![]() | 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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
I should have been paying more attention to this, but there is an error in the hook for an article I nominated, Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, which currently stands in Queue 4. In the time between when the article was nominated and today, Ireland has rapidly finished their process. So the hook "... that 25 nations have ratified the Treaty of Lisbon since 2007, and only two countries, Ireland and the Czech Republic, have yet to complete the process?" should be changed to reflect this. Perhaps to something like "... that 26 nations have ratified the Treaty of Lisbon since 2007, and only one country, the Czech Republic, has yet to complete the process?" Sorry about this, but the final piece came in just today.-- Patrick { oѺ∞} 17:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to run and posted this before doing anything drastic. This hook was promoted by Allen3 although the article expansion is 2.47, the article author might have COI (see article history), and I'm not sure about the NPOV and correctness of physics there. Please consider pulling it out of Queue 4 and replacing before its too late. Materialscientist ( talk) 22:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Allen3 seems to have made a large number of premature verify-promotions in the past few hours. I'm leaving him a message. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The hook needs the word (pictured) removed. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 23:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Didn't Saltine cracker challenge already go on the main page? It's still in the suggestions list. Geraldk ( talk) 16:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
All queues are empty and the two prep areas are full. I'd like to fill some more so if an admin can move those in the prep areas into the queues, that would be awesome. Tiamut talk 19:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hook 1 in T:DYK/Q2 needs a "(pictured)". Thanks. -- Bruce1ee talk 05:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
A different set on Blake nominated. I am not against any tweakings on the matter, but I would like people to understand the original wording. I think I explained it there, but yeah. Ottava Rima ( talk) 14:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
An admin needs to make a quick tweak to Queue 4, Hook three to remove the extraneous (pictured). Thanks Calmer Waters 16:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I request admins to shift the DYK to 2 nov ( Kartik Poornima), as written in the article, Tulsi Vivah can be celebrated any time from Prabodhini Ekadashi to Kartik Poornima (28/10-2/11). The important dates for the ceremony are 28/10/09 - Prabodhini Ekadashi, 29/10 and 2/11/09 - Kartik Poornima. I request the admin to shift the DYK to 2 Nov and add "(performed today)" in hook. If it is not possible to shift to 2 Nov then The DYK on 1 Nov can also have a "(performed today)" in it.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to start helping out here with DYK verifications, perhaps as karmic payback for all of my DYK submissions that have been verified by others. My question: if a hook needs copyediting, should I just go ahead and do it while I'm verifying, or should I leave a copyedited version as an alt hook? I would think the former, but ya never know, and I don't want to ruffle any feathers. Sasata ( talk) 16:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Normally I wouldn't do this, but we have had a very large number of building leads in recent weeks, while we haven't had a ship lead article since October 13. There is currently a ship article in update 4 with a perfectly good image, but again we have a building hook in the lead. Unfortunately I can't really do anything about it because I happen to be the author of the ship article with an obvious COI. We also currently have only one other ship image article on the suggestions page. Would it be possible for someone to review the choice of lead in this update? Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 03:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The bot didn't reset its timer on an update a few hours ago, which lead to another update 7 minutes later from a different queue. Could an admin put the skipped set back into a queue so it can get its time on the Main Page? Shubinator ( talk) 02:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Please check the hooks at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_for_2_Nov: Prabodhini Ekadashi and Kartik Ekadashi. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see us deprecate the idea of "self-nom" for articles with multiple authors. Consider the Hallville Mill Historic District in this version of T:TDYK: three different people contributed to writing it, but it's a "self-nom" — who nominated it? It would be simpler if we instructed nominators of articles with multiple authors to give their names, regardless of whether they were one of the authors. Nyttend ( talk) 13:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the section that resulted in edits to Template:NewDYKnomination, but it seems to be broken now and has been leaving |Self nom}} all over the place on the suggestions page since about 10:00 UTC on 2 November. -- Testing times ( talk) 20:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to say to everyone - good work. For the last couple days, the queues have been filled, everything's been smooth, and we've been hovering near 100 approved hooks all day (EST). If you've been helping with all that, then pat yourself on the back. Geraldk ( talk) 23:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
If you cascade protect the queues would this prevent non-sysop users from uploading new versions of the DYK image before it gets put on the Main Page? Therefore eradicating the need to protect the images prior to show time in case someone quickly uploads a new version just before it gets put on the Main Page? Jolly Ω Janner 18:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The previous set of hooks used an unprotected image on the Main Page. PS the upcoming images in the queues haven't been protected yet ( File:1804 Jeffersons-Polygraph-Monticello Cville VA.jpg and File:TS Leda-crop.jpg). Jolly Ω Janner 23:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Can a sysop please transfer the hooks at preperation area 1 to the next queue. It is currently empty and will be added to the Main Page in under an hour. Cheers, Jolly Ω Janner 19:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I have a question. Recently, I posted a hook (with picture, shown in archive), which is shown below, along with the discussion accompanying it.
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.
... that
Ray Davies achieved the signature clangy sound at the beginning of
The Kinks'
1970 hit "
Lola" by combining the sounds of a
National Steel (pictured) and
Martin guitar?
Created by
I.M.S. (
talk). Self nom at
02:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
... that Ray Davies achieved the signature clangy sound at the beginning of The Kinks' 1970 hit " Lola", from the album Lola versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, by combining the sounds of a National Steel (pictured) and Martin guitar?
As you can see, multiple issues were raised, including the link to the album as opposed to the song, and the length of the hook. User:SoWhy recently posted on my talk page about the hooks recent rewrite and moving to Prep 1. This was the discussion:
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.
About that DYK suggestion, I think the hook was not only too long but also not really about the album but the single. I hope you don't mind that I wrote a new one. Regards So Why 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I am currently writing a post for the template discussion page so we can see what others think on the subject. Many thanks for your time and understanding, SoWhy. - I.M.S. ( talk) 23:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm simply interested in seeing what others think about these issues, and what we can do to solve them. - I.M.S. ( talk) 23:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
There is something fishy about this hook and its discussion, considering this Arbcom case. Piotrus is already desysoped, and is considered negatively, but I'm not sure about the others. I am a bit of a coward in such situations and prefer to not pass such hooks. Anyway, I suggest that the hook in question is not to be promoted by a non-admin. Materialscientist ( talk) 09:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that we have the bot notifify the Active Admins (from the rules list) when the update is past due with empty queues. I understand that the admin notice board is notified when it is approaching; however, this could be a backup for when immediate attention is warrented. This will reach admins who are online and active with DYK, rather than waiting until one looks at the notice board or their watch page list. Thanks Calmer Waters 15:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it just grumpy me or anyone else thinks that the lead hook in T:DYK/P1 could be more interesting? Materialscientist ( talk) 00:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
[11] = this is cited in the article, per cite, The New York Times. Cirt ( talk) 00:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it me or is this article that is now on DYK mostly a split from Golden Raspberry Award (old version) with much of the material duplicated in both articles? I think something went wrong when checking the nomination here but I am not sure. What do others think about it? Regards So Why 11:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
In Template:Did you know/Queue/6, the credits for Whole Earth Discipline have square brackets around them. Jolly Ω Janner 17:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me, that the bot has just updated the main page from queue2 and gave credits to the authors, but he didn't purge the queue and didn't give credits at the talk page of the articles. Would someone please check, fix and, if possible, note how to deal with this. My major concern is next updates, as I'll not be on-line then. Many thanks. Materialscientist ( talk) 11:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I posted the article on the Chilean Climbing Mouse (Irenomys) to be posted on November 11, the anniversary of the armistice that ended World War I, but it is now in queue 3. Could someone restore it to the suggestions page, please? It was promoted here. Ucucha 13:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
What if an article nomination causes another article to rise dramatically? An example would be the recent Jim Sanborn nomination gained 5000+ views while Kryptos gained 20000+ views because of it (Also in the hook). Does the hook qualify as a DYK entry over 20000 views because of Kryptos since the stats evaluate hooks rather than articles. Its not a big deal and don't see it happenning much, but thought I would ask. (disclosure- I wrote the hook and thats why it came to my attention) Thanks Calmer Waters 16:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Any admins up for placing 1 more hook into Queue 6 to making it an even 8. Thanks in advance Calmer Waters 06:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I've quick-assembled Prep1 and moved to Q6 (it seems as minutes are left for the next updates). It is my first time to do all that. Image is c-uploaded. The rest must be checked by an admin who has done all that at least once (its all on the main page now). Materialscientist ( talk) 10:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
DYKmake|article name|author}}
(separate template for every editor). When moving to a queue, simply copy+paste the whole prep area to the queue. You can ignore the "give" and "tag" buttons if the bot is running, they are only needed to manually give out credit and tag talk pages if the bot failed to update. I suggest you make yourself familiar with
Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas and assemble a few more queues but request an experienced admin to review them. It's not really that hard, even I managed to learn it.
<random indent> I agree that an essay would be helpful. Something that helps an editor beyond the flat out rules and suggestions on the Prep fill area. A way to help both new users and experienced alike. From the nomination of the hook to the promotion to a queue. I have be writing up an essay on this for the past week; however, have not moved it onto onto my user page yet. It goes over help on setting up the nom templates (including multi hooks), help with things that seem to tie-up nominations, verifing hooks, aarticle issues to watch for, and help with filling prep areas. I would be willing to up load it a a couple of days if some experienced DYK editors would be nice enough to c.e. it. Thanks Calmer Waters 22:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Queue 1 currently has an empty Prep 2 copied in at the bottom, needs fixing before next update. Mikenorton ( talk) 12:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
As I've started nominating some of my work for dyk, I thought I should join the project and do some reviewing. As I'm still learning the ropes, I'm reviewing newer nominations so that anyone who wants to double check my work can do so before they're likely to be grabbed for the prep areas. As I get more experienced, I'll start looking at older ones instead and do some prepping.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 12:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The bot is sending out the same credits for DYKnom as for DYKmake. Isn't there suppose to be a different template sent? Calmer Waters 21:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Are we sure this entry is a good article for the main page? It seems to be some strange conspiracy theory reported entirely uncritically, supported almost exclusively by unreliable advocacy sites except for some mention in a local newspaper. The hook fact in itself is supported, but the article in general seems like it fails WP:RS and WP:FRINGE, for a start. Lampman ( talk) 23:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Since there's a lot of confusion among editors who are not familiar with the process on how to fix something when the bot breaks down, I've put together a sort of a guide page at User:Chamal N/DYKadminBot checklist and troubleshooting. We are currently handling these problems from our experience only, and someone else is likely to have a hard time figuring out what's wrong and how to fix it. So this might also be helpful to someone responding to a request at AN etc, but is not familiar with the process. Please feel free to improve/correct it, and if you guys think it's ok, a link to it can be added to the prep areas and site map for easy reference. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 07:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
FYI, a live DYK scheduled to go live (
Dan Fefferman) has been nominated at
WP:AfD.
Frank |
talk
18:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to have a feedback on suitability of the following 4 hooks for DYK: Leonidas Vargas, Liliana Lozano, Colin Ferguson (convict) and Personal relationships of Michael Jackson. A follow-up question: are Colin Ferguson (convict) and Leonidas Vargas suitable for a bottom hook in a queue? Promotions happen too quickly at times, and I feel we (better say I :) should be prepared to dealing with those in the prep area. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Any particular reason that Queue 4 has only 7 hooks, and all of them quite short ones too? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I just pulled down Jim Trickey from prep1 as IMO it is somewhat short of a lead hook (and it doesn't fit as non-lead as all hooks in prep1 are too serious). I suggest "Richard Woodman (martyr), James Henry Hurdis, Mark Antony Lower" as a possible lead replacement and post this here to avoid unilateralism (I've pulled out another lead hook yesterday for the same reason - article too short and insufficiently notable, IMHO) Materialscientist ( talk) 23:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
or it is a bug or a temporary glitch? The bot took an update from Queue4 with the number $83,000 and placed it on the main page with $000. Thanks to Warofdreams for noticing and correcting this (after an hour at the main page though). Materialscientist ( talk) 00:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
According to the DYK rules, articles that have been started in userspace are considered new as of the time they are moved into the main namespace. What I want to know is whether there is some kind of time limit on this. For example, if it took me a month to finish work on an article, would it still be eligible for DYK? (not that I would take that long, but I'm just curious) Or is there an unofficial limit closer to a couple of weeks? Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 02:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
We are continuing to recieve updates and queues that are prepared with 7 hooks (see current Q2), sometimes leading to excessive whitespacing on the main page template. Suggest since the current consensus is 8 hooks per update, placing that information onto the prep area instructions. If the availible number of nominations continues to drop, a better alternative may be temporarily going to an 8 hour update. I however don't see that as an issue at this time, as queues are still able to be prepared. Calmer Waters 06:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The prep areas can be edited by anons. Why are they not semiprotected? Any objection to do so (not that I've seen vandalism, but sooner or later ..) Materialscientist ( talk) 07:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I've updated manually the main page from Q3 (with some mistake which BorgQueen has apparently fixed), reset queue count and hopefully the time (please check !). Issuing credits now .. Materialscientist ( talk) 06:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The MV Pieter Corneliszoon Hooft hook has been approved, it now needs to be moved so that it appears on the requested date of 14 November. Mjroots ( talk) 15:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick {{mp}} template needs to be added to the lead hook currently in Q5. It may be interfering with the image setup. Thanks Calmer Waters 17:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyone recalls a case that the bot did not crash recently on multiple nominations? "Yesterday" this resulted in one queue getting twice on the main page (mistakes fixed). Other things, (i) I forgot who, but someone kept adding "|right" to the lead image code, which results in some problem at the main page. (ii) Some nominators wikilink the section headings at T:TDYK. This results in extra brackets in the credits and has to be removed manually (better at T:TDYK). Sorry for my grumpy morning mood. Materialscientist ( talk) 00:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The bot did not tag articles or distribute credits for the update before the current one. Aboutmovies ( talk) 08:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a note to remind everyone updating the DYK archive page (thanks btw); I think the time we add on top of each set is the time that it was removed from the T:DYK template (that is, the time the next set was added). The instructions there were different, so I've changed it. At least, I think that's the way our one man army was doing it for a long time ;) Since almost all of the past archives are recorded this way, I think we should continue with that for consistency. And don't forget that if you have a different time zone selected in your preferences than UTC, the time you see on the page history will be different. In that case, you'll need to add/subtract that amount to get UTC :) ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The "right" from the lead hook's image need to be removed to correct formatting in Q6. Thanks Calmer Waters 17:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for becoming too aggressive and unilateral - slap me .. whenever. I demoted the lead hook from prep1 to No2 position as it sounds too uninteresting to me. Would anyone please check English for the No3 hook in prep1 (I'm not sure how to rewrite). Materialscientist ( talk) 00:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
To inform you on recent events: I just noticed that Staxringold didn't paste the bot template to the Q1 and Q6. Thus, the last update was delayed by some 5 hrs, no other apparent problems. I reshuffled some queues to adjust for the time zone "delay". I am an idiot who stayed on-line most of that time and didn't notice that. The next two updates I'm offline. There is a chance for a crash (double nom in one queue). If someone could keep an eye on the updates this would be great. Thanks. Materialscientist ( talk) 07:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
In Queue 4, plz could an available admin correct the format of the lead hook. There is a misplaced comma and a missing "that". Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 13:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned about this article created by User:Tempodivalse. I think it follows too closely the wording of the German source and is therefore a copyvio. Could someone else give an opinion before this is moved onto a queue? I've asked at the Opera copyvio sub-project whether anyone has checkusered Tdv against known accoutns of User:Nrswanson.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 14:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC) I have now initiated a checkuser request for this editor.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 15:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
http://www.planet-vienna.com/Musik/Komponisten/Translateur/Translateur.htm
Notice how the name Theresianstadt is broken up by Google and he duplicates it.
http://cmslib.rrz.uni-hamburg.de:6292/object/lexm_lexmperson_00001073
I could go on, but will merely point you to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and say that I'm re-adding the copyvio template.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 02:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering, since the rules do not really talk about it: What happens if someone tags an article for a problem (NPOV, notability, etc.) after an experienced user has approved the nomination? After all, I would expect that approving the article includes a check for such problems. What if the tag is added after the article is in a queue, i.e. approved by an admin? Regards So Why 17:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I was walking around at work yesterday trying to figure out if it is possible to construct a valid DYK hook that doesn't start with "that". The only thing I could come up with is if the hook starts with a question word. For example, instead of:
An alternative could be:
I realize that, as the rules are currently written, this would not be a valid hook. I also realize that it isn't entirely grammatically correct, as this construction would be better if it started with "Do you know..." rather than "Did you know...". However, I think that this would be a fresh, fun alternative to the current hook format. I also think it would encourage readers to actually read through the article to try to find the fun fact. Any thoughts? -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I tried them on several articles. Instead of results, I got a mostly blank screen that says:
You are looking at the HTML representation of the XML format.
HTML is good for debugging, but probably is not suitable for your application.
See complete documentation, or API help for more information.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<api />
Art LaPella (
talk)
02:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
javascript:importScript('User:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js'); getDocumentSize();
User:Una Smith/Queso flameado has a strange history. It began in January 2007 as a text dump that was shortly deleted. A few hours ago I requested that it be undeleted, simply to recover the page history. For purposes of DYK, should the page size start from 600B or 0B? That is, do I have to provide 3000B or only 1500B? The original 600B was entirely in Spanish. -- Una Smith ( talk) 03:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm too stupid to get this working... can someone do a length check on Cabinentaxi? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 15:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
This was the DYK tagline:
... that the crematory at the Oahu Cemetery in Hawaii was used to burn $200 million in U.S. bank notes after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941?
Note mark 3 indicates Nuuanu Mortuary. Note mark 4 notes Nuuanu cemetery crematorium. Note mark 5 notes Oahu cemetery crematorium.
I ask because I did the Hawaii overprint note article, and I had to make a note mark because two of my sources (A book and note mark 3 in the recent DYK article) couldn't agree on the location seeing that there are two separate businesses with the same/similar names in the area mentioned in the article. Even my DYK hook had to reflect this:
... that more than $200 million in US currency was burned at both a crematorium and the Aiea Sugar Mill in Hawaii, due to being redeemed for HAWAII Overprint Notes ( $20 Note pictured)?
And I just had to seek advice at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard on how to handle this dilemma of conflicting references. I know we have to assume good faith with nominations, but when you have three references with 3 conflicting location names, wouldn't have that raised a red flag in a sense that "Wait, something's not quite right here"?-- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 07:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Requesting another editor to address my concerns. -- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 08:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
We are running out of approved hooks. I'll try to contribute, but have less than 1 hr left online. Materialscientist ( talk) 11:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Reposting, lack of reviews again (we need to make some button for that :-) - several are approved, but might be better for lead hooks, pity to put them as regular just because of emergency. Materialscientist ( talk) 12:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, From from this edit 2029b to current version of Horton Plains National Park of 10146 b, I count exactly *5 plus 1 b expansion. But Dykcheck says otherwise. Could someone please tell me am I missing something. Kind regards.-- Chanaka L ( talk) 15:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Editors are invivted to vote in this straw poll about whether the FOUR award should recognise DYK qualifying ITN contributors or not. MickMacNee ( talk) 16:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I've "adopted" this article but do not WP:OWN it, of course. Please leave a note on my User Talk page with any concerns or questions. At this point, it almost satisfies Good Article criteria. I devoted the better part of two days to expanding this from a 660-word stub to over 3300 words. When I started, it didn't even have one inline citation of a source; now it has over 20 (some added by reviewing admin Harrias, for whom many thanks are in order). Most of this was in response to critique from the DYK admins. I reviewed the DYK criteria, and after the first day it satisfied the "written" DYK criteria regarding inline citations. I've since learned there are more stringent "unwritten" criteria.
I respectfully suggest that we should either revise the written criteria to include these unwritten standards, or have a brief discussion with DYK admins so that they will enforce only the more lenient criteria currently written. For what it's worth, I prefer the latter course of action. I perceive DYK as an initial threshold step in the development of a new (or substantially, 5x expanded) article.
The tale of USS Borie's final battle is amazing when properly told. My first glance told me that the existing stub did not do it justice. This was extremely unusual for a modern naval battle, since the ships were engaged for an extended time at very close range. They were so close that Borie's guns couldn't be depressed enough to fire accurately; they used all manner of weapons on each other, including Tommy guns, rifles, pistols, shotguns, and even a flare pistol, a sheath knife and a thrown shell casing; the last three weapons listed were each responsible for successfully dispatching an enemy.
There's plenty of time in the lifespan of the new article to bring its inline citations up to Good Article standards, but the initial five-day window limits opportunities to do that, particularly with a four-day holiday weekend starting tomorrow, and when starting with a 660-word stub that had to be expanded 5x. Adding more inline citations could have been done in the weeks or months ahead. But the reviewing admin conceded initially that the article was well-written and had a very interesting hook, that was supported by source citation; this satisfied the DYK criteria as currently written. I hope that all will accept this criticism in the constructive and collegial manner it's intended, and that it's the start of a discussion that's constructive for the DYK project. Skoal, and have a very Happy Thanksgiving. I'm off to Grandma's. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 23:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
is a major tag if the lack of references is serious enough. It might help to make that rule more prominent.
rʨanaɢ
talk/
contribs
00:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I propose to change the text under "Selection criteria" after the current nr. 4 (neutrality) to:
This codifies the unwritten one cite per paragraph rule and simultaneously makes the text at the bottom a little more encouraging. Feel free to tweak the text. Ucucha 00:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Great. A poll. Who would agree to ask Art LaPella to modify the DYK rules to cover the above problems?
(Moved down for clarity.) On the other hand, the rule "In practice, articles longer than 1,500 characters may still be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting reviewers and administrators.", currently at WP:DYK, should perhaps be stricken, as I don't believe this happens with any regularity. Ucucha 23:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
It looks like our fact-checking broke down here. Art LaPella ( talk) 05:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please have a look at the prep1 hooks wording? I am particularly unhappy with hook3, IMO, even something clumsy like
would sound better. Materialscientist ( talk) 05:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
In the current
queue 6, can an admin please delete the words "including the Greater Bulldog Bat" from the bats of the Caribbean hook? I added this species because it was pictured in my suggestion, but since the picture is not in the queue, the text doesn't add anything to the hook.
Ucucha
15:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
After reading Queue 1 hook 8 again, I may have moved the hook with the wrong tense ...have not touched a keyboard, rather than had not touched a keyboard. Would someone be able to modify this. Thanks Calmer Waters 05:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
A heads up. Queue one is currently on the main page along with the queue and the update counter is stuck on 1 rather than 2. Calmer Waters 06:58, 28 November 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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
I should have been paying more attention to this, but there is an error in the hook for an article I nominated, Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, which currently stands in Queue 4. In the time between when the article was nominated and today, Ireland has rapidly finished their process. So the hook "... that 25 nations have ratified the Treaty of Lisbon since 2007, and only two countries, Ireland and the Czech Republic, have yet to complete the process?" should be changed to reflect this. Perhaps to something like "... that 26 nations have ratified the Treaty of Lisbon since 2007, and only one country, the Czech Republic, has yet to complete the process?" Sorry about this, but the final piece came in just today.-- Patrick { oѺ∞} 17:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to run and posted this before doing anything drastic. This hook was promoted by Allen3 although the article expansion is 2.47, the article author might have COI (see article history), and I'm not sure about the NPOV and correctness of physics there. Please consider pulling it out of Queue 4 and replacing before its too late. Materialscientist ( talk) 22:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Allen3 seems to have made a large number of premature verify-promotions in the past few hours. I'm leaving him a message. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The hook needs the word (pictured) removed. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 23:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Didn't Saltine cracker challenge already go on the main page? It's still in the suggestions list. Geraldk ( talk) 16:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
All queues are empty and the two prep areas are full. I'd like to fill some more so if an admin can move those in the prep areas into the queues, that would be awesome. Tiamut talk 19:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hook 1 in T:DYK/Q2 needs a "(pictured)". Thanks. -- Bruce1ee talk 05:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
A different set on Blake nominated. I am not against any tweakings on the matter, but I would like people to understand the original wording. I think I explained it there, but yeah. Ottava Rima ( talk) 14:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
An admin needs to make a quick tweak to Queue 4, Hook three to remove the extraneous (pictured). Thanks Calmer Waters 16:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I request admins to shift the DYK to 2 nov ( Kartik Poornima), as written in the article, Tulsi Vivah can be celebrated any time from Prabodhini Ekadashi to Kartik Poornima (28/10-2/11). The important dates for the ceremony are 28/10/09 - Prabodhini Ekadashi, 29/10 and 2/11/09 - Kartik Poornima. I request the admin to shift the DYK to 2 Nov and add "(performed today)" in hook. If it is not possible to shift to 2 Nov then The DYK on 1 Nov can also have a "(performed today)" in it.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to start helping out here with DYK verifications, perhaps as karmic payback for all of my DYK submissions that have been verified by others. My question: if a hook needs copyediting, should I just go ahead and do it while I'm verifying, or should I leave a copyedited version as an alt hook? I would think the former, but ya never know, and I don't want to ruffle any feathers. Sasata ( talk) 16:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Normally I wouldn't do this, but we have had a very large number of building leads in recent weeks, while we haven't had a ship lead article since October 13. There is currently a ship article in update 4 with a perfectly good image, but again we have a building hook in the lead. Unfortunately I can't really do anything about it because I happen to be the author of the ship article with an obvious COI. We also currently have only one other ship image article on the suggestions page. Would it be possible for someone to review the choice of lead in this update? Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 03:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The bot didn't reset its timer on an update a few hours ago, which lead to another update 7 minutes later from a different queue. Could an admin put the skipped set back into a queue so it can get its time on the Main Page? Shubinator ( talk) 02:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Please check the hooks at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_for_2_Nov: Prabodhini Ekadashi and Kartik Ekadashi. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see us deprecate the idea of "self-nom" for articles with multiple authors. Consider the Hallville Mill Historic District in this version of T:TDYK: three different people contributed to writing it, but it's a "self-nom" — who nominated it? It would be simpler if we instructed nominators of articles with multiple authors to give their names, regardless of whether they were one of the authors. Nyttend ( talk) 13:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the section that resulted in edits to Template:NewDYKnomination, but it seems to be broken now and has been leaving |Self nom}} all over the place on the suggestions page since about 10:00 UTC on 2 November. -- Testing times ( talk) 20:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to say to everyone - good work. For the last couple days, the queues have been filled, everything's been smooth, and we've been hovering near 100 approved hooks all day (EST). If you've been helping with all that, then pat yourself on the back. Geraldk ( talk) 23:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
If you cascade protect the queues would this prevent non-sysop users from uploading new versions of the DYK image before it gets put on the Main Page? Therefore eradicating the need to protect the images prior to show time in case someone quickly uploads a new version just before it gets put on the Main Page? Jolly Ω Janner 18:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The previous set of hooks used an unprotected image on the Main Page. PS the upcoming images in the queues haven't been protected yet ( File:1804 Jeffersons-Polygraph-Monticello Cville VA.jpg and File:TS Leda-crop.jpg). Jolly Ω Janner 23:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Can a sysop please transfer the hooks at preperation area 1 to the next queue. It is currently empty and will be added to the Main Page in under an hour. Cheers, Jolly Ω Janner 19:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I have a question. Recently, I posted a hook (with picture, shown in archive), which is shown below, along with the discussion accompanying it.
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.
... that
Ray Davies achieved the signature clangy sound at the beginning of
The Kinks'
1970 hit "
Lola" by combining the sounds of a
National Steel (pictured) and
Martin guitar?
Created by
I.M.S. (
talk). Self nom at
02:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
... that Ray Davies achieved the signature clangy sound at the beginning of The Kinks' 1970 hit " Lola", from the album Lola versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, by combining the sounds of a National Steel (pictured) and Martin guitar?
As you can see, multiple issues were raised, including the link to the album as opposed to the song, and the length of the hook. User:SoWhy recently posted on my talk page about the hooks recent rewrite and moving to Prep 1. This was the discussion:
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.
About that DYK suggestion, I think the hook was not only too long but also not really about the album but the single. I hope you don't mind that I wrote a new one. Regards So Why 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I am currently writing a post for the template discussion page so we can see what others think on the subject. Many thanks for your time and understanding, SoWhy. - I.M.S. ( talk) 23:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm simply interested in seeing what others think about these issues, and what we can do to solve them. - I.M.S. ( talk) 23:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
There is something fishy about this hook and its discussion, considering this Arbcom case. Piotrus is already desysoped, and is considered negatively, but I'm not sure about the others. I am a bit of a coward in such situations and prefer to not pass such hooks. Anyway, I suggest that the hook in question is not to be promoted by a non-admin. Materialscientist ( talk) 09:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that we have the bot notifify the Active Admins (from the rules list) when the update is past due with empty queues. I understand that the admin notice board is notified when it is approaching; however, this could be a backup for when immediate attention is warrented. This will reach admins who are online and active with DYK, rather than waiting until one looks at the notice board or their watch page list. Thanks Calmer Waters 15:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it just grumpy me or anyone else thinks that the lead hook in T:DYK/P1 could be more interesting? Materialscientist ( talk) 00:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
[11] = this is cited in the article, per cite, The New York Times. Cirt ( talk) 00:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it me or is this article that is now on DYK mostly a split from Golden Raspberry Award (old version) with much of the material duplicated in both articles? I think something went wrong when checking the nomination here but I am not sure. What do others think about it? Regards So Why 11:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
In Template:Did you know/Queue/6, the credits for Whole Earth Discipline have square brackets around them. Jolly Ω Janner 17:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me, that the bot has just updated the main page from queue2 and gave credits to the authors, but he didn't purge the queue and didn't give credits at the talk page of the articles. Would someone please check, fix and, if possible, note how to deal with this. My major concern is next updates, as I'll not be on-line then. Many thanks. Materialscientist ( talk) 11:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I posted the article on the Chilean Climbing Mouse (Irenomys) to be posted on November 11, the anniversary of the armistice that ended World War I, but it is now in queue 3. Could someone restore it to the suggestions page, please? It was promoted here. Ucucha 13:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
What if an article nomination causes another article to rise dramatically? An example would be the recent Jim Sanborn nomination gained 5000+ views while Kryptos gained 20000+ views because of it (Also in the hook). Does the hook qualify as a DYK entry over 20000 views because of Kryptos since the stats evaluate hooks rather than articles. Its not a big deal and don't see it happenning much, but thought I would ask. (disclosure- I wrote the hook and thats why it came to my attention) Thanks Calmer Waters 16:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Any admins up for placing 1 more hook into Queue 6 to making it an even 8. Thanks in advance Calmer Waters 06:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I've quick-assembled Prep1 and moved to Q6 (it seems as minutes are left for the next updates). It is my first time to do all that. Image is c-uploaded. The rest must be checked by an admin who has done all that at least once (its all on the main page now). Materialscientist ( talk) 10:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
DYKmake|article name|author}}
(separate template for every editor). When moving to a queue, simply copy+paste the whole prep area to the queue. You can ignore the "give" and "tag" buttons if the bot is running, they are only needed to manually give out credit and tag talk pages if the bot failed to update. I suggest you make yourself familiar with
Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas and assemble a few more queues but request an experienced admin to review them. It's not really that hard, even I managed to learn it.
<random indent> I agree that an essay would be helpful. Something that helps an editor beyond the flat out rules and suggestions on the Prep fill area. A way to help both new users and experienced alike. From the nomination of the hook to the promotion to a queue. I have be writing up an essay on this for the past week; however, have not moved it onto onto my user page yet. It goes over help on setting up the nom templates (including multi hooks), help with things that seem to tie-up nominations, verifing hooks, aarticle issues to watch for, and help with filling prep areas. I would be willing to up load it a a couple of days if some experienced DYK editors would be nice enough to c.e. it. Thanks Calmer Waters 22:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Queue 1 currently has an empty Prep 2 copied in at the bottom, needs fixing before next update. Mikenorton ( talk) 12:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
As I've started nominating some of my work for dyk, I thought I should join the project and do some reviewing. As I'm still learning the ropes, I'm reviewing newer nominations so that anyone who wants to double check my work can do so before they're likely to be grabbed for the prep areas. As I get more experienced, I'll start looking at older ones instead and do some prepping.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 12:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The bot is sending out the same credits for DYKnom as for DYKmake. Isn't there suppose to be a different template sent? Calmer Waters 21:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Are we sure this entry is a good article for the main page? It seems to be some strange conspiracy theory reported entirely uncritically, supported almost exclusively by unreliable advocacy sites except for some mention in a local newspaper. The hook fact in itself is supported, but the article in general seems like it fails WP:RS and WP:FRINGE, for a start. Lampman ( talk) 23:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Since there's a lot of confusion among editors who are not familiar with the process on how to fix something when the bot breaks down, I've put together a sort of a guide page at User:Chamal N/DYKadminBot checklist and troubleshooting. We are currently handling these problems from our experience only, and someone else is likely to have a hard time figuring out what's wrong and how to fix it. So this might also be helpful to someone responding to a request at AN etc, but is not familiar with the process. Please feel free to improve/correct it, and if you guys think it's ok, a link to it can be added to the prep areas and site map for easy reference. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 07:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
FYI, a live DYK scheduled to go live (
Dan Fefferman) has been nominated at
WP:AfD.
Frank |
talk
18:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to have a feedback on suitability of the following 4 hooks for DYK: Leonidas Vargas, Liliana Lozano, Colin Ferguson (convict) and Personal relationships of Michael Jackson. A follow-up question: are Colin Ferguson (convict) and Leonidas Vargas suitable for a bottom hook in a queue? Promotions happen too quickly at times, and I feel we (better say I :) should be prepared to dealing with those in the prep area. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Any particular reason that Queue 4 has only 7 hooks, and all of them quite short ones too? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I just pulled down Jim Trickey from prep1 as IMO it is somewhat short of a lead hook (and it doesn't fit as non-lead as all hooks in prep1 are too serious). I suggest "Richard Woodman (martyr), James Henry Hurdis, Mark Antony Lower" as a possible lead replacement and post this here to avoid unilateralism (I've pulled out another lead hook yesterday for the same reason - article too short and insufficiently notable, IMHO) Materialscientist ( talk) 23:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
or it is a bug or a temporary glitch? The bot took an update from Queue4 with the number $83,000 and placed it on the main page with $000. Thanks to Warofdreams for noticing and correcting this (after an hour at the main page though). Materialscientist ( talk) 00:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
According to the DYK rules, articles that have been started in userspace are considered new as of the time they are moved into the main namespace. What I want to know is whether there is some kind of time limit on this. For example, if it took me a month to finish work on an article, would it still be eligible for DYK? (not that I would take that long, but I'm just curious) Or is there an unofficial limit closer to a couple of weeks? Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 02:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
We are continuing to recieve updates and queues that are prepared with 7 hooks (see current Q2), sometimes leading to excessive whitespacing on the main page template. Suggest since the current consensus is 8 hooks per update, placing that information onto the prep area instructions. If the availible number of nominations continues to drop, a better alternative may be temporarily going to an 8 hour update. I however don't see that as an issue at this time, as queues are still able to be prepared. Calmer Waters 06:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The prep areas can be edited by anons. Why are they not semiprotected? Any objection to do so (not that I've seen vandalism, but sooner or later ..) Materialscientist ( talk) 07:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I've updated manually the main page from Q3 (with some mistake which BorgQueen has apparently fixed), reset queue count and hopefully the time (please check !). Issuing credits now .. Materialscientist ( talk) 06:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The MV Pieter Corneliszoon Hooft hook has been approved, it now needs to be moved so that it appears on the requested date of 14 November. Mjroots ( talk) 15:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick {{mp}} template needs to be added to the lead hook currently in Q5. It may be interfering with the image setup. Thanks Calmer Waters 17:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyone recalls a case that the bot did not crash recently on multiple nominations? "Yesterday" this resulted in one queue getting twice on the main page (mistakes fixed). Other things, (i) I forgot who, but someone kept adding "|right" to the lead image code, which results in some problem at the main page. (ii) Some nominators wikilink the section headings at T:TDYK. This results in extra brackets in the credits and has to be removed manually (better at T:TDYK). Sorry for my grumpy morning mood. Materialscientist ( talk) 00:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The bot did not tag articles or distribute credits for the update before the current one. Aboutmovies ( talk) 08:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a note to remind everyone updating the DYK archive page (thanks btw); I think the time we add on top of each set is the time that it was removed from the T:DYK template (that is, the time the next set was added). The instructions there were different, so I've changed it. At least, I think that's the way our one man army was doing it for a long time ;) Since almost all of the past archives are recorded this way, I think we should continue with that for consistency. And don't forget that if you have a different time zone selected in your preferences than UTC, the time you see on the page history will be different. In that case, you'll need to add/subtract that amount to get UTC :) ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The "right" from the lead hook's image need to be removed to correct formatting in Q6. Thanks Calmer Waters 17:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for becoming too aggressive and unilateral - slap me .. whenever. I demoted the lead hook from prep1 to No2 position as it sounds too uninteresting to me. Would anyone please check English for the No3 hook in prep1 (I'm not sure how to rewrite). Materialscientist ( talk) 00:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
To inform you on recent events: I just noticed that Staxringold didn't paste the bot template to the Q1 and Q6. Thus, the last update was delayed by some 5 hrs, no other apparent problems. I reshuffled some queues to adjust for the time zone "delay". I am an idiot who stayed on-line most of that time and didn't notice that. The next two updates I'm offline. There is a chance for a crash (double nom in one queue). If someone could keep an eye on the updates this would be great. Thanks. Materialscientist ( talk) 07:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
In Queue 4, plz could an available admin correct the format of the lead hook. There is a misplaced comma and a missing "that". Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 13:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned about this article created by User:Tempodivalse. I think it follows too closely the wording of the German source and is therefore a copyvio. Could someone else give an opinion before this is moved onto a queue? I've asked at the Opera copyvio sub-project whether anyone has checkusered Tdv against known accoutns of User:Nrswanson.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 14:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC) I have now initiated a checkuser request for this editor.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 15:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
http://www.planet-vienna.com/Musik/Komponisten/Translateur/Translateur.htm
Notice how the name Theresianstadt is broken up by Google and he duplicates it.
http://cmslib.rrz.uni-hamburg.de:6292/object/lexm_lexmperson_00001073
I could go on, but will merely point you to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and say that I'm re-adding the copyvio template.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 02:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering, since the rules do not really talk about it: What happens if someone tags an article for a problem (NPOV, notability, etc.) after an experienced user has approved the nomination? After all, I would expect that approving the article includes a check for such problems. What if the tag is added after the article is in a queue, i.e. approved by an admin? Regards So Why 17:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I was walking around at work yesterday trying to figure out if it is possible to construct a valid DYK hook that doesn't start with "that". The only thing I could come up with is if the hook starts with a question word. For example, instead of:
An alternative could be:
I realize that, as the rules are currently written, this would not be a valid hook. I also realize that it isn't entirely grammatically correct, as this construction would be better if it started with "Do you know..." rather than "Did you know...". However, I think that this would be a fresh, fun alternative to the current hook format. I also think it would encourage readers to actually read through the article to try to find the fun fact. Any thoughts? -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I tried them on several articles. Instead of results, I got a mostly blank screen that says:
You are looking at the HTML representation of the XML format.
HTML is good for debugging, but probably is not suitable for your application.
See complete documentation, or API help for more information.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<api />
Art LaPella (
talk)
02:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
javascript:importScript('User:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js'); getDocumentSize();
User:Una Smith/Queso flameado has a strange history. It began in January 2007 as a text dump that was shortly deleted. A few hours ago I requested that it be undeleted, simply to recover the page history. For purposes of DYK, should the page size start from 600B or 0B? That is, do I have to provide 3000B or only 1500B? The original 600B was entirely in Spanish. -- Una Smith ( talk) 03:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm too stupid to get this working... can someone do a length check on Cabinentaxi? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 15:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
This was the DYK tagline:
... that the crematory at the Oahu Cemetery in Hawaii was used to burn $200 million in U.S. bank notes after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941?
Note mark 3 indicates Nuuanu Mortuary. Note mark 4 notes Nuuanu cemetery crematorium. Note mark 5 notes Oahu cemetery crematorium.
I ask because I did the Hawaii overprint note article, and I had to make a note mark because two of my sources (A book and note mark 3 in the recent DYK article) couldn't agree on the location seeing that there are two separate businesses with the same/similar names in the area mentioned in the article. Even my DYK hook had to reflect this:
... that more than $200 million in US currency was burned at both a crematorium and the Aiea Sugar Mill in Hawaii, due to being redeemed for HAWAII Overprint Notes ( $20 Note pictured)?
And I just had to seek advice at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard on how to handle this dilemma of conflicting references. I know we have to assume good faith with nominations, but when you have three references with 3 conflicting location names, wouldn't have that raised a red flag in a sense that "Wait, something's not quite right here"?-- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 07:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Requesting another editor to address my concerns. -- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 08:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
We are running out of approved hooks. I'll try to contribute, but have less than 1 hr left online. Materialscientist ( talk) 11:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Reposting, lack of reviews again (we need to make some button for that :-) - several are approved, but might be better for lead hooks, pity to put them as regular just because of emergency. Materialscientist ( talk) 12:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, From from this edit 2029b to current version of Horton Plains National Park of 10146 b, I count exactly *5 plus 1 b expansion. But Dykcheck says otherwise. Could someone please tell me am I missing something. Kind regards.-- Chanaka L ( talk) 15:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Editors are invivted to vote in this straw poll about whether the FOUR award should recognise DYK qualifying ITN contributors or not. MickMacNee ( talk) 16:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I've "adopted" this article but do not WP:OWN it, of course. Please leave a note on my User Talk page with any concerns or questions. At this point, it almost satisfies Good Article criteria. I devoted the better part of two days to expanding this from a 660-word stub to over 3300 words. When I started, it didn't even have one inline citation of a source; now it has over 20 (some added by reviewing admin Harrias, for whom many thanks are in order). Most of this was in response to critique from the DYK admins. I reviewed the DYK criteria, and after the first day it satisfied the "written" DYK criteria regarding inline citations. I've since learned there are more stringent "unwritten" criteria.
I respectfully suggest that we should either revise the written criteria to include these unwritten standards, or have a brief discussion with DYK admins so that they will enforce only the more lenient criteria currently written. For what it's worth, I prefer the latter course of action. I perceive DYK as an initial threshold step in the development of a new (or substantially, 5x expanded) article.
The tale of USS Borie's final battle is amazing when properly told. My first glance told me that the existing stub did not do it justice. This was extremely unusual for a modern naval battle, since the ships were engaged for an extended time at very close range. They were so close that Borie's guns couldn't be depressed enough to fire accurately; they used all manner of weapons on each other, including Tommy guns, rifles, pistols, shotguns, and even a flare pistol, a sheath knife and a thrown shell casing; the last three weapons listed were each responsible for successfully dispatching an enemy.
There's plenty of time in the lifespan of the new article to bring its inline citations up to Good Article standards, but the initial five-day window limits opportunities to do that, particularly with a four-day holiday weekend starting tomorrow, and when starting with a 660-word stub that had to be expanded 5x. Adding more inline citations could have been done in the weeks or months ahead. But the reviewing admin conceded initially that the article was well-written and had a very interesting hook, that was supported by source citation; this satisfied the DYK criteria as currently written. I hope that all will accept this criticism in the constructive and collegial manner it's intended, and that it's the start of a discussion that's constructive for the DYK project. Skoal, and have a very Happy Thanksgiving. I'm off to Grandma's. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 23:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
is a major tag if the lack of references is serious enough. It might help to make that rule more prominent.
rʨanaɢ
talk/
contribs
00:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I propose to change the text under "Selection criteria" after the current nr. 4 (neutrality) to:
This codifies the unwritten one cite per paragraph rule and simultaneously makes the text at the bottom a little more encouraging. Feel free to tweak the text. Ucucha 00:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Great. A poll. Who would agree to ask Art LaPella to modify the DYK rules to cover the above problems?
(Moved down for clarity.) On the other hand, the rule "In practice, articles longer than 1,500 characters may still be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting reviewers and administrators.", currently at WP:DYK, should perhaps be stricken, as I don't believe this happens with any regularity. Ucucha 23:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
It looks like our fact-checking broke down here. Art LaPella ( talk) 05:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please have a look at the prep1 hooks wording? I am particularly unhappy with hook3, IMO, even something clumsy like
would sound better. Materialscientist ( talk) 05:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
In the current
queue 6, can an admin please delete the words "including the Greater Bulldog Bat" from the bats of the Caribbean hook? I added this species because it was pictured in my suggestion, but since the picture is not in the queue, the text doesn't add anything to the hook.
Ucucha
15:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
After reading Queue 1 hook 8 again, I may have moved the hook with the wrong tense ...have not touched a keyboard, rather than had not touched a keyboard. Would someone be able to modify this. Thanks Calmer Waters 05:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
A heads up. Queue one is currently on the main page along with the queue and the update counter is stuck on 1 rather than 2. Calmer Waters 06:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)