![]() | 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 50 | ← | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | → | Archive 60 |
Right now, there are eight possible images to put up for Women's Day, to go with seven articles. Among the seven article images, one is of Nome, Alaska, one is of a man, and one is a painting by a man. I suggest that these images are less important to Women's Day. This leaves four articles offering images of women, linking to articles about women:
The second Liebman image, if selected, could be cropped for greater interest and focus. Me, I like the first portrait image because it is so apt for 100x100 pixel size limitations.
The four queues can pick up these images as the sun moves into their regions of interest, which are Eastern USA (2), Germany and Egypt. I propose a prime-time queuing like this, listed in UTC time:
Thoughts? Binksternet ( talk) 03:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
In hook 5 in Queue 5 I think " Bluestocking" should be " bluestocking". The Wiktionary entry has a New York Times quote where it is not capitalized. Should the word also be quoted in the hook? -- Bruce1ee talk 06:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I worked very very hard on the researching and referencing of this article - List of New York Legislature members expelled or censured.
Note: Point of clarification: Gatoclass ( talk · contribs) was the one who suggested to me to bring this discussion from T:TDYK to here 06:26, 6 March 2010. Subsequently, when it appears that consensus of a majority of editors does not support the POV of Gatoclass, he proposes to bring the discussion to yet another forum, 19:53, 8 March 2010. Cirt ( talk) 20:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I've recently noticed that the image rollover text is not appearing for me. Is it working for others? Gatoclass ( talk) 20:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Should reviewers of DYK hooks be restricted to users who have shown in some manner that they are trustworthy? If consensus determines 'yes', the measure of trustworthiness can be debated later. Among the suggested measures would be to limit reviewers to the 5,000 or so users with rollback rights, or the nearly 3,000 autoreviewers. Just guessing, I would say that the combined group would number about 6,000. Other determinations of trustworthiness can be suggested, but this RfC is simply to determine whether we should limit reviewers in some way. Binksternet ( talk) 19:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Since there is an obvious difficulty in adding to the existing workload for reviewers, I think as an alternative we may have to tighten up our eligibility criteria. We could, for example, require that every article, at least from an unfamiliar user, include at least one online source to verify the existence of the individual or subject of the article. I don't think that should represent too much of a burden on contributors, since the overwhelming majority of our submissions contain plenty of online refs. Thoughts?
Gatoclass (
talk)
12:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
How about if articles with no online refs are marked with a certain icon, so that reviewers and updaters know to take particular care when checking the article? That way, we could take more time over the review of such articles. Gatoclass ( talk) 16:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
How is this item
not blatant advertising? -- Peter Farago ( talk) 23:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Would this image be appropriate (in terms of flashiness) for a DYK lead on the main page? Materialscientist ( talk) 08:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Chicago time be updated, it is an hour of ahead of the actual Chicago time (daylight savings time issue?) CTJF83 chat 06:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Queue1 sheduled for the 13th. I missed a wrong year, the launch of ExoMars is delayed and will happen now in 2018. Can an admin change:
that iron-55 source will be used in an X-ray diffraction instrument flown to Mars in 2013?
To
that iron-55 source will be used in an X-ray diffraction instrument flown to Mars in 2018? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone ( talk • contribs) 13:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Binksternet kindly left me a 500 DYK creation medal today, which got me reminiscing. I've enjoyed participating in this project and value its ability to draw attention to diverse and little-known subjects. I'm still amazed that 21,800 people viewed an article about a little-known house in Pasadena based on a hook I submitted (...that Frank Lloyd Wright said of the Millard House that he "would rather have built this little house than St. Peter's in Rome"?). Binksternet reminded me of another (... that 19th-century California bandit Procopio, also known as Red-Handed Dick, was said to "love the feel and the color of warm blood," and his name was used by mothers to frighten their children?). And there's one that I thought might be a record-breaker but barely registered (... that the white suckerfish responds to a touch on its belly by forcefully erecting its pelvic fins?). Some other favorites are at My Favorites. DYK has brought me many hours of entertainment, and occasionally enlightenment, over the past three years, and I want to thank everyone who works so hard on the project. Despite the occasional drama over hoaxes, rules and unwritten rules, BLP debates, quibbles over hook appropriateness, etc. (and probably frustration with my recent penchant for college football articles), this is a really extraordinary and valuable project. Cheers. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Could an admin please monitor the next update of 18:00 13 Feb (I am offline, but will be back for the update after). If no time, just copy/paste the hooks from queue 3 into hooks of T:DYK. Thanks. Materialscientist ( talk) 12:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I have done a page move from Academic All-American to Academic All-America. The hook should reflect the change.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
It appears that on 6 March we had the following hook on the main page:
Problems:
Just a heads-up for those who are active in this are, to be a bit more careful in the future if time allows. Hans Adler 21:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we need a post mortem of what happened, just being a bit more alert in the future should help. I would like to help with that, but I don't understand the DYK process. What would be the best page(s) to watch so that I could just go over the hooks of (very likely to be) accepted articles to check them for POV? Hans Adler 09:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I do appreciate the efforts of that user to improve wikipedia and provide new material to T:TDYK. Yet, several editors have expressed concerns with the use of unreliable references (i.e. not clearly not passing WP:RS, even spam sites) and with marginal notability of the topics. As I have returned 2 of their hooks from preps in the last 2 days I would ask the promoting editors (and referees) to double check their noms. The intention is to urge AnakngAraw to improve the quality of their work. Materialscientist ( talk) 00:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
With about a dozen of approved hooks right now, it is very difficult to compose balanced sets. Direct promotion to the queues increases the risk of factual and stylistic blunders. St. Patrick's day noms are the priority. Materialscientist ( talk) 08:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be a new coinage that is not even explained in the article. The article just treats it as if everybody knew what it means. That doesn't seem to be acceptable.
At the very least the word needs scare quotes or something like "so-called" in the hook, so that people don't go to the article in order to – learn nothing about the word. I would just do it, but Q4 is protected and I am not an admin. Hans Adler 13:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
If an article is completely rewritten (completely, considering it had no valid sourcing before and thus had to be rewritten to comply with the new sources), but it's length is then shorter than what it was before, even though it is now entirely different from previous, does it still not fit DYK just for the fact that it has to be expanded fivefold regardless? Or does the fact that it is entirely new material put it more on the "new" side of things and, thus, make it a valid article? Silver seren C 14:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Ive noticed a small error in the hook supplied for a new article;
I have started to place the St. Patty's Day hooks in prep 1, prep 2 and extra prep. I moved the James Long hook out of the lead in prep 1 (and added it to prep 2 as a non-lead) to make room for a St. Patrick's Day hook. I thought that was best for March 17 lead, but if anyone feels the Long hook should be a lead, maybe it could be saved for March 18? I realize the three lead hooks for St. Patty's that I chose are not "fully developed" articles, but I think they are the best Irish-themed images for the lead spot. I expect the National Leprechaun Museum (lead hook for US daytime on March 17) to draw a lot of views; it's a pretty clever hook. Cbl62 ( talk) 03:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest we go with this hook (ALT2), dealing with a fact from an event that occurred in 1779. Please note this comment by Cmadler, and this comment by Nyttend. All recommendations for changes to the article have been addressed, both from suggestions here and at WP:BLPN. The article deals primarily with individuals dead for over 100 years. Every single sentence in the article is cited to WP:RS appropriate sources. Thank you, -- Cirt ( talk) 18:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Hook 1 of Queue 5 needs a "(pictured)". Thanks. -- Bruce1ee talk 12:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering, does anyone know why Grace Groner appeared as DYK twice (on March 15, and currently)? - M.Nelson ( talk) 20:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought I'd seen a rule invoked that the fact used for the hook had to appear in the prose section of the article with an inline citation, and that it was not accepted if it appeared, for example, in a table or an image caption. However, I can't find this documented anywhere. See [3] for the current issue. Thoughts? cmadler ( talk) 13:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The fact we give in the hook is usually an important part of the article, so if it is a list article the lead would mention it too. However, it's not necessary to cite the fact in the lead (per WP:LEADCITE) as long as it's clearly given in the article. If it's a fact that can't be directly given in the table/list, then it will have to be separately cited in the lead. For example, taking one of my own recent lists, List of international cricket centuries by Mahela Jayawardene, if I say that Jayawardene has scored the most centuries for Sri Lanka I have to cite it in the lead since it's not possible to give that information completely in the table. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
(outdenting) Let me put it this way. DYK does not actually exist for the sake of our contributors. It exists for our readership, the thousands of people who see the mainpage of wikipedia and who decide to follow up on the links they see there.
A DYK hook is just that - it's a means of getting a reader's interest, so that he is motivated to go and read the article. Creating interest in wikipedia is what the mainpage is all about, but coincidentally the interest that is inspired is also part of the payoff for our contributors, because it means more people have a chance to read and appreciate their work.
Now, just imagine the process when someone sees a DYK hook that interests him, so he clicks on the article to read more about it. But when he gets to the article, he finds to his suprise that the hook is not mentioned in the actual prose. Perhaps if he searches carefully, in a table or the original references, he may be able to find it or confirm it, but now he has had to work to find it, which is likely to leave him feeling irritated or perhaps even cheated. Or he may not be able to find it at all, which is likely to leave him feeling even more irritated and/or cheated. What is the end result of this process? A dissatisfied reader, who is that much less likely to return to the wikipedia mainpage or to click on a DYK link again. And the more such experiences the reader has, the less likely he is to bother again. So wikipedia loses and so do the mainpage contributors.
The point is, we have to think about DYK primarily from the POV of our readers rather than our contributors. We want to make DYK as interesting and as accessible and fun as possible, frustrating the readership with difficult to find hooks is obviously going to be counterproductive to those aims. By contrast, it's only a small imposition on our contributors to ask for the hook to be clearly expressed in the prose portion, but by meeting the expectations of readers, there is a longterm payoff for them as well. Gatoclass ( talk) 01:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that the hooks on the April Fools DYK page are starting to pile up, and if last year is any indication, it will only become much, much worse. I have never reviewed any DYK's, only submitted ones, but i will try my hand at reviewing the back long there, and i would love some help from experienced reviewers.-- Found5dollar ( talk) 14:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Is the tracklisting/personnel section counted in the "readable content" count? f o x (formerly garden) 20:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Can soemone rename the DYK credit for #5 from "Coldplay Expert" (my old name) to my current one? Thanks.-- Whité Shadows you're breaking up 01:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
In the Villiers High School hook in Queue 1, the hyphen in West-London is not needed. Pls could an admin tweak accordingly. Cheers! Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 20:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
For a five times expansion, does the hook fact have to be part of the newly added material? 159.83.4.153 ( talk) 23:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant has a hook that is not supported by the sources. It is partially supported by one source and not mentioned by others, but even Suetonius doesn't say that Claudius had to run round the lake, just that he did. Yomangani talk 17:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC) (and "around" is wrong too. The lake was huge).
I am new to reserving hooks for a specific date and confused. Two hooks were reserved for 21 March, birthday of Bach: Gloria in excelsis Deo, BWV 191 and Gächinger Kantorei. Now I find the first one in queue 5, the second in prep area 1. To my understanding that means that the second one will not appear 21 March at all. But that is the one actually mentioning the date. Therefore: most desirable both hooks 21 March as reserved or -- if not possible (but then what is the reservation for?) - switch the two that at least the one with the date appears on the date. Thank you! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the bot crashed while performing the last DYK update from Queue1 (6 hours ago), I finished giving the credits and tagging the pages, but I can't clear queue 1 or reset the timer so it's still there. Yazan ( talk) 00:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
At present in prep area 2: To my understanding ALT1 should be taken, s. discussion. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I just created Template:NewDYKnomination/guide as a step-by-step instruction for how to fill out the nomination template, explaining what things to leave blank, what belongs in each field, yada yada yada. It doesn't have any information that wasn't already in the template documentation, but seeing all that information at once is maybe intimidating for someone who's never used the template before...this guide should, hopefully, allow a new nominator to take things one at a time and not have to know any technical stuff to understand how to use the template. If someone has already nominated a lot (as probably everyone reading this page has) you don't need to look at this, but for a newbie hopefully it will help. (I'm not sure if it's necessary, as I haven't seen a whole lot of template errors lately, but I suppose it can't hurt. Also, the irony is not lost on me that a template designed to streamline the DYK process has come to require several pages worth of documentation and instructions...oh well!)
Here's what it looks like, for those who are curious:
Type in your article name into the box below, and click on the blue button to create your nomination.
This will open an edit box with the following template:
{{subst:NewDYKnomination
| article = {{subst:str right|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|25}}
| article2 =
| status = new / expanded / mainspace / redirect / GA
| hook = ... that ...? <small>Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)</small>
| ALT1 = ... that ...? <small>Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)</small>
| author =
| author2 =
| image =
| caption =
| comment =
| reviewed =
}}
Add the names of the articles you are nominating. You can skip this step if you are only nominating one article, and its name is the same as the one you typed into the input box above.
Add the name of the first article (no wiki formatting) to the parameter called |article=
. For example:
| article = French Revolution
If you are nominating more than one article, add the others to |article2=
, |article3=
, etc. Example:
| article2 = Maximilien Robespierre | article3 = Guillotine | article4 = Cake
Add the hook to the parameter called |hook=
, following the hook guidelines at
WP:DYK#The hook. Remember to begin the hook with "... that", to end it with a question mark, and to link the article title within the hook and make it bold. If you will be using an image with the hook, don't forget to put ''(pictured)''
in it. Example:
| hook = ... that a lot of people died during the '''[[French Revolution]]''' ''(pictured)''?
|status=new
. If you expanded it from an existing article, make |status=expanded
. If you newly source and expand a completely unsourced
BLP, make |status=BLP expanded
. If you moved it from non-mainspace to mainspace, make |status=moved
. If the article passed a
Good Article review, make |status=GA
. If you converted the page to an article from a redirect or a disambiguation page, use |status=redirect
.Add the names of the editors who contributed to the article being nominated for DYK. You can skip this step if you are the main contributor, and there are no other contributors that need to be credited.
In the parameter called |author=
add the name of the article's primary author (whoever did the work that's being nominated for DYK—either the person who originally created the article, or the one who expanded it recently). Type out the username in plain text with no formatting; do not use ~~~~
. Example:
| author = Jimbo Wales
Just like the article names, you can add more than one author if several people collaborated, using |author2=
, |author3=
, etc.
|author=
, don't worry. The template knows that you are the nominator; you don't have to fill in anything extra.If you are not nominating an image to go with your hook, skip this section.
If you are nominating an image, put its filename in |image=
. Do note use File:
, Image:
, or any attributes like thumb
and 100px
, just use the bare filename, like this:
| image = Prise de la Bastille.jpg
After that, add an appropriate caption in the |caption=
parameter. This supplies both the
tooltip (the text that appears when a reader leaves his mouse over the image for a moment) and the
alt-text (the text that is used by screen readers or is shown to readers whose browser cannot display the image). It should be a physical description of the contents of the image, not a comment about the image. Please review
WP:ALT to see the guidelines for how alt-text should be written.
Overall, the code for the image nomination should look something like this:
| image = Prise de la Bastille.jpg | caption = A painting depicting the storming of the Bastille, 1789
If you have any additional comments or explanation to add (such as "the source of the hook fact can be found on page 12"), add them in the |comment=
field. If not, leave that field blank.
| comment = Article created in my userspace on May 12, moved to mainspace on June 3.
If applicable, list the article that you reviewed, in accordance with the review requirement. Please provide the article name, or note that you still have to conduct a review.
| reviewed = I still have to review another nomination and will post this here once it's done.
If you have only one hook to suggest for your nomination, skip this step. But if you want to suggest more than one hook, you can put addition hooks in the fields |ALT1=
, |ALT2=
, etc.
| ALT1 = ... that millions of high school students learn about the '''[[French Revolution]]''' ''(pictured)'' every year?
Now the template in the edit window should be nicely filled up. Mine looks something like this:
{{subst:NewDYKnomination
| article = French Revolution
| article2 =
| status = expanded
| hook = ... that a lot of people died during the '''[[French Revolution]]''' ''(pictured)''?
| ALT1 = ... that millions of high school students learn about the '''[[French Revolution]]''' ''(pictured)'' every year?
| author = Jimbo Wales
| author2 =
| image = Prise de la Bastille.jpg
| caption = A painting depicting the storming of the Bastille, 1789
| comment = Please save this nomination for a couple days so it can be on the main page for April Fools' Day!
| reviewed = Everlost (novel)
}}
(Your nomination does not necessarily need to have so many fields filled in. I just purposely filled in a lot to illustrate all of them.)
When you are ready, save the page. It should look something like this:
5x expanded by Jimbo Wales ( talk). Nominated by Mr. Stradivarius ( talk) at 05:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC).
As always, comments, suggestions, and tweaks are welcome. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 02:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to keep doing this, but ... hook 1 of Queue 3 needs a "(pictured)". Thanks. -- Bruce1ee talk 07:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I expect everybody is now aware of the fact that we (that is to say, Wikipedia) have been doing alt text the wrong way :) Wikipedia:Alternative text for images is no longer a Wikipedia guideline, at least until the matter is resolved. It has also been temporarily removed from both FA and FL criteria. According to the discussion so far on Wikipedia talk:Alternative text for images, the idea seems to be that alt text should be short and concise. Quote from the expert's comment there: "Alternative text is an alternative to the image. It is NOT a description of an image."
Perhaps the updaters are doing this already, but I suggest we mention only what the image is (without describing it) on the DYK template until this is cleared up. See the alt text on WP:POTD for example. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
In the fourth hook in queue 3, 'magnitude' is currently linked to Richter scale - it should be linked to Moment magnitude scale, as in the article. I'd be grateful if someone could fix that. Mikenorton ( talk) 07:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the hook in Queue 4 that is set to hit the Main Page in the morning -- I am not an expert in the law on vicarious liability for disparagement, common law right of publicity, implied endorsement, or California's Civil Code 3344 (statutory equivalent of right of publicity), but the article itself notes that Cruise is presently seeking legal advice for use of his name and likeness to promote a psychotropic drug. Given the potential legal dispute, is this something that has been fully vetted to ensure that we are comfortable featuring it on the Main Page? I am not advocating a particular outcome, but want to make sure that this has been thought through. Cbl62 ( talk) 00:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Normally I dislike repetition but in this case I don't find the original hook problematic, as one use is split and it hardly notices. On the other hand, there are problems with all the suggested alts (the last one for example being ambiguous). So unless someone comes up with something else, I would just stick with the original. Gatoclass ( talk) 11:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
A question has arisen at Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know#Rules Question, regarding one of the DYK rules for April fools. any input would be great!-- Found5dollar ( talk) 16:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Oops, just spotted a grammar mistake in queue 4 (and I was the person who drafted the DYK nomination). For Edward Richardson, it should say "...was the first person to build..." rather than "...was the first person to built...". Sorry for that. Schwede 66 19:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Queue 6, hook 5: The Master of Game needs to be italicized. Thanks. -- Bruce1ee talk 05:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it a shame that such a good article as this is given such a horribly phrased hook: "... that the three primary factors to survival in the Donner Party were age, sex, and the size of each person's family group?" "Three primary factors to survival"??? This would shame even a sociologist. It's live in an hour or so; can someone please rewrite this in English? Ericoides ( talk) 19:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The It's A Crime, Mr. Collins hook currently reads:
It should really read "...was deemed to be a flagrant rip-off...", as the reference in the article is to a single person's opinion. Physchim62 (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I know that administrators, who were involved with editors are not allowed to block the editors. I strongly believe that the administrators, who were heavily involved in the articles deletion requests should not be allowed neither to comment nor to vote on DYK nomination of that article. It dictates by common sense.It is simply a bad tone to do otherwise. Thanks.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 05:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The nomination was removed with the reason "AFD closed as "no consensus" " [4]. It is extremely unfair and wrong. The most vocal opposer was User:Gatoclass. Please see some language the user used in the deletion request badly sourced, POV rant, when asked how he could call Robert Kennedy writings "rant" I was explained that it is my presentation that made it rant (he later deleted word "rant" after I complained at his talk page). Then he said "Well if he wrote copiously on the topic, you ought to be able to create a more nuanced article than a grab-bag of comments that make him sound like a cheerleader for Zionism". Later in DYK nomination he said to me: "As for time wasting, seems to me you are the one who has wasted a great deal of everyone's time by writing an article that was immediately nominated for AfD on the basis of numerous apparent inadequacies, and which others have had to spend a considerable amount of time trying to rectify, so I hardly think you are in a position to accuse others of this particular vice" that was a clear discrimination towards my English and writing skills. The truth is that Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) is extremely well sourced article, that was re-written by many other editors to remove any POV, there is no POV tag present in the article now. It was removed by me on March 13, and nobody posted it back. There was no valid reason not to promote the article. It was a wrong thing to do, and should be corrected.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 06:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, are we in a feast or famine as far as hooks go? If the latter, I will prioritise fivefold expanding a few more articles. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Does it makes sense that all of the content in a DYK hook for a triple nom is required to be in every article and be together? I have a current nomination for USAC Stock Cars, one of its champions Norm Nelson, who won one race in rival series NASCAR at the only time NASCAR raced at Las Vegas Park Speedway. For instance, why should the USAC article have content about a race in a rival series? USAC itself only raced once at that speedway, so having content about that race is too trivial and off topic to be included in the USAC article. Even less relevant should be content about a race done by a rival sanction, right? The rules are written for a single nomination and don't fit cases like this one. I thought we had consensus for cases like this, but I don't find it in the "Rules" or "Additional Rules". I think that's because we don't want the rules to be too wordy and list every last scenario. Royal broil 12:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a hook on the main page for Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories that reads:
... that although U.S. President Barack Obama is Christian, high-ranked al-Qaida member Ayman al-Zawahiri has falsely claimed that Obama secretly "pray[s] the prayers of the Jews"?
I don't believe that such a hook should have been approved. This hook violates the neutrality criteria required by DYK which states focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided. I would also like to point out that the article Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories does not state that al-Qaida member Ayman al-Zawahiri claims are false. Am I the only one who is dissatisfied with such a hook? Smallman12q ( talk) 16:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I did mention it earlier, but it seems to have got overlooked. 1 April is almost upon us, there are 30 hooks approved, and 17 still to be approved. This quantity of hooks may mean a tweak in the duration each batch appears for. Mjroots ( talk) 11:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
We had originally hoped Quehanna Wild Area might be the April Fools TFA, but it qualifies for DYK this year and is a new FA. Just nominated it here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for helping doing this year's AFMP. I did a lot of work on it the past few years. There's a template where the hooks have been archived in the past. For each DYK set, would someone please paste in the main page? Near the end of a set's run (to ensure that there isn't major changes during a set's run), I carefully copied the the source code for the main page. Then I pasted it in the appropriate archive. I had to subst each and every template because they constant change - there's a large number to subst. I might be able to get the first, second, and fourth groups but there's no way I could do the third. Royal broil 12:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hook 1 of Queue 6 needs a "(pictured)". Thanks. -- Bruce1ee talk 05:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
What to do with left over hooks from Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know/Archive 2010? look to be about 15 that weren't exactly declined. Should we move them back to the talk template under their prospective submission dates? Most if used, will probably need their hooks changed now that 0401 is done. Calmer Waters 00:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I've done a few, but I need a break. There are currently only 15, could someone pitch in and do a few? Gatoclass ( talk) 11:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Max van Egmond was reserved for Good Friday and is not in a queue for April 2. I hope that will be changed. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
It was suggested to me that I might put a special consideration request in here for this DYK. As it relates to one (actually, two) of the ballplayers who will be playing in tonight's NCAA national basketball championship game (and one of his teammates got nearly 10K hits yesterday), I thought the timeliness of it might be of interest, if it could be put up today. Many thanks for your consideration.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The hook is currently in queue 2 and reads: ... that Bach marked to repeat the opening chorus of cantata Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten, BWV 172 after the final chorale? - I am happy that the first suggestion "made it", but since its nomination one character in the title changed, and a new wiki-link would be possible, please compare the discussion. Therefore I suggest to change to ... that Bach marked to repeat the opening chorus of cantata Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172 after the final chorale? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, It is my understanding that we generally don't delete talkpage content that is not otherwise in violation of policy, normally we tend to collapse a conversation which has run its course or reflects a previous reality. Is this the case on DYK as well? I am seeing an editor repeatedly removing talkpage comments and while I don't want to harass the person I find it unlikely that such deletion is proper, could someone set me straight either way? Thanks! Unomi ( talk) 09:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I've kicked this off with the first nom. Just gonna have to be a bit patient now until it can appear.
Mjroots (
talk)
08:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Could a few of the admins who look in on DYK from time to time add User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors to their watch list. This is the file the DYK bot uses to report problems it detects an issue. There was a 2½ hour delay in an update today due to a missing <!--Hooks--> line, with the bot having reported the problem two hours before the update was scheduled to run. A couple more eyes scattered across a variety of time zones would probably help to keep things running on a regular basis when the occasional hiccup occurs. -- Allen3 talk 20:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I had a query that im unsure of. Lets say on May 28th or so (hypothetically an article is created) on May 30th it is nominated for deletion, On June 7th it is closed as keep, and on June 8th Its listed for dyk. Is it still ok to treat as a new article?., or is it necessary to treat it as a 5x expansion. Thanks for the thoughts out there, happy editing, Ottawa4ever ( talk) 08:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Pls could a watching admin tweak the lead hook in Queue 2 ( capilla abierta) by adding (pictured). Thanks! Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 19:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
is 8-9 May - can we do a special occasion of migratory bird articles? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the bot jumped off Queue 4, and updated DYK with Queue 5 instead. Because now we have Q3, and Q5 as empty. Yazan ( talk) 07:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Why are newer DYK nominations generally being chosen for the main page at the moment instead of older ones which have less time to be possibly chosen? Seems silly as far as I am concerned. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 19:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
That's a fine hook, and it would be good to have a donated image, but I can't really tell what the image is of at 100px. I'll look for an image that might look better at 100px. (or maybe it's my small monitor, tell me) NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs/ Vote! 22:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Well after that long period with a massively excessive number of submissions, suddenly the number has dropped back to only 140 or so. I suggest that if we get as low as 120 again, we move back to three eight hour updates a day. Gatoclass ( talk) 14:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Looking at it in the queue, I think that the hook has a missing 'the', as in "... that the 60 million years old Carmelo Formation". I verified it but failed to notice that, maybe others think that the change is unnecessary. Mikenorton ( talk) 22:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
In today's DYK: "... that 6th-century poet Talhaearn Tad Awen has left no surviving verse, yet may have been remembered as the father of Welsh poetry, whose work used to be rewarded with 100 cows in a bath-tub every Saturday?" That's an intriguing teaser, and sounds like an April Fool's Day entry, so I went to the article to read more about the cows. No cows. As far as I can see, this teaser was in the nominations [14] but I can't find cows in any of the earlier versions in the article's history. If this is vandalism or a hoax, I don't see how it was done. -- A Knight Who Says Ni ( talk) 00:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Queue 1, third hooks reads: "... that the owner of the Minuscule 671 and the place of its housing officially is unknown?" Ok, English is not my first language, but shouldn't that rather be "... that the owner of the Minuscule 671 and the place of its housing is officially unknown?" Schwede 66 09:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Let me ask you the following: what are we, after all, supposed to be using - A. (pictured) (italics include the brackets) or B. (pictured) (italics only within the brackets). I distinctly remember that the standard was defined as variant B., but all the hooks now seem to go with option A. It's whichever, but it has to be one. Dahn ( talk) 23:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
We are now down to 126 hooks with several queues empty. Definitely time to go to an 8-hour cycle. Gatoclass ( talk) 16:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Recently, I saw that the archives had been reorganized by month. Then I saw that was all reverted back to the ad hoc numerical system. What gives?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Karl-Otto Kiepenheuer was doing research on the sun and its interaction with earth, sunspots and a lot of other aspects of the sun. This is not exactly pointed out when you call him a researcher on solar energy. There might be a change to solar physics or somthing similar be the best choice to go on. Sorry for pointing out this so late! I nominated the article, and I read the hook several times, but I did not get that it now reads different.-- Stone ( talk) 15:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
A couple of suggested adjustments to Queue 6, for admins in the vicinity: Rene Farrell's pic needs to have the right parameter removed to align it correctly; and in the third hook (Norwegian railways), some word order changing: to never be → never to be. Thx, Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 19:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas (and I think some other places also) says:
N5: Because of the preponderance of submissions on US topics and biography hooks, it is usually appropriate to have roughly 50% of hooks in a given update on both US and biography topics. That is to say, in an eight-hook update you should have roughly four hooks per update on US topics, and four on biography. These are not mutually exclusive, for example if you have two US bio hooks that would count as both two US hooks and two bio hooks. Note that "roughly 50%" means just that – this is not an absolute; you can have less of either if there are not many currently available such hooks to choose from on the Suggestions page. Note however that as a general rule you should never have more than 50% of hooks on US, biography or any other topic, except when doing so is unavoidable.
Of the 56 hooks in 6 queues and 1 prep area currently, I count 15 on US topics, about 25%. This strikes me as reasonably close to what we've had for a little while, and I think it is a reasonable representation of approved hooks over the past weeks. I suggest that the above guideline be changed to replace "roughly" with "no more than", as follows (changes are italicized):
I just think we shouldn't say "roughly 50%" given that 50% seems unreasonably high based on what we've had recently. Thoughts? cmadler ( talk) 20:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I am concerned about all of the DYK nominations rejected by User:BruceSwanson. In the past hour, he has flatly rejected 7 nominations. I don't believe that his reasons are in keeping with DYK practices. For example, a nomination about an Andy Warhol work was rejected because there was no picture. Articles about other people with multiple reasons for notability (a politician who tried out for the Olympics, and a woman who competed at the top levels as both a sprinter and weighlifter) were rejected because they are not interesting enough. However, DYK has let several hooks go that are far less interesting than these. What is the best way to proceed with these rejected nominations? Can someone provide a second opinion? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 04:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's a question I'm not sure there's an answer to in the rules: Does a breakout page, in which the text taken from the previous article meets DYK criteria otherwise, qualify? And who is credited with it - the person who did the breakout, the creator of the content on the previous page (which might have been created more than five days ago on that page...), both, or...? - The Bushranger ( talk) 14:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The "winningest" coach - I'm sorry but as an English Literature major I have to say that that isn't a real word. Can we change it to "most successful" or equivalent please? Giant Snowman 05:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Abductive recently pointed out to me that his proposed hook for Mimie Mathy appeared in two different DYK sets sent to the Main Page, on April 30 and May 1. The root cause of this was a mistake on my part, when compiling a DYK set in prep1 on April 27. My general practice when I compile DYK sets is to first place the {{inuse}} template on the prep area, open T:TDYK in another browser, and open tabs in the second browser window for each of the hooks as I select them. I only blank the hook from T:TDYK when I have copied over both the hook and credit, and have finalized what order I want the hooks to be in. Sometimes when I attempt to blank a hook, I get an edit conflict. When this happens, I open another tab with the hook and blank it from the new tab, because the edit conflict window lists the full content of T:TDYK, which isn't helpful for such a large page. Occasionally, when I click a section edit link on T:TDYK, the wrong section opens for editing; I've never seen this happen on any other Wikipedia page, but I figure it has to do with the length of T:TDYK.
In this case, I must have received an edit conflict when attempting to clear out the Mimie Mathy hook on T:TDYK, since the T:TDYK edit history shows six of the seven hooks I added removed around the time I saved the edit to prep1. ( Julie Hunter was already there before I started.) When I tried to open the Mimie Mathy section again, the wrong section must have opened with me noticing, resulting in the wrong hook being removed. Since the Mimie Mathy hook was still on the page, User:Allen3 ended up adding it to another set later on, resulting in the hook appearing twice on the Main Page.
I've restored the hook I accidentally removed. I'm very sorry about all of this, and will strive to be more careful when updating Did you know in the future. – Grondemar 19:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The fourth bullet in queue 3 has two DYK items in it. There's a bullet point missing for the second item. Schwede 66 00:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This has been nominated as an almost 5x expansion, but has already appeared on DYK. Editor Calmer Waters has commented that it may be eligible to reappear per past discussion. Is this really the case? My suggestion would be that the expander should push for GA status now. Mjroots ( talk) 08:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It was nominated in 2007, by a different person, and it's now near FA level. This should be an obvious IAR, IMHO.... — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Given that the consensus for a three-year rule may or may not apply, and there is clearly not consensus for the vague "a long time has passed", I am restoring the stated rule D1 back to the previous no repeats - no exceptions rule. cmadler ( talk) 12:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Can someone run the tool on Bombardier Advanced Rapid Transit for me? It's got some complex layout... Maury Markowitz ( talk) 16:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Request that a formely imaged item be held until a spot with an image opens up? (ae you get up a hook it's confirmed but the image is removed and it's not the head line, "just" a hook). This is regarding the bit on asphalt volcanism in Quene 5. It's an interesting topic and I was wondering if I could plug it into the "most viewed" of the month. Call me ambitious but it certainly seems more interesting then genestation periods...no offense intended. Thank you. Res Mar 01:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to ask for general thoughts about including articles about expected future events in DYK. The article that raised this specific concern for me is 2010–11 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team (Hook: Template talk:Did you know#2010–11 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team). Aside from the obvious problem with the tense in which the article is written, is there any broader issue with putting an article about an expected future event on the main page via DYK? Thanks, cmadler ( talk) 19:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I have some NPOV concerns about the hook ... that Arizona passed the toughest illegal immigrant law in the U.S. following the murder of rancher Robert Krentz? that is currently in the queue, as it implies that the two events are action-reaction. It's like saying "Did you know that Germany passed the toughest illegal immigration laws in its history following the murder of a German railroad worker". The article itself uses one source to tie the two events together, and says that it "contributed" and that "there were no suspects, but speculation suggested it may have been", this all seems like an awful lot of conjecture to now be serving up in a DYK hook which implictly suggests that Mexicans were responsible for murdering someone, and thus must be cracked down upon. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 21:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
This is my first time building a DYK set (at T:DYK/P2). Did I do well? One question I have though is whether the credit to User:Suomi Finland 2009 for Galaxy 15 is proper, since he created a redirect and not the article that soon replaced it. PleaseStand (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The "(pictured)" in queue 4, hook 1 needs to be italicized. Thanks. -- Bruce1ee talk 05:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
At Template_talk:Did_you_know#City_of_Military_Glory I have posted a hook, and have changed the initial photo of a ceremony to a video of the ceremony. I don't believe there is any hard and fast rule about only photos being able to be used at DYK? But would there be any drawbacks to using videos at DYK on front page? As were are WP:NOTPAPER, there is no limitations or is that? At National Anthem of Russia I have placed a video (a featured sound at that) of a performance of the anthem in the infobox instead of a photo. But what about DYK. Thoughts please. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 20:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
fume hood says that biosafety cabinets are a class of fume hood in the intro. Riffraffselbow ( talk) 08:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you add the date 2008 before the word Broadway? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, Russavia ( talk · contribs) has managed to get around it. The 2010 Moscow Victory Day Parade article appeared on DYK, and is now back on the Main Page as an ITN article! Mjroots ( talk) 20:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
To make it align properly, pls could the |right parameter be removed from the Ruins of Khulda pic in Queue 6. Cheers, Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 07:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
For May 13 I nominated Kurt Huber some days ago and would like to see at least a question. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hook 1 of
Queue 4 is missing a "(pictured)".
In hook 1 of
Queue 5, "(pictured)" should be "(pictured)". Thanks. --
Bruce1ee
talk
05:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
In view of the many new articles clamoring from some DYK exposure, I am proposing to increase the minimum required prose from 1500 characters to 2500 (or even double to 3000 if we can get consensus). Maybe this will reduce the DYK workload somewhat, but the real reason for this proposal is to push the quality of new articles higher. There will always be new articles that are just a stub, but to deserve a DYK main-page accolade, editors should put in some extra effort to add more content. Afterall, 1500 characters is really low. The 1500 rule has been there since February 2007; it's time to raise the bar! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
(to avoid long drawn-out discussions, let's confine discussion only to this proposal, not other DYK rules)
Support but would like to have seen more discussion. FA and GA have raised standards considerably since 2007, DYK could easily follow along. An exception could be made if the nominator can show that he has exhausted the topit.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it's probably time we went back to a six-hour cycle, we currently have 245 hooks on suggestions and the queues are almost full. Gatoclass ( talk) 04:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm still not sure how the DYK process works, even after reading the rules page. I accepted a challenge by Victuallers to review nominations, which I did, and now I am wondering how they get to the main page? I went ahead and moved 3 of them ( Fred Thompson (writer), Japan Series Most Valuable Player Award, and Capella Javelin) to the prep area because 2 of them were almost 5 days old. Was this the right thing to do? Or does a more experienced editor or bot comb the nominations page for approved hooks to move to the prep area? And is it an administrator's responsibility to move them from there to the queue?
Also, I still see on the nominations page hooks that are 4 or 5 or more days old and have not yet been reviewed. Have these just been "passed over" by your editors, or will they wilt away because no one has time to review them? Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 13:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
What are we going to do about the articles? Gatoclass ( talk) 07:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
After a first inspection the article Manatee Palms Youth Services looks legitimate. Obviously I don't know if the accusations it contains are all true, but to the extent that I have checked them they appear to be backed up with reliable sources. I can't judge the reliability of the Bradenton Herald, but the Los Angeles Times article about the owning company is revealing and makes this article very plausible, to put it mildly.
Given the conditions at that institution and its function I don't find it surprising that we might have an editor here who (1) is highly motivated to write an article about it which stresses the grievances, and (2) might not be as convinced of our values as we are. Let's make sure that we preserve the integrity of our information, but that we also don't throw out the baby with the bath water. I suggest that a few more editors check the article for neutrality, and if everything is fine we return it to the DYK queue. Hans Adler 14:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
...if a new article appears as a "non-DYK" (non-bolded) link in a hook, is it still eligible to appear as a "main course" DYK? - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 17:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want to know why I moved hooks with images to Prep 2 without the pictures, it's because the number of reviewed articles with pictures and without are very unbalanced. Joe Chill ( talk) 00:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Are there any conventions regarding the nomination of an article created/expanded by another user?
It's generally regarded as a courtesy to ask the creator first. I have had people nom articles of mine which I intended for DYK but which I hadn't finished preparing, or which I was planning for a multi-hook. That sort of thing can be pretty annoying, so I think it's good practice to inform first. Gatoclass ( talk) 05:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
How would I add an image to the article Cyrba under May 13 without redoing the entire template? Joe Chill ( talk) 12:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
A very small thing, but I realise now that I forgot to note that I nominated the George de Bothezat article that's in Q3 (because I have a self-nom in the same hook as a double hook). In a double hook like this, does the nominator get nom credit for the double when it's by another author, or just the DYK credit for their own article? - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 22:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I am too sleepy to rewrite the last hook of prep1,
but IMO, it should accentuate what the Maginot Line was (a French fortification used in the WWII). Materialscientist ( talk) 23:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The "pictured" notation of the Courageous-class-battlecruiser hook could possibly use clarification - to "pictured after aircraft carrier conversion", perhaps. Because that photo shows her after she was rebuilt as a bird farm, instead of her original configuration as a battlecruiser. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 02:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hook 1 of Queue 1 needs a "(pictured)". Thanks. -- Bruce1ee talk 15:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I have a question, an article I have been working I would like to nominate for DYK soon, but it is dependent on one thing: the article, when I started editing it, was about 1200 characters of plagiarism directly lifted from the company website. I rewrote it, and expanded it to about 5000 characters. In retrospect, I feel like I could have deleted the plagiarized content first and saved, which would have made the rewrite and expansion passable, but I did not want to do it that way. Since I removed the plagiarized content and rewrote in a single edit, would this keep the article from qualifying for nomination? - Theornamentalist ( talk) 21:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it a good idea to have two soul/R&B singers - Jimmy Hughes and The Mighty Hannibal - in the same set of hooks? I don't mind personally, but someone might want to think whether either mine or Derek's should be swapped into a different queue.
Ghmyrtle (
talk) 16:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Too late!
Ghmyrtle (
talk)
18:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone have both of these scripts installed at the same time and, if so, have you experienced any problems with them working together? Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi again, I have run into a disagreement with the creator of this article and am not sure how to proceed. Marrante insists that a Prisoner functionary is different from a Kapo, although the leads of both the Prisoner functionary and Kapo articles state that the terms are synonymous. Please see our discussion on the Prisoner functionary talk page, where I suggested a merge and he opposes it. I wonder if someone more experienced could pick up the thread of this DYK nomination. Thank you, Yoninah ( talk) 20:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
One of the two nominations in the DYK special occasion section has not yet been reviewed. General suggestion: to list that section with hooks nominated and approved like the others. Hoping to interest someone in Dorothee Mields, soprano -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I just removed this DYK from the Main Page. The article is comprised almost entirely of huge book quotes. The two big sources are old, so it might not be copyright violation, but it's still plagiarism to create an article with such large quotes. Jamie S93❤ 15:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I think Jamie was right to remove this; copy-and-pastes of outside sources shouldn't be rewarded and aren't the sort of thing we want to be boasting about on the front page. As for how this article got there, I see that The Bushranger both approved the hook ({{DYKtick}}) and moved it to prep two days later. This is precisely why it's good to avoid promoting the same hooks that you approved, unless we're in a time crunch; letting someone else do it adds another double-check to make sure these things don't slip through the cracks. Ideally, a given DYK nom should get reviewed & approved by one editor, promoted to Prep by another, and moved from Prep to the Queue by a third. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 16:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to all for the discussion and clarifications. I thought that I had bent over backwards to observe copyright by citing all the sources and going out of my way to find material over 100 yrs. old. I was attempting to add material that is comparable to the DANFS / Britannica articles, about a merchant ship, without simply taking a single public domain source in its entirety, as is done with many of the DANFS naval ship articles. Please note that the actual, verifiable factual material about sailing merchant ships of this era is not very large, despite the significance of some of these vessels, unless one consults archival materials or proprietary database sources, which I have been avoiding for reasons of copyright. Djembayz ( talk) 23:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Can my hook - "...that award winning author Lois Duncan thinks that her novel Don't Look Behind You was a premonition of her daughter being killed by a hired gunman?" be on the main page? I'm not sure if it would be too controversial to have it featured on the main page as part of DYK. Joe Chill ( talk) 23:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I was the nominator of Bobby Weed which was in Queue #5 which just took effect. However, I did not get credit for my nomination. Could someone please correct this for me? TIA. ---- moreno oso ( talk) 00:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
In hook 1 of Queue 3, "(example pictured)" needs to be italicized. Thanks. -- Bruce1ee talk 07:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Can updaters be sure to please put a quirky or funny hook in the last slot? We've had a few duds recently. Quirkies round an update off nicely and can make an otherwise weak update look much stronger. Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 09:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the hook for 2000 Dominican Republic presidential election in Queue 5 is discriminatory. The ' despite being blind and unable to walk ' makes it ableist.
It would be much more appropriate and more neutral POV if it read along the lines of:
... that Joaquín Balaguer who was blind and unable to walk without assistance at the time, won 24.6% of the vote in the 2000 Dominican Republic presidential election?
- HelioSmith ( talk) 23:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
*eyes four empty queues dubiously...* Just wondering what's up. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 00:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I was just told by an editor that a citation needs to be right after the hook, but I have had multiple experienced editors tell me that isn't so. I've seen many editors approve hooks without the citation right after the sentence and the hooks were never removed from the prep areas or queues.
So there is apparently two different belief systems when it comes to DYK approving. Reviewing the DYK rules, it says that hooks must be cited after the hooks. So what is up with these two belief systems and should the DYK rule be changed? Joe Chill ( talk) 12:31, 23 May 2010 (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 50 | ← | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | → | Archive 60 |
Right now, there are eight possible images to put up for Women's Day, to go with seven articles. Among the seven article images, one is of Nome, Alaska, one is of a man, and one is a painting by a man. I suggest that these images are less important to Women's Day. This leaves four articles offering images of women, linking to articles about women:
The second Liebman image, if selected, could be cropped for greater interest and focus. Me, I like the first portrait image because it is so apt for 100x100 pixel size limitations.
The four queues can pick up these images as the sun moves into their regions of interest, which are Eastern USA (2), Germany and Egypt. I propose a prime-time queuing like this, listed in UTC time:
Thoughts? Binksternet ( talk) 03:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
In hook 5 in Queue 5 I think " Bluestocking" should be " bluestocking". The Wiktionary entry has a New York Times quote where it is not capitalized. Should the word also be quoted in the hook? -- Bruce1ee talk 06:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I worked very very hard on the researching and referencing of this article - List of New York Legislature members expelled or censured.
Note: Point of clarification: Gatoclass ( talk · contribs) was the one who suggested to me to bring this discussion from T:TDYK to here 06:26, 6 March 2010. Subsequently, when it appears that consensus of a majority of editors does not support the POV of Gatoclass, he proposes to bring the discussion to yet another forum, 19:53, 8 March 2010. Cirt ( talk) 20:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I've recently noticed that the image rollover text is not appearing for me. Is it working for others? Gatoclass ( talk) 20:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Should reviewers of DYK hooks be restricted to users who have shown in some manner that they are trustworthy? If consensus determines 'yes', the measure of trustworthiness can be debated later. Among the suggested measures would be to limit reviewers to the 5,000 or so users with rollback rights, or the nearly 3,000 autoreviewers. Just guessing, I would say that the combined group would number about 6,000. Other determinations of trustworthiness can be suggested, but this RfC is simply to determine whether we should limit reviewers in some way. Binksternet ( talk) 19:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Since there is an obvious difficulty in adding to the existing workload for reviewers, I think as an alternative we may have to tighten up our eligibility criteria. We could, for example, require that every article, at least from an unfamiliar user, include at least one online source to verify the existence of the individual or subject of the article. I don't think that should represent too much of a burden on contributors, since the overwhelming majority of our submissions contain plenty of online refs. Thoughts?
Gatoclass (
talk)
12:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
How about if articles with no online refs are marked with a certain icon, so that reviewers and updaters know to take particular care when checking the article? That way, we could take more time over the review of such articles. Gatoclass ( talk) 16:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
How is this item
not blatant advertising? -- Peter Farago ( talk) 23:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Would this image be appropriate (in terms of flashiness) for a DYK lead on the main page? Materialscientist ( talk) 08:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Chicago time be updated, it is an hour of ahead of the actual Chicago time (daylight savings time issue?) CTJF83 chat 06:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Queue1 sheduled for the 13th. I missed a wrong year, the launch of ExoMars is delayed and will happen now in 2018. Can an admin change:
that iron-55 source will be used in an X-ray diffraction instrument flown to Mars in 2013?
To
that iron-55 source will be used in an X-ray diffraction instrument flown to Mars in 2018? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone ( talk • contribs) 13:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Binksternet kindly left me a 500 DYK creation medal today, which got me reminiscing. I've enjoyed participating in this project and value its ability to draw attention to diverse and little-known subjects. I'm still amazed that 21,800 people viewed an article about a little-known house in Pasadena based on a hook I submitted (...that Frank Lloyd Wright said of the Millard House that he "would rather have built this little house than St. Peter's in Rome"?). Binksternet reminded me of another (... that 19th-century California bandit Procopio, also known as Red-Handed Dick, was said to "love the feel and the color of warm blood," and his name was used by mothers to frighten their children?). And there's one that I thought might be a record-breaker but barely registered (... that the white suckerfish responds to a touch on its belly by forcefully erecting its pelvic fins?). Some other favorites are at My Favorites. DYK has brought me many hours of entertainment, and occasionally enlightenment, over the past three years, and I want to thank everyone who works so hard on the project. Despite the occasional drama over hoaxes, rules and unwritten rules, BLP debates, quibbles over hook appropriateness, etc. (and probably frustration with my recent penchant for college football articles), this is a really extraordinary and valuable project. Cheers. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Could an admin please monitor the next update of 18:00 13 Feb (I am offline, but will be back for the update after). If no time, just copy/paste the hooks from queue 3 into hooks of T:DYK. Thanks. Materialscientist ( talk) 12:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I have done a page move from Academic All-American to Academic All-America. The hook should reflect the change.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
It appears that on 6 March we had the following hook on the main page:
Problems:
Just a heads-up for those who are active in this are, to be a bit more careful in the future if time allows. Hans Adler 21:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we need a post mortem of what happened, just being a bit more alert in the future should help. I would like to help with that, but I don't understand the DYK process. What would be the best page(s) to watch so that I could just go over the hooks of (very likely to be) accepted articles to check them for POV? Hans Adler 09:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I do appreciate the efforts of that user to improve wikipedia and provide new material to T:TDYK. Yet, several editors have expressed concerns with the use of unreliable references (i.e. not clearly not passing WP:RS, even spam sites) and with marginal notability of the topics. As I have returned 2 of their hooks from preps in the last 2 days I would ask the promoting editors (and referees) to double check their noms. The intention is to urge AnakngAraw to improve the quality of their work. Materialscientist ( talk) 00:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
With about a dozen of approved hooks right now, it is very difficult to compose balanced sets. Direct promotion to the queues increases the risk of factual and stylistic blunders. St. Patrick's day noms are the priority. Materialscientist ( talk) 08:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be a new coinage that is not even explained in the article. The article just treats it as if everybody knew what it means. That doesn't seem to be acceptable.
At the very least the word needs scare quotes or something like "so-called" in the hook, so that people don't go to the article in order to – learn nothing about the word. I would just do it, but Q4 is protected and I am not an admin. Hans Adler 13:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
If an article is completely rewritten (completely, considering it had no valid sourcing before and thus had to be rewritten to comply with the new sources), but it's length is then shorter than what it was before, even though it is now entirely different from previous, does it still not fit DYK just for the fact that it has to be expanded fivefold regardless? Or does the fact that it is entirely new material put it more on the "new" side of things and, thus, make it a valid article? Silver seren C 14:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Ive noticed a small error in the hook supplied for a new article;
I have started to place the St. Patty's Day hooks in prep 1, prep 2 and extra prep. I moved the James Long hook out of the lead in prep 1 (and added it to prep 2 as a non-lead) to make room for a St. Patrick's Day hook. I thought that was best for March 17 lead, but if anyone feels the Long hook should be a lead, maybe it could be saved for March 18? I realize the three lead hooks for St. Patty's that I chose are not "fully developed" articles, but I think they are the best Irish-themed images for the lead spot. I expect the National Leprechaun Museum (lead hook for US daytime on March 17) to draw a lot of views; it's a pretty clever hook. Cbl62 ( talk) 03:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest we go with this hook (ALT2), dealing with a fact from an event that occurred in 1779. Please note this comment by Cmadler, and this comment by Nyttend. All recommendations for changes to the article have been addressed, both from suggestions here and at WP:BLPN. The article deals primarily with individuals dead for over 100 years. Every single sentence in the article is cited to WP:RS appropriate sources. Thank you, -- Cirt ( talk) 18:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Hook 1 of Queue 5 needs a "(pictured)". Thanks. -- Bruce1ee talk 12:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering, does anyone know why Grace Groner appeared as DYK twice (on March 15, and currently)? - M.Nelson ( talk) 20:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought I'd seen a rule invoked that the fact used for the hook had to appear in the prose section of the article with an inline citation, and that it was not accepted if it appeared, for example, in a table or an image caption. However, I can't find this documented anywhere. See [3] for the current issue. Thoughts? cmadler ( talk) 13:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The fact we give in the hook is usually an important part of the article, so if it is a list article the lead would mention it too. However, it's not necessary to cite the fact in the lead (per WP:LEADCITE) as long as it's clearly given in the article. If it's a fact that can't be directly given in the table/list, then it will have to be separately cited in the lead. For example, taking one of my own recent lists, List of international cricket centuries by Mahela Jayawardene, if I say that Jayawardene has scored the most centuries for Sri Lanka I have to cite it in the lead since it's not possible to give that information completely in the table. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
(outdenting) Let me put it this way. DYK does not actually exist for the sake of our contributors. It exists for our readership, the thousands of people who see the mainpage of wikipedia and who decide to follow up on the links they see there.
A DYK hook is just that - it's a means of getting a reader's interest, so that he is motivated to go and read the article. Creating interest in wikipedia is what the mainpage is all about, but coincidentally the interest that is inspired is also part of the payoff for our contributors, because it means more people have a chance to read and appreciate their work.
Now, just imagine the process when someone sees a DYK hook that interests him, so he clicks on the article to read more about it. But when he gets to the article, he finds to his suprise that the hook is not mentioned in the actual prose. Perhaps if he searches carefully, in a table or the original references, he may be able to find it or confirm it, but now he has had to work to find it, which is likely to leave him feeling irritated or perhaps even cheated. Or he may not be able to find it at all, which is likely to leave him feeling even more irritated and/or cheated. What is the end result of this process? A dissatisfied reader, who is that much less likely to return to the wikipedia mainpage or to click on a DYK link again. And the more such experiences the reader has, the less likely he is to bother again. So wikipedia loses and so do the mainpage contributors.
The point is, we have to think about DYK primarily from the POV of our readers rather than our contributors. We want to make DYK as interesting and as accessible and fun as possible, frustrating the readership with difficult to find hooks is obviously going to be counterproductive to those aims. By contrast, it's only a small imposition on our contributors to ask for the hook to be clearly expressed in the prose portion, but by meeting the expectations of readers, there is a longterm payoff for them as well. Gatoclass ( talk) 01:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that the hooks on the April Fools DYK page are starting to pile up, and if last year is any indication, it will only become much, much worse. I have never reviewed any DYK's, only submitted ones, but i will try my hand at reviewing the back long there, and i would love some help from experienced reviewers.-- Found5dollar ( talk) 14:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Is the tracklisting/personnel section counted in the "readable content" count? f o x (formerly garden) 20:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Can soemone rename the DYK credit for #5 from "Coldplay Expert" (my old name) to my current one? Thanks.-- Whité Shadows you're breaking up 01:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
In the Villiers High School hook in Queue 1, the hyphen in West-London is not needed. Pls could an admin tweak accordingly. Cheers! Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 20:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
For a five times expansion, does the hook fact have to be part of the newly added material? 159.83.4.153 ( talk) 23:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant has a hook that is not supported by the sources. It is partially supported by one source and not mentioned by others, but even Suetonius doesn't say that Claudius had to run round the lake, just that he did. Yomangani talk 17:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC) (and "around" is wrong too. The lake was huge).
I am new to reserving hooks for a specific date and confused. Two hooks were reserved for 21 March, birthday of Bach: Gloria in excelsis Deo, BWV 191 and Gächinger Kantorei. Now I find the first one in queue 5, the second in prep area 1. To my understanding that means that the second one will not appear 21 March at all. But that is the one actually mentioning the date. Therefore: most desirable both hooks 21 March as reserved or -- if not possible (but then what is the reservation for?) - switch the two that at least the one with the date appears on the date. Thank you! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the bot crashed while performing the last DYK update from Queue1 (6 hours ago), I finished giving the credits and tagging the pages, but I can't clear queue 1 or reset the timer so it's still there. Yazan ( talk) 00:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
At present in prep area 2: To my understanding ALT1 should be taken, s. discussion. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I just created Template:NewDYKnomination/guide as a step-by-step instruction for how to fill out the nomination template, explaining what things to leave blank, what belongs in each field, yada yada yada. It doesn't have any information that wasn't already in the template documentation, but seeing all that information at once is maybe intimidating for someone who's never used the template before...this guide should, hopefully, allow a new nominator to take things one at a time and not have to know any technical stuff to understand how to use the template. If someone has already nominated a lot (as probably everyone reading this page has) you don't need to look at this, but for a newbie hopefully it will help. (I'm not sure if it's necessary, as I haven't seen a whole lot of template errors lately, but I suppose it can't hurt. Also, the irony is not lost on me that a template designed to streamline the DYK process has come to require several pages worth of documentation and instructions...oh well!)
Here's what it looks like, for those who are curious:
Type in your article name into the box below, and click on the blue button to create your nomination.
This will open an edit box with the following template:
{{subst:NewDYKnomination
| article = {{subst:str right|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|25}}
| article2 =
| status = new / expanded / mainspace / redirect / GA
| hook = ... that ...? <small>Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)</small>
| ALT1 = ... that ...? <small>Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)</small>
| author =
| author2 =
| image =
| caption =
| comment =
| reviewed =
}}
Add the names of the articles you are nominating. You can skip this step if you are only nominating one article, and its name is the same as the one you typed into the input box above.
Add the name of the first article (no wiki formatting) to the parameter called |article=
. For example:
| article = French Revolution
If you are nominating more than one article, add the others to |article2=
, |article3=
, etc. Example:
| article2 = Maximilien Robespierre | article3 = Guillotine | article4 = Cake
Add the hook to the parameter called |hook=
, following the hook guidelines at
WP:DYK#The hook. Remember to begin the hook with "... that", to end it with a question mark, and to link the article title within the hook and make it bold. If you will be using an image with the hook, don't forget to put ''(pictured)''
in it. Example:
| hook = ... that a lot of people died during the '''[[French Revolution]]''' ''(pictured)''?
|status=new
. If you expanded it from an existing article, make |status=expanded
. If you newly source and expand a completely unsourced
BLP, make |status=BLP expanded
. If you moved it from non-mainspace to mainspace, make |status=moved
. If the article passed a
Good Article review, make |status=GA
. If you converted the page to an article from a redirect or a disambiguation page, use |status=redirect
.Add the names of the editors who contributed to the article being nominated for DYK. You can skip this step if you are the main contributor, and there are no other contributors that need to be credited.
In the parameter called |author=
add the name of the article's primary author (whoever did the work that's being nominated for DYK—either the person who originally created the article, or the one who expanded it recently). Type out the username in plain text with no formatting; do not use ~~~~
. Example:
| author = Jimbo Wales
Just like the article names, you can add more than one author if several people collaborated, using |author2=
, |author3=
, etc.
|author=
, don't worry. The template knows that you are the nominator; you don't have to fill in anything extra.If you are not nominating an image to go with your hook, skip this section.
If you are nominating an image, put its filename in |image=
. Do note use File:
, Image:
, or any attributes like thumb
and 100px
, just use the bare filename, like this:
| image = Prise de la Bastille.jpg
After that, add an appropriate caption in the |caption=
parameter. This supplies both the
tooltip (the text that appears when a reader leaves his mouse over the image for a moment) and the
alt-text (the text that is used by screen readers or is shown to readers whose browser cannot display the image). It should be a physical description of the contents of the image, not a comment about the image. Please review
WP:ALT to see the guidelines for how alt-text should be written.
Overall, the code for the image nomination should look something like this:
| image = Prise de la Bastille.jpg | caption = A painting depicting the storming of the Bastille, 1789
If you have any additional comments or explanation to add (such as "the source of the hook fact can be found on page 12"), add them in the |comment=
field. If not, leave that field blank.
| comment = Article created in my userspace on May 12, moved to mainspace on June 3.
If applicable, list the article that you reviewed, in accordance with the review requirement. Please provide the article name, or note that you still have to conduct a review.
| reviewed = I still have to review another nomination and will post this here once it's done.
If you have only one hook to suggest for your nomination, skip this step. But if you want to suggest more than one hook, you can put addition hooks in the fields |ALT1=
, |ALT2=
, etc.
| ALT1 = ... that millions of high school students learn about the '''[[French Revolution]]''' ''(pictured)'' every year?
Now the template in the edit window should be nicely filled up. Mine looks something like this:
{{subst:NewDYKnomination
| article = French Revolution
| article2 =
| status = expanded
| hook = ... that a lot of people died during the '''[[French Revolution]]''' ''(pictured)''?
| ALT1 = ... that millions of high school students learn about the '''[[French Revolution]]''' ''(pictured)'' every year?
| author = Jimbo Wales
| author2 =
| image = Prise de la Bastille.jpg
| caption = A painting depicting the storming of the Bastille, 1789
| comment = Please save this nomination for a couple days so it can be on the main page for April Fools' Day!
| reviewed = Everlost (novel)
}}
(Your nomination does not necessarily need to have so many fields filled in. I just purposely filled in a lot to illustrate all of them.)
When you are ready, save the page. It should look something like this:
5x expanded by Jimbo Wales ( talk). Nominated by Mr. Stradivarius ( talk) at 05:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC).
As always, comments, suggestions, and tweaks are welcome. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 02:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to keep doing this, but ... hook 1 of Queue 3 needs a "(pictured)". Thanks. -- Bruce1ee talk 07:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I expect everybody is now aware of the fact that we (that is to say, Wikipedia) have been doing alt text the wrong way :) Wikipedia:Alternative text for images is no longer a Wikipedia guideline, at least until the matter is resolved. It has also been temporarily removed from both FA and FL criteria. According to the discussion so far on Wikipedia talk:Alternative text for images, the idea seems to be that alt text should be short and concise. Quote from the expert's comment there: "Alternative text is an alternative to the image. It is NOT a description of an image."
Perhaps the updaters are doing this already, but I suggest we mention only what the image is (without describing it) on the DYK template until this is cleared up. See the alt text on WP:POTD for example. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
In the fourth hook in queue 3, 'magnitude' is currently linked to Richter scale - it should be linked to Moment magnitude scale, as in the article. I'd be grateful if someone could fix that. Mikenorton ( talk) 07:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the hook in Queue 4 that is set to hit the Main Page in the morning -- I am not an expert in the law on vicarious liability for disparagement, common law right of publicity, implied endorsement, or California's Civil Code 3344 (statutory equivalent of right of publicity), but the article itself notes that Cruise is presently seeking legal advice for use of his name and likeness to promote a psychotropic drug. Given the potential legal dispute, is this something that has been fully vetted to ensure that we are comfortable featuring it on the Main Page? I am not advocating a particular outcome, but want to make sure that this has been thought through. Cbl62 ( talk) 00:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Normally I dislike repetition but in this case I don't find the original hook problematic, as one use is split and it hardly notices. On the other hand, there are problems with all the suggested alts (the last one for example being ambiguous). So unless someone comes up with something else, I would just stick with the original. Gatoclass ( talk) 11:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
A question has arisen at Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know#Rules Question, regarding one of the DYK rules for April fools. any input would be great!-- Found5dollar ( talk) 16:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Oops, just spotted a grammar mistake in queue 4 (and I was the person who drafted the DYK nomination). For Edward Richardson, it should say "...was the first person to build..." rather than "...was the first person to built...". Sorry for that. Schwede 66 19:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Queue 6, hook 5: The Master of Game needs to be italicized. Thanks. -- Bruce1ee talk 05:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it a shame that such a good article as this is given such a horribly phrased hook: "... that the three primary factors to survival in the Donner Party were age, sex, and the size of each person's family group?" "Three primary factors to survival"??? This would shame even a sociologist. It's live in an hour or so; can someone please rewrite this in English? Ericoides ( talk) 19:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The It's A Crime, Mr. Collins hook currently reads:
It should really read "...was deemed to be a flagrant rip-off...", as the reference in the article is to a single person's opinion. Physchim62 (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I know that administrators, who were involved with editors are not allowed to block the editors. I strongly believe that the administrators, who were heavily involved in the articles deletion requests should not be allowed neither to comment nor to vote on DYK nomination of that article. It dictates by common sense.It is simply a bad tone to do otherwise. Thanks.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 05:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The nomination was removed with the reason "AFD closed as "no consensus" " [4]. It is extremely unfair and wrong. The most vocal opposer was User:Gatoclass. Please see some language the user used in the deletion request badly sourced, POV rant, when asked how he could call Robert Kennedy writings "rant" I was explained that it is my presentation that made it rant (he later deleted word "rant" after I complained at his talk page). Then he said "Well if he wrote copiously on the topic, you ought to be able to create a more nuanced article than a grab-bag of comments that make him sound like a cheerleader for Zionism". Later in DYK nomination he said to me: "As for time wasting, seems to me you are the one who has wasted a great deal of everyone's time by writing an article that was immediately nominated for AfD on the basis of numerous apparent inadequacies, and which others have had to spend a considerable amount of time trying to rectify, so I hardly think you are in a position to accuse others of this particular vice" that was a clear discrimination towards my English and writing skills. The truth is that Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) is extremely well sourced article, that was re-written by many other editors to remove any POV, there is no POV tag present in the article now. It was removed by me on March 13, and nobody posted it back. There was no valid reason not to promote the article. It was a wrong thing to do, and should be corrected.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 06:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, are we in a feast or famine as far as hooks go? If the latter, I will prioritise fivefold expanding a few more articles. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Does it makes sense that all of the content in a DYK hook for a triple nom is required to be in every article and be together? I have a current nomination for USAC Stock Cars, one of its champions Norm Nelson, who won one race in rival series NASCAR at the only time NASCAR raced at Las Vegas Park Speedway. For instance, why should the USAC article have content about a race in a rival series? USAC itself only raced once at that speedway, so having content about that race is too trivial and off topic to be included in the USAC article. Even less relevant should be content about a race done by a rival sanction, right? The rules are written for a single nomination and don't fit cases like this one. I thought we had consensus for cases like this, but I don't find it in the "Rules" or "Additional Rules". I think that's because we don't want the rules to be too wordy and list every last scenario. Royal broil 12:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a hook on the main page for Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories that reads:
... that although U.S. President Barack Obama is Christian, high-ranked al-Qaida member Ayman al-Zawahiri has falsely claimed that Obama secretly "pray[s] the prayers of the Jews"?
I don't believe that such a hook should have been approved. This hook violates the neutrality criteria required by DYK which states focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided. I would also like to point out that the article Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories does not state that al-Qaida member Ayman al-Zawahiri claims are false. Am I the only one who is dissatisfied with such a hook? Smallman12q ( talk) 16:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I did mention it earlier, but it seems to have got overlooked. 1 April is almost upon us, there are 30 hooks approved, and 17 still to be approved. This quantity of hooks may mean a tweak in the duration each batch appears for. Mjroots ( talk) 11:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
We had originally hoped Quehanna Wild Area might be the April Fools TFA, but it qualifies for DYK this year and is a new FA. Just nominated it here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for helping doing this year's AFMP. I did a lot of work on it the past few years. There's a template where the hooks have been archived in the past. For each DYK set, would someone please paste in the main page? Near the end of a set's run (to ensure that there isn't major changes during a set's run), I carefully copied the the source code for the main page. Then I pasted it in the appropriate archive. I had to subst each and every template because they constant change - there's a large number to subst. I might be able to get the first, second, and fourth groups but there's no way I could do the third. Royal broil 12:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hook 1 of Queue 6 needs a "(pictured)". Thanks. -- Bruce1ee talk 05:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
What to do with left over hooks from Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know/Archive 2010? look to be about 15 that weren't exactly declined. Should we move them back to the talk template under their prospective submission dates? Most if used, will probably need their hooks changed now that 0401 is done. Calmer Waters 00:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I've done a few, but I need a break. There are currently only 15, could someone pitch in and do a few? Gatoclass ( talk) 11:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Max van Egmond was reserved for Good Friday and is not in a queue for April 2. I hope that will be changed. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
It was suggested to me that I might put a special consideration request in here for this DYK. As it relates to one (actually, two) of the ballplayers who will be playing in tonight's NCAA national basketball championship game (and one of his teammates got nearly 10K hits yesterday), I thought the timeliness of it might be of interest, if it could be put up today. Many thanks for your consideration.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The hook is currently in queue 2 and reads: ... that Bach marked to repeat the opening chorus of cantata Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten, BWV 172 after the final chorale? - I am happy that the first suggestion "made it", but since its nomination one character in the title changed, and a new wiki-link would be possible, please compare the discussion. Therefore I suggest to change to ... that Bach marked to repeat the opening chorus of cantata Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172 after the final chorale? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, It is my understanding that we generally don't delete talkpage content that is not otherwise in violation of policy, normally we tend to collapse a conversation which has run its course or reflects a previous reality. Is this the case on DYK as well? I am seeing an editor repeatedly removing talkpage comments and while I don't want to harass the person I find it unlikely that such deletion is proper, could someone set me straight either way? Thanks! Unomi ( talk) 09:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I've kicked this off with the first nom. Just gonna have to be a bit patient now until it can appear.
Mjroots (
talk)
08:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Could a few of the admins who look in on DYK from time to time add User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors to their watch list. This is the file the DYK bot uses to report problems it detects an issue. There was a 2½ hour delay in an update today due to a missing <!--Hooks--> line, with the bot having reported the problem two hours before the update was scheduled to run. A couple more eyes scattered across a variety of time zones would probably help to keep things running on a regular basis when the occasional hiccup occurs. -- Allen3 talk 20:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I had a query that im unsure of. Lets say on May 28th or so (hypothetically an article is created) on May 30th it is nominated for deletion, On June 7th it is closed as keep, and on June 8th Its listed for dyk. Is it still ok to treat as a new article?., or is it necessary to treat it as a 5x expansion. Thanks for the thoughts out there, happy editing, Ottawa4ever ( talk) 08:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Pls could a watching admin tweak the lead hook in Queue 2 ( capilla abierta) by adding (pictured). Thanks! Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 19:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
is 8-9 May - can we do a special occasion of migratory bird articles? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the bot jumped off Queue 4, and updated DYK with Queue 5 instead. Because now we have Q3, and Q5 as empty. Yazan ( talk) 07:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Why are newer DYK nominations generally being chosen for the main page at the moment instead of older ones which have less time to be possibly chosen? Seems silly as far as I am concerned. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 19:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
That's a fine hook, and it would be good to have a donated image, but I can't really tell what the image is of at 100px. I'll look for an image that might look better at 100px. (or maybe it's my small monitor, tell me) NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs/ Vote! 22:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Well after that long period with a massively excessive number of submissions, suddenly the number has dropped back to only 140 or so. I suggest that if we get as low as 120 again, we move back to three eight hour updates a day. Gatoclass ( talk) 14:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Looking at it in the queue, I think that the hook has a missing 'the', as in "... that the 60 million years old Carmelo Formation". I verified it but failed to notice that, maybe others think that the change is unnecessary. Mikenorton ( talk) 22:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
In today's DYK: "... that 6th-century poet Talhaearn Tad Awen has left no surviving verse, yet may have been remembered as the father of Welsh poetry, whose work used to be rewarded with 100 cows in a bath-tub every Saturday?" That's an intriguing teaser, and sounds like an April Fool's Day entry, so I went to the article to read more about the cows. No cows. As far as I can see, this teaser was in the nominations [14] but I can't find cows in any of the earlier versions in the article's history. If this is vandalism or a hoax, I don't see how it was done. -- A Knight Who Says Ni ( talk) 00:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Queue 1, third hooks reads: "... that the owner of the Minuscule 671 and the place of its housing officially is unknown?" Ok, English is not my first language, but shouldn't that rather be "... that the owner of the Minuscule 671 and the place of its housing is officially unknown?" Schwede 66 09:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Let me ask you the following: what are we, after all, supposed to be using - A. (pictured) (italics include the brackets) or B. (pictured) (italics only within the brackets). I distinctly remember that the standard was defined as variant B., but all the hooks now seem to go with option A. It's whichever, but it has to be one. Dahn ( talk) 23:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
We are now down to 126 hooks with several queues empty. Definitely time to go to an 8-hour cycle. Gatoclass ( talk) 16:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Recently, I saw that the archives had been reorganized by month. Then I saw that was all reverted back to the ad hoc numerical system. What gives?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Karl-Otto Kiepenheuer was doing research on the sun and its interaction with earth, sunspots and a lot of other aspects of the sun. This is not exactly pointed out when you call him a researcher on solar energy. There might be a change to solar physics or somthing similar be the best choice to go on. Sorry for pointing out this so late! I nominated the article, and I read the hook several times, but I did not get that it now reads different.-- Stone ( talk) 15:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
A couple of suggested adjustments to Queue 6, for admins in the vicinity: Rene Farrell's pic needs to have the right parameter removed to align it correctly; and in the third hook (Norwegian railways), some word order changing: to never be → never to be. Thx, Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 19:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas (and I think some other places also) says:
N5: Because of the preponderance of submissions on US topics and biography hooks, it is usually appropriate to have roughly 50% of hooks in a given update on both US and biography topics. That is to say, in an eight-hook update you should have roughly four hooks per update on US topics, and four on biography. These are not mutually exclusive, for example if you have two US bio hooks that would count as both two US hooks and two bio hooks. Note that "roughly 50%" means just that – this is not an absolute; you can have less of either if there are not many currently available such hooks to choose from on the Suggestions page. Note however that as a general rule you should never have more than 50% of hooks on US, biography or any other topic, except when doing so is unavoidable.
Of the 56 hooks in 6 queues and 1 prep area currently, I count 15 on US topics, about 25%. This strikes me as reasonably close to what we've had for a little while, and I think it is a reasonable representation of approved hooks over the past weeks. I suggest that the above guideline be changed to replace "roughly" with "no more than", as follows (changes are italicized):
I just think we shouldn't say "roughly 50%" given that 50% seems unreasonably high based on what we've had recently. Thoughts? cmadler ( talk) 20:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I am concerned about all of the DYK nominations rejected by User:BruceSwanson. In the past hour, he has flatly rejected 7 nominations. I don't believe that his reasons are in keeping with DYK practices. For example, a nomination about an Andy Warhol work was rejected because there was no picture. Articles about other people with multiple reasons for notability (a politician who tried out for the Olympics, and a woman who competed at the top levels as both a sprinter and weighlifter) were rejected because they are not interesting enough. However, DYK has let several hooks go that are far less interesting than these. What is the best way to proceed with these rejected nominations? Can someone provide a second opinion? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 04:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's a question I'm not sure there's an answer to in the rules: Does a breakout page, in which the text taken from the previous article meets DYK criteria otherwise, qualify? And who is credited with it - the person who did the breakout, the creator of the content on the previous page (which might have been created more than five days ago on that page...), both, or...? - The Bushranger ( talk) 14:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The "winningest" coach - I'm sorry but as an English Literature major I have to say that that isn't a real word. Can we change it to "most successful" or equivalent please? Giant Snowman 05:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Abductive recently pointed out to me that his proposed hook for Mimie Mathy appeared in two different DYK sets sent to the Main Page, on April 30 and May 1. The root cause of this was a mistake on my part, when compiling a DYK set in prep1 on April 27. My general practice when I compile DYK sets is to first place the {{inuse}} template on the prep area, open T:TDYK in another browser, and open tabs in the second browser window for each of the hooks as I select them. I only blank the hook from T:TDYK when I have copied over both the hook and credit, and have finalized what order I want the hooks to be in. Sometimes when I attempt to blank a hook, I get an edit conflict. When this happens, I open another tab with the hook and blank it from the new tab, because the edit conflict window lists the full content of T:TDYK, which isn't helpful for such a large page. Occasionally, when I click a section edit link on T:TDYK, the wrong section opens for editing; I've never seen this happen on any other Wikipedia page, but I figure it has to do with the length of T:TDYK.
In this case, I must have received an edit conflict when attempting to clear out the Mimie Mathy hook on T:TDYK, since the T:TDYK edit history shows six of the seven hooks I added removed around the time I saved the edit to prep1. ( Julie Hunter was already there before I started.) When I tried to open the Mimie Mathy section again, the wrong section must have opened with me noticing, resulting in the wrong hook being removed. Since the Mimie Mathy hook was still on the page, User:Allen3 ended up adding it to another set later on, resulting in the hook appearing twice on the Main Page.
I've restored the hook I accidentally removed. I'm very sorry about all of this, and will strive to be more careful when updating Did you know in the future. – Grondemar 19:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The fourth bullet in queue 3 has two DYK items in it. There's a bullet point missing for the second item. Schwede 66 00:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This has been nominated as an almost 5x expansion, but has already appeared on DYK. Editor Calmer Waters has commented that it may be eligible to reappear per past discussion. Is this really the case? My suggestion would be that the expander should push for GA status now. Mjroots ( talk) 08:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It was nominated in 2007, by a different person, and it's now near FA level. This should be an obvious IAR, IMHO.... — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Given that the consensus for a three-year rule may or may not apply, and there is clearly not consensus for the vague "a long time has passed", I am restoring the stated rule D1 back to the previous no repeats - no exceptions rule. cmadler ( talk) 12:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Can someone run the tool on Bombardier Advanced Rapid Transit for me? It's got some complex layout... Maury Markowitz ( talk) 16:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Request that a formely imaged item be held until a spot with an image opens up? (ae you get up a hook it's confirmed but the image is removed and it's not the head line, "just" a hook). This is regarding the bit on asphalt volcanism in Quene 5. It's an interesting topic and I was wondering if I could plug it into the "most viewed" of the month. Call me ambitious but it certainly seems more interesting then genestation periods...no offense intended. Thank you. Res Mar 01:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to ask for general thoughts about including articles about expected future events in DYK. The article that raised this specific concern for me is 2010–11 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team (Hook: Template talk:Did you know#2010–11 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team). Aside from the obvious problem with the tense in which the article is written, is there any broader issue with putting an article about an expected future event on the main page via DYK? Thanks, cmadler ( talk) 19:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I have some NPOV concerns about the hook ... that Arizona passed the toughest illegal immigrant law in the U.S. following the murder of rancher Robert Krentz? that is currently in the queue, as it implies that the two events are action-reaction. It's like saying "Did you know that Germany passed the toughest illegal immigration laws in its history following the murder of a German railroad worker". The article itself uses one source to tie the two events together, and says that it "contributed" and that "there were no suspects, but speculation suggested it may have been", this all seems like an awful lot of conjecture to now be serving up in a DYK hook which implictly suggests that Mexicans were responsible for murdering someone, and thus must be cracked down upon. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 21:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
This is my first time building a DYK set (at T:DYK/P2). Did I do well? One question I have though is whether the credit to User:Suomi Finland 2009 for Galaxy 15 is proper, since he created a redirect and not the article that soon replaced it. PleaseStand (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The "(pictured)" in queue 4, hook 1 needs to be italicized. Thanks. -- Bruce1ee talk 05:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
At Template_talk:Did_you_know#City_of_Military_Glory I have posted a hook, and have changed the initial photo of a ceremony to a video of the ceremony. I don't believe there is any hard and fast rule about only photos being able to be used at DYK? But would there be any drawbacks to using videos at DYK on front page? As were are WP:NOTPAPER, there is no limitations or is that? At National Anthem of Russia I have placed a video (a featured sound at that) of a performance of the anthem in the infobox instead of a photo. But what about DYK. Thoughts please. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 20:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
fume hood says that biosafety cabinets are a class of fume hood in the intro. Riffraffselbow ( talk) 08:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you add the date 2008 before the word Broadway? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, Russavia ( talk · contribs) has managed to get around it. The 2010 Moscow Victory Day Parade article appeared on DYK, and is now back on the Main Page as an ITN article! Mjroots ( talk) 20:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
To make it align properly, pls could the |right parameter be removed from the Ruins of Khulda pic in Queue 6. Cheers, Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 07:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
For May 13 I nominated Kurt Huber some days ago and would like to see at least a question. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hook 1 of
Queue 4 is missing a "(pictured)".
In hook 1 of
Queue 5, "(pictured)" should be "(pictured)". Thanks. --
Bruce1ee
talk
05:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
In view of the many new articles clamoring from some DYK exposure, I am proposing to increase the minimum required prose from 1500 characters to 2500 (or even double to 3000 if we can get consensus). Maybe this will reduce the DYK workload somewhat, but the real reason for this proposal is to push the quality of new articles higher. There will always be new articles that are just a stub, but to deserve a DYK main-page accolade, editors should put in some extra effort to add more content. Afterall, 1500 characters is really low. The 1500 rule has been there since February 2007; it's time to raise the bar! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
(to avoid long drawn-out discussions, let's confine discussion only to this proposal, not other DYK rules)
Support but would like to have seen more discussion. FA and GA have raised standards considerably since 2007, DYK could easily follow along. An exception could be made if the nominator can show that he has exhausted the topit.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it's probably time we went back to a six-hour cycle, we currently have 245 hooks on suggestions and the queues are almost full. Gatoclass ( talk) 04:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm still not sure how the DYK process works, even after reading the rules page. I accepted a challenge by Victuallers to review nominations, which I did, and now I am wondering how they get to the main page? I went ahead and moved 3 of them ( Fred Thompson (writer), Japan Series Most Valuable Player Award, and Capella Javelin) to the prep area because 2 of them were almost 5 days old. Was this the right thing to do? Or does a more experienced editor or bot comb the nominations page for approved hooks to move to the prep area? And is it an administrator's responsibility to move them from there to the queue?
Also, I still see on the nominations page hooks that are 4 or 5 or more days old and have not yet been reviewed. Have these just been "passed over" by your editors, or will they wilt away because no one has time to review them? Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 13:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
What are we going to do about the articles? Gatoclass ( talk) 07:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
After a first inspection the article Manatee Palms Youth Services looks legitimate. Obviously I don't know if the accusations it contains are all true, but to the extent that I have checked them they appear to be backed up with reliable sources. I can't judge the reliability of the Bradenton Herald, but the Los Angeles Times article about the owning company is revealing and makes this article very plausible, to put it mildly.
Given the conditions at that institution and its function I don't find it surprising that we might have an editor here who (1) is highly motivated to write an article about it which stresses the grievances, and (2) might not be as convinced of our values as we are. Let's make sure that we preserve the integrity of our information, but that we also don't throw out the baby with the bath water. I suggest that a few more editors check the article for neutrality, and if everything is fine we return it to the DYK queue. Hans Adler 14:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
...if a new article appears as a "non-DYK" (non-bolded) link in a hook, is it still eligible to appear as a "main course" DYK? - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 17:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want to know why I moved hooks with images to Prep 2 without the pictures, it's because the number of reviewed articles with pictures and without are very unbalanced. Joe Chill ( talk) 00:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Are there any conventions regarding the nomination of an article created/expanded by another user?
It's generally regarded as a courtesy to ask the creator first. I have had people nom articles of mine which I intended for DYK but which I hadn't finished preparing, or which I was planning for a multi-hook. That sort of thing can be pretty annoying, so I think it's good practice to inform first. Gatoclass ( talk) 05:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
How would I add an image to the article Cyrba under May 13 without redoing the entire template? Joe Chill ( talk) 12:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
A very small thing, but I realise now that I forgot to note that I nominated the George de Bothezat article that's in Q3 (because I have a self-nom in the same hook as a double hook). In a double hook like this, does the nominator get nom credit for the double when it's by another author, or just the DYK credit for their own article? - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 22:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I am too sleepy to rewrite the last hook of prep1,
but IMO, it should accentuate what the Maginot Line was (a French fortification used in the WWII). Materialscientist ( talk) 23:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The "pictured" notation of the Courageous-class-battlecruiser hook could possibly use clarification - to "pictured after aircraft carrier conversion", perhaps. Because that photo shows her after she was rebuilt as a bird farm, instead of her original configuration as a battlecruiser. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 02:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hook 1 of Queue 1 needs a "(pictured)". Thanks. -- Bruce1ee talk 15:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I have a question, an article I have been working I would like to nominate for DYK soon, but it is dependent on one thing: the article, when I started editing it, was about 1200 characters of plagiarism directly lifted from the company website. I rewrote it, and expanded it to about 5000 characters. In retrospect, I feel like I could have deleted the plagiarized content first and saved, which would have made the rewrite and expansion passable, but I did not want to do it that way. Since I removed the plagiarized content and rewrote in a single edit, would this keep the article from qualifying for nomination? - Theornamentalist ( talk) 21:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it a good idea to have two soul/R&B singers - Jimmy Hughes and The Mighty Hannibal - in the same set of hooks? I don't mind personally, but someone might want to think whether either mine or Derek's should be swapped into a different queue.
Ghmyrtle (
talk) 16:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Too late!
Ghmyrtle (
talk)
18:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone have both of these scripts installed at the same time and, if so, have you experienced any problems with them working together? Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi again, I have run into a disagreement with the creator of this article and am not sure how to proceed. Marrante insists that a Prisoner functionary is different from a Kapo, although the leads of both the Prisoner functionary and Kapo articles state that the terms are synonymous. Please see our discussion on the Prisoner functionary talk page, where I suggested a merge and he opposes it. I wonder if someone more experienced could pick up the thread of this DYK nomination. Thank you, Yoninah ( talk) 20:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
One of the two nominations in the DYK special occasion section has not yet been reviewed. General suggestion: to list that section with hooks nominated and approved like the others. Hoping to interest someone in Dorothee Mields, soprano -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I just removed this DYK from the Main Page. The article is comprised almost entirely of huge book quotes. The two big sources are old, so it might not be copyright violation, but it's still plagiarism to create an article with such large quotes. Jamie S93❤ 15:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I think Jamie was right to remove this; copy-and-pastes of outside sources shouldn't be rewarded and aren't the sort of thing we want to be boasting about on the front page. As for how this article got there, I see that The Bushranger both approved the hook ({{DYKtick}}) and moved it to prep two days later. This is precisely why it's good to avoid promoting the same hooks that you approved, unless we're in a time crunch; letting someone else do it adds another double-check to make sure these things don't slip through the cracks. Ideally, a given DYK nom should get reviewed & approved by one editor, promoted to Prep by another, and moved from Prep to the Queue by a third. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 16:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to all for the discussion and clarifications. I thought that I had bent over backwards to observe copyright by citing all the sources and going out of my way to find material over 100 yrs. old. I was attempting to add material that is comparable to the DANFS / Britannica articles, about a merchant ship, without simply taking a single public domain source in its entirety, as is done with many of the DANFS naval ship articles. Please note that the actual, verifiable factual material about sailing merchant ships of this era is not very large, despite the significance of some of these vessels, unless one consults archival materials or proprietary database sources, which I have been avoiding for reasons of copyright. Djembayz ( talk) 23:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Can my hook - "...that award winning author Lois Duncan thinks that her novel Don't Look Behind You was a premonition of her daughter being killed by a hired gunman?" be on the main page? I'm not sure if it would be too controversial to have it featured on the main page as part of DYK. Joe Chill ( talk) 23:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I was the nominator of Bobby Weed which was in Queue #5 which just took effect. However, I did not get credit for my nomination. Could someone please correct this for me? TIA. ---- moreno oso ( talk) 00:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
In hook 1 of Queue 3, "(example pictured)" needs to be italicized. Thanks. -- Bruce1ee talk 07:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Can updaters be sure to please put a quirky or funny hook in the last slot? We've had a few duds recently. Quirkies round an update off nicely and can make an otherwise weak update look much stronger. Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 09:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the hook for 2000 Dominican Republic presidential election in Queue 5 is discriminatory. The ' despite being blind and unable to walk ' makes it ableist.
It would be much more appropriate and more neutral POV if it read along the lines of:
... that Joaquín Balaguer who was blind and unable to walk without assistance at the time, won 24.6% of the vote in the 2000 Dominican Republic presidential election?
- HelioSmith ( talk) 23:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
*eyes four empty queues dubiously...* Just wondering what's up. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 00:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I was just told by an editor that a citation needs to be right after the hook, but I have had multiple experienced editors tell me that isn't so. I've seen many editors approve hooks without the citation right after the sentence and the hooks were never removed from the prep areas or queues.
So there is apparently two different belief systems when it comes to DYK approving. Reviewing the DYK rules, it says that hooks must be cited after the hooks. So what is up with these two belief systems and should the DYK rule be changed? Joe Chill ( talk) 12:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)