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 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | → | Archive 65 |
Hi, I just reviewed my first hook, George Ballis, and intend to start helping out here. If anyone sees me messing up at all please feel free to let me know. Thanks, J04n( talk page) 18:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Too much heat not enough light. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
After discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:DragonflySixtyseven_DYK_ban_proposal, recommend further talk with the user at user talk:DragonflySixtyseven, and possibly dispute resolution via Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Sanctions can be discussed again, if after consensus from RFC desired results not obtained and/or further disruption continues after that process. -- Cirt ( talk) 19:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Erm, who are you exactly to make such a comment? Please do not forget that your own conduct is hardly immune from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, just as for any other editor who choses to comment on this page. Physchim62 (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to note that I will be logging off shortly, and so won't be able to participate in any discussion with DS regarding his edits, but as an interested party I request that any agreement with DS not be finalized until I've had a chance to voice my own concerns along with everyone else. Gatoclass ( talk) 19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
|
This is the place to settle this, not an RFC. This is primarily a DYK matter. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking a recent thread where we talked about the number of noms needed at T:TDYK for the pipeline to be healthy. Gatoclass said 180 on the noms page. I just noticed Oct 4, with 13 minutes to go, only has 15 noms. Keep in mind we now have 4 prep sets, not two, and they're generally full or almost full. With 9 hooks per set, that's 54 hooks, and 162 would give us three days. Likewise with 8 hooks per set, that's 48 per day and 144 gives us three days worth. Of course this is with all hooks getting approved in time. Now consider that it's 10 days appx for a nom to get to the main page. To me that's too long. I don't like days going to the pink or red zone. So I'm thinking the point where we need to go back to 8 hooks per set is when T:TDYK goes below 150 noms. That's my 2 cents. Thoughts anyone? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Is it just me, or should we really be avoiding colloquialisms like "dude" (Q5 last hook), even in an entry on surfing, on the main page? Not to mention that I had to reread this hook a few times to get it, there might be too little context in the hook.
Secondly, last hook in Prep 1 - does anyone else feel that mentioning the date of death is just unnecessary? Strange Passerby ( talk • c • status) 01:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Crosspost from WP:ERRORS. Strange Passerby ( talk • c • status) 12:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I've seen a couple of recent comments to the effect that hooks must be at least 150 characters. Is this just confusion with the 1500-character article requirement, or is there actually a minimum hook length? 28bytes ( talk) 18:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
With most of the world's academic institutions operating at full strength right now, the production rate for new hook suggestions is tapering off again. Is it time to go back to 8 hooks in a queue? (Until December, when students go out on holiday again...) -- Orlady ( talk) 00:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Str Pby ( talk) 08:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone ever discussed or proposed rules for DYK that would limit the promotion of entries about entities who clearly stand to gain from such promotion? For instance an author who has just published a new book, a company that does consumer business (perhaps launching a new product, etc.). Is there a more stringent vetting process for this kind of thing? I have to say that I've seen some examples of this recently, where the DYK is beyond trivia and really just calls attention to the economic enterprise of such entities, so I'm curious. Griswaldo ( talk) 15:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Now, this hook strikes me as fairly blatant advertising. But, the hook has qualified for Wikipedia:DYKSTATS#Non-lead hooks with over 11,000 views and received 18,400 views, so it clearly was interesting for a large number of people (and it received over 45,000 views the following day). Perhaps if hooks like these are highly popular, we should give them some slack despite being promotional (assuming the articles themselves warrant it). EdChem ( talk) 03:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
One suggestion that occurred to me during this discussion was that it might be helpful to have a bot tag an entry that has been suggested to DYK when it is suggested and not only after the fact when it has been promoted. Alternately people suggesting DYKs could be tasked with the job of tagging the entries. This would mean that other people editing the entry would at least know about the suggestion. There could be DYKs that are controversial for all kinds of reasons and that would be spotted much more easily if such a practice were in place. Griswaldo ( talk) 11:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I have a question about the {{DYKexpand}} template. It doesn't seem to exist, but a reference to it is created every time the NewDYKNom template is subst:ed with an "status=expanded" parameter. Is there a particular reason for this, or is it just a template bug?
28bytes (
talk)
04:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
DYKexpand}}
within the NewDYKnom template itself, and I just
tried it and there is no reference to any such template.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
04:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC){{
NewDYKnom}}
. They appear to be being added by
User:Yoninah:
[1]
[2]
[3]. I don't know why, given that they are probably going to break something if they make it into the queue.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
04:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
DYKexpand}}
redirect to {{
DYKmake}}
. But if Yoninah is the only person doing this, then that probably won't be necessary if we just ask him not to do it anymore.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
05:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
DYKmake}}
is utilized by humans via
template transclusion. The bot however reads and interprets the raw source code and adding this redirect would be the same as adding a new and undefined instruction. --
Allen3
talk
06:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
DYKexpand}}
redirect. It only recognizes {{
DYKmake}}
and {{
DYKnom}}
.
Shubinator (
talk)
15:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)status = new<!--(or) expanded-->
There is currently a DYK know entry linking to Black people and crime in the United Kingdom. There are two problems with this. Firstly, the article was moved yesterday to Race and crime in the United Kingdom. Secondly, I don't think the hook had actually been approved at Template talk:Did you know. The last version of that page before the entry was moved to the prep area is here. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Ringing the bell again for Sunday's Bach cantata, which should be in prep now in order to make it. In Bach's time the cantata was performed Sunday morning, smile. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Could an admin please fix the pic in Template:Did you know/Queue/5. Also, Template:Did you know/Queue/2 can now be updated from the prep area. Thanks. 4meter4 ( talk) 08:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I am fairly certain that we've had a discussion on whether a plot summary should be counted when judging the 5x expansion, but could anyone tell me what consensus we reached back then, if any? -- BorgQueen ( talk) 08:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I add a new subsection Articles created/expanded on October 10. I ask this because I'm unsure how I should push one of the earlier dates to older nominations. Can someone help? Mspraveen ( talk) 21:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The present final hook in queue 5 is:
The Times of India reference supports the hook, but unfortunately it is scientifically inaccurate. Air is about 78% nitrogen by volume, we breathe it all the time, and suggesting a 'residual' amount of it would cause dizziness is ridiculous. I suspect that what actually occurred was that the nitrogen used in making snow being released into the air produced a (comparatively) low oxygen atmosphere in the facility, and it was oxygen deficiency that was causing the dizziness. The snow consultant who said of the nitrogen that "the quantity would have been far too small to affect the health of a person drastically" is talking rubbish.
I know we are supposed to focus on verifiability rather than truth, but putting on the main page that people were breathing 'residual' nitrogen when nitrogen is approaching 80% of every breath we take makes us look more than a little foolish, IMO. Thoughts? EdChem ( talk) 20:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
(Worthless comment) Had this hook stayed, it would've been the first time that two of my hooks featured in the same DYK. Sigh. Mspraveen ( talk) 21:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Just doing some last-minute stuff on Wikipedia before my wikibreak kicks into effect. What are people's views on users editing prep areas to give themselves a DYK credit? This edit in question I'm talking about. Milk strike was promoted to the prep area around 1900 UTC on October 9. Geschichte ( talk · contribs) – who had two gnomish edits to the article at that time – added about 2,000 bytes worth of information around 1000 UTC on October 10, then proceeded to add himself to the credits list. Am I the only one in thinking this isn't looked upon very well at DYK, or do we not care that much? Strange Passerby ( talk • c • status) 11:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Can someone figure out what is wrong with the convert template in Prep 4? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
convert}}
transcludes, which would explain why it didn't show up in the template's edit history. The change was probably fixed and then Bruce1ee's unrelated edit had the effect of
clearing the cache and showing the proper template again.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
12:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed that from time to time a reviewer will object to an article on the grounds it has been tagged as an orphan, often citing rules D6 or D7 as justification. The addition of the {{ orphan}} occurring after a bot notices the new article has less than three articles link to it. Is the existence of this template a valid reason for rejecting a nominated article?
Reasons for my concerns are:
Should an explicit exception be added to the rules to ignore {{ orphan}} tags when an article is being reviewed for DYK eligibility? Conversely, will DYK now require all articles to now be on subjects that allow for the creation of non-orphans? -- Allen3 talk 12:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
orphan}}
anymore, or they put it at the bottom. Sometimes adding an orphan tag to an article just prompts other editors to add a bunch of irrelevant or barely relevant links elsewhere to get rid of the tag. There are perennial discussions about getting rid of the {{
orphan}}
template altogether or relegating it to a talkpage (see, for instance,
Wikipedia_talk:Orphan#This_maintenance_template_should_be_placed_on_the_talk_page,
Template talk:Orphan#Proposed usage change,
Template talk:Orphan#Time to welcome orphans with open arms); while these discussions have never yielded a consensus as far as I can tell, and have just petered out, they still provide some evidence that the status of orphans is controversial. Besides, as Allen points out, sometimes you can't deorphan an article without disrupting something elsewhere, and there's no reason to punish for that, as it really shows more of a problem with the rest of the encyclopedia than a problem with that article.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
13:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Can anyone tell me how and why some pictured hooks are favored over the others? Mspraveen ( talk) 16:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
While working on one of the articles in a hook currently in prep 4 (... that Archaeomarasmius, Aureofungus, Coprinites, and Protomycena are the only four genera of agaric mushrooms known from the fossil record?), I discovered a publication about another agaric fossil find in 2007 that renders the hook inaccurate. I have alerted Kevmin (the creator of the hook, and all four articles), and he has already downloaded the article and begun work on a new article for the 2007 fossil species. Was wondering if the hook could be removed from prep, back into the waiting area for a little while until he completes his work, and has time to reformulate the hook to include the new species. I don't imagine it will take that long. Thanks! Sasata ( talk) 20:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The hook for Wellington Fault has been change somewhat from my original - there are two issues
When calculating total characters in list articles, are substantially sections of prose within the list counted. As an example, here under the "Description" section. Grsz 11 19:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Example: BWV 48 was on the Main page on Sunday 10 October. One editor broke a link by beautification, and another one replaced "chorale" by "cholera", - chorale was a key word in the hook. I was traveling and noticed only later. Could articles on the Main page perhaps be protected around that time? And/or watched? New articles are not typically watched by many yet and vulnerable. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. I didn't want to warm up a perennial, just brainstorm how to watch better for unwanted changes. (I didn't say vandalism. A change can be made with good intentions but still be wrong.) This happened to me the first time. I'm thinking in the way of a temporary watchlist fot those articles, rather than loading a burden on one friend. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The second item on prep area 3 has no bolded link and only one link, to Isabella Markham. Did someone forget to bold the link to Isabella, or was there formerly a bolded link to something else in the hook that's been removed entirely? Nyttend ( talk) 22:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
It was descided in the T:TDYK discussion that Alt 2 would be used, but Alt 1 has been placed in the Prep Area. Could this be fixed? Silver seren C 19:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Cloud gaming is now in Queue 6 and it is still not changed to Alt 2. Can this please be fixed? Silver seren C 20:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I just finished rewriting Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre and histmerged it in from my sandbox, but another person rewrote it on 3 October ( version before (30 Sept), Berstein's rewrite (3 October)). I was wondering if the article could be DYK'ed under IAR, seeing as it is now 100% cited from reliable sources and I had no hand nor control over the first rewrite? If it means anything, I've got a juicy hook for the article... ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
How does one go about "unverifying" a hook? I commented on 10 October that a hook was incorrect, but the hook was still placed on the main page as it was. Should I have used a template or something? I realise that I could have fixed the hook myself, but I wasn't exactly keen on it running anyway as it didn't seem very interesting to me. I appreciate the work that goes into verifying and prepping the hooks, and in this case it was only a minor detail that was incorrect, but maybe comments under the nominations could be checked more carefully? -- Beloved Freak 10:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
It looks like several DYK entries were lost when somebody was trying to update the template in this edit. Can this be easily fixed? Thanks. - Hydroxonium ( talk) 16:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday, I noticed that both User:Chzz and User:Fetchcomms nominated Ike Robin. Fetchcomms nominated it here and Chzz nominated the article a day later. I left a note on Chzz's hook, but it was still promoted to prep4. Fetchcomms hook is still on the suggestions page. What happens in this case? Does the first nomination approved get credit or, what I assume, the first one to nominate it?-- NortyNort (Holla) 03:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
{ https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/?title=Template%3ADid_you_know&action=historysubmit&diff=390980154&oldid=390971927} User:David Levy has changed the lead DYK photo almost an hour after it hit the main page. I posted on his talk page suggesting he participate in the queues, prep sets, and here as I find unilaterally changing the main page after a queue hits it is somewhat disruptive and unfair. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Please, I respectfully request that this hook be confirmed for its normal time parameters, 5 days post nomination. It exceeds all of the DYK criteria:
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 06:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed a hook that I successfully nominated (for Susisuchus) was shown on the main page twice; once at 12:00, 16 October 2010, and a second time at 18:00, 15 October 2010. Because of this, I got two different messages on my talk page saying that DYK was updated with a fact from the article Susisuchus. It doesn't look like any other articles were repeated. I'm not sure how this happened, so I just thought I'd bring it up. Smokeybjb ( talk) 15:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Several people, including myself, have been putting 9 hooks in the prep sets and queues. I'm guessing because the pool of noms is back over 200 after bottoming out at around 140 hooks. Consequently, I strongly endorse everyone going back to 9 hooks. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for a short notice. My hook is the lead in Queue 3, and I've just expanded the article Kamome Island (Heishi Rock) linked in it ( pre and post expansion). Could an admin please verify the expansion and bolden the Heishi Rock if appropriate (The material is from the Prefectural Website, mostly in Japanese, I'll copyedit it in some 10 hrs). Many thanks in advance. Materialscientist ( talk) 13:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
All major news organizations in the world (Wikipedia is one of them), have a way of informing their readership about errors... we don't. DYK hooks may contain false statements. Shit happens. -- So, the least we could do as editors, is to add a correction (or an apology) to the erroneous hook in DYK archives, and to the talk page of the article in question. The case in point is the DYK hook used for the article Isa Kremer, which appeared on the front page on 13 October 2010. Please see relevant discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Did you know? 18:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC), and a comment made by User:Malik Shabazz at User talk:Dincher#Isa Kremer DYK, not to mention my own concerns from Talk:Isa Kremer#Wikipedia:Verifiability. The article has just been corrected, but the boondoggle remains unchallenged at Wikipedia:Recent additions#13 October 2010, and at Talk:Isa Kremer {{dyktalk}}. Could we develop a way of making it right, with an appropriate correction at the bottom of both? The article Isa Kremer has been viewed 4,124 times in October 2010. [9] --- Przemyśl ( talk) 17:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
This seems broken. It moved what is still in Q6, the set with the ZETA device as the lead hook with pic, to the MP, tagged a few of the articles, but hasn't tagged all of them, did not seem to tag any users for credit, and hasn't cleared Q6. Can someone fix this? I've notified Shub. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I've got an approved hook for 20 October. All four sets that will appear on 20 October are now in the prep area, yet my hook is still on the suggestions page. Would someone sort this please? Mjroots ( talk) 06:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed on my watchlist an addition by User:DS to the WP:DYK rules section, which states "Articles and hooks which feature candidates in ongoing election campaigns should be avoided" ( [10]). I can see where he's coming from with this, but I feel a hook that isn't about the ongoing election could be neutral and interesting about a candidate. Either way it seems to be oddly specific and should probably be listed instead at Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules if kept. Nomader ( Talk) 07:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so that discussion above has been on candidates involved in elections. Anyone have any problems about hooks on elections themselves? I'm considering asking for Template talk:Did you know#American Samoa constitutional referendum, 2010 to be moved to holding for Nov 2, the day of the referendum. The hook doesn't advocate for either side of the referendum and I'm thinking that as long as the hook on an election didn't unduly support or criticise one candidate over another, it would be fine? Strange Passerby ( talk • c • status) 15:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there is no ribbon for DYK contributors, which I think is a shame... editors who have just got their first DYK credit might appreciate a ribbon to display (should they desire). So, I created one, and uploaded it:
If there is general support for the idea, I propose a template be created that could make including the ribbon on a userpage easier. The template could add the editor to the DYK contributor category, as do the DYK userboxes. However, I'd appreciate some help in doing this, as might template writing experience is very minimal.
Also, would it be appropriate for the DYK bot, on giving a user his or her first DYK credit, to include a link to Category:Wikipedia Did you know contributors and suggest they consider adding a suitable userbox, should theu wish? Thoughts? EdChem ( talk) 15:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I have boldly move 28bytes' page to template space; the code to insert it onto a user page is {{ DYK contributor ribbon}} Anyone think it would be worth creating a DYK nominator ribbon and a DYK reviewer ribbon? EdChem ( talk) 10:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I developed this GA reviewer ribbon quite recently. I was thinking of a DYK reviewer ribbon along the same lines. EdChem ( talk) 12:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I have now developed a DYK reviewer ribbon. I have also added it to WP:RIBBONS. EdChem ( talk) 06:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I currently have an interest in rewriting an article that was deleted as a blatant copyvio rather than have violating content removed (which would have left virtually nothing). Would this count as a "new article" for DYK purposes, as I can find nothing in the guidelines to indicate either way? Cheers. Rodhull andemu 18:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The Oneida I hook is suffering the same problems as the Oneida II hook ( Template talk:Did you know#Oneida County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State). The former has been approved and is in the queue, the latter has received several objections as to referencing.
We are saying the opposite thing here over the same referencing issue. IMHO, the Q3 hook needs to be pulled until the referencing issues of both articles have been addressed. Mjroots ( talk) 08:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The vast majority of legal articles on Wikipedia use legal citation (more specifically case citation style). Notwithstanding the fact that Mjroots appears to strongly dislike this citation style, it is actually quite similar to the general style of scholarly citation: [volume #] [abbreviated source title] [page #]. He seems to be raising two separate issues: he would like every citation to an external webpage (which seems quite contrary to WP:EL), and he would like legal citations to be cited as though they were not citations to official reporters, but rather citations to ordinary webpages. I have already provided a link to the Oyez Project in all the articles he has disputed. Apparently, he claims to be able to find no information at this cite, even though it contains not just the text of the opinion, but the oral argument. It appears that he has chosen to object to all articles written by me, even if the hook is cited to journal articles, rather that the case itself. It appears someone has already removed the Oneida II article as a result of his comments, even though I capitulated there and provided a link to the online text of the opinion in the very first reference. I do not have the time to continue dealing with this on dozens of different pages. It is unfortunate if new legal articles which are well-cited according to the generally accepted conventions are rejected simply because they have been singled out by someone with a broader agenda regarding legal citation style. Savidan 18:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
You guys need to settle this elsewhere. I see nothing wrong with the cites Savidan is using. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe you're putting such an egregious and mysognistic quote on the main page. Never mind that Mark Twain is dead; it shows him in an extremely bad light. Yoninah ( talk) 18:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I think it would be more appropriate to write: Edward Gal and his stallion. Yoninah ( talk) 18:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
It just occurred to me — we have no way of recognizing the photographers whose images appear in DYK. Would it be reasonable to expand {{ DYKmake}} to have a parameter for photographers? Not all lead images are photographs or the work of the uploaders, so I would see it as reasonable for the template to contain instructions only to give credit to the person who uploaded it if that person has an en:wp account. Nyttend ( talk) 22:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
In Queue 6, it should read " Gabriel's Oboe" and not Gabriel's Oboe. 22:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
This found its way onto the Main Page, via DYK, while still in desperate need of substantial copy-editing (I've not finished yet) and also with at least one of its paragraphs completely unreferenced. I think more care is needed. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 07:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I started putting the 37 approved Halloween hooks into 5 queues last night. There are none left on the noms page nor holding area, all are in the prep sets. Links are at: Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Halloween_2010#Halloween_DYK_Hooks_-_Prep_Sets. I went with 5 sets as instead of 4 as we'll probably get more noms in the coming week, it gives us more diversity, and the 5th set will run when it's still Halloween in North America, which is a big Halloween region. (Now April 1st we need to stick to the UTC times strictly). Right now sets 1 and 3 have 8 hooks and the others 7. The set's number (1-5) is the order I think it best for them to go live in. More eyes appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
the current rule stands at a new article or a massive expansion of 5x in 5 days, however, i think this is a little unfair on bigger articles. Currency war was 30k when i started an expansion, and that would require it to go to 250k to feature (which is massive, requires multiple splits and neary impossible), however, articels that are say 5k-10k have an unfari advantange that they need a much smaller expansion to 25k (which is still smaller than when i started the aforementioned article). Therefore i think somethign like an expansion of 50% for articles over some number (say 25k for thes ake of this) or 5x would be a fairer proposal. Lihaas ( talk) 13:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I think Prep 3 has too many scientific hooks. The lead hook is Earth's shadow, there's one about a mushroom, Mycena maculata, and three about marine animals: Protemblemaria perla, Marivagia stellata, and longhead catshark (the last two right next to each other). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Just curious as to whether this page history entitles me to a co-authorship credit, or does it just go to the article creator? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 20:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Gatoclass, myself, and others have foreseen the declining DYK nom rate and that we'd have to change the number of hooks per queue, queues per day, etc. However, not all agreed at what point we should do that. In that vein, here are some thoughts and observations:
While the 139 hooks sounds low, it's not as bad as it sounds. If you factor in the six queues as well as the four preps (why do we have four now? That seems pointless imo) that's an extra 90 hooks, so 229 hooks really isn't too bad. Reducing to eight is a given, I'm actually not sure when or why it was raised to nine. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
As consensus to go to 8 hooks per update appears fairly clear, I have modified Template:Did you know/Clear and placed only 8 hooks in the update at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. -- Allen3 talk 19:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Rlevse asked me to comment here. In regards to the backlog, I think that not only do we need to go to 8 hooks, we will also probably have to go to 8-hour updates at the current rate of decline. As for reversing the order of hooks at T:TDYK, I'm not terribly keen on the idea myself for a variety of reasons, but perhaps it can't do much harm as an experiment. Gatoclass ( talk) 22:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
So let's try a one week trial with the "old noms on top" idea. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I like the new format. I believe it will encourage reviewers to look at the articles that need some attention first. Also reviewers that are not inclined to get bogged down in a lengthy discussion over the merits of a hook can still do what they've been doing. I guess that might be the point. Dincher ( talk) 01:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The one-week trial ends tonight, are we in agreement to leave it as it is? Strange Passerby ( talk • c • status) 15:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we should make it clear that the newest hooks for a day should be on the bottom in the edit notice, the layout right now is muddled up. — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 11:30am • 00:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I've reworded the notice at the top of the suggestions page. Let's give it another week, then make a decision. Noms in the coming week will all have been made under the alternate system, rather than a mixture of the two systems as happened in the last week. Mjroots ( talk) 06:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I like the new format as well. 28bytes ( talk) 14:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that the experiment has worked, and that the "older noms at top" system be adopted permanently. Mjroots ( talk) 10:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
At queue 5, does "Jewish false messiah" have a consensus here? 50,000 Frankists thought he was a real messiah, so should it be "alleged Jewish messiah"? Art LaPella ( talk) 05:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me it may be time to go back to 8 hooks per? Since it's getting hard to find a sufficent amount without overloading on bios. (And 8 hooks makes it easier to go "half bios/American, don't put bios/American next to each other if it can be helped"). - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 20:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
In regard to the hook for this article (an article I created and nominated), which is now at Prep area 3, I have been wondering for several days whether it is appropriate to use for a biography of a living person, in light of the fact that the person herself has never publicly confirmed the information. Granted, there are reliable sources which support the information, but I would appreciate it if some editors would take another look at the hook and the article itself before it goes live on the main page. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I recently created an article on the tenor Andrew McKinley and I could nominate it now. However, I have plans to create articles on baritone David Aiken (currently a redirect to another person) and the bass Leon Lishner. These three men were the three kings in the original production of the classic Christmas opera Amahl and the Night Visitors. I would like to nominate them together and perhaps have it up on Christmas Eve this year at DYK, since the opera premiered on NBC Televison on December 24, 1951. I'm not sure how soon I can get to the other two. It may be a few weeks, at which point McKinley will be past the nomination deadline. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
With the change to oldest-first at T:TDYK, I am wondering if there is a danger that hooks for specific dates will be skipped when preparing updates because the hooks are being selected from the top of the page. There are presently two unreviewed nominations (disclosure: one is mine) that I think are now past their requested time-slots. There are also quite a few nominations for the next week or so in the special timing section, so it seems to me that there is a potential for further examples. Would someone experienced with preparing updates please have a look? Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 15:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
A lot of the hooks in the holding area are yet to be reviewed. Should we make it clear (a written rule) that all new nominations, including ones for special timings, are to be nominated the regular way? The nominator can always add the request for the special time in his nomination. Once passed, he or the reviewer can then make the move to the holding area. This would seem to me to solve the issue of lack of reviews for special time hooks as has been raised here. Strange Passerby ( talk • c • status) 12:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The lead hook in Prep 4 presently is:
I noticed it a couple of hours ago at
T:TDYK and thought it was a nice example of collaboration (four articles from four different editors) and also that it was a shame it wouldn't have the fifth article to make it into the DYK Hall of Fame. So, I have started a new article
cysteine-rich secretory proteins and I am suggesting that it might be added into this hook (assuming the other authors are agreeable, and that it meets DYK standards, of course).
I recognise that thie request is somewhat unusual - and I apologise if it is inappropriate. If the suggestion is unreasonable, I am willing to simply nominate
cysteine-rich secretory proteins through the regular process and have it as a stand-alone DYK nom. However, I thought that combining it with the existing hook seems reasonable to at least suggest. I am suggesting the hook be changed to:
All of the venoms are mentioned in the CRISP article, all referenced. Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 13:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Mandarax, thanks for checking it out. As a stand-alone, I was planning to nominate the article with a hook like:
Whatever everyone thinks is best is fine with me. :) Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 21:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to Rlevse for updating the hook and The Bushranger for updating the Prep 4 dyk-makes. I was wondering whether PFHLai should also get dyk-nom credits for the two extra articles? EdChem ( talk) 02:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I rejected this nomination earlier today for being submitted past the 5 day deadline... yet somehow it is now in the queue. Why is this? 4meter4 ( talk) 00:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The hook appears in prep 4 this time yesterday, so maybe there was a double nomination of it? Str Pby ( talk) 01:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is currently in queue 5 but there was an unresolved issue with the hook (see the section in this version just before it was moved to prep). The "cutting costs for such cells by 40% and making the power generated from the cells cheaper than from coal" is not suitably sourced IMO as it is based on what the company has said and obviously they will be trying to big up their own product. I suggest removing this from the hook, but that makes it rather dull. Shall we move it back to T:TDYK so it can be discussed properly? Smartse ( talk) 11:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
T:TDYK#Dragan Tešanović has been reviewed and it is requested that it be on the main page on 29 October, 1:00am (queue 3). Can an admin please slot it in? Thanks,
Adabow (
talk ·
contribs)
03:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I hate to be "that guy", I really do, but myself and EdChem added our joint hook days ago, yet it has not received any sort of view. We asked for a specific time and that time is 9 minutes away, yet the hook hasn't been moved to the queue. Can someone please deal with this now as it is rather urgent. Apologies for the nagging, but this has been kept waiting too long. Thank you. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Paralympiakos, I agree it is disappointing that the hook will need redrafting, but it's not the end of the world. We can redraft once the results are known fairly easily. Remember that everyone here is a volunteer, and we should have made the nomination a couple of days earlier - blame me if you like. Reviewers are free to review what they choose, and I am certainly grateful for their efforts. I think the issue here (other than some tardiness on my part) is the change in page layout making the date-specific nominations less prominent. I am glad your Dragan Tešanović hook will get its requested slot, it was nominated in plenty of time. Moving our nom back to the regular queue isn't too difficult. Personally, I think the concern here is whether the new layout of T:TDYK makes the DYK community less aware of those date-specific nominations, and how to reduce the chances of nominations like yours of Tešanović slipping through the cracks. EdChem ( talk) 12:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Queue 3 has an erroneous DYKmake and DYKnom for Mac Morgan. The hook was moved and is currently in Prep 2, with the proper credits. (I mentioned this above, but I guess it got lost among other discussions, or people assumed someone else had fixed it.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The two queues (4 and 1) just built by Alansohn will go live on 31 Oct, which is when the 5 Halloween prep sets we have saved up will start going live. Therefore, I'm putting the two he built into temp holding pages and will start moving the Halloween sets in. Of course, others are welcome to move the Halloween sets in too, but keep in mind I built them in the order I thought best to see them on the main page, ie, Halloween P1 gets loaded first, HP2 loaded second and so on. The 5th set will appear on 1 Nov UTC time but it'll still be Halloween in North America. Cheers. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Malta Test Station, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from {{{url}}}, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Malta Test Station saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!
Not a very good stock template, but apprently I was expected to notify, so I'm doing it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Sandy, I'm starting to feel that it's a tad bit more than grating that you appear to attack DYK at every chance you get (at Utahraptor's RFA, and then this thread at ANI). How about trying to help instead of randomly accusing us of not doing enough on X, Y or Z, or that we're too lax on A, B or C? For what it's worth, when I review DYK nominations I do check for close paraphrasing and possible copyvios; as can be seen from the talk page archives of one of our more prominent copyright-dealing admins, I've approached her before for advice when reviewing DYKs. Str Pby ( talk) 23:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
(redent) I can't see any way round the problem while DYK is seen as some sort of a right for articles, judged solely on supposedly objective standards. There are enough nominations and enough editors to choose the best eight articles/hooks a day and keep them up for 24 hours, but that would obviously be a very radical change and one for which I've never seen any real support around here. Physchim62 (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
When I review a DYK and check the refs, I do look for plagiarism, as I am sure do many other reviewers. When I saw a borderline case, I raised it and other editors expressed a view. So, I hope that we can avoid tarring all reviewers with the actions of (what I hope is only) a few. I believe that most editors here would support avoiding putting plagiarism being posted to the main page. As a suggestion for detecting plagiarism, could a bot that works on this problem (such as CorenSearchBot, for example) be adapted to check a single article on request? That way, reviewers would have a test they could add to their standard review practice. Alternatively, maybe a check could by added to the DYKcheck script? EdChem ( talk) 01:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Malleus, I can assure you that I wouldn't pass an article full of spelling and grammar mistakes. Have a look at the x5 expansion of actinide that is presently in the DYK queue, or my expansion of the Hans Freeman stub or the rhodocene DYK (now a GA)... there is some really good work highlighted by DYK. Please try to recognise that DYK has both wheat and chaff. EdChem ( talk) 01:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
<-I just gave a cursory read to the rules and additional rules. Apologies if I missed something, but I didn't see any admonitions to check for copyvios. I fully understand that all article submitted for DYK must meet all policy requirements for articles, and it is not feasible to repeat all those requirements in the rules for evaluating a DYK. However, given the strong allegations, and the prominence of the DYK articles, perhaps it would be good to remind DYK evaluators that checking for plagiarism should be one of the steps. I confess I've evaluated a number of suggestions, concentrating on length, timing, hook, verifiability of hook, general readability, and only pursued copyvio possibilities if it reads too good to be true. I plan to check more carefully in the future; does it make sense to encourage others to do the same?-- SPhilbrick T 17:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Should "From Wikipedia's newest articles:" be rephrased for Halloween to something else? They aren't technically our "newest articles"... Str Pby ( talk) 02:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi folks. I nominated United States Ambassador to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture, created on October 23. It was approved and then in this edit and this edit yesterday moved to the prep 4 area. Then in this edit later yesterday it was replaced by a set of Halloween items. But I've looked at all the queues and other prep areas and I don't see it anywhere now, unless I've missed it. Did it get lost in the shuffle? Thanks! Wasted Time R ( talk) 10:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
As those who follow this page would be aware, Paralympiakos and I had a six-article hook in the time-specific section with a request for an Oct 28 date. It was not reviewed in time and cannot be used in its present form on any other date, so we have been considering what to do now. I had intended to do a small redraft of the hook, but events have made that impossible (one fight was postponed, and hence two articles no longer fit in the hook). So, I am posting here to outline our suggestions / requests in the hope they will be found satisfactory. Our intentions are as follows:
Is this an acceptable way for dealing with the existing Oct 28 request? Paralympiakos and I thank you for considering our suggestions / requests. EdChem ( talk) 12:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion at talk:Main page about the hook for 1366 Technologies. It contains a claim reliably sourced to the New York Times, but if you read the article the 40% saving stated in the hook as definitively occurring is actually just a claim / prediction from the management. We should either take this hook down and re-assess / re-draft it, or at least change it on the main page to show that the saving is a prediction, not a fact. Someone please intervene quickly, this looks like a really dubious hook to me.
Details: The hook presently on the main page is:
1366 Technologies article:
and
These statements do not support the hook, in my opinion. EdChem ( talk) 12:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Immediate problem resolved - Materialscientist has changed the hook to:
which addresses my concerns. Smartse's point that we dropped the ball in passing the hook in the first place remains, however. EdChem ( talk) 13:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I know we've had GAs on DYK before, but I wonder what list of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners will make it to first, FL status or the Main Page? :) On a more serious note, in the unlikely event that it is promoted to FL before approval here, it wouldn't affect its eligibility, I hope. Str Pby ( talk) 06:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Are we now applying stricter standards for reference formatting? If so, that must be fully disclosed in the rules. I don't think we should, as that would have the effect of excluding newer users who may be unfamiliar or uncomfortable with fancier techniques such as citation templates.
The review for the General Union of Ecuadorian Workers hook stated that "the bare URLs need to be formatted per WP:Citation templates before this nomination can be approved." I pointed out that there were no bare URLs. But the hook was removed with the edit summary "yes they are bare urls, disapproved".
Am I missing something? http://abareurl.com is a bare URL. Not a bare URL isn't. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:V example: information has to be published and verifiable, whether that involves a trip to a library, it has to be something in print somewhere accessible somehow. Where the heck does one find this source at Acheron class torpedo boat?
That is all of the information given. No title, no date, nothing to indicate anything was published. Are we expected to call Australia to verify this article's content? This doesn't meet the barest policy requirements of WP:V, and it's on the mainpage now, I think. I'm worried that you all are verifying only the hooks, but passing on articles that shouldn't even be ... well ... articles yet, because they don't meet core policy. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
"Australia's First Warship - The Torpedo Boat Acheron". navyhistory.org.au. Retrieved October 30, 2010.
I am guessing that will give you more than enough information to go on with, and it has taken longer to type this post than it did to find the information.
Maybe you will take some friendly advice... if you want to try and improve the situation with DYK referencing, you might consider an approach that is less likely to put everyone on the defensive. I think you have some relevant points, but I am also finding some of your comments irritating, and I suspect I am not alone. Telling us that everything DYK does is awful without recognising the efforts of the editors here (both in content development and in reviewing) is not helping you towards your stated goal (at least, not efficiently). EdChem ( talk) 08:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
← Getting back to the original article in question, I'd like to apologize for some assumptions which I made. I took the term "bare URL" literally and assumed that it referred only to links which look like unadorned URLs. Because of the crude ref formatting, I assumed that the author was an inexperienced user submitting their first DYK and that they were thus in need of a little extra support and nurturing, when in fact, according to their user page, they've created over 3000 articles and received 244 DYKs. Because the author originally used unambiguously bare URLs by anybody's definition and then changed them to their present form after nominating the article, I assumed that they thought they had already fixed the bare URL issue, perhaps thinking that the comment in the review was based on the earlier version. It is regrettable that they never responded. And finally, I'd like to apologize for inadvertently adding links to a porn site! When I provided an example URL (which I've now modified), I should have realized that anything beginning with "bare" would be trouble. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Y'all can't be putting BLPs sourced to "guampedia" on the main page-- I just blanked most of José Sisto, which is on the mainpage now. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, in the future, I'll try to work in advance, but Jameela Jamil is a BLP on the mainpage now, and it's sourced to online blogs and gossip rags. Nothing highly derogatory, but I think it still needs to go per BLP. But I'll let Psychim62 the expert handle how to solve the problem, since he has such a good faithometer, and I wouldn't want to cross him by, um, actually engaging our BLP policy. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I hope Sandy and I have been able to smooth off some of the sharp edges on my User talk page so I shaln't reply to those comments directly. I do think that many of the problems with DYK are caused by the fact that it "promotes" too many articles without sufficient oversight (in practice). Physchim62 (talk) 04:36, 30 October 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 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | → | Archive 65 |
Hi, I just reviewed my first hook, George Ballis, and intend to start helping out here. If anyone sees me messing up at all please feel free to let me know. Thanks, J04n( talk page) 18:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Too much heat not enough light. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
After discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:DragonflySixtyseven_DYK_ban_proposal, recommend further talk with the user at user talk:DragonflySixtyseven, and possibly dispute resolution via Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Sanctions can be discussed again, if after consensus from RFC desired results not obtained and/or further disruption continues after that process. -- Cirt ( talk) 19:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Erm, who are you exactly to make such a comment? Please do not forget that your own conduct is hardly immune from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, just as for any other editor who choses to comment on this page. Physchim62 (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to note that I will be logging off shortly, and so won't be able to participate in any discussion with DS regarding his edits, but as an interested party I request that any agreement with DS not be finalized until I've had a chance to voice my own concerns along with everyone else. Gatoclass ( talk) 19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
|
This is the place to settle this, not an RFC. This is primarily a DYK matter. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking a recent thread where we talked about the number of noms needed at T:TDYK for the pipeline to be healthy. Gatoclass said 180 on the noms page. I just noticed Oct 4, with 13 minutes to go, only has 15 noms. Keep in mind we now have 4 prep sets, not two, and they're generally full or almost full. With 9 hooks per set, that's 54 hooks, and 162 would give us three days. Likewise with 8 hooks per set, that's 48 per day and 144 gives us three days worth. Of course this is with all hooks getting approved in time. Now consider that it's 10 days appx for a nom to get to the main page. To me that's too long. I don't like days going to the pink or red zone. So I'm thinking the point where we need to go back to 8 hooks per set is when T:TDYK goes below 150 noms. That's my 2 cents. Thoughts anyone? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Is it just me, or should we really be avoiding colloquialisms like "dude" (Q5 last hook), even in an entry on surfing, on the main page? Not to mention that I had to reread this hook a few times to get it, there might be too little context in the hook.
Secondly, last hook in Prep 1 - does anyone else feel that mentioning the date of death is just unnecessary? Strange Passerby ( talk • c • status) 01:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Crosspost from WP:ERRORS. Strange Passerby ( talk • c • status) 12:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I've seen a couple of recent comments to the effect that hooks must be at least 150 characters. Is this just confusion with the 1500-character article requirement, or is there actually a minimum hook length? 28bytes ( talk) 18:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
With most of the world's academic institutions operating at full strength right now, the production rate for new hook suggestions is tapering off again. Is it time to go back to 8 hooks in a queue? (Until December, when students go out on holiday again...) -- Orlady ( talk) 00:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Str Pby ( talk) 08:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone ever discussed or proposed rules for DYK that would limit the promotion of entries about entities who clearly stand to gain from such promotion? For instance an author who has just published a new book, a company that does consumer business (perhaps launching a new product, etc.). Is there a more stringent vetting process for this kind of thing? I have to say that I've seen some examples of this recently, where the DYK is beyond trivia and really just calls attention to the economic enterprise of such entities, so I'm curious. Griswaldo ( talk) 15:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Now, this hook strikes me as fairly blatant advertising. But, the hook has qualified for Wikipedia:DYKSTATS#Non-lead hooks with over 11,000 views and received 18,400 views, so it clearly was interesting for a large number of people (and it received over 45,000 views the following day). Perhaps if hooks like these are highly popular, we should give them some slack despite being promotional (assuming the articles themselves warrant it). EdChem ( talk) 03:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
One suggestion that occurred to me during this discussion was that it might be helpful to have a bot tag an entry that has been suggested to DYK when it is suggested and not only after the fact when it has been promoted. Alternately people suggesting DYKs could be tasked with the job of tagging the entries. This would mean that other people editing the entry would at least know about the suggestion. There could be DYKs that are controversial for all kinds of reasons and that would be spotted much more easily if such a practice were in place. Griswaldo ( talk) 11:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I have a question about the {{DYKexpand}} template. It doesn't seem to exist, but a reference to it is created every time the NewDYKNom template is subst:ed with an "status=expanded" parameter. Is there a particular reason for this, or is it just a template bug?
28bytes (
talk)
04:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
DYKexpand}}
within the NewDYKnom template itself, and I just
tried it and there is no reference to any such template.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
04:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC){{
NewDYKnom}}
. They appear to be being added by
User:Yoninah:
[1]
[2]
[3]. I don't know why, given that they are probably going to break something if they make it into the queue.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
04:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
DYKexpand}}
redirect to {{
DYKmake}}
. But if Yoninah is the only person doing this, then that probably won't be necessary if we just ask him not to do it anymore.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
05:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
DYKmake}}
is utilized by humans via
template transclusion. The bot however reads and interprets the raw source code and adding this redirect would be the same as adding a new and undefined instruction. --
Allen3
talk
06:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
DYKexpand}}
redirect. It only recognizes {{
DYKmake}}
and {{
DYKnom}}
.
Shubinator (
talk)
15:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)status = new<!--(or) expanded-->
There is currently a DYK know entry linking to Black people and crime in the United Kingdom. There are two problems with this. Firstly, the article was moved yesterday to Race and crime in the United Kingdom. Secondly, I don't think the hook had actually been approved at Template talk:Did you know. The last version of that page before the entry was moved to the prep area is here. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Ringing the bell again for Sunday's Bach cantata, which should be in prep now in order to make it. In Bach's time the cantata was performed Sunday morning, smile. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Could an admin please fix the pic in Template:Did you know/Queue/5. Also, Template:Did you know/Queue/2 can now be updated from the prep area. Thanks. 4meter4 ( talk) 08:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I am fairly certain that we've had a discussion on whether a plot summary should be counted when judging the 5x expansion, but could anyone tell me what consensus we reached back then, if any? -- BorgQueen ( talk) 08:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I add a new subsection Articles created/expanded on October 10. I ask this because I'm unsure how I should push one of the earlier dates to older nominations. Can someone help? Mspraveen ( talk) 21:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The present final hook in queue 5 is:
The Times of India reference supports the hook, but unfortunately it is scientifically inaccurate. Air is about 78% nitrogen by volume, we breathe it all the time, and suggesting a 'residual' amount of it would cause dizziness is ridiculous. I suspect that what actually occurred was that the nitrogen used in making snow being released into the air produced a (comparatively) low oxygen atmosphere in the facility, and it was oxygen deficiency that was causing the dizziness. The snow consultant who said of the nitrogen that "the quantity would have been far too small to affect the health of a person drastically" is talking rubbish.
I know we are supposed to focus on verifiability rather than truth, but putting on the main page that people were breathing 'residual' nitrogen when nitrogen is approaching 80% of every breath we take makes us look more than a little foolish, IMO. Thoughts? EdChem ( talk) 20:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
(Worthless comment) Had this hook stayed, it would've been the first time that two of my hooks featured in the same DYK. Sigh. Mspraveen ( talk) 21:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Just doing some last-minute stuff on Wikipedia before my wikibreak kicks into effect. What are people's views on users editing prep areas to give themselves a DYK credit? This edit in question I'm talking about. Milk strike was promoted to the prep area around 1900 UTC on October 9. Geschichte ( talk · contribs) – who had two gnomish edits to the article at that time – added about 2,000 bytes worth of information around 1000 UTC on October 10, then proceeded to add himself to the credits list. Am I the only one in thinking this isn't looked upon very well at DYK, or do we not care that much? Strange Passerby ( talk • c • status) 11:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Can someone figure out what is wrong with the convert template in Prep 4? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
convert}}
transcludes, which would explain why it didn't show up in the template's edit history. The change was probably fixed and then Bruce1ee's unrelated edit had the effect of
clearing the cache and showing the proper template again.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
12:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed that from time to time a reviewer will object to an article on the grounds it has been tagged as an orphan, often citing rules D6 or D7 as justification. The addition of the {{ orphan}} occurring after a bot notices the new article has less than three articles link to it. Is the existence of this template a valid reason for rejecting a nominated article?
Reasons for my concerns are:
Should an explicit exception be added to the rules to ignore {{ orphan}} tags when an article is being reviewed for DYK eligibility? Conversely, will DYK now require all articles to now be on subjects that allow for the creation of non-orphans? -- Allen3 talk 12:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
orphan}}
anymore, or they put it at the bottom. Sometimes adding an orphan tag to an article just prompts other editors to add a bunch of irrelevant or barely relevant links elsewhere to get rid of the tag. There are perennial discussions about getting rid of the {{
orphan}}
template altogether or relegating it to a talkpage (see, for instance,
Wikipedia_talk:Orphan#This_maintenance_template_should_be_placed_on_the_talk_page,
Template talk:Orphan#Proposed usage change,
Template talk:Orphan#Time to welcome orphans with open arms); while these discussions have never yielded a consensus as far as I can tell, and have just petered out, they still provide some evidence that the status of orphans is controversial. Besides, as Allen points out, sometimes you can't deorphan an article without disrupting something elsewhere, and there's no reason to punish for that, as it really shows more of a problem with the rest of the encyclopedia than a problem with that article.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
13:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Can anyone tell me how and why some pictured hooks are favored over the others? Mspraveen ( talk) 16:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
While working on one of the articles in a hook currently in prep 4 (... that Archaeomarasmius, Aureofungus, Coprinites, and Protomycena are the only four genera of agaric mushrooms known from the fossil record?), I discovered a publication about another agaric fossil find in 2007 that renders the hook inaccurate. I have alerted Kevmin (the creator of the hook, and all four articles), and he has already downloaded the article and begun work on a new article for the 2007 fossil species. Was wondering if the hook could be removed from prep, back into the waiting area for a little while until he completes his work, and has time to reformulate the hook to include the new species. I don't imagine it will take that long. Thanks! Sasata ( talk) 20:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The hook for Wellington Fault has been change somewhat from my original - there are two issues
When calculating total characters in list articles, are substantially sections of prose within the list counted. As an example, here under the "Description" section. Grsz 11 19:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Example: BWV 48 was on the Main page on Sunday 10 October. One editor broke a link by beautification, and another one replaced "chorale" by "cholera", - chorale was a key word in the hook. I was traveling and noticed only later. Could articles on the Main page perhaps be protected around that time? And/or watched? New articles are not typically watched by many yet and vulnerable. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. I didn't want to warm up a perennial, just brainstorm how to watch better for unwanted changes. (I didn't say vandalism. A change can be made with good intentions but still be wrong.) This happened to me the first time. I'm thinking in the way of a temporary watchlist fot those articles, rather than loading a burden on one friend. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The second item on prep area 3 has no bolded link and only one link, to Isabella Markham. Did someone forget to bold the link to Isabella, or was there formerly a bolded link to something else in the hook that's been removed entirely? Nyttend ( talk) 22:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
It was descided in the T:TDYK discussion that Alt 2 would be used, but Alt 1 has been placed in the Prep Area. Could this be fixed? Silver seren C 19:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Cloud gaming is now in Queue 6 and it is still not changed to Alt 2. Can this please be fixed? Silver seren C 20:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I just finished rewriting Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre and histmerged it in from my sandbox, but another person rewrote it on 3 October ( version before (30 Sept), Berstein's rewrite (3 October)). I was wondering if the article could be DYK'ed under IAR, seeing as it is now 100% cited from reliable sources and I had no hand nor control over the first rewrite? If it means anything, I've got a juicy hook for the article... ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
How does one go about "unverifying" a hook? I commented on 10 October that a hook was incorrect, but the hook was still placed on the main page as it was. Should I have used a template or something? I realise that I could have fixed the hook myself, but I wasn't exactly keen on it running anyway as it didn't seem very interesting to me. I appreciate the work that goes into verifying and prepping the hooks, and in this case it was only a minor detail that was incorrect, but maybe comments under the nominations could be checked more carefully? -- Beloved Freak 10:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
It looks like several DYK entries were lost when somebody was trying to update the template in this edit. Can this be easily fixed? Thanks. - Hydroxonium ( talk) 16:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday, I noticed that both User:Chzz and User:Fetchcomms nominated Ike Robin. Fetchcomms nominated it here and Chzz nominated the article a day later. I left a note on Chzz's hook, but it was still promoted to prep4. Fetchcomms hook is still on the suggestions page. What happens in this case? Does the first nomination approved get credit or, what I assume, the first one to nominate it?-- NortyNort (Holla) 03:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
{ https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/?title=Template%3ADid_you_know&action=historysubmit&diff=390980154&oldid=390971927} User:David Levy has changed the lead DYK photo almost an hour after it hit the main page. I posted on his talk page suggesting he participate in the queues, prep sets, and here as I find unilaterally changing the main page after a queue hits it is somewhat disruptive and unfair. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Please, I respectfully request that this hook be confirmed for its normal time parameters, 5 days post nomination. It exceeds all of the DYK criteria:
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 06:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed a hook that I successfully nominated (for Susisuchus) was shown on the main page twice; once at 12:00, 16 October 2010, and a second time at 18:00, 15 October 2010. Because of this, I got two different messages on my talk page saying that DYK was updated with a fact from the article Susisuchus. It doesn't look like any other articles were repeated. I'm not sure how this happened, so I just thought I'd bring it up. Smokeybjb ( talk) 15:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Several people, including myself, have been putting 9 hooks in the prep sets and queues. I'm guessing because the pool of noms is back over 200 after bottoming out at around 140 hooks. Consequently, I strongly endorse everyone going back to 9 hooks. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for a short notice. My hook is the lead in Queue 3, and I've just expanded the article Kamome Island (Heishi Rock) linked in it ( pre and post expansion). Could an admin please verify the expansion and bolden the Heishi Rock if appropriate (The material is from the Prefectural Website, mostly in Japanese, I'll copyedit it in some 10 hrs). Many thanks in advance. Materialscientist ( talk) 13:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
All major news organizations in the world (Wikipedia is one of them), have a way of informing their readership about errors... we don't. DYK hooks may contain false statements. Shit happens. -- So, the least we could do as editors, is to add a correction (or an apology) to the erroneous hook in DYK archives, and to the talk page of the article in question. The case in point is the DYK hook used for the article Isa Kremer, which appeared on the front page on 13 October 2010. Please see relevant discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Did you know? 18:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC), and a comment made by User:Malik Shabazz at User talk:Dincher#Isa Kremer DYK, not to mention my own concerns from Talk:Isa Kremer#Wikipedia:Verifiability. The article has just been corrected, but the boondoggle remains unchallenged at Wikipedia:Recent additions#13 October 2010, and at Talk:Isa Kremer {{dyktalk}}. Could we develop a way of making it right, with an appropriate correction at the bottom of both? The article Isa Kremer has been viewed 4,124 times in October 2010. [9] --- Przemyśl ( talk) 17:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
This seems broken. It moved what is still in Q6, the set with the ZETA device as the lead hook with pic, to the MP, tagged a few of the articles, but hasn't tagged all of them, did not seem to tag any users for credit, and hasn't cleared Q6. Can someone fix this? I've notified Shub. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I've got an approved hook for 20 October. All four sets that will appear on 20 October are now in the prep area, yet my hook is still on the suggestions page. Would someone sort this please? Mjroots ( talk) 06:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed on my watchlist an addition by User:DS to the WP:DYK rules section, which states "Articles and hooks which feature candidates in ongoing election campaigns should be avoided" ( [10]). I can see where he's coming from with this, but I feel a hook that isn't about the ongoing election could be neutral and interesting about a candidate. Either way it seems to be oddly specific and should probably be listed instead at Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules if kept. Nomader ( Talk) 07:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so that discussion above has been on candidates involved in elections. Anyone have any problems about hooks on elections themselves? I'm considering asking for Template talk:Did you know#American Samoa constitutional referendum, 2010 to be moved to holding for Nov 2, the day of the referendum. The hook doesn't advocate for either side of the referendum and I'm thinking that as long as the hook on an election didn't unduly support or criticise one candidate over another, it would be fine? Strange Passerby ( talk • c • status) 15:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there is no ribbon for DYK contributors, which I think is a shame... editors who have just got their first DYK credit might appreciate a ribbon to display (should they desire). So, I created one, and uploaded it:
If there is general support for the idea, I propose a template be created that could make including the ribbon on a userpage easier. The template could add the editor to the DYK contributor category, as do the DYK userboxes. However, I'd appreciate some help in doing this, as might template writing experience is very minimal.
Also, would it be appropriate for the DYK bot, on giving a user his or her first DYK credit, to include a link to Category:Wikipedia Did you know contributors and suggest they consider adding a suitable userbox, should theu wish? Thoughts? EdChem ( talk) 15:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I have boldly move 28bytes' page to template space; the code to insert it onto a user page is {{ DYK contributor ribbon}} Anyone think it would be worth creating a DYK nominator ribbon and a DYK reviewer ribbon? EdChem ( talk) 10:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I developed this GA reviewer ribbon quite recently. I was thinking of a DYK reviewer ribbon along the same lines. EdChem ( talk) 12:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I have now developed a DYK reviewer ribbon. I have also added it to WP:RIBBONS. EdChem ( talk) 06:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I currently have an interest in rewriting an article that was deleted as a blatant copyvio rather than have violating content removed (which would have left virtually nothing). Would this count as a "new article" for DYK purposes, as I can find nothing in the guidelines to indicate either way? Cheers. Rodhull andemu 18:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The Oneida I hook is suffering the same problems as the Oneida II hook ( Template talk:Did you know#Oneida County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State). The former has been approved and is in the queue, the latter has received several objections as to referencing.
We are saying the opposite thing here over the same referencing issue. IMHO, the Q3 hook needs to be pulled until the referencing issues of both articles have been addressed. Mjroots ( talk) 08:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The vast majority of legal articles on Wikipedia use legal citation (more specifically case citation style). Notwithstanding the fact that Mjroots appears to strongly dislike this citation style, it is actually quite similar to the general style of scholarly citation: [volume #] [abbreviated source title] [page #]. He seems to be raising two separate issues: he would like every citation to an external webpage (which seems quite contrary to WP:EL), and he would like legal citations to be cited as though they were not citations to official reporters, but rather citations to ordinary webpages. I have already provided a link to the Oyez Project in all the articles he has disputed. Apparently, he claims to be able to find no information at this cite, even though it contains not just the text of the opinion, but the oral argument. It appears that he has chosen to object to all articles written by me, even if the hook is cited to journal articles, rather that the case itself. It appears someone has already removed the Oneida II article as a result of his comments, even though I capitulated there and provided a link to the online text of the opinion in the very first reference. I do not have the time to continue dealing with this on dozens of different pages. It is unfortunate if new legal articles which are well-cited according to the generally accepted conventions are rejected simply because they have been singled out by someone with a broader agenda regarding legal citation style. Savidan 18:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
You guys need to settle this elsewhere. I see nothing wrong with the cites Savidan is using. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe you're putting such an egregious and mysognistic quote on the main page. Never mind that Mark Twain is dead; it shows him in an extremely bad light. Yoninah ( talk) 18:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I think it would be more appropriate to write: Edward Gal and his stallion. Yoninah ( talk) 18:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
It just occurred to me — we have no way of recognizing the photographers whose images appear in DYK. Would it be reasonable to expand {{ DYKmake}} to have a parameter for photographers? Not all lead images are photographs or the work of the uploaders, so I would see it as reasonable for the template to contain instructions only to give credit to the person who uploaded it if that person has an en:wp account. Nyttend ( talk) 22:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
In Queue 6, it should read " Gabriel's Oboe" and not Gabriel's Oboe. 22:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
This found its way onto the Main Page, via DYK, while still in desperate need of substantial copy-editing (I've not finished yet) and also with at least one of its paragraphs completely unreferenced. I think more care is needed. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 07:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I started putting the 37 approved Halloween hooks into 5 queues last night. There are none left on the noms page nor holding area, all are in the prep sets. Links are at: Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Halloween_2010#Halloween_DYK_Hooks_-_Prep_Sets. I went with 5 sets as instead of 4 as we'll probably get more noms in the coming week, it gives us more diversity, and the 5th set will run when it's still Halloween in North America, which is a big Halloween region. (Now April 1st we need to stick to the UTC times strictly). Right now sets 1 and 3 have 8 hooks and the others 7. The set's number (1-5) is the order I think it best for them to go live in. More eyes appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
the current rule stands at a new article or a massive expansion of 5x in 5 days, however, i think this is a little unfair on bigger articles. Currency war was 30k when i started an expansion, and that would require it to go to 250k to feature (which is massive, requires multiple splits and neary impossible), however, articels that are say 5k-10k have an unfari advantange that they need a much smaller expansion to 25k (which is still smaller than when i started the aforementioned article). Therefore i think somethign like an expansion of 50% for articles over some number (say 25k for thes ake of this) or 5x would be a fairer proposal. Lihaas ( talk) 13:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I think Prep 3 has too many scientific hooks. The lead hook is Earth's shadow, there's one about a mushroom, Mycena maculata, and three about marine animals: Protemblemaria perla, Marivagia stellata, and longhead catshark (the last two right next to each other). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Just curious as to whether this page history entitles me to a co-authorship credit, or does it just go to the article creator? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 20:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Gatoclass, myself, and others have foreseen the declining DYK nom rate and that we'd have to change the number of hooks per queue, queues per day, etc. However, not all agreed at what point we should do that. In that vein, here are some thoughts and observations:
While the 139 hooks sounds low, it's not as bad as it sounds. If you factor in the six queues as well as the four preps (why do we have four now? That seems pointless imo) that's an extra 90 hooks, so 229 hooks really isn't too bad. Reducing to eight is a given, I'm actually not sure when or why it was raised to nine. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
As consensus to go to 8 hooks per update appears fairly clear, I have modified Template:Did you know/Clear and placed only 8 hooks in the update at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. -- Allen3 talk 19:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Rlevse asked me to comment here. In regards to the backlog, I think that not only do we need to go to 8 hooks, we will also probably have to go to 8-hour updates at the current rate of decline. As for reversing the order of hooks at T:TDYK, I'm not terribly keen on the idea myself for a variety of reasons, but perhaps it can't do much harm as an experiment. Gatoclass ( talk) 22:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
So let's try a one week trial with the "old noms on top" idea. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I like the new format. I believe it will encourage reviewers to look at the articles that need some attention first. Also reviewers that are not inclined to get bogged down in a lengthy discussion over the merits of a hook can still do what they've been doing. I guess that might be the point. Dincher ( talk) 01:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The one-week trial ends tonight, are we in agreement to leave it as it is? Strange Passerby ( talk • c • status) 15:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we should make it clear that the newest hooks for a day should be on the bottom in the edit notice, the layout right now is muddled up. — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 11:30am • 00:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I've reworded the notice at the top of the suggestions page. Let's give it another week, then make a decision. Noms in the coming week will all have been made under the alternate system, rather than a mixture of the two systems as happened in the last week. Mjroots ( talk) 06:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I like the new format as well. 28bytes ( talk) 14:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that the experiment has worked, and that the "older noms at top" system be adopted permanently. Mjroots ( talk) 10:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
At queue 5, does "Jewish false messiah" have a consensus here? 50,000 Frankists thought he was a real messiah, so should it be "alleged Jewish messiah"? Art LaPella ( talk) 05:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me it may be time to go back to 8 hooks per? Since it's getting hard to find a sufficent amount without overloading on bios. (And 8 hooks makes it easier to go "half bios/American, don't put bios/American next to each other if it can be helped"). - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 20:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
In regard to the hook for this article (an article I created and nominated), which is now at Prep area 3, I have been wondering for several days whether it is appropriate to use for a biography of a living person, in light of the fact that the person herself has never publicly confirmed the information. Granted, there are reliable sources which support the information, but I would appreciate it if some editors would take another look at the hook and the article itself before it goes live on the main page. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I recently created an article on the tenor Andrew McKinley and I could nominate it now. However, I have plans to create articles on baritone David Aiken (currently a redirect to another person) and the bass Leon Lishner. These three men were the three kings in the original production of the classic Christmas opera Amahl and the Night Visitors. I would like to nominate them together and perhaps have it up on Christmas Eve this year at DYK, since the opera premiered on NBC Televison on December 24, 1951. I'm not sure how soon I can get to the other two. It may be a few weeks, at which point McKinley will be past the nomination deadline. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
With the change to oldest-first at T:TDYK, I am wondering if there is a danger that hooks for specific dates will be skipped when preparing updates because the hooks are being selected from the top of the page. There are presently two unreviewed nominations (disclosure: one is mine) that I think are now past their requested time-slots. There are also quite a few nominations for the next week or so in the special timing section, so it seems to me that there is a potential for further examples. Would someone experienced with preparing updates please have a look? Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 15:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
A lot of the hooks in the holding area are yet to be reviewed. Should we make it clear (a written rule) that all new nominations, including ones for special timings, are to be nominated the regular way? The nominator can always add the request for the special time in his nomination. Once passed, he or the reviewer can then make the move to the holding area. This would seem to me to solve the issue of lack of reviews for special time hooks as has been raised here. Strange Passerby ( talk • c • status) 12:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The lead hook in Prep 4 presently is:
I noticed it a couple of hours ago at
T:TDYK and thought it was a nice example of collaboration (four articles from four different editors) and also that it was a shame it wouldn't have the fifth article to make it into the DYK Hall of Fame. So, I have started a new article
cysteine-rich secretory proteins and I am suggesting that it might be added into this hook (assuming the other authors are agreeable, and that it meets DYK standards, of course).
I recognise that thie request is somewhat unusual - and I apologise if it is inappropriate. If the suggestion is unreasonable, I am willing to simply nominate
cysteine-rich secretory proteins through the regular process and have it as a stand-alone DYK nom. However, I thought that combining it with the existing hook seems reasonable to at least suggest. I am suggesting the hook be changed to:
All of the venoms are mentioned in the CRISP article, all referenced. Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 13:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Mandarax, thanks for checking it out. As a stand-alone, I was planning to nominate the article with a hook like:
Whatever everyone thinks is best is fine with me. :) Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 21:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to Rlevse for updating the hook and The Bushranger for updating the Prep 4 dyk-makes. I was wondering whether PFHLai should also get dyk-nom credits for the two extra articles? EdChem ( talk) 02:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I rejected this nomination earlier today for being submitted past the 5 day deadline... yet somehow it is now in the queue. Why is this? 4meter4 ( talk) 00:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The hook appears in prep 4 this time yesterday, so maybe there was a double nomination of it? Str Pby ( talk) 01:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is currently in queue 5 but there was an unresolved issue with the hook (see the section in this version just before it was moved to prep). The "cutting costs for such cells by 40% and making the power generated from the cells cheaper than from coal" is not suitably sourced IMO as it is based on what the company has said and obviously they will be trying to big up their own product. I suggest removing this from the hook, but that makes it rather dull. Shall we move it back to T:TDYK so it can be discussed properly? Smartse ( talk) 11:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
T:TDYK#Dragan Tešanović has been reviewed and it is requested that it be on the main page on 29 October, 1:00am (queue 3). Can an admin please slot it in? Thanks,
Adabow (
talk ·
contribs)
03:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I hate to be "that guy", I really do, but myself and EdChem added our joint hook days ago, yet it has not received any sort of view. We asked for a specific time and that time is 9 minutes away, yet the hook hasn't been moved to the queue. Can someone please deal with this now as it is rather urgent. Apologies for the nagging, but this has been kept waiting too long. Thank you. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Paralympiakos, I agree it is disappointing that the hook will need redrafting, but it's not the end of the world. We can redraft once the results are known fairly easily. Remember that everyone here is a volunteer, and we should have made the nomination a couple of days earlier - blame me if you like. Reviewers are free to review what they choose, and I am certainly grateful for their efforts. I think the issue here (other than some tardiness on my part) is the change in page layout making the date-specific nominations less prominent. I am glad your Dragan Tešanović hook will get its requested slot, it was nominated in plenty of time. Moving our nom back to the regular queue isn't too difficult. Personally, I think the concern here is whether the new layout of T:TDYK makes the DYK community less aware of those date-specific nominations, and how to reduce the chances of nominations like yours of Tešanović slipping through the cracks. EdChem ( talk) 12:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Queue 3 has an erroneous DYKmake and DYKnom for Mac Morgan. The hook was moved and is currently in Prep 2, with the proper credits. (I mentioned this above, but I guess it got lost among other discussions, or people assumed someone else had fixed it.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The two queues (4 and 1) just built by Alansohn will go live on 31 Oct, which is when the 5 Halloween prep sets we have saved up will start going live. Therefore, I'm putting the two he built into temp holding pages and will start moving the Halloween sets in. Of course, others are welcome to move the Halloween sets in too, but keep in mind I built them in the order I thought best to see them on the main page, ie, Halloween P1 gets loaded first, HP2 loaded second and so on. The 5th set will appear on 1 Nov UTC time but it'll still be Halloween in North America. Cheers. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Malta Test Station, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from {{{url}}}, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Malta Test Station saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!
Not a very good stock template, but apprently I was expected to notify, so I'm doing it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Sandy, I'm starting to feel that it's a tad bit more than grating that you appear to attack DYK at every chance you get (at Utahraptor's RFA, and then this thread at ANI). How about trying to help instead of randomly accusing us of not doing enough on X, Y or Z, or that we're too lax on A, B or C? For what it's worth, when I review DYK nominations I do check for close paraphrasing and possible copyvios; as can be seen from the talk page archives of one of our more prominent copyright-dealing admins, I've approached her before for advice when reviewing DYKs. Str Pby ( talk) 23:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
(redent) I can't see any way round the problem while DYK is seen as some sort of a right for articles, judged solely on supposedly objective standards. There are enough nominations and enough editors to choose the best eight articles/hooks a day and keep them up for 24 hours, but that would obviously be a very radical change and one for which I've never seen any real support around here. Physchim62 (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
When I review a DYK and check the refs, I do look for plagiarism, as I am sure do many other reviewers. When I saw a borderline case, I raised it and other editors expressed a view. So, I hope that we can avoid tarring all reviewers with the actions of (what I hope is only) a few. I believe that most editors here would support avoiding putting plagiarism being posted to the main page. As a suggestion for detecting plagiarism, could a bot that works on this problem (such as CorenSearchBot, for example) be adapted to check a single article on request? That way, reviewers would have a test they could add to their standard review practice. Alternatively, maybe a check could by added to the DYKcheck script? EdChem ( talk) 01:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Malleus, I can assure you that I wouldn't pass an article full of spelling and grammar mistakes. Have a look at the x5 expansion of actinide that is presently in the DYK queue, or my expansion of the Hans Freeman stub or the rhodocene DYK (now a GA)... there is some really good work highlighted by DYK. Please try to recognise that DYK has both wheat and chaff. EdChem ( talk) 01:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
<-I just gave a cursory read to the rules and additional rules. Apologies if I missed something, but I didn't see any admonitions to check for copyvios. I fully understand that all article submitted for DYK must meet all policy requirements for articles, and it is not feasible to repeat all those requirements in the rules for evaluating a DYK. However, given the strong allegations, and the prominence of the DYK articles, perhaps it would be good to remind DYK evaluators that checking for plagiarism should be one of the steps. I confess I've evaluated a number of suggestions, concentrating on length, timing, hook, verifiability of hook, general readability, and only pursued copyvio possibilities if it reads too good to be true. I plan to check more carefully in the future; does it make sense to encourage others to do the same?-- SPhilbrick T 17:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Should "From Wikipedia's newest articles:" be rephrased for Halloween to something else? They aren't technically our "newest articles"... Str Pby ( talk) 02:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi folks. I nominated United States Ambassador to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture, created on October 23. It was approved and then in this edit and this edit yesterday moved to the prep 4 area. Then in this edit later yesterday it was replaced by a set of Halloween items. But I've looked at all the queues and other prep areas and I don't see it anywhere now, unless I've missed it. Did it get lost in the shuffle? Thanks! Wasted Time R ( talk) 10:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
As those who follow this page would be aware, Paralympiakos and I had a six-article hook in the time-specific section with a request for an Oct 28 date. It was not reviewed in time and cannot be used in its present form on any other date, so we have been considering what to do now. I had intended to do a small redraft of the hook, but events have made that impossible (one fight was postponed, and hence two articles no longer fit in the hook). So, I am posting here to outline our suggestions / requests in the hope they will be found satisfactory. Our intentions are as follows:
Is this an acceptable way for dealing with the existing Oct 28 request? Paralympiakos and I thank you for considering our suggestions / requests. EdChem ( talk) 12:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion at talk:Main page about the hook for 1366 Technologies. It contains a claim reliably sourced to the New York Times, but if you read the article the 40% saving stated in the hook as definitively occurring is actually just a claim / prediction from the management. We should either take this hook down and re-assess / re-draft it, or at least change it on the main page to show that the saving is a prediction, not a fact. Someone please intervene quickly, this looks like a really dubious hook to me.
Details: The hook presently on the main page is:
1366 Technologies article:
and
These statements do not support the hook, in my opinion. EdChem ( talk) 12:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Immediate problem resolved - Materialscientist has changed the hook to:
which addresses my concerns. Smartse's point that we dropped the ball in passing the hook in the first place remains, however. EdChem ( talk) 13:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I know we've had GAs on DYK before, but I wonder what list of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners will make it to first, FL status or the Main Page? :) On a more serious note, in the unlikely event that it is promoted to FL before approval here, it wouldn't affect its eligibility, I hope. Str Pby ( talk) 06:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Are we now applying stricter standards for reference formatting? If so, that must be fully disclosed in the rules. I don't think we should, as that would have the effect of excluding newer users who may be unfamiliar or uncomfortable with fancier techniques such as citation templates.
The review for the General Union of Ecuadorian Workers hook stated that "the bare URLs need to be formatted per WP:Citation templates before this nomination can be approved." I pointed out that there were no bare URLs. But the hook was removed with the edit summary "yes they are bare urls, disapproved".
Am I missing something? http://abareurl.com is a bare URL. Not a bare URL isn't. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:V example: information has to be published and verifiable, whether that involves a trip to a library, it has to be something in print somewhere accessible somehow. Where the heck does one find this source at Acheron class torpedo boat?
That is all of the information given. No title, no date, nothing to indicate anything was published. Are we expected to call Australia to verify this article's content? This doesn't meet the barest policy requirements of WP:V, and it's on the mainpage now, I think. I'm worried that you all are verifying only the hooks, but passing on articles that shouldn't even be ... well ... articles yet, because they don't meet core policy. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
"Australia's First Warship - The Torpedo Boat Acheron". navyhistory.org.au. Retrieved October 30, 2010.
I am guessing that will give you more than enough information to go on with, and it has taken longer to type this post than it did to find the information.
Maybe you will take some friendly advice... if you want to try and improve the situation with DYK referencing, you might consider an approach that is less likely to put everyone on the defensive. I think you have some relevant points, but I am also finding some of your comments irritating, and I suspect I am not alone. Telling us that everything DYK does is awful without recognising the efforts of the editors here (both in content development and in reviewing) is not helping you towards your stated goal (at least, not efficiently). EdChem ( talk) 08:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
← Getting back to the original article in question, I'd like to apologize for some assumptions which I made. I took the term "bare URL" literally and assumed that it referred only to links which look like unadorned URLs. Because of the crude ref formatting, I assumed that the author was an inexperienced user submitting their first DYK and that they were thus in need of a little extra support and nurturing, when in fact, according to their user page, they've created over 3000 articles and received 244 DYKs. Because the author originally used unambiguously bare URLs by anybody's definition and then changed them to their present form after nominating the article, I assumed that they thought they had already fixed the bare URL issue, perhaps thinking that the comment in the review was based on the earlier version. It is regrettable that they never responded. And finally, I'd like to apologize for inadvertently adding links to a porn site! When I provided an example URL (which I've now modified), I should have realized that anything beginning with "bare" would be trouble. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Y'all can't be putting BLPs sourced to "guampedia" on the main page-- I just blanked most of José Sisto, which is on the mainpage now. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, in the future, I'll try to work in advance, but Jameela Jamil is a BLP on the mainpage now, and it's sourced to online blogs and gossip rags. Nothing highly derogatory, but I think it still needs to go per BLP. But I'll let Psychim62 the expert handle how to solve the problem, since he has such a good faithometer, and I wouldn't want to cross him by, um, actually engaging our BLP policy. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I hope Sandy and I have been able to smooth off some of the sharp edges on my User talk page so I shaln't reply to those comments directly. I do think that many of the problems with DYK are caused by the fact that it "promotes" too many articles without sufficient oversight (in practice). Physchim62 (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)