![]() | 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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
What happened with that hook? I'm not seeing it here.-- Canniba loki 18:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
With a bit of shuffling, the sets of hooks for the 28th have been completed. We didn't have enough pictures and hooks to cover four updates, so I have moved the batch that was in Q5 to P1, until Q2 clears up, as Q2 will receive a better timeslot for American readers. \ Backslash Forwardslash / { talk} 13:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I left a note on Nixeagle's talk page, (in this archive) about this problem, but he doesn't seem to be responding to comments on his talk page lately. I've noticed that the bot that gives out the DYK credits puts it on a redirect's talk page if the nom'd article link is a redirect to the real page. I've fixed this manually the couple times I have seen it happen, but perhaps this should be changed in the bot's programming? Just wanted to leave a note here, since it seems that nixeagle hasn't edited in awhile. For example, just now Talk:Garfield School got the credits instead of Talk:Garfield School (Brunswick, New York) (because the DYK used the redirect as a link instead of piping to the article, presumably.). Killiondude ( talk) 01:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody check out some of the nommed hooks here? Because only about four of the 13 nommed hooks in this special holding area have been reviewed and July 1st is only in two days (as most of you know).-- Giants27 ( c| s) 19:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please add Toronto to Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes? We are perilously close to Canada Day and there is a bunch of hooks ready in the "special occasions" section, but no-one seems to have done much about it yet. Gatoclass ( talk) 13:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Five, not four, Hall of Famers have won Gold Gloves at short stop. Robin Yount belongs on list. New page corrected; lead-in here needs to be as well. Wikiuser100 ( talk) 12:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I just reverted vandalism on Papuan King Parrot which is at the top of DYK on the frontpage. The vandalism was committed by an IP. Aren't articles linked to from the Main page normally at least semi-protected or even full protected? 193.244.33.47 ( talk) 08:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
In case anyone wanted to look at broader and less esoteric DYKs, a while ago we got a few listed (now somewhere in archives), which I have collected to here --> User:Casliber/To-Do#Potential_DYKs. Anyone is welcome to expand and harvest them (just strike it if you do), or alternately add some more broader ones which may be quite sizeable stubs but could be expanded fivefold in an extended burst. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Since a lot of people are unaware that they can update DYKSTATS themselves, I updated the DYK award/notification/credit with a brief sentence mentioning it and linking to instructions for how to check their article's hits. This was per a suggestion I made at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 47#DYKSTATS Update. Just a heads-up so that if there are any errors the next time someone does credits, you will know where to look (and possibly revert if something in my edit is causing a problem with the template). rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 22:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you nominate an article you did since last July 4 that wasn't used on DYK that has relevance to July 4, 1776? That is, like April Fools Day.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
DYKadminBot was over two hours late on the last update. For many weeks now it's been updating at 02:35, 08:35, 14:35, and 20:35, but that latest one was at 23:42. Hopefully this is just a minor hiccup (Wikipedia was very sluggish a few hours ago for me), but keep an eye out if the bot keeps delaying updates. Shubinator ( talk) 00:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm not all-to-familiar with DYK, so this might be obvious for regulars here but it's something I wondered about: If I were to translate an article (say from de-wiki), does it count as "new" for en-wiki (as it does not exist here) or not (as it exists on some other wiki)? Regards So Why 08:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Was confused by all the queues etc. Can someone please do the credits and load up some of the prep areas? I need to hop off now. Sorry. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Here we are on July 4 and no-one bothered to even load a US independence day update. Someone managed to throw one together for the next update, but I had to spend half an hour trying to fix the formatting errors.
What the heck is going on? Aren't there any Americans who care enough about their own independence day to make sure the right hooks get featured? I had to do Canada Day just a couple of days ago, with almost no help from anyone else, and I'm afraid I don't feel like doing a repeat performance this weekend. So please one of you Yanks step forward and show a bit of interest! Gatoclass ( talk) 09:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that but the link to microphotograph needs to be changed to link to Microform, not microphotography. The corrected hook should have the microphotograph wikilink corrected as follows:
that in 1864, René Dagron produced a stanhope which enabled the viewing of a [[Microform|microphotograph]] that included the portraits of 450 people in an area of 1 mm2?
The current microphotograph link directs to microphotography, ([[Microphotography|microphotograph]]) which is wrong. Thanks. Dr.K. logos 17:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
[1] What on earth went wrong? -- BorgQueen ( talk) 21:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Er, we need <!--Hooks--> and <!--HooksEnd--> back in T:DYK. Shubinator ( talk) 21:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The "2009 London tower block fire" article is now at 2009 Camberwell tower block fire after it was moved by another editor. Currently in the queue for DYK. Mjroots ( talk) 21:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it too early as I have reviewed a Dracula-related one? -- can dle • wicke 00:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it just my computer or does the article view link not come up for anyone?-- Giants27 ( c| s) 20:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The site seems to be back up and running. It looks, though, like it didn't collect any data during the days it was down (see, for example, [3]). Tear... rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 20:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Kindly move the Prep Areas on so I may attempt to prevent the panic that will ensue tomorrow. -- can dle • wicke 00:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
For future reference, if the preps are full and there are no admins around to clear them, you can organize further updates anywhere you want, such as in a personal sandbox. Just copy the text of T:DYK/C (Template:Did you know/Clear) into your sandbox, and prepare an update there. That way you can prepare as many updates as you want, and be ready to move them into the prep pages the moment an admin clears them. (Just be specific in your T:TDYK edit summaries that you are promoting them to a personal sandbox, rather than the regular prep pages...otherwise people might start getting confused.) rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 01:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Could everyone, when reviewing an article, please ensure that it meets the absolute minimum 1500 character requirement? Articles such as N'Mai River, which is currently on the Main Page, have been verified yet fall short. \ Backslash Forwardslash / { talk} 00:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
...and just 3 verified ones. We're in no immediate danger since we have about 24 hours worth of queues assembled and ready but at this time tomorrow the panic will be in full swing if folks don't jump in to review some hooks. As always, the older the hook, the more in need of review it is. Thanks to everybody who jumps in here. - Dravecky ( talk) 00:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Are we going through this whole ordeal again about minute details on Norway being presented as some curious fact that people should know? I think it puts my country in a bad light, and please save the sarcasm. 193.213.19.176 ( talk) 01:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
A lot of
Eurovision Song Contest articles, some of which have been successful and unsuccessful at FA/GA use a few websites that have been contested and are the subject of some debate. Please see
Wikipedia:Featured article review/Eurovision Song Contest/archive2 and
WT:EURO
YellowMonkey (
cricket calendar poll!)
paid editing=POV
01:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep, all seven hooks in this queue are US-related, and three of them are sports hooks to boot.
I know we have a shortage of verified hooks ATM, but I think it would be better to leave completing an update until some more have been approved rather than putting one together that has hooks all from the same country. It's not as if this was a really urgent update given that we have several in the queue already. Gatoclass ( talk) 01:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed that Gaius Iulius Caesar (name) hit the main page. It's a port from the corresponding article on Citizendium, with a little MoS tweaking to fit. Selection criterion 1.d (original to Wikipedia) would seem to discourage (though not ban outright) such hooks from appearing in DYK. I've no real objection to such material hitting the Main Page, but I thought I'd start a discussion on the topic now to get others' views on the matter, as the recent licence change is going to mean that we'll see quite a few articles like this appearing over the next month or two, and others sporadically afterwards, and I'd rather there be a coherent policy in place before it becomes an issue down the line. GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 20:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Not a big problem though as a good port of all their top articles would keep dyk running for about 4 days. Victuallers ( talk) 22:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I was troubled by this article too. I didn't see anything that really made it notable or worth while, and the use of references was a tad troubling. I don't know about Citizendium articles in general, but if they are like this I would rather not have them without a major overhaul. Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
If someone could throw another update together, that would be handy. Gatoclass ( talk) 07:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Srsly, when are they planning to add some? I am sick of waiting half a minute for a window to open on this project. You just can't get anything done. Isn't $6 million enough to buy a few extra servers? Gatoclass ( talk) 14:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The last two images appearing in
Template:Did you know (
File:Alisterus chloropterus -Jurong Bird Park -male-8a.jpg and
File:Richie Hall.jpg) were inserted without first being uploaded/protected locally or protected at Commons. (I protected
File:Richie Hall.jpg at Commons as soon as I noticed.) This means that for almost seven hours, our main page was vulnerable to image vandalism. The three queued images for upcoming updates (
File:MarkusHowell.jpg,
File:Flag of Nunavut.svg and
File:Astraeus hygrometricus.jpg) also were unprotected (and I've protected them at Commons as well).
Shouldn't
DYKadminBot be programmed to verify that the image has been protected (either locally or at Commons) before performing the update? (I've left a pointer to this thread on Nixeagle's talk page.) —
David Levy
10:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Once again, I just noticed that the current image ( File:Heart left ventricular hypertrophy sa.jpg) was unprotected (and Iimmediately protected it at Commons). Hopefully, Nixeagle will respond soon. — David Levy 00:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Once again, all of the images appearing in the upcoming queues were unprotected. (I protected them at Commons.) — David Levy 04:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It just happened again with the current image. Can we please do something to prevent this from occurring? — David Levy 15:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Are there going to be any hooks for it (July 14th)? I have prep for Coleridge's France: An Ode, which describes his feelings in support of the French Revolution but betrayal he felt when France invaded Switzerland (he also wrote many works on the French Revolution). I heard that there might be featured pictures related and possibly other stuff. I would like to see everyone's thoughts. Ottava Rima ( talk) 03:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, three articles for a hook - something along the lines of "The British Romantic poets captured the unfolding events of the French Revolution: list a few events". I have three articles (not finished yet) User:Ottava Rima/The French Revolution (Bastille and the French tyranny pre-Revolution), User:Ottava Rima/The Fall of Robbespierre (Robespierre's death, yes, a typo, but I'm too lazy to fix at the moment), and User:Ottava Rima/France: An Ode (invasion of Switzerland). If anyone can think of another British Romantic poem that would fit the mold that I have missed, drop me a line. I wanted to deal with the early revolution in order to fit in with Bastille (and ignore Napoleon's stuff). Ottava Rima ( talk) 02:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Four hooks. I will list them shortly. Ottava Rima ( talk) 17:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Would the T:TDYK page be better without the TOCLIMIT? Yes, it would make the TOC box bigger, but on the other hand would allow easier navigation to nominated articles on the page. Mjroots ( talk) 08:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Before I and my talk page disappear again, can someone look at this and and User talk:Ironholds#DYK for Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (United_Kingdom). Thanks. -- RetiredUser2 (Talk) 12:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I am confused by its copyright status. Can someone tell me if we can use the image? --
BorgQueen (
talk)
15:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Both are ready now. I have done what I hope is the best with what is available. Are they OK? -- can dle • wicke 23:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I just had to manually update, since the bot didn't. Could someone do the credits? -- BorgQueen ( talk) 03:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
When a nominated article is taken to AFD we usually wait until it's over. So what if a nominated article has been suggested for merging with another article? Looks to me like this would be pretty much the same thing if the article is merged into another article since the nominated article would not be there anymore. I came across something like this today with 2008–2009 hadrosaur chewing study, which I had to fail because of the decision at AFD to merge it into another article. But what do we do if another article is merged into the nominated article? This would create a problem with the character count for instance. I think we should get a clear idea on what to do in a case like this, and include it in the DYK rules. ≈ Chamal talk 07:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Can articles be featured twice? If I wrote an article months ago that was featured as a new article and I now have new sources which could expand the prose fivefold, does that work? Ironholds ( talk) 08:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The bot is currently not working. Does anyone know what happened to it? -- BorgQueen ( talk) 10:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
And DYKadminBot is back working again as well. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 16:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
...with the current problems ("File uploads have been disabled temporarily on Wikipedia. Apologies for any inconvenience.") I was not able to upload the images for Queues 2 and 3 for protection. As I will likely not be at my PC when the problems are resolved, I'd appreciate if some other admin could keep an eye on this and upload the images when possible. Thanks. - Dravecky ( talk) 01:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
In queue five (as of whenever I sign this post) there is this hook:
I suggest that the date is unlinked, as it isn't especially relevant. Gratzias! BobAmnertiopsis ∴ ChatMe! 08:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
[4] I'll ask Doug Coldwell also. Art LaPella ( talk) 17:37, 17 July 2009 (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.
When today is July 17, and the backlog dates to July 5 (was the 1st before i came out of my wikibreak to fix it) I should NOT be seeing hooks from the 15th being promoted. I don't care how few hooks are verified. By not even looking at the expired ones, that just makes you guys lazy, and I'm sick of seeing this happen so frequently. If this was a very occasional occurrence for a good hook that's fine, but ignoring 10 days of hooks just for the heck of it is extremely disappointing. Come on guys -_- [5] Wizardman 22:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm lazy? I've reviewed more hooks here than anyone else over the last few days. I've gone mainly for the quick 'n' easy ones because we have a dearth of verified hooks. If someone thinks there are not enough "tough" hooks being processed, there's a solution - process them yourself, don't blame others for your lack of participation.
As for the hooks being boring - when I am preparing updates, I always try to pick at least a couple of strong hooks, there is no worse update than one with all weak or uninteresting hooks. I put this into the updating guidelines long ago, unfortunately it seems that some updaters don't follow it. But then, it's been difficult to do so recently because of the shortage of verified hooks. So again, the solution is for more people to get involved with verifying. Criticizing those who actually are making a contribution is really not helpful. Gatoclass ( talk) 03:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
When a published hook is later shown to incorrect, should we publish an erratum?
E.g. The hook "... that Lt Col Rupert Thorneloe, who died in 2009 during Operation Panther's Claw in Afghanistan, is the highest-ranking British officer to be killed in action since Lt Col 'H'. Jones in the Falklands War?" was inaccurate. See Talk:Rupert Thorneloe. 84.13.125.244 ( talk) 22:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
"that footballer Ole Gunnar Solskjaer scored a 12-minute hat-trick after coming on as a subsitute?" The name is Ole Gunnar Solskjær, with a Norwegian Æ letter, not an ae-combination. Also, subsitute probably is supposed to be substitute. Manxruler ( talk) 20:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
There is meant to be an update in 2 hours and there is nothing in the queues. Prep 1 looks ready to go (to me inexperienced eyes), so could an admin move it over? Thanks! -- Tango ( talk) 22:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Last night I left a somewhat tantalizing comment in the discussion above and didn't have a chance to follow up on it. Anyway, here are my thoughts.
A lot of people complain that DYK hooks are too boring. I myself have complained about that before; see, for example, my extended discussion with User:Mattisse at User talk:Rjanag/Archive5#Inquiring minds want to know, where my conclusions at the time were that a) enforcing an "interestingness standard", even if it's subjective, would both improve DYK and lessen our workload; b) users should not automatically be "entitled" to a DYK whenever they create or expand an article; and c) implementing an "interestingness standard" would require having fewer updates to T:DYK (perhaps once a day or something) and perhaps reinstating the practice of removing old hooks without reviewing them (the rationale being that if a hook has sat around for a week without being reviewed, it must not have piqued anyone's interest). I'm sure there are a lot of DYK critics out there who would agree with this, and think that making DYK a little bit more competitive would improve things.
On the other hand (and this is the thought that came to me in the shower), there is also a strong argument against that. In addition to the fact that it's impossible to objectively enforce an interestingness standard (I have said that myself, too, in previous discussions—as you can see, I'm having a wiki-identity crisis), a more fundamental problem is that who says DYK's purpose/definition is to show off interesting articles? Interesting articles are nice, of course, but many people believe DYK's main purpose is to show off new stuff (to demonstrate that Wikipedia is still growing) and interestingness is just icing on the cake. The "entitlement" view of some editors fits with this... I myself have probably nom'ed some articles that may not have been the most interesting things, just because I thought "hey, I put a good three or four hours into this, might as well stick it on the MP and get a DYK out of it". Just like this, many editors believe that a good new article is entitled to a few hours on the MP, even if it's not exactly the most exhilirating stuff. Under this view, DYK is basically a vetted version of Special:NewPages: showing people what new stuff is on Wikipedia, regardless of how interesting it is, and the only purpose of the vetting process is to rule out the junk that we aren't proud of.
So what the real question comes down to, then, is what do we believe DYK is for? Is it for showing some of Wikipedia's most interesting new stuff? (If it is, then at some point DYK is going to have to evolve, become more competitive, more subjective, etc.) Or is it for showing all of what's new on Wikipedia (minus the junk that we don't want anyone to see—keeping in mind that most new articles are junk, even if they survive speedy deletion)? Both of these are valid viewpoints, but some people subscribe to one and some subscribe to the other. Many people who subscribe to the first think DYK is an embarrassment to the project because it "celebrates trivialities", etc.; on the other hand, many people who subscribe to the second believe that DYK should be as inclusive as possible. In many cases this disagreement is moot, since a lot of DYK submissions can have an interesting hook written about them if you put the right amount of work and creativity into it (see Balloonman's recent essay on this); sometimes, though, an article is notable and well-written but just dull as all-get-out and nothing interesting can be written about it. In cases like these, our understanding of what DYK is all about really matters. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 19:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Apart from "boring factor", I think Rjanag brings up an interesting point that is getting glossed over. What is the purpose of DYK? As noted in the section above regarding "single sourcing", there is a lot of WP:CREEP mentality running amok with the ever expanding Additional rules. Frankly, I think the fact that we have to have an additional 17,000+ byte page for just extra rules is jaw dropping for a project that functions partly as a recruiting tool for new contributors and new content. The spirit and purpose of DYK is certainly drifting away into another direction as standards inch ever close to becoming mini-GAs. I see nominations flagged for copy editing and being held off on featuring. Seriously?!? One of the most awesome and dynamic sights to witness on Wikipedia is the collaborative transformation of a DYK article during its brief 6 hours on the main page. All the little tinkers and tweaks (including copy editing) by a wide range of editors and IP turns a very rough, infant article into a shinning example of why Wikipedia works. Far from being "embarrassed" at the articles that appear on DYK, we should be proud of fostering the dynamic that makes Wikipedia tick and promotes it growth. Rarely is there a DYK article that doesn't improve after its time in DYK and that is a tremendous thing. But it seems that we are getting farther and farther away from that--especially when we spend more time talking about what embarrasses us instead of what makes us stronger as a project and proud. Agne Cheese/ Wine 03:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi DYK'ers.
We've submitted
Template talk:Did you know#Marco Polo sheep,
The
spotlight team are currently working hard on this article, and I wondered if the DYK could be expediated; reason being, we plan to work on this for just 3 more days (because that is the way spotlight works), so I wondered if it might be possible to DYK it while the edits are ongoing.
We've tried to add a good catchline and a pic, and it's already 5x size; please let us know if there is more we can do, either on
Wikipedia talk:Spotlight or
via IRC, thanks,
Chzz
►
03:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, cancel this request. Spotlight will be moving on to the next article within 24 hours anyway. Chzz ► 23:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
On the last update from Queue 4 the credits for Jamaican general election, 1997 were not done. Would somebody mind doing the credits for that article. It looks like it was because the article was not added to the credits section of the queue as seen here. Davewild ( talk) 07:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK there is a list of eighteen pages which the "DYK process" is "divided over". Would anyone mind if I trim this list? A lot of them are pages which are not actually related to process (there are information pages like WP:DYK/A and WP:DYK/NAP; nav pages like Template:DYK archive nav and Template:DYKbox, and stuff like the DYK hall of fame and, even more inexplicably, its talk page). As these pages have nothing to do with the actual process of how a hook moves from an editor's head to the front page, I think this list is basically the project-space equivalent of fancruft and it probably intimidates new users seeking to come learn what DYK is and how it works. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 12:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello -- I have nominated the article Stellaland (expanded) for DYK, and was advised to leave a note here. The article is about a former country which was founded on July 26, 1882. It might be nice to have it featured on that anniversary. Thank you~ Seb az86556 ( talk) 12:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK is a nice area of WP, usually immune to the fights found in ANI and SSP. Never remove a hook except in the case of obvious vandalism or a joke hook. If you think the hook is poorly written, you may try to improve it or comment that it is impossible to improve. If you think the article will be deleted, a note can be made but you should not act as a crystal ball and remove the hook. The only reason to remove a hook according to the official rules is promotion or expiration. User F203 ( talk) 15:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
That's not the first time I've removed a hook. We have the discretion here to exercise our own judgment. If the hook or the related article is a BLP-problem, or controversial, I'll yank it. There's no point is waiting out the Obama article AfD when the consensus here was not to promote it, and when it clearly shouldn't go on the main page. Anyone is free to revert my removals - I can take it. Law type! snype? 02:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's time we went back to 8 hooks per update. Currently we have two full queues and 231 hooks at Suggestions, if the queue was full we would still have 200 hooks on the Suggestions page. So I've adjusted the Prep Clear page accordingly. Gatoclass ( talk) 07:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I need clarification on the definition of a "new article". An article some time in the past was 5,000 characters, but it was unsourced, uncited, and so changed to a redirect to another article that contains none of the information in the original article. Does a "new" sourced, cited, rewritten article need to match the fivefold criteria, ie must it be 25,000 characters?
A related question: Is the fivefold criteria applied to the "high water mark" of an article's history, or just to the latest revision. So, in my example, if the redirect is replaced with a 2000 character article and later is expanded to 10,000 characters, does that count as a fivefold increase?-- Work permit ( talk) 00:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
After a request on my talk page, Template:Dollarsign now can link to various types of dollars and other currency, such as the United States dollar or the Brazilian Real. Feel free to use it when making DYK nominations, or add/request another currency if you can think of one. \ Backslash Forwardslash / { talk} 21:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm used to DYK having fairly high standards when it comes to pictures, so I was somewhat disappointed to see that list of domesticated Scottish breeds was illustrated with a picture of a cat in a bathroom sink. Was that really the best alternative out of the many other pictures in the list?
Peter Isotalo 13:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm just noting that Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (United_Kingdom) was given a DYK without anyone checking the copyright status of the prior edition of the article Parliamentary Counsel Office which I have now restored because it was not a copyright violation. Potential copyvios should always be checked against the very first revision to see if the article was always a copyright violation.
I think that this doesnt affect the outcome of the DYK, as it probably still qualifies under the 5x expansion rule. I am guessing that this scenario doesn't happen too often, but it would be good to try to prevent it happening. John Vandenberg ( chat) 11:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I've had an idea for a "Fact of the Day" game for a while, which I wrote up during the WP:DRAMAOUT. See User:John Vandenberg/Worm of Facts. The selection algorithm I have proposed is only a first cut; so long as it is relatively simple, I should be able to write the bot that updates the stats hourly in order to keep it interesting. John Vandenberg ( chat) 11:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. The current DYK page says that 200 characters is the outside limit for hooks. As such, it would be great if we could reach consensus which part of the hook count towards this limit. Particularly, do the "...", the "that" and/or the "?" count towards this limit? I think the project page should have more detailed instructions regarding this requirement because the question how the hook length is determined arises quite often. Regards So Why 08:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
In a FAC for The Lucy poems, it was asked that the redlink for " A slumber did my spirit seal" be filled in. I have done such. In doing so, I only used minimal bits from The Lucy poems, rewriting them, and added in better sources and expanded text. I added in parts from The Lucy poems page so that there would not be any problems in FAC regarding the new page created by request (i.e., wanted to preempt any questions about comprehensiveness).
I would like to nominate this for DYK, as this is "the only poem in William Wordsworth's Lucy poem series that does not mention the dead Lucy by name?" However, I am placing this here in order to make sure that there are no concerns, especially those regarding "expansion" and the rest. Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys, it has come up at AN that many images on DYK have been unprotected. Remember. when you are updating the queues, remember to ensure the images are protected. Cascading protection is being applied, but an image on Commons needs to be uploaded locally in order for cascading protection to work. \ Backslash Forwardslash / { talk} 08:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The bot misfired on the last run (probably because of the massive lag at the time). Ironically the only thing it did do is reset the clock. Could an admin please update from queue 4? Shubinator ( talk) 01:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it too early to start putting out Halloween-themed DYKs to be held? Otto4711 ( talk) 22:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The hook "that Washington, D.C. Chief of Police Richard H. Sylvester coined the term " third degree" to refer to harsh means of extracting confessions from suspects?" which was approved but now appears in the queue "that Washington, D.C. Chief of Police Richard H. Sylvester may have coined the term "third degree" to refer to harsh means of extracting confessions from suspects?", inserting the words "may have" before the words "coined the term". The original hook does imply a definiteness that may not be appropriate, but "may have" adds unneeded ambiguity as to what is uncertain. It could mean that he did or did not coin the term, or it could mean that he may have coined it to mean a certain interrogation technique or he may have coined it to mean something else. My I suggest that the words "may have" be replaced with "is credited with having" (or a variant thereof) to make it a bit clearer as to what is uncertain in the hook, leaving "that Washington, D.C. Chief of Police Richard H. Sylvester is credited with having coined the term "third degree" to refer to harsh means of extracting confessions from suspects?". Alansohn ( talk) 01:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This page does not have a template listed on Wikipedia:Template messages/Wikipedia namespace . Should it have one? — This, that, and the other [talk] 07:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Instead of providing yet more single-article hooks on churches in Sussex, I thought of combining three churches (all linked by this chap's 11th-century actions) into one slightly, er, "different" hook. Trouble is, I would have to finish the first one and write the other two in order to support that hook. Could you all kindly take a look at this and say whether it could work, or whether it is too hard to follow, confusing, poorly structured, misleading or just too whimsical? I honestly can't make my mind up. (Bold words are where the piped links to articles would be, probably.)
("Acquired carvings" because they weren't there in 1096, but were soon afterwards. And there was an elf as well, also with an angry expression, but we've already got 255 characters.)
If this is viable, then I'll start writing the other two now (no sleep for me!). If not, I can spread these out over time as single-article submissions, and try and find a decent hook for the one I'm writing now (believe it or not, churches were always collapsing in storms in Sussex). Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 21:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The examples make 5-fold expansion seem (relatively) easy to calculate, but in reality, with multiple editors working on an article, growth is rarely all in one direction. Take a look, for example, at this edit history for the Pennsylvania Renaissance Faire article. The version from 5 days ago had approx. 5360 characters of readable prose. The current version has about 3250. In between, it has gone as low as 544. Part of the reduction and then rebuilding was from removal of copyvio, but the extent to which it was copyvio would be difficult to determine. How would you figure this one? Should I wait until it's been 5-days from the most stripped-down version and then submit? That seems like gaming the system. Thanks, cmadler ( talk) 17:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Plz could the text "(Kedarnath temple pictured)" in Queue 5 be italicised before it goes on the Main Page. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 19:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
May I suggest that the hook for Catholic clergy involvement with the Ustaše (now showing) be removed from the front page. This is a very old and controversial article based on a book Hitler's Pope that has been extensively criticized for it's inaccuracies and to some degree retracted. The article has gone through 3 AFD's and apparently been deleted at least once then recreated (one AfD is hidden for some reason). Also the expansion is less than 5 times (4852 bytes before expansion, 20,884 now).
More importantly it looks like pure propaganda to me. Anti-catholic to be sure (I'm not Catholic), perhaps against BLP (if any of the clergy are still alive), and in general in very poor taste. Thanks in advance for a quick review. Smallbones ( talk) 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Greetings. I would like to move this article to the queue for appearance on August 8. Right now (at this time) the next update is queue 5. That's where this should go, right after the next update, according to Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Local_update_times. I count three empty queues. Someone has used one of the prep areas. Where should I put it? And how did you figure that out? Thanks. - SusanLesch ( talk) 19:00, 6 August 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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
What happened with that hook? I'm not seeing it here.-- Canniba loki 18:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
With a bit of shuffling, the sets of hooks for the 28th have been completed. We didn't have enough pictures and hooks to cover four updates, so I have moved the batch that was in Q5 to P1, until Q2 clears up, as Q2 will receive a better timeslot for American readers. \ Backslash Forwardslash / { talk} 13:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I left a note on Nixeagle's talk page, (in this archive) about this problem, but he doesn't seem to be responding to comments on his talk page lately. I've noticed that the bot that gives out the DYK credits puts it on a redirect's talk page if the nom'd article link is a redirect to the real page. I've fixed this manually the couple times I have seen it happen, but perhaps this should be changed in the bot's programming? Just wanted to leave a note here, since it seems that nixeagle hasn't edited in awhile. For example, just now Talk:Garfield School got the credits instead of Talk:Garfield School (Brunswick, New York) (because the DYK used the redirect as a link instead of piping to the article, presumably.). Killiondude ( talk) 01:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody check out some of the nommed hooks here? Because only about four of the 13 nommed hooks in this special holding area have been reviewed and July 1st is only in two days (as most of you know).-- Giants27 ( c| s) 19:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please add Toronto to Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes? We are perilously close to Canada Day and there is a bunch of hooks ready in the "special occasions" section, but no-one seems to have done much about it yet. Gatoclass ( talk) 13:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Five, not four, Hall of Famers have won Gold Gloves at short stop. Robin Yount belongs on list. New page corrected; lead-in here needs to be as well. Wikiuser100 ( talk) 12:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I just reverted vandalism on Papuan King Parrot which is at the top of DYK on the frontpage. The vandalism was committed by an IP. Aren't articles linked to from the Main page normally at least semi-protected or even full protected? 193.244.33.47 ( talk) 08:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
In case anyone wanted to look at broader and less esoteric DYKs, a while ago we got a few listed (now somewhere in archives), which I have collected to here --> User:Casliber/To-Do#Potential_DYKs. Anyone is welcome to expand and harvest them (just strike it if you do), or alternately add some more broader ones which may be quite sizeable stubs but could be expanded fivefold in an extended burst. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Since a lot of people are unaware that they can update DYKSTATS themselves, I updated the DYK award/notification/credit with a brief sentence mentioning it and linking to instructions for how to check their article's hits. This was per a suggestion I made at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 47#DYKSTATS Update. Just a heads-up so that if there are any errors the next time someone does credits, you will know where to look (and possibly revert if something in my edit is causing a problem with the template). rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 22:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you nominate an article you did since last July 4 that wasn't used on DYK that has relevance to July 4, 1776? That is, like April Fools Day.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
DYKadminBot was over two hours late on the last update. For many weeks now it's been updating at 02:35, 08:35, 14:35, and 20:35, but that latest one was at 23:42. Hopefully this is just a minor hiccup (Wikipedia was very sluggish a few hours ago for me), but keep an eye out if the bot keeps delaying updates. Shubinator ( talk) 00:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm not all-to-familiar with DYK, so this might be obvious for regulars here but it's something I wondered about: If I were to translate an article (say from de-wiki), does it count as "new" for en-wiki (as it does not exist here) or not (as it exists on some other wiki)? Regards So Why 08:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Was confused by all the queues etc. Can someone please do the credits and load up some of the prep areas? I need to hop off now. Sorry. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Here we are on July 4 and no-one bothered to even load a US independence day update. Someone managed to throw one together for the next update, but I had to spend half an hour trying to fix the formatting errors.
What the heck is going on? Aren't there any Americans who care enough about their own independence day to make sure the right hooks get featured? I had to do Canada Day just a couple of days ago, with almost no help from anyone else, and I'm afraid I don't feel like doing a repeat performance this weekend. So please one of you Yanks step forward and show a bit of interest! Gatoclass ( talk) 09:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that but the link to microphotograph needs to be changed to link to Microform, not microphotography. The corrected hook should have the microphotograph wikilink corrected as follows:
that in 1864, René Dagron produced a stanhope which enabled the viewing of a [[Microform|microphotograph]] that included the portraits of 450 people in an area of 1 mm2?
The current microphotograph link directs to microphotography, ([[Microphotography|microphotograph]]) which is wrong. Thanks. Dr.K. logos 17:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
[1] What on earth went wrong? -- BorgQueen ( talk) 21:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Er, we need <!--Hooks--> and <!--HooksEnd--> back in T:DYK. Shubinator ( talk) 21:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The "2009 London tower block fire" article is now at 2009 Camberwell tower block fire after it was moved by another editor. Currently in the queue for DYK. Mjroots ( talk) 21:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it too early as I have reviewed a Dracula-related one? -- can dle • wicke 00:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it just my computer or does the article view link not come up for anyone?-- Giants27 ( c| s) 20:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The site seems to be back up and running. It looks, though, like it didn't collect any data during the days it was down (see, for example, [3]). Tear... rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 20:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Kindly move the Prep Areas on so I may attempt to prevent the panic that will ensue tomorrow. -- can dle • wicke 00:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
For future reference, if the preps are full and there are no admins around to clear them, you can organize further updates anywhere you want, such as in a personal sandbox. Just copy the text of T:DYK/C (Template:Did you know/Clear) into your sandbox, and prepare an update there. That way you can prepare as many updates as you want, and be ready to move them into the prep pages the moment an admin clears them. (Just be specific in your T:TDYK edit summaries that you are promoting them to a personal sandbox, rather than the regular prep pages...otherwise people might start getting confused.) rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 01:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Could everyone, when reviewing an article, please ensure that it meets the absolute minimum 1500 character requirement? Articles such as N'Mai River, which is currently on the Main Page, have been verified yet fall short. \ Backslash Forwardslash / { talk} 00:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
...and just 3 verified ones. We're in no immediate danger since we have about 24 hours worth of queues assembled and ready but at this time tomorrow the panic will be in full swing if folks don't jump in to review some hooks. As always, the older the hook, the more in need of review it is. Thanks to everybody who jumps in here. - Dravecky ( talk) 00:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Are we going through this whole ordeal again about minute details on Norway being presented as some curious fact that people should know? I think it puts my country in a bad light, and please save the sarcasm. 193.213.19.176 ( talk) 01:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
A lot of
Eurovision Song Contest articles, some of which have been successful and unsuccessful at FA/GA use a few websites that have been contested and are the subject of some debate. Please see
Wikipedia:Featured article review/Eurovision Song Contest/archive2 and
WT:EURO
YellowMonkey (
cricket calendar poll!)
paid editing=POV
01:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep, all seven hooks in this queue are US-related, and three of them are sports hooks to boot.
I know we have a shortage of verified hooks ATM, but I think it would be better to leave completing an update until some more have been approved rather than putting one together that has hooks all from the same country. It's not as if this was a really urgent update given that we have several in the queue already. Gatoclass ( talk) 01:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed that Gaius Iulius Caesar (name) hit the main page. It's a port from the corresponding article on Citizendium, with a little MoS tweaking to fit. Selection criterion 1.d (original to Wikipedia) would seem to discourage (though not ban outright) such hooks from appearing in DYK. I've no real objection to such material hitting the Main Page, but I thought I'd start a discussion on the topic now to get others' views on the matter, as the recent licence change is going to mean that we'll see quite a few articles like this appearing over the next month or two, and others sporadically afterwards, and I'd rather there be a coherent policy in place before it becomes an issue down the line. GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 20:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Not a big problem though as a good port of all their top articles would keep dyk running for about 4 days. Victuallers ( talk) 22:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I was troubled by this article too. I didn't see anything that really made it notable or worth while, and the use of references was a tad troubling. I don't know about Citizendium articles in general, but if they are like this I would rather not have them without a major overhaul. Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
If someone could throw another update together, that would be handy. Gatoclass ( talk) 07:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Srsly, when are they planning to add some? I am sick of waiting half a minute for a window to open on this project. You just can't get anything done. Isn't $6 million enough to buy a few extra servers? Gatoclass ( talk) 14:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The last two images appearing in
Template:Did you know (
File:Alisterus chloropterus -Jurong Bird Park -male-8a.jpg and
File:Richie Hall.jpg) were inserted without first being uploaded/protected locally or protected at Commons. (I protected
File:Richie Hall.jpg at Commons as soon as I noticed.) This means that for almost seven hours, our main page was vulnerable to image vandalism. The three queued images for upcoming updates (
File:MarkusHowell.jpg,
File:Flag of Nunavut.svg and
File:Astraeus hygrometricus.jpg) also were unprotected (and I've protected them at Commons as well).
Shouldn't
DYKadminBot be programmed to verify that the image has been protected (either locally or at Commons) before performing the update? (I've left a pointer to this thread on Nixeagle's talk page.) —
David Levy
10:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Once again, I just noticed that the current image ( File:Heart left ventricular hypertrophy sa.jpg) was unprotected (and Iimmediately protected it at Commons). Hopefully, Nixeagle will respond soon. — David Levy 00:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Once again, all of the images appearing in the upcoming queues were unprotected. (I protected them at Commons.) — David Levy 04:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It just happened again with the current image. Can we please do something to prevent this from occurring? — David Levy 15:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Are there going to be any hooks for it (July 14th)? I have prep for Coleridge's France: An Ode, which describes his feelings in support of the French Revolution but betrayal he felt when France invaded Switzerland (he also wrote many works on the French Revolution). I heard that there might be featured pictures related and possibly other stuff. I would like to see everyone's thoughts. Ottava Rima ( talk) 03:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, three articles for a hook - something along the lines of "The British Romantic poets captured the unfolding events of the French Revolution: list a few events". I have three articles (not finished yet) User:Ottava Rima/The French Revolution (Bastille and the French tyranny pre-Revolution), User:Ottava Rima/The Fall of Robbespierre (Robespierre's death, yes, a typo, but I'm too lazy to fix at the moment), and User:Ottava Rima/France: An Ode (invasion of Switzerland). If anyone can think of another British Romantic poem that would fit the mold that I have missed, drop me a line. I wanted to deal with the early revolution in order to fit in with Bastille (and ignore Napoleon's stuff). Ottava Rima ( talk) 02:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Four hooks. I will list them shortly. Ottava Rima ( talk) 17:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Would the T:TDYK page be better without the TOCLIMIT? Yes, it would make the TOC box bigger, but on the other hand would allow easier navigation to nominated articles on the page. Mjroots ( talk) 08:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Before I and my talk page disappear again, can someone look at this and and User talk:Ironholds#DYK for Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (United_Kingdom). Thanks. -- RetiredUser2 (Talk) 12:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I am confused by its copyright status. Can someone tell me if we can use the image? --
BorgQueen (
talk)
15:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Both are ready now. I have done what I hope is the best with what is available. Are they OK? -- can dle • wicke 23:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I just had to manually update, since the bot didn't. Could someone do the credits? -- BorgQueen ( talk) 03:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
When a nominated article is taken to AFD we usually wait until it's over. So what if a nominated article has been suggested for merging with another article? Looks to me like this would be pretty much the same thing if the article is merged into another article since the nominated article would not be there anymore. I came across something like this today with 2008–2009 hadrosaur chewing study, which I had to fail because of the decision at AFD to merge it into another article. But what do we do if another article is merged into the nominated article? This would create a problem with the character count for instance. I think we should get a clear idea on what to do in a case like this, and include it in the DYK rules. ≈ Chamal talk 07:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Can articles be featured twice? If I wrote an article months ago that was featured as a new article and I now have new sources which could expand the prose fivefold, does that work? Ironholds ( talk) 08:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The bot is currently not working. Does anyone know what happened to it? -- BorgQueen ( talk) 10:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
And DYKadminBot is back working again as well. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 16:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
...with the current problems ("File uploads have been disabled temporarily on Wikipedia. Apologies for any inconvenience.") I was not able to upload the images for Queues 2 and 3 for protection. As I will likely not be at my PC when the problems are resolved, I'd appreciate if some other admin could keep an eye on this and upload the images when possible. Thanks. - Dravecky ( talk) 01:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
In queue five (as of whenever I sign this post) there is this hook:
I suggest that the date is unlinked, as it isn't especially relevant. Gratzias! BobAmnertiopsis ∴ ChatMe! 08:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
[4] I'll ask Doug Coldwell also. Art LaPella ( talk) 17:37, 17 July 2009 (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.
When today is July 17, and the backlog dates to July 5 (was the 1st before i came out of my wikibreak to fix it) I should NOT be seeing hooks from the 15th being promoted. I don't care how few hooks are verified. By not even looking at the expired ones, that just makes you guys lazy, and I'm sick of seeing this happen so frequently. If this was a very occasional occurrence for a good hook that's fine, but ignoring 10 days of hooks just for the heck of it is extremely disappointing. Come on guys -_- [5] Wizardman 22:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm lazy? I've reviewed more hooks here than anyone else over the last few days. I've gone mainly for the quick 'n' easy ones because we have a dearth of verified hooks. If someone thinks there are not enough "tough" hooks being processed, there's a solution - process them yourself, don't blame others for your lack of participation.
As for the hooks being boring - when I am preparing updates, I always try to pick at least a couple of strong hooks, there is no worse update than one with all weak or uninteresting hooks. I put this into the updating guidelines long ago, unfortunately it seems that some updaters don't follow it. But then, it's been difficult to do so recently because of the shortage of verified hooks. So again, the solution is for more people to get involved with verifying. Criticizing those who actually are making a contribution is really not helpful. Gatoclass ( talk) 03:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
When a published hook is later shown to incorrect, should we publish an erratum?
E.g. The hook "... that Lt Col Rupert Thorneloe, who died in 2009 during Operation Panther's Claw in Afghanistan, is the highest-ranking British officer to be killed in action since Lt Col 'H'. Jones in the Falklands War?" was inaccurate. See Talk:Rupert Thorneloe. 84.13.125.244 ( talk) 22:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
"that footballer Ole Gunnar Solskjaer scored a 12-minute hat-trick after coming on as a subsitute?" The name is Ole Gunnar Solskjær, with a Norwegian Æ letter, not an ae-combination. Also, subsitute probably is supposed to be substitute. Manxruler ( talk) 20:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
There is meant to be an update in 2 hours and there is nothing in the queues. Prep 1 looks ready to go (to me inexperienced eyes), so could an admin move it over? Thanks! -- Tango ( talk) 22:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Last night I left a somewhat tantalizing comment in the discussion above and didn't have a chance to follow up on it. Anyway, here are my thoughts.
A lot of people complain that DYK hooks are too boring. I myself have complained about that before; see, for example, my extended discussion with User:Mattisse at User talk:Rjanag/Archive5#Inquiring minds want to know, where my conclusions at the time were that a) enforcing an "interestingness standard", even if it's subjective, would both improve DYK and lessen our workload; b) users should not automatically be "entitled" to a DYK whenever they create or expand an article; and c) implementing an "interestingness standard" would require having fewer updates to T:DYK (perhaps once a day or something) and perhaps reinstating the practice of removing old hooks without reviewing them (the rationale being that if a hook has sat around for a week without being reviewed, it must not have piqued anyone's interest). I'm sure there are a lot of DYK critics out there who would agree with this, and think that making DYK a little bit more competitive would improve things.
On the other hand (and this is the thought that came to me in the shower), there is also a strong argument against that. In addition to the fact that it's impossible to objectively enforce an interestingness standard (I have said that myself, too, in previous discussions—as you can see, I'm having a wiki-identity crisis), a more fundamental problem is that who says DYK's purpose/definition is to show off interesting articles? Interesting articles are nice, of course, but many people believe DYK's main purpose is to show off new stuff (to demonstrate that Wikipedia is still growing) and interestingness is just icing on the cake. The "entitlement" view of some editors fits with this... I myself have probably nom'ed some articles that may not have been the most interesting things, just because I thought "hey, I put a good three or four hours into this, might as well stick it on the MP and get a DYK out of it". Just like this, many editors believe that a good new article is entitled to a few hours on the MP, even if it's not exactly the most exhilirating stuff. Under this view, DYK is basically a vetted version of Special:NewPages: showing people what new stuff is on Wikipedia, regardless of how interesting it is, and the only purpose of the vetting process is to rule out the junk that we aren't proud of.
So what the real question comes down to, then, is what do we believe DYK is for? Is it for showing some of Wikipedia's most interesting new stuff? (If it is, then at some point DYK is going to have to evolve, become more competitive, more subjective, etc.) Or is it for showing all of what's new on Wikipedia (minus the junk that we don't want anyone to see—keeping in mind that most new articles are junk, even if they survive speedy deletion)? Both of these are valid viewpoints, but some people subscribe to one and some subscribe to the other. Many people who subscribe to the first think DYK is an embarrassment to the project because it "celebrates trivialities", etc.; on the other hand, many people who subscribe to the second believe that DYK should be as inclusive as possible. In many cases this disagreement is moot, since a lot of DYK submissions can have an interesting hook written about them if you put the right amount of work and creativity into it (see Balloonman's recent essay on this); sometimes, though, an article is notable and well-written but just dull as all-get-out and nothing interesting can be written about it. In cases like these, our understanding of what DYK is all about really matters. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 19:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Apart from "boring factor", I think Rjanag brings up an interesting point that is getting glossed over. What is the purpose of DYK? As noted in the section above regarding "single sourcing", there is a lot of WP:CREEP mentality running amok with the ever expanding Additional rules. Frankly, I think the fact that we have to have an additional 17,000+ byte page for just extra rules is jaw dropping for a project that functions partly as a recruiting tool for new contributors and new content. The spirit and purpose of DYK is certainly drifting away into another direction as standards inch ever close to becoming mini-GAs. I see nominations flagged for copy editing and being held off on featuring. Seriously?!? One of the most awesome and dynamic sights to witness on Wikipedia is the collaborative transformation of a DYK article during its brief 6 hours on the main page. All the little tinkers and tweaks (including copy editing) by a wide range of editors and IP turns a very rough, infant article into a shinning example of why Wikipedia works. Far from being "embarrassed" at the articles that appear on DYK, we should be proud of fostering the dynamic that makes Wikipedia tick and promotes it growth. Rarely is there a DYK article that doesn't improve after its time in DYK and that is a tremendous thing. But it seems that we are getting farther and farther away from that--especially when we spend more time talking about what embarrasses us instead of what makes us stronger as a project and proud. Agne Cheese/ Wine 03:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi DYK'ers.
We've submitted
Template talk:Did you know#Marco Polo sheep,
The
spotlight team are currently working hard on this article, and I wondered if the DYK could be expediated; reason being, we plan to work on this for just 3 more days (because that is the way spotlight works), so I wondered if it might be possible to DYK it while the edits are ongoing.
We've tried to add a good catchline and a pic, and it's already 5x size; please let us know if there is more we can do, either on
Wikipedia talk:Spotlight or
via IRC, thanks,
Chzz
►
03:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, cancel this request. Spotlight will be moving on to the next article within 24 hours anyway. Chzz ► 23:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
On the last update from Queue 4 the credits for Jamaican general election, 1997 were not done. Would somebody mind doing the credits for that article. It looks like it was because the article was not added to the credits section of the queue as seen here. Davewild ( talk) 07:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK there is a list of eighteen pages which the "DYK process" is "divided over". Would anyone mind if I trim this list? A lot of them are pages which are not actually related to process (there are information pages like WP:DYK/A and WP:DYK/NAP; nav pages like Template:DYK archive nav and Template:DYKbox, and stuff like the DYK hall of fame and, even more inexplicably, its talk page). As these pages have nothing to do with the actual process of how a hook moves from an editor's head to the front page, I think this list is basically the project-space equivalent of fancruft and it probably intimidates new users seeking to come learn what DYK is and how it works. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 12:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello -- I have nominated the article Stellaland (expanded) for DYK, and was advised to leave a note here. The article is about a former country which was founded on July 26, 1882. It might be nice to have it featured on that anniversary. Thank you~ Seb az86556 ( talk) 12:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK is a nice area of WP, usually immune to the fights found in ANI and SSP. Never remove a hook except in the case of obvious vandalism or a joke hook. If you think the hook is poorly written, you may try to improve it or comment that it is impossible to improve. If you think the article will be deleted, a note can be made but you should not act as a crystal ball and remove the hook. The only reason to remove a hook according to the official rules is promotion or expiration. User F203 ( talk) 15:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
That's not the first time I've removed a hook. We have the discretion here to exercise our own judgment. If the hook or the related article is a BLP-problem, or controversial, I'll yank it. There's no point is waiting out the Obama article AfD when the consensus here was not to promote it, and when it clearly shouldn't go on the main page. Anyone is free to revert my removals - I can take it. Law type! snype? 02:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's time we went back to 8 hooks per update. Currently we have two full queues and 231 hooks at Suggestions, if the queue was full we would still have 200 hooks on the Suggestions page. So I've adjusted the Prep Clear page accordingly. Gatoclass ( talk) 07:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I need clarification on the definition of a "new article". An article some time in the past was 5,000 characters, but it was unsourced, uncited, and so changed to a redirect to another article that contains none of the information in the original article. Does a "new" sourced, cited, rewritten article need to match the fivefold criteria, ie must it be 25,000 characters?
A related question: Is the fivefold criteria applied to the "high water mark" of an article's history, or just to the latest revision. So, in my example, if the redirect is replaced with a 2000 character article and later is expanded to 10,000 characters, does that count as a fivefold increase?-- Work permit ( talk) 00:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
After a request on my talk page, Template:Dollarsign now can link to various types of dollars and other currency, such as the United States dollar or the Brazilian Real. Feel free to use it when making DYK nominations, or add/request another currency if you can think of one. \ Backslash Forwardslash / { talk} 21:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm used to DYK having fairly high standards when it comes to pictures, so I was somewhat disappointed to see that list of domesticated Scottish breeds was illustrated with a picture of a cat in a bathroom sink. Was that really the best alternative out of the many other pictures in the list?
Peter Isotalo 13:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm just noting that Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (United_Kingdom) was given a DYK without anyone checking the copyright status of the prior edition of the article Parliamentary Counsel Office which I have now restored because it was not a copyright violation. Potential copyvios should always be checked against the very first revision to see if the article was always a copyright violation.
I think that this doesnt affect the outcome of the DYK, as it probably still qualifies under the 5x expansion rule. I am guessing that this scenario doesn't happen too often, but it would be good to try to prevent it happening. John Vandenberg ( chat) 11:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I've had an idea for a "Fact of the Day" game for a while, which I wrote up during the WP:DRAMAOUT. See User:John Vandenberg/Worm of Facts. The selection algorithm I have proposed is only a first cut; so long as it is relatively simple, I should be able to write the bot that updates the stats hourly in order to keep it interesting. John Vandenberg ( chat) 11:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. The current DYK page says that 200 characters is the outside limit for hooks. As such, it would be great if we could reach consensus which part of the hook count towards this limit. Particularly, do the "...", the "that" and/or the "?" count towards this limit? I think the project page should have more detailed instructions regarding this requirement because the question how the hook length is determined arises quite often. Regards So Why 08:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
In a FAC for The Lucy poems, it was asked that the redlink for " A slumber did my spirit seal" be filled in. I have done such. In doing so, I only used minimal bits from The Lucy poems, rewriting them, and added in better sources and expanded text. I added in parts from The Lucy poems page so that there would not be any problems in FAC regarding the new page created by request (i.e., wanted to preempt any questions about comprehensiveness).
I would like to nominate this for DYK, as this is "the only poem in William Wordsworth's Lucy poem series that does not mention the dead Lucy by name?" However, I am placing this here in order to make sure that there are no concerns, especially those regarding "expansion" and the rest. Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys, it has come up at AN that many images on DYK have been unprotected. Remember. when you are updating the queues, remember to ensure the images are protected. Cascading protection is being applied, but an image on Commons needs to be uploaded locally in order for cascading protection to work. \ Backslash Forwardslash / { talk} 08:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The bot misfired on the last run (probably because of the massive lag at the time). Ironically the only thing it did do is reset the clock. Could an admin please update from queue 4? Shubinator ( talk) 01:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it too early to start putting out Halloween-themed DYKs to be held? Otto4711 ( talk) 22:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The hook "that Washington, D.C. Chief of Police Richard H. Sylvester coined the term " third degree" to refer to harsh means of extracting confessions from suspects?" which was approved but now appears in the queue "that Washington, D.C. Chief of Police Richard H. Sylvester may have coined the term "third degree" to refer to harsh means of extracting confessions from suspects?", inserting the words "may have" before the words "coined the term". The original hook does imply a definiteness that may not be appropriate, but "may have" adds unneeded ambiguity as to what is uncertain. It could mean that he did or did not coin the term, or it could mean that he may have coined it to mean a certain interrogation technique or he may have coined it to mean something else. My I suggest that the words "may have" be replaced with "is credited with having" (or a variant thereof) to make it a bit clearer as to what is uncertain in the hook, leaving "that Washington, D.C. Chief of Police Richard H. Sylvester is credited with having coined the term "third degree" to refer to harsh means of extracting confessions from suspects?". Alansohn ( talk) 01:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This page does not have a template listed on Wikipedia:Template messages/Wikipedia namespace . Should it have one? — This, that, and the other [talk] 07:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Instead of providing yet more single-article hooks on churches in Sussex, I thought of combining three churches (all linked by this chap's 11th-century actions) into one slightly, er, "different" hook. Trouble is, I would have to finish the first one and write the other two in order to support that hook. Could you all kindly take a look at this and say whether it could work, or whether it is too hard to follow, confusing, poorly structured, misleading or just too whimsical? I honestly can't make my mind up. (Bold words are where the piped links to articles would be, probably.)
("Acquired carvings" because they weren't there in 1096, but were soon afterwards. And there was an elf as well, also with an angry expression, but we've already got 255 characters.)
If this is viable, then I'll start writing the other two now (no sleep for me!). If not, I can spread these out over time as single-article submissions, and try and find a decent hook for the one I'm writing now (believe it or not, churches were always collapsing in storms in Sussex). Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 21:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The examples make 5-fold expansion seem (relatively) easy to calculate, but in reality, with multiple editors working on an article, growth is rarely all in one direction. Take a look, for example, at this edit history for the Pennsylvania Renaissance Faire article. The version from 5 days ago had approx. 5360 characters of readable prose. The current version has about 3250. In between, it has gone as low as 544. Part of the reduction and then rebuilding was from removal of copyvio, but the extent to which it was copyvio would be difficult to determine. How would you figure this one? Should I wait until it's been 5-days from the most stripped-down version and then submit? That seems like gaming the system. Thanks, cmadler ( talk) 17:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Plz could the text "(Kedarnath temple pictured)" in Queue 5 be italicised before it goes on the Main Page. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 19:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
May I suggest that the hook for Catholic clergy involvement with the Ustaše (now showing) be removed from the front page. This is a very old and controversial article based on a book Hitler's Pope that has been extensively criticized for it's inaccuracies and to some degree retracted. The article has gone through 3 AFD's and apparently been deleted at least once then recreated (one AfD is hidden for some reason). Also the expansion is less than 5 times (4852 bytes before expansion, 20,884 now).
More importantly it looks like pure propaganda to me. Anti-catholic to be sure (I'm not Catholic), perhaps against BLP (if any of the clergy are still alive), and in general in very poor taste. Thanks in advance for a quick review. Smallbones ( talk) 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Greetings. I would like to move this article to the queue for appearance on August 8. Right now (at this time) the next update is queue 5. That's where this should go, right after the next update, according to Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Local_update_times. I count three empty queues. Someone has used one of the prep areas. Where should I put it? And how did you figure that out? Thanks. - SusanLesch ( talk) 19:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)