- Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the above an attempt to shove the issue I raised under the carpet? -- Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why a discussion about improving the quality of content featured at DYK always boils down to "Maintain the status quo vs start accepting GAs (or something close to that)". Improving the quality of DYK doesn't mean abandoning the spirit or purpose of DYK in featuring new content nor is accepting GAs or "mini-GA"s the only way to improve the quality of DYKs. DYKs should never be "Main Page Perfect" because part of functional benefit of DYK is the encouragement of MP readers to edit and improve the article. Nothing hammers down the point of being the encyclopedia that anybody can edit more than DYK with its ever present encouragement for the reader to became part of the project by improving DYKs. That said, growth and improvement is a vital part of any healthy project and DYK should not be so resistant to reform under the mistaken belief that any diversion from the status quo somehow equates to losing the soul and spirit of DYK. There have been many viable suggestions (such as reconsidering the expansion rules) of ways to reform DYK that still maintain the spirit and purpose of DYK in featuring new content but also lift up the overall quality (and interest factor) of the content being featured. However we will never make progress on this discussion until there is a broad realization that this is not an "all or none" scenario--that we don't have to lose our soul or just feature FA-wannabes in order to better serve our main page readership. Agne Cheese/ Wine 15:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I just reverted this blanking. The article appears to have been expanded enough to qualify. Am I right? -- BorgQueen ( talk) 16:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
On the main page at the moment there is the following DYK: ... that Hal Lubarsky outlasted 6,300 other players at the World Series of Poker despite playing blind?
Sounded interesting that he played without looking at his cards so I clicked on it it. The fact is that he wasn't playing blind, he is blind. Furthermore, there's no cite to how many people he beat. Are wikipedians meant to know that making it to the money in World Series Poker means you beat 6,300 other people? I certainly didn't. That, and the fact the hook basically lies to get your attention forced me to report it at WP:ERRORS although I've since realised it's not up much longer. I looked at the diff in template talk and it seems these problems were noted, but it still got onto the main page. Perhaps the not-so-clever play on words needed to be held over until April 1? I'm not sure, I just know I felt cheated and riled enough to moan about it here!
I'm not trying to blame anyone, we all make mistakes, but I would hope we can all learn from this. Bigger digger ( talk) 09:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
<--@ rʨanaɢ, I don't think you'd have to do the ticking rigmarole if you were checking and promoting yourself, but... @ Gatoclass, I think your right, I'm creating a mountain from a mole hill of an annoying hook! Bigger digger ( talk) 22:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The update is 1 hour overdue and the queues are empty so the bot has nothing to work with. Is there anyone around who can throw an update together quickly? I just got back from a run and am sweating all over my computer, otherwise I would do it. If it's not done by the time I'm back I can take a whack at it. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 17:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
A few tweaks needed on Q4 and Q6 before they hit the main page ... Q4 lacks (pictured) for the Albert Bridge, and Q6 has a spare (pictured) in the Mooney hook. The President of Ireland is in danger of being compared to that moth! Also, in the same hook, " blue tits" (lower case) might be preferable. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 22:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone pointed out at WP:ERRORS that Wikipedia:Recent additions hadn't been updated since 8 June 2009. I've brought it up to date and sent Nixeagle an email to ask whether this is something that his bot does, or whether it's a manual task. Unless/until the bot is regularly archiving the hooks, this is just a reminder to people to check that hooks that have been removed from the main page make it to the archive. Bencherlite Talk 11:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I made a small change to the way things look on T:TDYK. This is because over the past couple days I've noticed a lot of people posting nominations by copying and pasting other noms, rather than using the templates, and in many cases they cause formatting errors (generally by leaving off the </div> or </small> near the end of the nom, which causes noms below theirs to be shrunk or hidden). I figured changing the names of the section headers might make it more obvious that there are instructions, just like at XfD and stuff like that, and they can follow them to avoid messing things up. Anyway, feel free to double-check the changes I made and make sure everything is still ok. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 18:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I've just received credit for Edward Riou as part of a dual DYK hook I submitted, but HMS Amazon (1799), the second part, seems to have been omitted, both in the credits on my talkpage, and on the article talkpages themselves. Amazon is bolded as included in the 'new article' DYK mainpage section. Is this just a bot error, as this is not the first time this has happened? Benea ( talk) 22:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
This hook caught my attention:
I personally don't have strong feelings either way, but I know in the past some things like this have been kept off the main page. Does anyone have any thoughts here—either about the hook itself (i.e., if it can be feature-able with a different hook, and with the title piped so that "cunt" isn't on the main page), or about the article in general (i.e., maybe some people might think this can't be featured no matter what the hook is). We all know that WP is not censored, but we also all know that the main page is more sensitive than regular article space. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 01:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the reasons have been more or less summarised above, but in short, no, this is certainly not appropriate for the main page. It's certainly an interesting topic to read about elsewhere, but no. Just no. Recognizance ( talk) 08:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
(out) Can everyone please refrain from calling "censorship", in both this and future discussions? We go through this song and dance every time an issue like this is discussed, and every time the arguments are the same—someone says "WP is not censored", someone else says "the main page is different." Backslash Forwardslash already gave some helpful links to past discussions where people said essentially the same things, and the fact that they're coming up again suggests to me that everyone has forgotten. I had hoped to ward off this song & dance by stating in my first message "We all know that WP is not censored, but we also all know that the main page is more sensitive than regular article space", but it doesn't seem to have worked. In any case, though, the "censorship" card does not further any discussion, it just makes people upset, there's nothing constructive at all. Let's please stay on topic and not rehash the same pointless argument we have had three or four times already this year.
(For what it's worth, I am also of the opinion that the main page should not be "censored", but that it is more sensitive than article space and special judgment needs to be exercised in what we put there, since many readers see the Main Page as how Wikipedia "wants" to present itself. I don't believe any article should be "censored" because all articles should have their chance to exist somewhere in mainspace even if they're somewhat "offensive", but at the same time some of them may not be appropriate for showing off to the world and boasting about via DYK. That is the same stance that has been taken towards some articles by Raul, whom we all know will not put Jenna Jameson or a pooping seagull on the main page.)
rʨanaɢ
talk/
contribs 13:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Wholly inappropriate for the Main Page. We have similar restrictions for featured images and even, to an extent, today's featured article. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't care about this article, but WP is not censored, so let it appear on the main page. Of the whole conversation, the troubling part was whether or not the article is using reliable sources. Although we're not censored, we should make sure that anything controversial has impeccable sources. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 07:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Now that it occurs to me, I would also like to know what exactly it is that is being objected to here. Is it the word "cunt", specifically? Does that mean we would also have to ban submissions like Cunt (album) or Cunt (novel) if they turned up? Or is it the overtly sexual nature of the game itself that is the problem? It might help if someone could clarify that. Gatoclass ( talk) 07:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what we decide in this discussion about the rules, censorship, and whatnot, I believe it has become clear that, if there is not specifically consensus against promoting the hook that started this, there is clearly no consensus for promoting it. Enough editors in good standing (Ruhrfisch, Juliancolton, Backslash Forwardslash, Recognizance, MZMcbride, Ched Davis... as well as some editors I don't know as well, Kubigula and Bigger Digger—not to imply you're not in "good standing", I'm just less familiar with you) have objected that I don't think it will be possible to promote. Yes, I know other editors in good standing have supported promoting (Gatoclass, Haipa Doragon, Giants, Chzz, and Peregrine Fisher), but it's clear to me that at best there is no consensus, and at worst there is consensus against. By all means feel free to continue discussing censorship and other issues, but as for this specific article I do not see it getting promoted (and even if we extend the discussion to the VP, ask Raul to comment, or do any other things that we have done in similar discussions in the past, I imagine the consensus will not shift), so if it's all the same I will probably BOLDly remove the nomination within the next 24 hours since it's not going to succeed anyway. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 13:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Latecomer to the debate (as usual), but I feel the need to echo something that User:Rjanag touched on.
The arguments at work here seem to be a generic "Use common sense" argument vs. a policy argument (i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOTCENSORED). Assuming good faith all around, I have to side with those declining to feature this article on the Main Page. Our best arguments backing up the un-censorship of Wikipedia has been along the lines of "If someone looks up the penis or hog-tie bondage article, they should reasonably expect a picture of those things for a full encyclopedic treatment of the topic". This clearly does not apply for the Main Page, since a user would not reasonably expect to view objectionable content. While "I don't like it" is clearly a bad argument, it is similar to the argument I will use: Including this hook on the Main Page would be detrimental to Wikipedia's image, and have no substantive positive effects.
Moving away from policy, the "common sense" side seems to have a better case. The Main Page is the most visible on Wikipedia, and is meant to draw people in, new readers and editors alike. I agree that its dangerous to draw a line anywhere with regards to "morality" and related topics. However, a way around this is to treat all articles on a case-by-case basis, instead of drawing some arbitrary line or blindly following some policy or guideline. In this case, the potential negative impact on Wikipedia outweighs any arguments for transparency and equality.
In contrast to the general content, WP:DYK is a way to promote new material at Wikipedia. As such, it should be a place where "common sense" rules, and not where policy binds us to prominently feature material which will without a doubt portray the site in a negative light. The question that should always be asked is this: "Will my action improve Wikipedia?" In this case, it would not. - RunningOnBrains( talk page) 19:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. We do not decide what is wrong and what is right. We make no judgements. This is a pillar; this is a core value, and this is why I feel so strongly about what might seem a trivial issue. Once we begin to judge what is and is not appropriate, we open a hideous can of worms. Is it right to show a nude on the front page? A semi-nude; a portrait nude; a porn-star; an article about bondage; an article about the word cunt; an article about the human penis; an article about breasts; an article about masturbation? I expect many of you reading this will have your own opinions on this, and that's fine - but those opinions should not affect your approval or disapproval, because we strive to be neutral, unbiased, objective and encyclopaedic. This is not a matter of common sense - clearly, there are differences of opinion. My own common sense tells me that freedom of expression is an essential part of the project, and that it is detrimental to the project to start making censorship judgement calls.
Chzz
► 09:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Rjanag asked me to weigh in here. I think this is a bit over the top, and shouldn't be on the main page. Raul654 ( talk) 06:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
If an article has been at DYK before several years ago, and I were to expand it 5x, would it be acceptable to be at DYK again? The article in question is David Clyde, which I plan to expand to a GA-quality article sometime this month. It was put on DYK back when apparently citation requirements were looser, and the article can certainly be greatly improved upon. If it still would not qualify despite the changes in the past years then that's fine, but if it's allowed, then I'll at least try to get it put up. Wizardman 04:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
<--Gato, see this edit, and maybe start a new section so that this doesn't hang around so long? ;-) Bigger digger ( talk) 06:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bring this up here, but I need this issue resolved, as I've become too involved to resolve it myself. The hook suggestion for aces and eights (blackjack) is about to be dropped in terms of date, but the issue surrounding the hook has been addressed for days now (the initial hook exceeded 200 characters) with at least three to four other hooks being provided, but no rereview has occured with this suggestion. I wish to ask if someone can rereview this article's suggestions before it's dropped without a second look, or if it can be put on hold until a review has been made. Hurricane Angel Saki ( talk) 06:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The automated crediting for the hooks on the main page right now were done wrong. I got a message on my talk page about it [5]. I don't have time to address the problem, I have to leave. Would someone please address? At least the first 3 hooks were done wrong. Thanks! Royal broil 12:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Does "No stubs" still have a consensus, or is this a good front for fighting instruction creep? If the purpose is to prevent readers from seeing stub tags, the rule should be more like "If there is a stub tag, remove it (if the article qualifies for Did You Know, then it presumably is no longer a stub)." If the purpose is to make the article longer, it was made obsolete years ago when enforcement of the 1,500 character limit became routine.
If an article is disqualified by the 1,500 rule then it doesn't matter if it is doubly disqualified by the stub rule. If it's over 1,500, then Wikipedia:Stub says "articles may still be stubs even if they are a few paragraphs long..." but I've never seen an article disqualified for that reason. So when a 1,500+ article gets the objection "No stubs", the reaction is never "Oh my gosh! I need to add more prose so it won't be a stub!" It's always "Oops, I forgot to remove the tag."
"No stubs" sounds like a way to make articles longer, but in practice it just makes people jump through the bureaucratic hoop of removing the tag. That hoop is a distraction from anything else the author might be doing, including making the article longer. So the net result of "No stubs" is to make the article shorter. Art LaPella ( talk) 20:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The DYK update of 13 June that included Lauritz Sand seems to be missing from the WP:Recent additions. Did someone forget to update the archive? Manxruler ( talk) 00:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Just FYI that this hook for June 28th is on T:TDYK right now. I don't have a problem with it, just thought I should leave a note. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 01:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, I was active here a while ago and am again from time to time. I generally think about writing more hooks if I feel there is a relative dearth and less if there is an abundance or backlog. Problem is, it can be hard to tell what the situation is. Is it worth having some sort of barometer at the top of the suggestions page (and that I can transclude to my user page?) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not one to complain about receiving DYK messages, but today's message wrongly credited as creator of Eryngium racemosum. I checked Queue 3, and I was correctly listed as nominator only. But as said I later "became" a creator. Just saying. Punkmorten ( talk) 21:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The hook currently in prep area 1 (7pm EST) that reads "...that Thomas Bertie was one of three future admirals serving together on HMS Seahorse in 1773, the others being Horatio Nelson and Thomas Troubridge?" should probably read "...that Thomas Bertie was one of three future admirals that served together..." Historical things should always use past tense. Sorry if I'm just being a grammar nut. Parsecboy ( talk) 22:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The times for Chicago should be 4:35 and 10:35, because of DST. -- [[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 06:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Los Angeles | New York | UTC | London | New Delhi | Tokyo | Sydney | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Queue 3 | 20 June 17:00 |
20 June 20:00 |
21 June 00:00 |
21 June 01:00 |
21 June 05:30 |
21 June 09:00 |
21 June 10:00 |
Queue 4 | 21 June 17:00 |
21 June 20:00 |
22 June 00:00 |
22 June 01:00 |
22 June 05:30 |
22 June 09:00 |
22 June 10:00 |
Queue 5 | 22 June 17:00 |
22 June 20:00 |
23 June 00:00 |
23 June 01:00 |
23 June 05:30 |
23 June 09:00 |
23 June 10:00 |
Queue 6 Prep 6 |
23 June 17:00 |
23 June 20:00 |
24 June 00:00 |
24 June 01:00 |
24 June 05:30 |
24 June 09:00 |
24 June 10:00 |
Queue 7 Prep 7 |
24 June 17:00 |
24 June 20:00 |
25 June 00:00 |
25 June 01:00 |
25 June 05:30 |
25 June 09:00 |
25 June 10:00 |
Queue 1 Prep 1 |
25 June 17:00 |
25 June 20:00 |
26 June 00:00 |
26 June 01:00 |
26 June 05:30 |
26 June 09:00 |
26 June 10:00 |
Queue 2 Prep 2 |
26 June 17:00 |
26 June 20:00 |
27 June 00:00 |
27 June 01:00 |
27 June 05:30 |
27 June 09:00 |
27 June 10:00 |
Prep 3 | 27 June 17:00 |
27 June 20:00 |
28 June 00:00 |
28 June 01:00 |
28 June 05:30 |
28 June 09:00 |
28 June 10:00 |
Prep 4 | 28 June 17:00 |
28 June 20:00 |
29 June 00:00 |
29 June 01:00 |
29 June 05:30 |
29 June 09:00 |
29 June 10:00 |
Prep 5 | 29 June 17:00 |
29 June 20:00 |
30 June 00:00 |
30 June 01:00 |
30 June 05:30 |
30 June 09:00 |
30 June 10:00 |
It says 09:35 on this chart, not 08:35. -- [[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 22:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The Polish article...wordy..."forced to consider" would suffice
Why has this not been updated since yesterday? I thought it was updated every 5 hours. Simply south ( talk) 15:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It's been a while since DYKSTATS has been given a good update. I've been working on it since yesterday and will continue as time permits. Anyone who wants to help is welcome. I think DYKSTATS is one of the best ways to demonstrate the vitality of DYK in drawing attention to diverse and sometimes neglected topics. Here's a short chart showing DYK hooks in June (so far) that have attracted at least 10,000 page views. Cbl62 ( talk) 19:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Article | Image | DYK views | DYK hook |
---|---|---|---|
Stannard Rock Light |
![]() |
31,000 | |
peanut butter, banana and bacon sandwich |
![]() |
17,000 | |
Sword of Stalingrad | The Sword of Stalingrad | 16,400 | |
Marshall Newell |
![]() |
14,200 | |
car cooler |
|
13,300 | |
Albert Bridge, London |
![]() |
12,300 | |
Mitch Morgan |
![]() |
11,100 | |
Edward Riou |
![]() |
10,900 | |
Nicolas Jacques Pelletier |
![]() |
10,800 |
I usually check how many hits my article got, a day or two after it was on the MP, and add it to DYKSTATS myself if it was over 5,000 (ie, once). I assume a lot of DYK regulars do this, but non-regulars probably don't know they can. Maybe we can update the DYK award bauble with a sentence or two saying "after 24 hours have passed, you are welcome to check how many hits your article got (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000". rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 22:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't really know if i should raise this at all, and I haven't raised it with the editor in question, candlewicke. I don't mean to be uncivil towards him/her, I just don't really know how to raise this query, and I am happy for candlewicke to jump in here.
Candlewicke has provided a host of recent DYK noms, mostly relating to Irish radio /TV / music. These have included David Carradine is a Bounty Hunter Whos Robotic Arm Hates Your Crotch, How Am I Supposed to Kill You If You Have All the Guns?, Fight Like Apes and the Mystery of the Golden Medallion, Aine Lawlor, Cathal Mac Coille, John Murray (broadcaster), Fight Like Apes, Mary Wilson (broadcaster), Rachael English, The Meaning of Life (TV series), and Dublin Women's Mini Marathon. I've read a few of these articles, and have been monitoring the feedback at T:DYK, and there just seems to be a kind of range of problems with these articles and the nominations. It isn't any one particular thing. For some of them, there seem to be issues of notability that aren't necessarily getting articulated; for others it's the wierd hooks, sometimes relying on unusual stuff like what the parents of a band member thought about their son's music. With others, the original article seems not as well prepared as most DYKs and/or could possibly be merged into something broader. There seems to be such an avalanche of nominations I'm wondering whether we're not addressing all these issues simply because there seem to be so many at once. I've probably reviewed over a hundred DYK noms in recent months and this cluster is raising more problems than average. My suggestion to candlewicke would probably be to say write fewer articles and spend more time on them, and try for hooks that aren't so cryptic (the David Carradine one is an obvious example). On the other hand, candlewicke is an experienced editor (certainly more so than me). So I'd like other editors' views. hamiltonstone ( talk) 00:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm very disappointed that this has happened but Ottava has just informed me of this discussion. I have only tried to reply to each issue raised and solve it in the best possible way - however, I am confused as to why Ottava is using a reference against me in that AfD despite it being added only after I was specifically asked for it by a reviewer (I cannot remember who, perhaps they do). I have not regularly subjected to questions over my edits outside DYK - matters like this have never come up at GA or ITN so I don't know why there are so many difficulties over sources, paraphrasing, etc. both here and now. I have noticed that several other users, including admins it seems, are also experiencing difficulties around this time, so I find mention of me alone a little strange. However, there must be some specific difficulty with me alone as that is what is being raised here. The trouble is that it is a different problem on each occasion and some of the problems are contradicting each other (I've never been told how a link which is closely paraphrased one day can be original research the other day - how does one solve that?), some are agreeing and with others there is disagreement so I'm not sure how to respond but I do my best to satisfy all issues. The "weird stuff" again is something which is suddenly a problem but so too is a hook that is too boring. I accept that the articles may not be perfect (but then I've never tried to make them all FAs, that would be a big ask if I can't do the simple thing without provoking comment), many of those mentioned above have been nominated by me and contributed to by another; indeed I am most disappointed for him as he has been great with some of these articles and does not deserve to be dragged down in this way with me. It might be better for me to not contribute here any further, it is not very fun anymore and when there is no enjoyment there seems little point when it is not my job and I'm not submitting DYKs due to any struggle for survival. I am sorry for all this bother, none of it is intended. -- can dle • wicke 20:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
We have 195 nominated hooks but only 19 approved ones. We have five empty queues and two empty prep areas. We had six empty queues but I just cobbled one together out of what little has been reviewed. So DYK needs urgent attention from article reviewers and queue builders or in a few hours we'll be back to six empty queues and DYK skids to a halt. Thanks. - Dravecky ( talk) 16:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I notice Jamie has restored the six-hook notice. It won't hurt to do a few six-hook updates, but the number of hooks over the last few weeks has been steady or climbing while we've done 8 hooks per update, which means that sticking to 6 for any length of time is going to create a backlog, which in turn just means more work down the road for someone. Gatoclass ( talk) 18:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The original hook for the article Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center, which has been the subject of extensive discussion on T:TDYK and is one of many articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict that have been under DYK consideration, was promoted as is for inclusion on the main page. I firmly believe that we should do everything we can to get appropriate articles approved for DYK and I have no objection at all to approving this for DYK. In a corresponding situation in which the article never appeared, I valiantly tried to get the Palestinian Land Laws article approved for DYK, and persistently offered a thoroughly-sourced compromise hook as a means to reach consensus. I think that the hook that had been proposed here by User:Ynhockey regarding the center's role in treating cases of the Jerusalem Syndrome is relevant to the article and represents an appropriate middle ground to move ahead. The article remains unchanged on Wikipedia and all of the material regarding the site's history is there. We have a few choices here: 1) all hooks go ahead, regardless of controversy; 2) no controversial hooks are approved; and 3) we work to find acceptable hooks that reach consensus for controversial articles. Option 1 is a recipe for disaster. Option 2 gives any editor (or side in an argument) veto power over articles they don't like. Option 3 is the Wikipedia way. Whatever we choose, it should be applied consistently for all articles. An alternative hook for this article and a similar approach for other controversial articles should be the solution here. Alansohn ( talk) 15:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
July 1st is the opening day for the Canadian Football League along with it being Canada Day and I was planning to get some hooks ready for it but I'm not sure whether there should be a special holding area for it or not. Thoughts?-- Giants27 ( c| s) 19:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
[15] -- NE2 15:21, 26 June 2009 (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 40 | ← | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
I found a series of "History of christianity" articles by Carlaude, but when I asked on their talk page about nominating them, they haven't responded. I'm not sure if its appropriate to make nominations on their behalf, so I've posted the articles here.
There are ~18 articles in all, but I'm tired now and so I shall "nominate" the remaining articles tomorrow. My question is, are these articles DYK worthy? Smallman12q ( talk) 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The poor old bot just fired a blank as there were no updates in the queue. I've fixed it now, but there is still only one update in the pipeline so if someone could put an update or two together, that would be nice. Gatoclass ( talk) 14:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me for being a neophyte here, but how exactly would one "do a set/update"? I would be inclined to help but I'm not sure what you're talking about. Mahalo, Skomorokh 23:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to mention that I am almost done a large DYK set on Samuel Coleridge's early poetry. All of them are over 5k before leads, pictures, and formatting. I have also placed the corresponding poems on Wikisource. The hook will be something along the lines of "... that the topics of Samuel Coleridge's early poems included: cannibalism, death, pain, gambling, an Otter, Bars, Pixies, prison raid," etc. The hook is 60 characters for the base and an average of 9 characters for each poem with approximately 16/17 pages. I estimate that the total size will be near 210 (an alternate intro - "the young Samuel Coleridge (pictured) wrote on many topics including:" would be the same amount of characters). The attraction to the hook would be the variety of the descriptives (who would not want to click on cannibalism, for instance?) If anyone was curious about the prep, they can look User talk:Ottava Rima/Samuel Coleridge's early life here and User:Synergy will be working with me on leads, some copyediting, formatting, etc. (with joint credit). Note - some of the pages are long, some are only about 6k. They represent either important moments within his life or within his poetry. Not all of them are complete (Monody is way too large to be finished, and the "Pain" poem needs a little work on the reception and organization. I plan to finish these pages by Friday. Ottava Rima ( talk) 03:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
This may be a topic that's been raised here before, and if it has I apologise in advance for raising the issue again.
Out of curiosity I've looked at all of the main page DYKs over the last few days, and with only a few exceptions their quality was pretty abysmal, including serious grammar and spelling errors. Are these the types of articles that really ought to be featured on the main page? Does nobody check them for such basic errors first? -- Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the above an attempt to shove the issue I raised under the carpet? -- Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why a discussion about improving the quality of content featured at DYK always boils down to "Maintain the status quo vs start accepting GAs (or something close to that)". Improving the quality of DYK doesn't mean abandoning the spirit or purpose of DYK in featuring new content nor is accepting GAs or "mini-GA"s the only way to improve the quality of DYKs. DYKs should never be "Main Page Perfect" because part of functional benefit of DYK is the encouragement of MP readers to edit and improve the article. Nothing hammers down the point of being the encyclopedia that anybody can edit more than DYK with its ever present encouragement for the reader to became part of the project by improving DYKs. That said, growth and improvement is a vital part of any healthy project and DYK should not be so resistant to reform under the mistaken belief that any diversion from the status quo somehow equates to losing the soul and spirit of DYK. There have been many viable suggestions (such as reconsidering the expansion rules) of ways to reform DYK that still maintain the spirit and purpose of DYK in featuring new content but also lift up the overall quality (and interest factor) of the content being featured. However we will never make progress on this discussion until there is a broad realization that this is not an "all or none" scenario--that we don't have to lose our soul or just feature FA-wannabes in order to better serve our main page readership. Agne Cheese/ Wine 15:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I just reverted this blanking. The article appears to have been expanded enough to qualify. Am I right? -- BorgQueen ( talk) 16:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
On the main page at the moment there is the following DYK: ... that Hal Lubarsky outlasted 6,300 other players at the World Series of Poker despite playing blind?
Sounded interesting that he played without looking at his cards so I clicked on it it. The fact is that he wasn't playing blind, he is blind. Furthermore, there's no cite to how many people he beat. Are wikipedians meant to know that making it to the money in World Series Poker means you beat 6,300 other people? I certainly didn't. That, and the fact the hook basically lies to get your attention forced me to report it at WP:ERRORS although I've since realised it's not up much longer. I looked at the diff in template talk and it seems these problems were noted, but it still got onto the main page. Perhaps the not-so-clever play on words needed to be held over until April 1? I'm not sure, I just know I felt cheated and riled enough to moan about it here!
I'm not trying to blame anyone, we all make mistakes, but I would hope we can all learn from this. Bigger digger ( talk) 09:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
<--@ rʨanaɢ, I don't think you'd have to do the ticking rigmarole if you were checking and promoting yourself, but... @ Gatoclass, I think your right, I'm creating a mountain from a mole hill of an annoying hook! Bigger digger ( talk) 22:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The update is 1 hour overdue and the queues are empty so the bot has nothing to work with. Is there anyone around who can throw an update together quickly? I just got back from a run and am sweating all over my computer, otherwise I would do it. If it's not done by the time I'm back I can take a whack at it. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 17:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
A few tweaks needed on Q4 and Q6 before they hit the main page ... Q4 lacks (pictured) for the Albert Bridge, and Q6 has a spare (pictured) in the Mooney hook. The President of Ireland is in danger of being compared to that moth! Also, in the same hook, " blue tits" (lower case) might be preferable. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 22:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone pointed out at WP:ERRORS that Wikipedia:Recent additions hadn't been updated since 8 June 2009. I've brought it up to date and sent Nixeagle an email to ask whether this is something that his bot does, or whether it's a manual task. Unless/until the bot is regularly archiving the hooks, this is just a reminder to people to check that hooks that have been removed from the main page make it to the archive. Bencherlite Talk 11:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I made a small change to the way things look on T:TDYK. This is because over the past couple days I've noticed a lot of people posting nominations by copying and pasting other noms, rather than using the templates, and in many cases they cause formatting errors (generally by leaving off the </div> or </small> near the end of the nom, which causes noms below theirs to be shrunk or hidden). I figured changing the names of the section headers might make it more obvious that there are instructions, just like at XfD and stuff like that, and they can follow them to avoid messing things up. Anyway, feel free to double-check the changes I made and make sure everything is still ok. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 18:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I've just received credit for Edward Riou as part of a dual DYK hook I submitted, but HMS Amazon (1799), the second part, seems to have been omitted, both in the credits on my talkpage, and on the article talkpages themselves. Amazon is bolded as included in the 'new article' DYK mainpage section. Is this just a bot error, as this is not the first time this has happened? Benea ( talk) 22:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
This hook caught my attention:
I personally don't have strong feelings either way, but I know in the past some things like this have been kept off the main page. Does anyone have any thoughts here—either about the hook itself (i.e., if it can be feature-able with a different hook, and with the title piped so that "cunt" isn't on the main page), or about the article in general (i.e., maybe some people might think this can't be featured no matter what the hook is). We all know that WP is not censored, but we also all know that the main page is more sensitive than regular article space. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 01:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the reasons have been more or less summarised above, but in short, no, this is certainly not appropriate for the main page. It's certainly an interesting topic to read about elsewhere, but no. Just no. Recognizance ( talk) 08:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
(out) Can everyone please refrain from calling "censorship", in both this and future discussions? We go through this song and dance every time an issue like this is discussed, and every time the arguments are the same—someone says "WP is not censored", someone else says "the main page is different." Backslash Forwardslash already gave some helpful links to past discussions where people said essentially the same things, and the fact that they're coming up again suggests to me that everyone has forgotten. I had hoped to ward off this song & dance by stating in my first message "We all know that WP is not censored, but we also all know that the main page is more sensitive than regular article space", but it doesn't seem to have worked. In any case, though, the "censorship" card does not further any discussion, it just makes people upset, there's nothing constructive at all. Let's please stay on topic and not rehash the same pointless argument we have had three or four times already this year.
(For what it's worth, I am also of the opinion that the main page should not be "censored", but that it is more sensitive than article space and special judgment needs to be exercised in what we put there, since many readers see the Main Page as how Wikipedia "wants" to present itself. I don't believe any article should be "censored" because all articles should have their chance to exist somewhere in mainspace even if they're somewhat "offensive", but at the same time some of them may not be appropriate for showing off to the world and boasting about via DYK. That is the same stance that has been taken towards some articles by Raul, whom we all know will not put Jenna Jameson or a pooping seagull on the main page.)
rʨanaɢ
talk/
contribs 13:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Wholly inappropriate for the Main Page. We have similar restrictions for featured images and even, to an extent, today's featured article. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't care about this article, but WP is not censored, so let it appear on the main page. Of the whole conversation, the troubling part was whether or not the article is using reliable sources. Although we're not censored, we should make sure that anything controversial has impeccable sources. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 07:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Now that it occurs to me, I would also like to know what exactly it is that is being objected to here. Is it the word "cunt", specifically? Does that mean we would also have to ban submissions like Cunt (album) or Cunt (novel) if they turned up? Or is it the overtly sexual nature of the game itself that is the problem? It might help if someone could clarify that. Gatoclass ( talk) 07:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what we decide in this discussion about the rules, censorship, and whatnot, I believe it has become clear that, if there is not specifically consensus against promoting the hook that started this, there is clearly no consensus for promoting it. Enough editors in good standing (Ruhrfisch, Juliancolton, Backslash Forwardslash, Recognizance, MZMcbride, Ched Davis... as well as some editors I don't know as well, Kubigula and Bigger Digger—not to imply you're not in "good standing", I'm just less familiar with you) have objected that I don't think it will be possible to promote. Yes, I know other editors in good standing have supported promoting (Gatoclass, Haipa Doragon, Giants, Chzz, and Peregrine Fisher), but it's clear to me that at best there is no consensus, and at worst there is consensus against. By all means feel free to continue discussing censorship and other issues, but as for this specific article I do not see it getting promoted (and even if we extend the discussion to the VP, ask Raul to comment, or do any other things that we have done in similar discussions in the past, I imagine the consensus will not shift), so if it's all the same I will probably BOLDly remove the nomination within the next 24 hours since it's not going to succeed anyway. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 13:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Latecomer to the debate (as usual), but I feel the need to echo something that User:Rjanag touched on.
The arguments at work here seem to be a generic "Use common sense" argument vs. a policy argument (i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOTCENSORED). Assuming good faith all around, I have to side with those declining to feature this article on the Main Page. Our best arguments backing up the un-censorship of Wikipedia has been along the lines of "If someone looks up the penis or hog-tie bondage article, they should reasonably expect a picture of those things for a full encyclopedic treatment of the topic". This clearly does not apply for the Main Page, since a user would not reasonably expect to view objectionable content. While "I don't like it" is clearly a bad argument, it is similar to the argument I will use: Including this hook on the Main Page would be detrimental to Wikipedia's image, and have no substantive positive effects.
Moving away from policy, the "common sense" side seems to have a better case. The Main Page is the most visible on Wikipedia, and is meant to draw people in, new readers and editors alike. I agree that its dangerous to draw a line anywhere with regards to "morality" and related topics. However, a way around this is to treat all articles on a case-by-case basis, instead of drawing some arbitrary line or blindly following some policy or guideline. In this case, the potential negative impact on Wikipedia outweighs any arguments for transparency and equality.
In contrast to the general content, WP:DYK is a way to promote new material at Wikipedia. As such, it should be a place where "common sense" rules, and not where policy binds us to prominently feature material which will without a doubt portray the site in a negative light. The question that should always be asked is this: "Will my action improve Wikipedia?" In this case, it would not. - RunningOnBrains( talk page) 19:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. We do not decide what is wrong and what is right. We make no judgements. This is a pillar; this is a core value, and this is why I feel so strongly about what might seem a trivial issue. Once we begin to judge what is and is not appropriate, we open a hideous can of worms. Is it right to show a nude on the front page? A semi-nude; a portrait nude; a porn-star; an article about bondage; an article about the word cunt; an article about the human penis; an article about breasts; an article about masturbation? I expect many of you reading this will have your own opinions on this, and that's fine - but those opinions should not affect your approval or disapproval, because we strive to be neutral, unbiased, objective and encyclopaedic. This is not a matter of common sense - clearly, there are differences of opinion. My own common sense tells me that freedom of expression is an essential part of the project, and that it is detrimental to the project to start making censorship judgement calls.
Chzz
► 09:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Rjanag asked me to weigh in here. I think this is a bit over the top, and shouldn't be on the main page. Raul654 ( talk) 06:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
If an article has been at DYK before several years ago, and I were to expand it 5x, would it be acceptable to be at DYK again? The article in question is David Clyde, which I plan to expand to a GA-quality article sometime this month. It was put on DYK back when apparently citation requirements were looser, and the article can certainly be greatly improved upon. If it still would not qualify despite the changes in the past years then that's fine, but if it's allowed, then I'll at least try to get it put up. Wizardman 04:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
<--Gato, see this edit, and maybe start a new section so that this doesn't hang around so long? ;-) Bigger digger ( talk) 06:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bring this up here, but I need this issue resolved, as I've become too involved to resolve it myself. The hook suggestion for aces and eights (blackjack) is about to be dropped in terms of date, but the issue surrounding the hook has been addressed for days now (the initial hook exceeded 200 characters) with at least three to four other hooks being provided, but no rereview has occured with this suggestion. I wish to ask if someone can rereview this article's suggestions before it's dropped without a second look, or if it can be put on hold until a review has been made. Hurricane Angel Saki ( talk) 06:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The automated crediting for the hooks on the main page right now were done wrong. I got a message on my talk page about it [5]. I don't have time to address the problem, I have to leave. Would someone please address? At least the first 3 hooks were done wrong. Thanks! Royal broil 12:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Does "No stubs" still have a consensus, or is this a good front for fighting instruction creep? If the purpose is to prevent readers from seeing stub tags, the rule should be more like "If there is a stub tag, remove it (if the article qualifies for Did You Know, then it presumably is no longer a stub)." If the purpose is to make the article longer, it was made obsolete years ago when enforcement of the 1,500 character limit became routine.
If an article is disqualified by the 1,500 rule then it doesn't matter if it is doubly disqualified by the stub rule. If it's over 1,500, then Wikipedia:Stub says "articles may still be stubs even if they are a few paragraphs long..." but I've never seen an article disqualified for that reason. So when a 1,500+ article gets the objection "No stubs", the reaction is never "Oh my gosh! I need to add more prose so it won't be a stub!" It's always "Oops, I forgot to remove the tag."
"No stubs" sounds like a way to make articles longer, but in practice it just makes people jump through the bureaucratic hoop of removing the tag. That hoop is a distraction from anything else the author might be doing, including making the article longer. So the net result of "No stubs" is to make the article shorter. Art LaPella ( talk) 20:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The DYK update of 13 June that included Lauritz Sand seems to be missing from the WP:Recent additions. Did someone forget to update the archive? Manxruler ( talk) 00:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Just FYI that this hook for June 28th is on T:TDYK right now. I don't have a problem with it, just thought I should leave a note. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 01:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, I was active here a while ago and am again from time to time. I generally think about writing more hooks if I feel there is a relative dearth and less if there is an abundance or backlog. Problem is, it can be hard to tell what the situation is. Is it worth having some sort of barometer at the top of the suggestions page (and that I can transclude to my user page?) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not one to complain about receiving DYK messages, but today's message wrongly credited as creator of Eryngium racemosum. I checked Queue 3, and I was correctly listed as nominator only. But as said I later "became" a creator. Just saying. Punkmorten ( talk) 21:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The hook currently in prep area 1 (7pm EST) that reads "...that Thomas Bertie was one of three future admirals serving together on HMS Seahorse in 1773, the others being Horatio Nelson and Thomas Troubridge?" should probably read "...that Thomas Bertie was one of three future admirals that served together..." Historical things should always use past tense. Sorry if I'm just being a grammar nut. Parsecboy ( talk) 22:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The times for Chicago should be 4:35 and 10:35, because of DST. -- [[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 06:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Los Angeles | New York | UTC | London | New Delhi | Tokyo | Sydney | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Queue 3 | 20 June 17:00 |
20 June 20:00 |
21 June 00:00 |
21 June 01:00 |
21 June 05:30 |
21 June 09:00 |
21 June 10:00 |
Queue 4 | 21 June 17:00 |
21 June 20:00 |
22 June 00:00 |
22 June 01:00 |
22 June 05:30 |
22 June 09:00 |
22 June 10:00 |
Queue 5 | 22 June 17:00 |
22 June 20:00 |
23 June 00:00 |
23 June 01:00 |
23 June 05:30 |
23 June 09:00 |
23 June 10:00 |
Queue 6 Prep 6 |
23 June 17:00 |
23 June 20:00 |
24 June 00:00 |
24 June 01:00 |
24 June 05:30 |
24 June 09:00 |
24 June 10:00 |
Queue 7 Prep 7 |
24 June 17:00 |
24 June 20:00 |
25 June 00:00 |
25 June 01:00 |
25 June 05:30 |
25 June 09:00 |
25 June 10:00 |
Queue 1 Prep 1 |
25 June 17:00 |
25 June 20:00 |
26 June 00:00 |
26 June 01:00 |
26 June 05:30 |
26 June 09:00 |
26 June 10:00 |
Queue 2 Prep 2 |
26 June 17:00 |
26 June 20:00 |
27 June 00:00 |
27 June 01:00 |
27 June 05:30 |
27 June 09:00 |
27 June 10:00 |
Prep 3 | 27 June 17:00 |
27 June 20:00 |
28 June 00:00 |
28 June 01:00 |
28 June 05:30 |
28 June 09:00 |
28 June 10:00 |
Prep 4 | 28 June 17:00 |
28 June 20:00 |
29 June 00:00 |
29 June 01:00 |
29 June 05:30 |
29 June 09:00 |
29 June 10:00 |
Prep 5 | 29 June 17:00 |
29 June 20:00 |
30 June 00:00 |
30 June 01:00 |
30 June 05:30 |
30 June 09:00 |
30 June 10:00 |
It says 09:35 on this chart, not 08:35. -- [[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 22:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The Polish article...wordy..."forced to consider" would suffice
Why has this not been updated since yesterday? I thought it was updated every 5 hours. Simply south ( talk) 15:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It's been a while since DYKSTATS has been given a good update. I've been working on it since yesterday and will continue as time permits. Anyone who wants to help is welcome. I think DYKSTATS is one of the best ways to demonstrate the vitality of DYK in drawing attention to diverse and sometimes neglected topics. Here's a short chart showing DYK hooks in June (so far) that have attracted at least 10,000 page views. Cbl62 ( talk) 19:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Article | Image | DYK views | DYK hook |
---|---|---|---|
Stannard Rock Light |
![]() |
31,000 | |
peanut butter, banana and bacon sandwich |
![]() |
17,000 | |
Sword of Stalingrad | The Sword of Stalingrad | 16,400 | |
Marshall Newell |
![]() |
14,200 | |
car cooler |
|
13,300 | |
Albert Bridge, London |
![]() |
12,300 | |
Mitch Morgan |
![]() |
11,100 | |
Edward Riou |
![]() |
10,900 | |
Nicolas Jacques Pelletier |
![]() |
10,800 |
I usually check how many hits my article got, a day or two after it was on the MP, and add it to DYKSTATS myself if it was over 5,000 (ie, once). I assume a lot of DYK regulars do this, but non-regulars probably don't know they can. Maybe we can update the DYK award bauble with a sentence or two saying "after 24 hours have passed, you are welcome to check how many hits your article got (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000". rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 22:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't really know if i should raise this at all, and I haven't raised it with the editor in question, candlewicke. I don't mean to be uncivil towards him/her, I just don't really know how to raise this query, and I am happy for candlewicke to jump in here.
Candlewicke has provided a host of recent DYK noms, mostly relating to Irish radio /TV / music. These have included David Carradine is a Bounty Hunter Whos Robotic Arm Hates Your Crotch, How Am I Supposed to Kill You If You Have All the Guns?, Fight Like Apes and the Mystery of the Golden Medallion, Aine Lawlor, Cathal Mac Coille, John Murray (broadcaster), Fight Like Apes, Mary Wilson (broadcaster), Rachael English, The Meaning of Life (TV series), and Dublin Women's Mini Marathon. I've read a few of these articles, and have been monitoring the feedback at T:DYK, and there just seems to be a kind of range of problems with these articles and the nominations. It isn't any one particular thing. For some of them, there seem to be issues of notability that aren't necessarily getting articulated; for others it's the wierd hooks, sometimes relying on unusual stuff like what the parents of a band member thought about their son's music. With others, the original article seems not as well prepared as most DYKs and/or could possibly be merged into something broader. There seems to be such an avalanche of nominations I'm wondering whether we're not addressing all these issues simply because there seem to be so many at once. I've probably reviewed over a hundred DYK noms in recent months and this cluster is raising more problems than average. My suggestion to candlewicke would probably be to say write fewer articles and spend more time on them, and try for hooks that aren't so cryptic (the David Carradine one is an obvious example). On the other hand, candlewicke is an experienced editor (certainly more so than me). So I'd like other editors' views. hamiltonstone ( talk) 00:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm very disappointed that this has happened but Ottava has just informed me of this discussion. I have only tried to reply to each issue raised and solve it in the best possible way - however, I am confused as to why Ottava is using a reference against me in that AfD despite it being added only after I was specifically asked for it by a reviewer (I cannot remember who, perhaps they do). I have not regularly subjected to questions over my edits outside DYK - matters like this have never come up at GA or ITN so I don't know why there are so many difficulties over sources, paraphrasing, etc. both here and now. I have noticed that several other users, including admins it seems, are also experiencing difficulties around this time, so I find mention of me alone a little strange. However, there must be some specific difficulty with me alone as that is what is being raised here. The trouble is that it is a different problem on each occasion and some of the problems are contradicting each other (I've never been told how a link which is closely paraphrased one day can be original research the other day - how does one solve that?), some are agreeing and with others there is disagreement so I'm not sure how to respond but I do my best to satisfy all issues. The "weird stuff" again is something which is suddenly a problem but so too is a hook that is too boring. I accept that the articles may not be perfect (but then I've never tried to make them all FAs, that would be a big ask if I can't do the simple thing without provoking comment), many of those mentioned above have been nominated by me and contributed to by another; indeed I am most disappointed for him as he has been great with some of these articles and does not deserve to be dragged down in this way with me. It might be better for me to not contribute here any further, it is not very fun anymore and when there is no enjoyment there seems little point when it is not my job and I'm not submitting DYKs due to any struggle for survival. I am sorry for all this bother, none of it is intended. -- can dle • wicke 20:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
We have 195 nominated hooks but only 19 approved ones. We have five empty queues and two empty prep areas. We had six empty queues but I just cobbled one together out of what little has been reviewed. So DYK needs urgent attention from article reviewers and queue builders or in a few hours we'll be back to six empty queues and DYK skids to a halt. Thanks. - Dravecky ( talk) 16:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I notice Jamie has restored the six-hook notice. It won't hurt to do a few six-hook updates, but the number of hooks over the last few weeks has been steady or climbing while we've done 8 hooks per update, which means that sticking to 6 for any length of time is going to create a backlog, which in turn just means more work down the road for someone. Gatoclass ( talk) 18:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The original hook for the article Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center, which has been the subject of extensive discussion on T:TDYK and is one of many articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict that have been under DYK consideration, was promoted as is for inclusion on the main page. I firmly believe that we should do everything we can to get appropriate articles approved for DYK and I have no objection at all to approving this for DYK. In a corresponding situation in which the article never appeared, I valiantly tried to get the Palestinian Land Laws article approved for DYK, and persistently offered a thoroughly-sourced compromise hook as a means to reach consensus. I think that the hook that had been proposed here by User:Ynhockey regarding the center's role in treating cases of the Jerusalem Syndrome is relevant to the article and represents an appropriate middle ground to move ahead. The article remains unchanged on Wikipedia and all of the material regarding the site's history is there. We have a few choices here: 1) all hooks go ahead, regardless of controversy; 2) no controversial hooks are approved; and 3) we work to find acceptable hooks that reach consensus for controversial articles. Option 1 is a recipe for disaster. Option 2 gives any editor (or side in an argument) veto power over articles they don't like. Option 3 is the Wikipedia way. Whatever we choose, it should be applied consistently for all articles. An alternative hook for this article and a similar approach for other controversial articles should be the solution here. Alansohn ( talk) 15:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
July 1st is the opening day for the Canadian Football League along with it being Canada Day and I was planning to get some hooks ready for it but I'm not sure whether there should be a special holding area for it or not. Thoughts?-- Giants27 ( c| s) 19:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
[15] -- NE2 15:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)