![]() | 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 70 | ← | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | → | Archive 80 |
By definition, an extinct animal is not be be found, in Australia or anywhere else. Kevin McE ( talk) 20:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Outside "research papers on extinct taxa", in the experience of the vast majority of our readers, to say that an animal is found somewhere mens that it exists, alive, in the wild: to say "Wolves are no longer found in Britain" does not mean that the fossil/skeletal record has been removed. Now on main page, so I'll raise it at WP:ERRORS. Kevin McE ( talk) 08:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
When I nominated Liza Dalby I randomly chose a page to review: [2]. For various reasons I've decided it's better to pass this on to another reviewer. Can someone else please pick it up and finish and let me know? Thanks. Truthkeeper ( talk) 20:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
At this nomination I noticed some confusion about how fivefold expansion should be calculated. I was about to respond in my usual grumpy way, but then I noticed that the WP:DYK#DYK rules I was about to point to don't actually state this clearly either; they say "expanded fivefold within the past five days", from which you can infer that we mean expansion began within the past five days (rather than expansion ended within the past five days), but maybe it would help to make this more explicit.
What I ended up doing was making step-by-step instructions for calculating this, at User:Rjanag/Calculating fivefold expansion by hand. (I realize DYKcheck can do most of this work, but we probably shouldn't expect nominators to have to install DYKcheck just to nominate their articles.) I was thinking it could be linked from WP:DYK#DYK rules and/or Wikipedia:Did you know/Fivefold. But first I thought I could hear you guys' comments on 1) whether it's good (i.e., will these instructions lead to miscalculations in any circumstances), and 2) whether it's necessary (is there a simpler way to handle this just by rewording the rules). rʨanaɢ ( talk) 21:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
In the spirit of collaboration, I would like to make a couple suggestions that people may be interested in. List of death metal bands from Nordic countries is 110 characters of readable prose, with the list portion entirely cited. The deletion discussion turned up several sources which can be used and are English. Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused has several images that were not used because the articles the images are used in are stubs; they could theoretically be expanded easily. Hope this helps. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I am having trouble here - Template:Did you know nominations/The Rise of the Blue Beetle!. The citation area says that it isn't referenced when it is. The interest is listed as "Frankly, boring". The Length wasn't passed although it is 1,742 characters. Adequate citations wasn't passed because there are only four references. Formatted citations was passed, but it said that I didn't format it correctly like most editors. I referenced it using the template with only two things that I found not needed removed. SL93 ( talk)
DYK rule #3 currently states "Cited hook – The nominated hook must contain a fact cited in the article." Could it be made clearer, perhaps "Cited hook – Any facts mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article." I am asking as an editor is interpreting the current rule as requiring only one fact in the hook be cited. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 13:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Just a couple of notes on the current review templates that are in test mode:
I don't really see the point of the "interest" check. It is a very fickle concept that will vary much to widely based on the person/day/time/mood/hungerfactor/weather/etc... I am one of those who thinks that almost all hooks (but not all, note) are interesting to one group of people or another, even if it may not be interesting to me. As there is no way to create an objective rubric to gauge the relative "interest factor" of a particular hook I would suggest removing it as a checkbox in the template. If there is a serious problem with the hook it can be commented on.-- Kev min § 19:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the article template, the plagiarism section really should be renamed "no plagiarism" as the current wording looks like we are agreeing there is plagiarism in the article. -- Kev min § 19:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
One thing I dislike about the current template is the multiple repeated signatures when a single editor does all the reviewing. It makes little sense to do this, and it would be better to have a variant of the template that can be used when a single editor has or intends to sign off on everything. Compare this (easy to scan) with this, which is signature overload. Also, just ticking things off on a list doesn't give the submitter any feedback on the article. It should be a two-way discussion leading to article improvements, not a rubber-stamping exercise to meet minimal requirements. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
As announced above, I nominated Anna and Bernhard Blume in memory of him. The funeral is on 8 September. In the German WP that day is given without a ref as his birthday which may be true and would be like him. I wasn't close enough to know. - As said many times before, I go for DYK to make facts known, this one especially, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The claim for the cause of his death has two sources cited: an enquiry on a genealogy forum, and an anonymous response on a football forum. No reason to believe that the source of the info has any more qualification than access to an e-mail account. There is evidently some breadth to the believe in this anecdote, but these are not reliable sources. Kevin McE ( talk) 14:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I was wondering if anybody could finish reviewing my double nomination from August 17. It is the oldest nomination on the page that has not been fully reviewed yet. Thank you. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 15:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
My nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Ehrlichia Wisconsin HM543746 was just reviewed, but the formatting of my hook is wrong and I don't know how to fix it. Only Ehrlichia is supposed to be in italics while the rest of it isn't. SL93 ( talk) 23:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Could someone modify the André Watson hook to include a reference to the Rugby World Cup (the next cup starts in the next couple of days)? If length is an issue, Currie Cup can be removed... Something like - ...that André Watson holds records for refereeing the greatest number of finals in the Rugby World Cup, Currie Cup and Super Rugby? Hack ( talk) 03:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
This is NOT a complaint, and in no way is it any criticism on the compiler of the set of hooks.
Yesterday, my article on
St. Lawrence's Church, Mereworth appeared on the main page as part of DYK, for which I'm grateful. Although there was a good image available, it was not chosen as the lead hook. That honour fell to
Ophiocomina nigra, which got 4,400 views.
Of the three linked articles in my hook,
Charles Davis Lucas got 2,400 views (previous 30 day range 6-27 views),
Victoria Cross got 1,500 views (previous 30 day range 738-1200 views) and the article on the church got a grand total of 435 views! A little disappointing, but it does go to show the power of the lede image.
Mjroots (
talk)
09:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't we have a checklist for the image or at least a parameter in the hook checklist? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It appears that the current QPQ rule (rule 5) does not indicate that one should review one article for each article nominated, including multiple reviews for multiple articles in one nomination. If nominators should indeed review with a 1:1 ratio, it should be noted in the rules. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
No-one said this is "a page layout and presentation program disguised as a spreadsheet"; the article quotes someone as saying that it is "really a page layout & presentation app disguised as a spreadsheet app". As soon as we paraphrase, we lose the truth in the statement. If we are going to say that someone called it something, we should A) take care not to misquote them, and B) use speech marks to identify the quote. Kevin McE ( talk) 10:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Just a note to all interested editors. There was a bit of a traffic jam when two editors nominated two articles separately. PFHLai nominated the anemone first on the 6th. Rcej nominated the crab and anemone on the 9th, probably without knowing that PFHLai had nominated the shell. PFHLai then added the crab to his/her nomination on the 10th, probably without knowing that Rcej had already nominated it as such. In the interest of avoiding headaches, I have kept the double nom running but with PFHLai as the nominator for the anemone and Rcej as the nominator for the crab, as they were the first nominators respectively. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 09:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
First, the specific problem:
That is *not* what the source says at all.
Second, the general problem:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The following hook is somewhat clumsy:
Would the following be somewhat better?
Please note that the alternative hook omits that she is based in England. Schwede 66 06:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Once we know that Zsolt Gárdonyi composed Mozart Changes, we know that no-one else composed it. That list of "no-one else"s includes his father, but also includes all other composers, living and dead, and indeed, everybody else one can think of, including Alexander of Macedonia and my local newsagent. While I understand the wish to distinguish between Zsolt and Zoltán as composers, it is probable that a tiny minority of main page readers are familiar with either of them, and so such confusion is not a major risk. Following one's father's profession is not remarkable in and of itself (both of my examples of "no-one else"s did likewise). If a link is to be drawn between the work of the Gárdonyis, pere et fils, then the relevant work to focus on is not one which the father had no more (verifiably) to do with than Alexander (who is more likely to be an ancestor of Gárdonyi than is my newsagent). Propose "... that Zsolt Gárdonyi, composer of Mozart Changes, edited his father's Three Motets?" Kevin McE ( talk) 08:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
is a dull advert. Any chance for something more interesting? Materialscientist ( talk) 10:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
... that the unmoving Michael Jordan wore the jersey of ice hockey player Jonathan Toews? This might be just me. To me, "wore" means regular action, and thus I would add "once" or alike. More concerning is "the unmoving Michael Jordan", which is a 1 April style wording (for a statue). Materialscientist ( talk) 13:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Rather like the recent Ryan Lavarnway situation, the article appears here to have chosen an obscure and often misinterpreted word (aliens in this case) rather than the more informative (and therefore encyclopaedic) alternative (foreign prisoners) primarily for the purpose of enabling a hook. The usefulness of article content should not be secondary to catchy phrasing on the main page. Kevin McE ( talk) 16:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
In other words, the term 'enemy alien' is an encyclopedic term and is being used absolutely correctly here. The hook should have used the original wording, though I think it has now been and gone from the main page. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)"The Isle of Man was used by the British Government for the internment of enemy aliens during both World War One and World War Two" [...] "After Great Britain entered the First World War in August 1914, the government of Canada issued an Order in Council under the War Measures Act. It required the registration and in certain cases the internment of aliens of "enemy nationality". This included the more than 80,000 Canadians who were formerly citizens of the Austrian-Hungarian empire. These individuals had to register as "enemy aliens" and report to local authorities on a regular basis."
This Template:Did you know nominations/Hurricane Norbert (1984) looks strange. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Please correct. Queue 5 is next to go. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty confident about my moving Leisl Tesch to Liesl Tesch; see Talk:Liesl Tesch. I'm less confident about what this does. Art LaPella ( talk) 20:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
|subpage=Leisl Tesch
in the {DYKmake} template, although I don't think it's really necessary.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
20:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)With all the recent changes can someone confirm that a Stub Class article is not suitable for DYK? I am reviewing the Sioux City Public Museum and while it just long enough in size I would class it as a Stub. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 17:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the
Sioux City Public Museum section above, I saw a common problem that came up frequently during
WP:1.0 assessments about the line between stubs and starts. Even though it doesn't appear to be written anywhere in
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, a rough rule of thumb that we used was that if the article could support at least one separate section heading with a normal
WP:LEAD than it was above stub class.
Right now we are basically using the arbitrary 1500 character limits as the dividing line but the conversation above noted examples where editorial discretion is needed since the matter is not always so black and white. I wonder if it would be beneficial to adopt the WP:1.0 "unwritten rule" on starts vs stubs to go along with the 1500 chars requirement. I think most people will agree that
a single paragraph of text looks much more stub-like than an
an article with section headings. Any thoughts?
Agne
Cheese/
Wine
16:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Skinner article was plagiarized but nominator doesn't think so; could use an uninvolved reviewer to step in. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 04:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)`
A strange line appears after Katia Plaschka. Did I do that? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
FYI to administrators: The three images now in the prep area are protected at Commons, per a request I made at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections. -- Orlady ( talk) 19:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to fix the "reviewed=" part of the DYK template so that it links to the direct DYK subpage of the reviewed article, instead of the main T:TDYK page section of it? That way, other users can still access and confirm that the review was done even after it has been promoted and removed from the T:TDYK page, since they'll be going straight to the subpage. Silver seren C 05:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been out of the loop for a week or two and things have been moving fast around these parts, so I was wondering if we're still doing Q4Q reviews? Volunteer Marek 11:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Eternal life was accepted and promoted without a discussion, Template:Did you know nominations/Eternal life (Christianity). I find the term itself debatable, also the (of course) simplifying hook, and at least one unexplained line in the article, s. talk. But perhaps I am the only one. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Are we going to be including the discussion templates in the T:AH? If so, can we have the bot handle it?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello all, the reviewer at Template:Did you know nominations/Extermination of Evil has requested a second opinion regarding the use of sources and paraphrasing issues. Could somebody take a look? NB: It is one of my noms. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The {{ DYKbotdo}} in Queue 5 is missing a right curly bracket. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, can someone point me at the explanation on how to close one of the new subpages when moving it to prep? I wanted to help out by making up a couple of prep areas as there isn't any currently made up and only one queue standing too - however I don't know how the new things work! Thanks, Miyagawa (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi I nominated the 3rd Parachute Brigade (United Kingdom) on 12 September. As it is still waiting to be reviewed I accessed the noms page and using the review or comment link attempted to add an ALT1 suggestion. However the link just goes to a blank page. I cannot duplicate this with any other nomination, and there seems to be a problem with the link. This may be something I did yesterday as when checking the nomination was a red link and I had to reinstate the {{}}. To complicate matters even more if searching for the nomination page in article history (here Template:Did you know nominations/ 3rd Parachute Brigade (United Kingdom)), it does display the check lists etc, when you try to edit. Any thoughts or suggestions on how to fix this. 07:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that this has gone straight to queue at the 11th hour, but a couple of tweaks I would suggest:
There is no evidence that File:Kirsopp Lake.jpg is in PD (say, taken in 1914, first published in the 1950s - there are very few, unconfirmed, possibilities it is in PD). If no other ideas, I would use the file to the right (with a minor crop) from hook No. 4. Materialscientist ( talk) 10:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Could an independent reviewer take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Estevan Ochoa. As best as I can determine, the current reviewer is objecting to the proposed hook based upon the assumption that the distance between the center of a circle and a point outside said circle is shorter than the radius of the circle (an impossibility within Euclidean geometry). Alternative proposals from the reviewer have been similarly problematic by either directly contradicting the article's sources or requiring events to occur in reverse chronological order. -- Allen3 talk 17:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
All hooks at T:TDYK up to Sep 12 have had at least one review, and I've noticed that we are essentially pulling brand new hooks that have already been approved to fill preps. Are we running out of articles? The number on the page has been getting steadily fewer, I believe. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Only 75 hooks and we've been running on three updates a day for weeks? I've never seen it remotely as slow as this. I guess all the argumentation and the changes over the last few months have driven many contributors away. We will have to go to two updates a day for now, in the meantime, we might consider adding a notice to the Signpost encouraging more participation. Gatoclass ( talk) 02:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I have never seen a page view count fall when someone was included in DYK before, but look at http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Heath_Irwin for September 19th. What kind of error am I looking at with page views falling from 462 to 81 on the 19th.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 12:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I know it was briefly discussed about two weeks ago or so, but I am uncertain if a consensus was ever reached regarding the number of reviews a nominator should do when they nominate multiple articles in one hook. Is it one review per hook or one per article in the hook? Im trying to figure if I should review two for the double nom I am finishing up now.-- Kev min § 17:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
FYI to admins: I have requested protection at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Pls protect images to be used on EN main page for the next two images (Queue 4 and Prep Area 2). They aren't protected yet, but that should happen within the next 4 hours (before Queue 4 hits the main page). I'll be asleep, so I won't be able to check... -- Orlady ( talk) 04:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Now in Prep 1, Eternal Diet is playing with words nicely. I would like to see a link which explains "Youngest Recess of ...", -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 19:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
FTR, I moved the James Elliott Farm hook from prep area 2 (which was about to go to the queue) to prep area 1 because of concern about two non-new articles linked in the hook. New Harmony Historic District is the link provided for the term "New Harmony commune" and Owenism (a very short unsourced stub) was linked to explain the philosophy behind that commune. Nether article is a particularly satisfactory source of information about the topic identified in the link. I think that other articles exist that would be better items to link to, but I have not thoroughly researched the situation. For example, New Harmony, Indiana has more information about the commune than the historic district article does, and Robert Owen has far more information on the topic of Owenism. I intend to try to resolve this before the hook goes to the main page, but I won't squawk if someone else finds a solution before I get back to this... -- Orlady ( talk) 20:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
There was some IAR discussion in the proposal discussion over this hook, but I would like to flag it up for further consideration. For example, is it saying that there was an eta that looked like a beta, an epsilon that looked like a beta, an eta that looks like a modern B, an epsilon that looks like a modern B? It is not based on a claim that is explicit in the article, and it is semantically confused to say the least. Kevin McE ( talk) 17:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I have changed
to
The article presents no evidence that Doctor Willard Bliss (Doctor is the first name, not only title) was called Doctor Doctor - this appear as WP:SYNTH, and Doctor Bliss is equally hooky. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, I was wondering if I could have another pair of eyes on Template:Did you know nominations/The Litigators. The novel is not out yet, and as such the article is nearly 75% plot. I feel it is a stub, but would like more input. Thanks. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 14:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Could another editor weigh in at the hook suggestions at Template:Did you know nominations/X (The X-Files)? Mine are a little racy, and the original has a few issues. Thanks in advance. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 07:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I recently created the article 2011 US listeriosis outbreak and I was planning on nominating it for DYK, but it has since been nominated for ITN, which is ongoing here. My question is, can an article be nominated for DYK as well as ITN or is it just a one only type thing? If the latter, what should I do in regards to this article, because the ITN nomination process could potentially, but not very likely, take longer than the time period I have to nominate it for DYK. And if it ends up ultimately failing ITN, it might be too late to nominate it for DYK. So...how exactly does this work? Silver seren C 03:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Now that DYK is on a 12-hour cycle, I have a question regarding that updating of DYK STATS. Should the number of page views be adjusted (normalized) to put them on an equal footing with the traditional 6/8-hour cycles? We've never bothered when switching between 6 and 8 hours, but this is a big jump to 12 hours. — Bruce1ee talk 05:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
{{sort|005723|[
http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Widgets 5,723]}}
?
BabelStone (
talk)
20:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Do we have anything prohibiting me from nominating a Billy Hathorne article? Bryan Hughes (Texas politician) looks like a good candidate to me: it's long enough and new enough, its subject obviously passes WP:POLITICIAN, and I've vetted it for close paraphrasing. Nyttend ( talk) 02:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not sure who I should address this to. Crisco1492 reviewed my self-nom hook on John Palocaren and then moved it to Prep Area 1. In his reviewer comments (see Template:Did_you_know_nominations/John_Palocaren) he said he agreed with me in preferring my ALT1. But then when he BUILT the Prep ( DIFF) he used the original hook. I wonder if this was a mistake. I'd still recommend ALT1. -- Presearch ( talk) 22:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
a hook for in about 17 hours is on the Comma Johanneum (evaluated at {{ Did_you_know_nominations/Codex_Ravianus}}):
This suggest part of the comma is used in the codices. However, it seems that these codices all contain (complete! the point is that they are very short interjections) commae johanneum, and thus not "just"part of it. Wouldn't contain the spurious biblical text Comma Johanneum be a better ending of the hook? L.tak ( talk) 17:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Did you know/Queue/6 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can an admin implement the new hook at queue 6 (in italics above)?}}
L.tak (
talk)
18:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Her swimming record was not set in a park, it was set at Beatty Park. It is clearly not in a parkland setting. Park would be an abbreviated form of the proper name, and so should be capitalised. I made that change while it was in Prep, but it was not carried over to the Queue stage: no edit note, so I don't know whether that was disagreement or oversight. Kevin McE ( talk) 17:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
It's been over a week since I added the checklists into the nomination template (see here) so I think it's a good time now to start reviewing the pros and cons this trial has revealed. Here are my thoughts so far (in what follows, when I link to examples, I am not trying to rat out any particular people, I'm just providing examples; in all cases, these are things that more than just one or two reviewers are doing):
All in all, for the reasons I described above, I think these templates are just making the page and the reviewing process more confusing and probably more alienating. I also don't think they provide any benefit (as some people have pointed out in previous discussions, someone who's going to do a bad review is just going to do a bad review; forcing them to go through the motions of signing off a few things, as far as I can tell, just gives us more ammo if we want to bite their heads off about it later, but doesn't actually help the project in any way). For these reasons, I think the checklist templates should no longer be auto-included in nominations, and I think their use should be discouraged.
I welcome further input. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 10:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I have hinted about this in the discussions linked above: I think rather than having a form reviewers must "sign off" every time they complete a nomination, a less cumbersome way to meet the "community demand" would be to include in every nomination's editnotice a clear "checklist" of things that should be checked in any review. This checklist, a draft of which can be seen
here, is basically a version of
WP:DYK#DYK rules that is written for reviewers rather than nominators, and made as concise as possible. This would obviate cluttering
T:TDYK with a lot of messy table, and obviate forcing reviewers to enter a million signatures every time they want to complete a nom; thus, I think both reviewing noms and skimming T:TDYK would be easier. Also, with this stuff in an edit notice it's easier to make the checklist points actually clear (that is to say, they each are explained in normal prose, with links, whereas the checklist template in the nomination's edit window itself is just a list of obtuse parameters and people have to go to
some other page to see what they mean). And, since it would be in a prominent place (the edit notice), it would still serve as a reminder of what needs to be checked in every review, which after all was the whole point of having a checklist. (Some others may argue that the point of a sign-able checklist is "accountability", but personally I don't buy that; all a sign-able checklist gives us is the ability to point fingers even more after something goes wrong, it doesn't actually prevent bad articles from making it to the main page. Besides, editors are still accountable for articles they review, even if they don't sign every point of a checklist individually; placing
on an article is, or at least should be, a shorthand way of saying "this article meets all the criteria".)
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
10:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
{{
show}}
or something, although I don't think that should be overused; and using bullets rather than level-3 section headers for the headers like "Criteria for the article" may save space.)Regarding who OKed what, as I explained in the section above I don't think that's really important. First of all, it should still be easy to know who OKed what (if someone
ed the article, that means they are either saying they OK'ed everything or they OK'ed some stuff and they made sure that someone else OK'ed the rest--and the latter should only be happening if someone else has already explicitly said on the nom page "X is ok"). That information may not be visually organized into a table, but it should still all be easily available, and I don't think it makes sense to ask 100% of the reviewers to jump through the hoops they are now just to make it even easier for us to find information that should already have been easy to find, in the maybe 5-10% of cases where there is a need later on to revisit an old nomination.
Regarding "making brief comments and waving it through", people can still do that no matter what kind of checklist they have to check off—nothing can stop people from just going through the motions of putting their signature in every part and then saying "ok". Either way, they're taking responsibility for their review regardless of whether they sign it once or ten times, and if they're reviewing poorly it will still be possible to notice that and chide/educate them.
Of course there are some aspects of this proposal that look similar to the previous situation, because as I explained in the section above I don't think the check-off checklists are a net benefit. But I am also trying to honor the outcome of that checklist RfC (which some people here don't even consider valid) by implementing a change that I believe is in the spirit of the checklist thing. Please read my comments in the section above, where I explained clearly what the goal of this proposal is. I'm not just trying to preserve the status quo at all costs (I daresay I've spent a lot more of my free time than you and the DYK critics in trying to make improvements). rʨanaɢ ( talk) 01:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess we can try the editnotice if that's what people want, but I'm not sure how effective editnotices are, if it proves ineffective we may have to revisit this debate. Gatoclass ( talk) 17:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and removed the checklists from nominations and added the list of review criteria to the editnotice. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 16:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
There's some controversy over the hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Naked woman climbing a staircase:
The article has one inline reference which contrasts Miró's painting with one of Duchamp's. The relevant portion of that source says, in its entirety: "In this representation of a woman climbing a staircase, Miró reversed the concept of Marcel Duchamp's Nude descending a staircase." The article has another reference which relates to the influence of Muybridge's photos on Duchamp. These are the only inline sources provided which are relevant to the hook. See the nomination page for the discussion.
Some fresh opinions would be most welcome. Thanks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Eternal life (Christianity) shows an failure of the DYK process. An alternate hook was suggested late in the day, and it wasn't found in the references. The article claimed the term wasn't "explicitly defined", whereas the source said it wasn't "defined in detail". Maybe there needs to be a tightening of the process with alternate hooks... St Anselm ( talk) 21:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
The article referred to is The Creation structure. It is not recognizable in "... that Haydn's oratorio The Creation is structured in three parts, the first two about the creation as narrated in Genesis, the third about Adam and Eve in Paradise?" which looks like "Structure". If bolding The Creation is structured is not possible, it should be The Creation is structured. The link to The Creation (Haydn) is misleading. Please compare the hook in Talk:Messiah structure, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
i would welcome comments about this edit to the new edit notice. It was intended to allow us to have all the same content but while hiding it away, expandable one section at a time. violet/riga [talk] 21:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
How to nominate multiple articles for a single hook?. I'm a little confused here, no idea what to write at "YOUR ARTICLE TITLE". Is it only for a one article? — Bill william compton Talk 17:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I would be pleased if the next prep could take the Bach cantata for last Sunday BWV 99 (not to be confused please with BWV 95 for next Sunday which is also approved). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
As noted in the Signpost, the collaboration between Wikimedia Indonesia and the Lontar Foundation will begin on Friday. The project is hoped to result in 300 new articles about Indonesian authors, their works, and related organizations and companies (in other words, similar to what I've been doing). I'm hoping that this can also result in at least 100 DYKs, but we will see how that goes. As one of the coordinators for the project, I will try and keep an eye on their articles if nominated; hopefully this will ensure that the reviewer has an easier time. Also, if the Lontar trainees begin nominating DYKs, please contact me if there are any major issues like copvios and whatnot, as it will have to be reported to Wikimedia Indonesia. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Am I alone in being a bit bothered by the image currently in Prep Area 1? (Displayed at right.) I think the coloring is a bit "off", I don't find the image particularly interesting (other than its arresting color), and there's always something a bit promotional about a hook focused on a newly released recording. I would not normally question the judgment of the hard-working DYK volunteer who assembled the hook set, but having stumbled upon talk-page evidence that the volunteer who assembled the set had earlier been helping the hook nominator, I wonder if this choice looks "right" to others. At least two of the other hooks in that set also had suitable images nominated (displayed at left). -- Orlady ( talk) 18:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
My German is a bit rusty these days, but I think the hook fact might be wrong for the second hook ( FV 09 Weinheim), based on the article wording and the supporting source. The defeat of Bayern Munich in 1990 was certainly the first first-round defeat, but it looks like they suffered another in 1991 against FC Homburg ... and the article suggests that as well. Could somebody pls check to make sure I've got that right, with a view to correcting the hook if necessary? Danke schön, Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 15:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
What is the purpose of Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed? Because the instructions told me to do so, I've listed several noms there recently when I returned the hooks to the noms page from prep areas, but I don't know what purpose this list serves. -- Orlady ( talk) 21:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a heads up: The new MediaWiki 1.18 has been rolled out and there are bugs, one of which is messing up the references in my footnotes on Anna Essinger, currently in Prep 2. For an explanation of what the problem is, see: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#bug in #tag:ref parser function. I assume (hope?) this will be fixed soon. You may want to hold off using this article until the bug is fixed because although the refs work properly, they look awful. A looooong string of gibberish. It gave me quite a start when I went to look at another article with refs in the footnotes. Marrante ( talk) 09:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
DYKs two maintenance bots appear to have not survived the MediaWiki 1.18 upgrade. A note has been sent to the bot's owner. Hopefully they will be back up shortly but it appears to be manual updates until then. -- Allen3 talk 12:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't work for me in Firefox. Does it work for you? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Scripts are broken in IE because of a Mediawiki MIME type mismatch (something similar to
this). Will look into Firefox next.
Shubinator (
talk)
17:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
DYK check in Modern skin, Firefox and Windows XP. Prose size/Readable prose reads "0"-- Maile66 ( talk) 20:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
My nom here is now at Prep area 2, but as the British Library exhibition opens on November 11, can we hold it off until then (the 2nd batch ideally)? Should have thought before. Thanks, Johnbod ( talk) 01:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
This nom was moved to prep without actually having been given a tick mark, although essentially approved. The discussion was still going on, as to which of the hooks would be used, plus there was some work requested on the article, which I had (then) not yet done. The reviewer wrote to me on my talk page afterwards and mentioned a preference for a different hook, one that referred to the key aspect of the school, that it had been moved lock, stock and barrel from Germany to England in 1933 to escape Nazism. I had written something to that effect as the main hook, but had not mentioned the reason for the move, making the hook much weaker. Having slept on the reviewer's remark, I would now like to pull the nom from the queue so a better hook can be written. I don't have time to do this at the moment, but wanted to note my desire. I will be able to get to this in several hours, if no one else has pulled by then. Thanks. Marrante ( talk) 08:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
"... that award-winning director Garin Nugroho (pictured) liked to bathe in lava streams as a child?" is currently at prep area 2. The article and source might be interpreted that way, but he couldn't really bathe in streams of lava, because lava hardens at 700–1200 °C. It has to mean that lava flowed into a stream of water, which heated it up and added some minerals. But that isn't what "bathe in lava streams" will mean to our readers. I found no evidence that either a technical or non-technical reader would interpret the unexplained phrase "lava streams" to mean water heated by lava. Art LaPella ( talk) 18:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I have just pulled an item from the queue as inadequately reviewed. It seems that it was cleared for posting while only the hook was reviewed. I don't know what other problems might exist, but all I can say is that the prose sucks and needs a lot more work. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi.
I'm currently working on an expansion of the article for the former village of Scammonden ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and I notice that the current content about the bridge plagiarises, if not outright violates the copyright, of this webpage ( which is strikingly obvious). Because the text is not a word-for-word copyvio (although Copyscape may find it very fishy), does the supplemental rule about copyvios count? Sceptre ( talk) 04:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
In Maroon Creek Bridge the claim made for it is not supported by the source in the footnote. In Stab wound the claim does not even appear in the article. How do these get approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.147.165 ( talk) 20:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Great idea ... I've done that now (and I appreciate the work you did to set these pages up. Here's what I found:
On Maroon Creek Bridge, Crisco passed a hook that is original research, unsupported by the source, and from a source easily found on google books. It was a Daniel Case DYK ... this seems to cast the whole Quid Pro Quo concern in a new light (DYK regular passing original research hook, unsupported by the source, for another DYK regular). There are other problems with that article and its sourcing, but can't the hook at least be sourced? And again, the checklist here did not prevent an unsupported, in fact untrue, hook from being on the main page (but it did give us the accountability I've long asked for-- Crisco passed both of these hooks).
The stabbing article-- also passed by Crisco-- is even worse-- the alleged "hook" is not even contained anywhere in the article, which was passed with glaring prose problems, other sourcing problems, and nonsensical statements.
So, thanks for the accountability, and that makes two hooks that were unsupported by their sources-- and yet I see a section right above this claiming DYK is ready to up the volume again. What's up with that? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello there,
I just expanded this article (mostly WP:RS) and was wondering if the article is illegible for a DYK promotion? Thanks, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 18:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I am unable to create a nom page for the article Shite-hawk as 'shit' is blacklisted. Is an article with this name automatically ineligible for DYK (I note that Fucking, Austria was DYK'd in 2009)? And if not, how can I nominate it? BabelStone ( talk) 20:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
G'day All. I've raised this at Crisco's talkpage, but I gather that s/he's gone offline because s/he probably has a life, unlike me. When he posted the JJ Cahill hook to Prep 4, he seems to have shortened the hook. I think it's now rather uninteresting, and probably a bit misleading.
I gather that this was done to make sure that everything fits, or something (even though I'm within the 200 character limit), but I don't think we can let this go through as it stands. I'm not keen on it going through to the front page as it is without a discussion on a new hook (if my original proposed one is unacceptable). ˜ danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy with the current state, if everyone else is happy. ˜ danjel [ talk | contribs ] 22:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
What happened here? Was the Argo tea hook not replaced? Crisco 1492 ( talk) 04:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The Queues are all empty, but the Preps are all full. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.80.113 ( talk) 04:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The Argo tea hook is going to hit the main page in 1 hour and 15 minutes. There was some miscommunication in the modification of the hook. It currently reads "that Argo Tea is a chain of cafés focused on the world's most popular beverage after water?". I had wanted the hook to read "that Argo Tea is the largest chain of cafés focused on the world's most popular beverage after water?" All the ALTs in the DYK nom describe it as the largest and this fact is sourced.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
O.K. can it run in the next batch from queue 6 rather than just resume its old slot.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Could somebody weigh in at Template:Did you know nominations/Harry Powers regarding choice of hook? Thanks. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 07:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The only possible reason for mentioning a salary of $35 (what currency incidentally? We are only meant to use US$, Euro, or £ sterling without posting an equivalent) is to give the impression of a very low salary. This was, however, at least equivalent to the national average wage, it was a managerial role, and his father owned the company. This was not a case of struggling up from the most menial taskrole and overturning the odds. A highly misleading impression is given by the hook. Kevin McE ( talk) 16:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
On 15th October, an exhibition opens in Barcelona of Miro paintings. The Wikipedians are curators. 17 of the paintings are described by new Wiki articles in Catalan, English, French, Russian. There are two DYK noms - "caresss of a bird" now in Prep 4 and "Woman ascending a Staicase" which is in the just created 15 October section. Any help appreciated. Victuallers ( talk) 22:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I removed the description of this man as a vagabond, as was not one when he became the "greeter". I was reverted, on the grounds that it is true that he had been a vagabond, and later became the greeter. In that case, it is equally true to say that he was a pupil at a Danish school before he became the greeter. This looks like an attempt to crowbar onto the main page a word that an editor decided to put into the article, but is not in the cited material, and thus display our ability to use words that many readers will have to look up. Not, I would suggest, a noble use of our main portal. Kevin McE ( talk) 16:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I just nominated an article, and when I did that I saw that I could add something to the article's talk page, but I forgot to do so. It wasn't mandatory to do so, but I'd still like to know what that was. Could anyone advice? Manxruler ( talk) 23:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
== Time to return to 3 hook sets per day? == The hook supply has been growing, leading me to think that it may be time to return to 3 sets per day (one every 8 hours). Alternatively, we could increase the number of hooks in each set to 7. Note that three sets per day increases output by 50%, whereas an increase to 7 hooks per set increases it only 17%. Regardless of the number of queues per day, I'd prefer larger hook sets, as it is easier to balance the content of a hook collection when there are 7 or 8 hooks than when there are only six. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 14:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC) *I think we're ready. Looking at the bot's report, we currently have approximately 18 nominations a day. At 3 preps a day, we would be using 18 to 21 hooks a day; this would keep the number of hooks on T:TDYK stable. [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 15:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC) *More haste, less speed. --<small>[[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt 'kristen itc';text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em;">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]]</small> 04:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC) *From what I see below, the system is not coping at all well with two shifts a day. [[User:Tony1|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><span style="color: darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color: darkgreen">(talk)</font ></span>]] 06:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC) :: Too early to return to 3 per day IMO - I would at least wait until the hook count is over 200. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 14:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC) ::Regretfully concurring that it's a bit early to be sure of a trend, although I'd like to see us back at 3 a day soon, let's first increase the number of hooks per set and revisit the issue after Hallowe'en. (I'm also thinking we don't yet have enough Hallowe'en hooks for 3 sets that day to be spooky enough.) [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 19:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC) :::I think it's time to return to 7 hooks per set. Before we increase, we need to warn the other Main Page projects, so I've inquired at [[Talk:Main Page]]. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 14:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC) == DYK nomination == {{Template:Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE}}
I can find no evidence for the claim of this man becoming figurehead of the city. One colour piece in one Sunday paper refers to him as a symbol. That is no more establishment of a fact than is the same article's description of the people of Sheffield as blunt or of Beck's hairstyle as a thatch. To be a figurehead is to be a leader and inspiration, to be a symbol is to be a recogniseable person associated with the place. Suggest that after the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, dean Peter Beck (pictured) was described as a "symbol of the city"? Kevin McE ( talk) 08:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I noticed something odd while building the preps. It appears that the month of the nomination is not showing up automatically when the nomination is created. I verified this by creating a fake nomination and it didn't show up. It appears this has been so for a few days (5 maybe), and I thought that we needed the categories to keep the entire process easily accessible. Could someone fix the template? Thanks. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 09:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The discussion for "Palestinian rabbis" has been on the noms page for over 2 months, during which time the article has survived an AfD and a couple of requested-move discussions and has undergone extensive editing to resolve multiple issues of copyvio that I identified. There also have been 6 or 7 different hooks proposed, of which I believe only one (ALT4) is supported by the article and RS citations therein.
The article creator is adamant that his preferred hook, which I contend is not supported by the article, must be used. I have given him the choice of using ALT4 or failing the nomination. He doesn't like my opinion, and now is saying "If you are not happy with approving this hook, please don't reject this nom, but request comment from others." He also has suggested that Gatoclass thought one of his hooks was OK.
I've expended an inordinate amount of time reviewing this nomination, but now I'm wondering why I bothered. I am not interested in receiving the inevitable flak that will ensue when this controversially-titled article goes to the main page in DYK if I am also going to get flak from the article creator.
Accordingly, "comments from others" are requested. -- Orlady ( talk) 22:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
There's seems to be a trend here towards more and more catchy or sensationalist hooks, resulting (at least three times this week that I know of) in original research and false statements (see Talk:Maroon Creek Bridge and stab wound). If we're going to put something as a "factoid" on the main page, we really should make sure it's right. If we're going to put words in a dead man's mouth, do we not have some sort of responsibility (to his surviving family and friends, for example) to get it right?
No where is that found in the sources, it's a supposition and original research, trying too hard to be hooky, and inspired by the DYK reviewer, Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Frascino-- not wording that was originally proposed by the article writer. I wonder if his family, on reading that, considered him "privileged" to be dead? Please, let's be more careful on the mainpage to avoid original research-- if the man had said he was "privileged", it would not be plagiarism to restate that, but he did not say that. Neither is Maroon Creek Bridge the only significant remnant of rail travel on that line, as anyone who has taken a train to ski in CO will know. It's on the mainpage-- please stop stretching hooks to make them catchy. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I just submitted my first DYK, at Template:Did you know nominations/History of the birth control movement in the United States. Could some DYK black-belt please check to make sure I've followed the process correctly, and that my submission meets the requirements? I read the instructions, but you never know. Thanks! -- Noleander ( talk) 21:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I recently expanded one article ( HMS Temeraire (1798)) and created another ( Thomas Fortescue Kennedy), and since both are strongly linked to the Battle of Trafalgar (fought on 21 October 1805) I thought it would be good to have them displayed on the impending anniversary, Trafalgar Day. Temeraire has been updated and moved to the queue to appear on that day, but the Kennedy nomination, though approved, is still in the regular queues. I wonder if I could get some action on that before it might be too late? It would also be a nice gesture if the image with the Kennedy nom could be used as well, though perhaps suitably cropped ( seen here)? The battle isn't appearing in the 'on this day' section, so this would be the only way to give it some prominence. I don't have a problem though if people would rather not do so for any reason, I'm happy to abide by what people here think. Benea ( talk) 00:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
A village cannot be a railway station; it can have a railway station. Kevin McE ( talk) 06:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
"more than 48,000 graves on just 16.2 hectares (40 acres)": comparison with some London cemeteries suggests that this is by no means a densely packed cemetery: Highgate Cemetery has 53000 in 37 acres; West Norwood Cemetery is also 40 acres, but has more than 3 times as many burials as Karet Bivak at 160,000; Bunhill Fields has 10 times the density. The word just is not defensible. Kevin McE ( talk) 16:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Kevin, please don't give up-- I think you may be DYK's only hope (and I note that you work in many areas of the mainpage as well). Now, as to DYK-- this is exactly like the other recent cases-- original research. The question(s) should not be those raised here, nor the defense of another poor hook, but 1) what exactly do the sources say, 2) why isn't that text even in the article, and 3) just fix it, for gosh sakes, instead of constantly defending the status quo here. Do y'all ever consider how many very good editors have left DYK, even Wikipedia, in disgust over what goes on here? Just fix it-- we have too many reviewers trying to write sensationalist, catchy hooks, resulting too often in original research. I remember that once, just once, when a problem was found at DYK, the nominator just fixed it. It doesn't have to be that rare, and you don't have to keep causing good editors to give up. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the actual content issue: In this context, it doesn't need to be the case that the cemetery is unique for the word "just" to be OK. All that "just" implies is that, from the point of view of the person saying it, "16.2" hectares is a small amount of space to put "48,000 graves" in; there's no requirement that it be uniquely small. It seems that from the point of view of the person who wrote the source this is indeed a small amount of space. Thus, I don't see anything misleading about saying "just". rʨanaɢ ( talk) 00:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I nominate an article a few days ago. I just renamed it to be more concise: from History of the birth control movement in the United States to Birth control movement in the United States The DYK nom is at Template:Did you know nominations/History of the birth control movement in the United States. Could someone please validate that I did not screw up any links or transclusions? Thanks. -- Noleander ( talk) 14:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Is this right? Art LaPella ( talk) 23:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Why was Alicia Aberley not checked for close paraphrasing?
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
It's always curious to me when copyvio concerns are met with responses based only on wording-- copyvio occurs when structure is copied also. "There's only one way to word it" isn't the right answer in those cases. Besides, the question was, was it checked, or have we already stopped checking ?? Since there is still no directorate at DYK, when admins pass the hooks to the mainpage, do they verify that necessary checks have been done? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks pretty clear to me ... still concerned about the close paraphrasing and structure, and still wonder if y'all have just stopped checking. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Why was Alicia Aberley not checked for close paraphrasing?
I am in the process of expanding BWV 169. I remember that DYKcheck gave me a result for any in-between state, such as when expansion began 2 days ago, to compare, - but no more. Help, please, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Today I took a clearer picture of Jubilee Library, Brighton, to replace the photo that was in the article's infobox. The old photo has also been used in Prep 1, but as it is no longer in the article I imagine it needs to be replaced by the new photo ( File:Jubilee Library and Jubilee Square (from Southwest), Brighton.JPG). I haven't changed the prep area myself as it is my hook. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 22:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
If articles are not expanded 5x, they do not qualify for DYK. Some articles are large to begin with and are expanded 2-4x. Is there any way for them to appear on DYK? For example, see Childhood amnesia.
It's disappointing to the students to not be able to qualify for DYK because their article was too large when they started to qualify for DYK. If the article was sufficiently improved, more than 2x with a number of rs, can we IAR the 5x requirement? Smallman12q ( talk) 01:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I've applied a few bugfixes to DYKcheck for the bugs mentioned here. Thanks to Bruce1ee, Maile66, and Mikenorton for bringing up the three bugs. As always, if you find a bug, let me know. (And sorry for the long delay on these three.) Shubinator ( talk) 22:08, 22 October 2011 (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 70 | ← | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | → | Archive 80 |
By definition, an extinct animal is not be be found, in Australia or anywhere else. Kevin McE ( talk) 20:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Outside "research papers on extinct taxa", in the experience of the vast majority of our readers, to say that an animal is found somewhere mens that it exists, alive, in the wild: to say "Wolves are no longer found in Britain" does not mean that the fossil/skeletal record has been removed. Now on main page, so I'll raise it at WP:ERRORS. Kevin McE ( talk) 08:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
When I nominated Liza Dalby I randomly chose a page to review: [2]. For various reasons I've decided it's better to pass this on to another reviewer. Can someone else please pick it up and finish and let me know? Thanks. Truthkeeper ( talk) 20:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
At this nomination I noticed some confusion about how fivefold expansion should be calculated. I was about to respond in my usual grumpy way, but then I noticed that the WP:DYK#DYK rules I was about to point to don't actually state this clearly either; they say "expanded fivefold within the past five days", from which you can infer that we mean expansion began within the past five days (rather than expansion ended within the past five days), but maybe it would help to make this more explicit.
What I ended up doing was making step-by-step instructions for calculating this, at User:Rjanag/Calculating fivefold expansion by hand. (I realize DYKcheck can do most of this work, but we probably shouldn't expect nominators to have to install DYKcheck just to nominate their articles.) I was thinking it could be linked from WP:DYK#DYK rules and/or Wikipedia:Did you know/Fivefold. But first I thought I could hear you guys' comments on 1) whether it's good (i.e., will these instructions lead to miscalculations in any circumstances), and 2) whether it's necessary (is there a simpler way to handle this just by rewording the rules). rʨanaɢ ( talk) 21:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
In the spirit of collaboration, I would like to make a couple suggestions that people may be interested in. List of death metal bands from Nordic countries is 110 characters of readable prose, with the list portion entirely cited. The deletion discussion turned up several sources which can be used and are English. Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused has several images that were not used because the articles the images are used in are stubs; they could theoretically be expanded easily. Hope this helps. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I am having trouble here - Template:Did you know nominations/The Rise of the Blue Beetle!. The citation area says that it isn't referenced when it is. The interest is listed as "Frankly, boring". The Length wasn't passed although it is 1,742 characters. Adequate citations wasn't passed because there are only four references. Formatted citations was passed, but it said that I didn't format it correctly like most editors. I referenced it using the template with only two things that I found not needed removed. SL93 ( talk)
DYK rule #3 currently states "Cited hook – The nominated hook must contain a fact cited in the article." Could it be made clearer, perhaps "Cited hook – Any facts mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article." I am asking as an editor is interpreting the current rule as requiring only one fact in the hook be cited. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 13:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Just a couple of notes on the current review templates that are in test mode:
I don't really see the point of the "interest" check. It is a very fickle concept that will vary much to widely based on the person/day/time/mood/hungerfactor/weather/etc... I am one of those who thinks that almost all hooks (but not all, note) are interesting to one group of people or another, even if it may not be interesting to me. As there is no way to create an objective rubric to gauge the relative "interest factor" of a particular hook I would suggest removing it as a checkbox in the template. If there is a serious problem with the hook it can be commented on.-- Kev min § 19:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the article template, the plagiarism section really should be renamed "no plagiarism" as the current wording looks like we are agreeing there is plagiarism in the article. -- Kev min § 19:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
One thing I dislike about the current template is the multiple repeated signatures when a single editor does all the reviewing. It makes little sense to do this, and it would be better to have a variant of the template that can be used when a single editor has or intends to sign off on everything. Compare this (easy to scan) with this, which is signature overload. Also, just ticking things off on a list doesn't give the submitter any feedback on the article. It should be a two-way discussion leading to article improvements, not a rubber-stamping exercise to meet minimal requirements. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
As announced above, I nominated Anna and Bernhard Blume in memory of him. The funeral is on 8 September. In the German WP that day is given without a ref as his birthday which may be true and would be like him. I wasn't close enough to know. - As said many times before, I go for DYK to make facts known, this one especially, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The claim for the cause of his death has two sources cited: an enquiry on a genealogy forum, and an anonymous response on a football forum. No reason to believe that the source of the info has any more qualification than access to an e-mail account. There is evidently some breadth to the believe in this anecdote, but these are not reliable sources. Kevin McE ( talk) 14:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I was wondering if anybody could finish reviewing my double nomination from August 17. It is the oldest nomination on the page that has not been fully reviewed yet. Thank you. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 15:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
My nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Ehrlichia Wisconsin HM543746 was just reviewed, but the formatting of my hook is wrong and I don't know how to fix it. Only Ehrlichia is supposed to be in italics while the rest of it isn't. SL93 ( talk) 23:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Could someone modify the André Watson hook to include a reference to the Rugby World Cup (the next cup starts in the next couple of days)? If length is an issue, Currie Cup can be removed... Something like - ...that André Watson holds records for refereeing the greatest number of finals in the Rugby World Cup, Currie Cup and Super Rugby? Hack ( talk) 03:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
This is NOT a complaint, and in no way is it any criticism on the compiler of the set of hooks.
Yesterday, my article on
St. Lawrence's Church, Mereworth appeared on the main page as part of DYK, for which I'm grateful. Although there was a good image available, it was not chosen as the lead hook. That honour fell to
Ophiocomina nigra, which got 4,400 views.
Of the three linked articles in my hook,
Charles Davis Lucas got 2,400 views (previous 30 day range 6-27 views),
Victoria Cross got 1,500 views (previous 30 day range 738-1200 views) and the article on the church got a grand total of 435 views! A little disappointing, but it does go to show the power of the lede image.
Mjroots (
talk)
09:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't we have a checklist for the image or at least a parameter in the hook checklist? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It appears that the current QPQ rule (rule 5) does not indicate that one should review one article for each article nominated, including multiple reviews for multiple articles in one nomination. If nominators should indeed review with a 1:1 ratio, it should be noted in the rules. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
No-one said this is "a page layout and presentation program disguised as a spreadsheet"; the article quotes someone as saying that it is "really a page layout & presentation app disguised as a spreadsheet app". As soon as we paraphrase, we lose the truth in the statement. If we are going to say that someone called it something, we should A) take care not to misquote them, and B) use speech marks to identify the quote. Kevin McE ( talk) 10:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Just a note to all interested editors. There was a bit of a traffic jam when two editors nominated two articles separately. PFHLai nominated the anemone first on the 6th. Rcej nominated the crab and anemone on the 9th, probably without knowing that PFHLai had nominated the shell. PFHLai then added the crab to his/her nomination on the 10th, probably without knowing that Rcej had already nominated it as such. In the interest of avoiding headaches, I have kept the double nom running but with PFHLai as the nominator for the anemone and Rcej as the nominator for the crab, as they were the first nominators respectively. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 09:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
First, the specific problem:
That is *not* what the source says at all.
Second, the general problem:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The following hook is somewhat clumsy:
Would the following be somewhat better?
Please note that the alternative hook omits that she is based in England. Schwede 66 06:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Once we know that Zsolt Gárdonyi composed Mozart Changes, we know that no-one else composed it. That list of "no-one else"s includes his father, but also includes all other composers, living and dead, and indeed, everybody else one can think of, including Alexander of Macedonia and my local newsagent. While I understand the wish to distinguish between Zsolt and Zoltán as composers, it is probable that a tiny minority of main page readers are familiar with either of them, and so such confusion is not a major risk. Following one's father's profession is not remarkable in and of itself (both of my examples of "no-one else"s did likewise). If a link is to be drawn between the work of the Gárdonyis, pere et fils, then the relevant work to focus on is not one which the father had no more (verifiably) to do with than Alexander (who is more likely to be an ancestor of Gárdonyi than is my newsagent). Propose "... that Zsolt Gárdonyi, composer of Mozart Changes, edited his father's Three Motets?" Kevin McE ( talk) 08:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
is a dull advert. Any chance for something more interesting? Materialscientist ( talk) 10:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
... that the unmoving Michael Jordan wore the jersey of ice hockey player Jonathan Toews? This might be just me. To me, "wore" means regular action, and thus I would add "once" or alike. More concerning is "the unmoving Michael Jordan", which is a 1 April style wording (for a statue). Materialscientist ( talk) 13:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Rather like the recent Ryan Lavarnway situation, the article appears here to have chosen an obscure and often misinterpreted word (aliens in this case) rather than the more informative (and therefore encyclopaedic) alternative (foreign prisoners) primarily for the purpose of enabling a hook. The usefulness of article content should not be secondary to catchy phrasing on the main page. Kevin McE ( talk) 16:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
In other words, the term 'enemy alien' is an encyclopedic term and is being used absolutely correctly here. The hook should have used the original wording, though I think it has now been and gone from the main page. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)"The Isle of Man was used by the British Government for the internment of enemy aliens during both World War One and World War Two" [...] "After Great Britain entered the First World War in August 1914, the government of Canada issued an Order in Council under the War Measures Act. It required the registration and in certain cases the internment of aliens of "enemy nationality". This included the more than 80,000 Canadians who were formerly citizens of the Austrian-Hungarian empire. These individuals had to register as "enemy aliens" and report to local authorities on a regular basis."
This Template:Did you know nominations/Hurricane Norbert (1984) looks strange. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Please correct. Queue 5 is next to go. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty confident about my moving Leisl Tesch to Liesl Tesch; see Talk:Liesl Tesch. I'm less confident about what this does. Art LaPella ( talk) 20:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
|subpage=Leisl Tesch
in the {DYKmake} template, although I don't think it's really necessary.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
20:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)With all the recent changes can someone confirm that a Stub Class article is not suitable for DYK? I am reviewing the Sioux City Public Museum and while it just long enough in size I would class it as a Stub. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 17:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the
Sioux City Public Museum section above, I saw a common problem that came up frequently during
WP:1.0 assessments about the line between stubs and starts. Even though it doesn't appear to be written anywhere in
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, a rough rule of thumb that we used was that if the article could support at least one separate section heading with a normal
WP:LEAD than it was above stub class.
Right now we are basically using the arbitrary 1500 character limits as the dividing line but the conversation above noted examples where editorial discretion is needed since the matter is not always so black and white. I wonder if it would be beneficial to adopt the WP:1.0 "unwritten rule" on starts vs stubs to go along with the 1500 chars requirement. I think most people will agree that
a single paragraph of text looks much more stub-like than an
an article with section headings. Any thoughts?
Agne
Cheese/
Wine
16:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Skinner article was plagiarized but nominator doesn't think so; could use an uninvolved reviewer to step in. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 04:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)`
A strange line appears after Katia Plaschka. Did I do that? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
FYI to administrators: The three images now in the prep area are protected at Commons, per a request I made at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections. -- Orlady ( talk) 19:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to fix the "reviewed=" part of the DYK template so that it links to the direct DYK subpage of the reviewed article, instead of the main T:TDYK page section of it? That way, other users can still access and confirm that the review was done even after it has been promoted and removed from the T:TDYK page, since they'll be going straight to the subpage. Silver seren C 05:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been out of the loop for a week or two and things have been moving fast around these parts, so I was wondering if we're still doing Q4Q reviews? Volunteer Marek 11:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Eternal life was accepted and promoted without a discussion, Template:Did you know nominations/Eternal life (Christianity). I find the term itself debatable, also the (of course) simplifying hook, and at least one unexplained line in the article, s. talk. But perhaps I am the only one. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Are we going to be including the discussion templates in the T:AH? If so, can we have the bot handle it?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello all, the reviewer at Template:Did you know nominations/Extermination of Evil has requested a second opinion regarding the use of sources and paraphrasing issues. Could somebody take a look? NB: It is one of my noms. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The {{ DYKbotdo}} in Queue 5 is missing a right curly bracket. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, can someone point me at the explanation on how to close one of the new subpages when moving it to prep? I wanted to help out by making up a couple of prep areas as there isn't any currently made up and only one queue standing too - however I don't know how the new things work! Thanks, Miyagawa (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi I nominated the 3rd Parachute Brigade (United Kingdom) on 12 September. As it is still waiting to be reviewed I accessed the noms page and using the review or comment link attempted to add an ALT1 suggestion. However the link just goes to a blank page. I cannot duplicate this with any other nomination, and there seems to be a problem with the link. This may be something I did yesterday as when checking the nomination was a red link and I had to reinstate the {{}}. To complicate matters even more if searching for the nomination page in article history (here Template:Did you know nominations/ 3rd Parachute Brigade (United Kingdom)), it does display the check lists etc, when you try to edit. Any thoughts or suggestions on how to fix this. 07:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that this has gone straight to queue at the 11th hour, but a couple of tweaks I would suggest:
There is no evidence that File:Kirsopp Lake.jpg is in PD (say, taken in 1914, first published in the 1950s - there are very few, unconfirmed, possibilities it is in PD). If no other ideas, I would use the file to the right (with a minor crop) from hook No. 4. Materialscientist ( talk) 10:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Could an independent reviewer take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Estevan Ochoa. As best as I can determine, the current reviewer is objecting to the proposed hook based upon the assumption that the distance between the center of a circle and a point outside said circle is shorter than the radius of the circle (an impossibility within Euclidean geometry). Alternative proposals from the reviewer have been similarly problematic by either directly contradicting the article's sources or requiring events to occur in reverse chronological order. -- Allen3 talk 17:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
All hooks at T:TDYK up to Sep 12 have had at least one review, and I've noticed that we are essentially pulling brand new hooks that have already been approved to fill preps. Are we running out of articles? The number on the page has been getting steadily fewer, I believe. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Only 75 hooks and we've been running on three updates a day for weeks? I've never seen it remotely as slow as this. I guess all the argumentation and the changes over the last few months have driven many contributors away. We will have to go to two updates a day for now, in the meantime, we might consider adding a notice to the Signpost encouraging more participation. Gatoclass ( talk) 02:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I have never seen a page view count fall when someone was included in DYK before, but look at http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Heath_Irwin for September 19th. What kind of error am I looking at with page views falling from 462 to 81 on the 19th.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 12:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I know it was briefly discussed about two weeks ago or so, but I am uncertain if a consensus was ever reached regarding the number of reviews a nominator should do when they nominate multiple articles in one hook. Is it one review per hook or one per article in the hook? Im trying to figure if I should review two for the double nom I am finishing up now.-- Kev min § 17:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
FYI to admins: I have requested protection at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Pls protect images to be used on EN main page for the next two images (Queue 4 and Prep Area 2). They aren't protected yet, but that should happen within the next 4 hours (before Queue 4 hits the main page). I'll be asleep, so I won't be able to check... -- Orlady ( talk) 04:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Now in Prep 1, Eternal Diet is playing with words nicely. I would like to see a link which explains "Youngest Recess of ...", -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 19:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
FTR, I moved the James Elliott Farm hook from prep area 2 (which was about to go to the queue) to prep area 1 because of concern about two non-new articles linked in the hook. New Harmony Historic District is the link provided for the term "New Harmony commune" and Owenism (a very short unsourced stub) was linked to explain the philosophy behind that commune. Nether article is a particularly satisfactory source of information about the topic identified in the link. I think that other articles exist that would be better items to link to, but I have not thoroughly researched the situation. For example, New Harmony, Indiana has more information about the commune than the historic district article does, and Robert Owen has far more information on the topic of Owenism. I intend to try to resolve this before the hook goes to the main page, but I won't squawk if someone else finds a solution before I get back to this... -- Orlady ( talk) 20:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
There was some IAR discussion in the proposal discussion over this hook, but I would like to flag it up for further consideration. For example, is it saying that there was an eta that looked like a beta, an epsilon that looked like a beta, an eta that looks like a modern B, an epsilon that looks like a modern B? It is not based on a claim that is explicit in the article, and it is semantically confused to say the least. Kevin McE ( talk) 17:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I have changed
to
The article presents no evidence that Doctor Willard Bliss (Doctor is the first name, not only title) was called Doctor Doctor - this appear as WP:SYNTH, and Doctor Bliss is equally hooky. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, I was wondering if I could have another pair of eyes on Template:Did you know nominations/The Litigators. The novel is not out yet, and as such the article is nearly 75% plot. I feel it is a stub, but would like more input. Thanks. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 14:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Could another editor weigh in at the hook suggestions at Template:Did you know nominations/X (The X-Files)? Mine are a little racy, and the original has a few issues. Thanks in advance. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 07:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I recently created the article 2011 US listeriosis outbreak and I was planning on nominating it for DYK, but it has since been nominated for ITN, which is ongoing here. My question is, can an article be nominated for DYK as well as ITN or is it just a one only type thing? If the latter, what should I do in regards to this article, because the ITN nomination process could potentially, but not very likely, take longer than the time period I have to nominate it for DYK. And if it ends up ultimately failing ITN, it might be too late to nominate it for DYK. So...how exactly does this work? Silver seren C 03:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Now that DYK is on a 12-hour cycle, I have a question regarding that updating of DYK STATS. Should the number of page views be adjusted (normalized) to put them on an equal footing with the traditional 6/8-hour cycles? We've never bothered when switching between 6 and 8 hours, but this is a big jump to 12 hours. — Bruce1ee talk 05:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
{{sort|005723|[
http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Widgets 5,723]}}
?
BabelStone (
talk)
20:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Do we have anything prohibiting me from nominating a Billy Hathorne article? Bryan Hughes (Texas politician) looks like a good candidate to me: it's long enough and new enough, its subject obviously passes WP:POLITICIAN, and I've vetted it for close paraphrasing. Nyttend ( talk) 02:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not sure who I should address this to. Crisco1492 reviewed my self-nom hook on John Palocaren and then moved it to Prep Area 1. In his reviewer comments (see Template:Did_you_know_nominations/John_Palocaren) he said he agreed with me in preferring my ALT1. But then when he BUILT the Prep ( DIFF) he used the original hook. I wonder if this was a mistake. I'd still recommend ALT1. -- Presearch ( talk) 22:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
a hook for in about 17 hours is on the Comma Johanneum (evaluated at {{ Did_you_know_nominations/Codex_Ravianus}}):
This suggest part of the comma is used in the codices. However, it seems that these codices all contain (complete! the point is that they are very short interjections) commae johanneum, and thus not "just"part of it. Wouldn't contain the spurious biblical text Comma Johanneum be a better ending of the hook? L.tak ( talk) 17:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Did you know/Queue/6 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can an admin implement the new hook at queue 6 (in italics above)?}}
L.tak (
talk)
18:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Her swimming record was not set in a park, it was set at Beatty Park. It is clearly not in a parkland setting. Park would be an abbreviated form of the proper name, and so should be capitalised. I made that change while it was in Prep, but it was not carried over to the Queue stage: no edit note, so I don't know whether that was disagreement or oversight. Kevin McE ( talk) 17:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
It's been over a week since I added the checklists into the nomination template (see here) so I think it's a good time now to start reviewing the pros and cons this trial has revealed. Here are my thoughts so far (in what follows, when I link to examples, I am not trying to rat out any particular people, I'm just providing examples; in all cases, these are things that more than just one or two reviewers are doing):
All in all, for the reasons I described above, I think these templates are just making the page and the reviewing process more confusing and probably more alienating. I also don't think they provide any benefit (as some people have pointed out in previous discussions, someone who's going to do a bad review is just going to do a bad review; forcing them to go through the motions of signing off a few things, as far as I can tell, just gives us more ammo if we want to bite their heads off about it later, but doesn't actually help the project in any way). For these reasons, I think the checklist templates should no longer be auto-included in nominations, and I think their use should be discouraged.
I welcome further input. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 10:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I have hinted about this in the discussions linked above: I think rather than having a form reviewers must "sign off" every time they complete a nomination, a less cumbersome way to meet the "community demand" would be to include in every nomination's editnotice a clear "checklist" of things that should be checked in any review. This checklist, a draft of which can be seen
here, is basically a version of
WP:DYK#DYK rules that is written for reviewers rather than nominators, and made as concise as possible. This would obviate cluttering
T:TDYK with a lot of messy table, and obviate forcing reviewers to enter a million signatures every time they want to complete a nom; thus, I think both reviewing noms and skimming T:TDYK would be easier. Also, with this stuff in an edit notice it's easier to make the checklist points actually clear (that is to say, they each are explained in normal prose, with links, whereas the checklist template in the nomination's edit window itself is just a list of obtuse parameters and people have to go to
some other page to see what they mean). And, since it would be in a prominent place (the edit notice), it would still serve as a reminder of what needs to be checked in every review, which after all was the whole point of having a checklist. (Some others may argue that the point of a sign-able checklist is "accountability", but personally I don't buy that; all a sign-able checklist gives us is the ability to point fingers even more after something goes wrong, it doesn't actually prevent bad articles from making it to the main page. Besides, editors are still accountable for articles they review, even if they don't sign every point of a checklist individually; placing
on an article is, or at least should be, a shorthand way of saying "this article meets all the criteria".)
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
10:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
{{
show}}
or something, although I don't think that should be overused; and using bullets rather than level-3 section headers for the headers like "Criteria for the article" may save space.)Regarding who OKed what, as I explained in the section above I don't think that's really important. First of all, it should still be easy to know who OKed what (if someone
ed the article, that means they are either saying they OK'ed everything or they OK'ed some stuff and they made sure that someone else OK'ed the rest--and the latter should only be happening if someone else has already explicitly said on the nom page "X is ok"). That information may not be visually organized into a table, but it should still all be easily available, and I don't think it makes sense to ask 100% of the reviewers to jump through the hoops they are now just to make it even easier for us to find information that should already have been easy to find, in the maybe 5-10% of cases where there is a need later on to revisit an old nomination.
Regarding "making brief comments and waving it through", people can still do that no matter what kind of checklist they have to check off—nothing can stop people from just going through the motions of putting their signature in every part and then saying "ok". Either way, they're taking responsibility for their review regardless of whether they sign it once or ten times, and if they're reviewing poorly it will still be possible to notice that and chide/educate them.
Of course there are some aspects of this proposal that look similar to the previous situation, because as I explained in the section above I don't think the check-off checklists are a net benefit. But I am also trying to honor the outcome of that checklist RfC (which some people here don't even consider valid) by implementing a change that I believe is in the spirit of the checklist thing. Please read my comments in the section above, where I explained clearly what the goal of this proposal is. I'm not just trying to preserve the status quo at all costs (I daresay I've spent a lot more of my free time than you and the DYK critics in trying to make improvements). rʨanaɢ ( talk) 01:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess we can try the editnotice if that's what people want, but I'm not sure how effective editnotices are, if it proves ineffective we may have to revisit this debate. Gatoclass ( talk) 17:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and removed the checklists from nominations and added the list of review criteria to the editnotice. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 16:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
There's some controversy over the hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Naked woman climbing a staircase:
The article has one inline reference which contrasts Miró's painting with one of Duchamp's. The relevant portion of that source says, in its entirety: "In this representation of a woman climbing a staircase, Miró reversed the concept of Marcel Duchamp's Nude descending a staircase." The article has another reference which relates to the influence of Muybridge's photos on Duchamp. These are the only inline sources provided which are relevant to the hook. See the nomination page for the discussion.
Some fresh opinions would be most welcome. Thanks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Eternal life (Christianity) shows an failure of the DYK process. An alternate hook was suggested late in the day, and it wasn't found in the references. The article claimed the term wasn't "explicitly defined", whereas the source said it wasn't "defined in detail". Maybe there needs to be a tightening of the process with alternate hooks... St Anselm ( talk) 21:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
The article referred to is The Creation structure. It is not recognizable in "... that Haydn's oratorio The Creation is structured in three parts, the first two about the creation as narrated in Genesis, the third about Adam and Eve in Paradise?" which looks like "Structure". If bolding The Creation is structured is not possible, it should be The Creation is structured. The link to The Creation (Haydn) is misleading. Please compare the hook in Talk:Messiah structure, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
i would welcome comments about this edit to the new edit notice. It was intended to allow us to have all the same content but while hiding it away, expandable one section at a time. violet/riga [talk] 21:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
How to nominate multiple articles for a single hook?. I'm a little confused here, no idea what to write at "YOUR ARTICLE TITLE". Is it only for a one article? — Bill william compton Talk 17:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I would be pleased if the next prep could take the Bach cantata for last Sunday BWV 99 (not to be confused please with BWV 95 for next Sunday which is also approved). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
As noted in the Signpost, the collaboration between Wikimedia Indonesia and the Lontar Foundation will begin on Friday. The project is hoped to result in 300 new articles about Indonesian authors, their works, and related organizations and companies (in other words, similar to what I've been doing). I'm hoping that this can also result in at least 100 DYKs, but we will see how that goes. As one of the coordinators for the project, I will try and keep an eye on their articles if nominated; hopefully this will ensure that the reviewer has an easier time. Also, if the Lontar trainees begin nominating DYKs, please contact me if there are any major issues like copvios and whatnot, as it will have to be reported to Wikimedia Indonesia. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Am I alone in being a bit bothered by the image currently in Prep Area 1? (Displayed at right.) I think the coloring is a bit "off", I don't find the image particularly interesting (other than its arresting color), and there's always something a bit promotional about a hook focused on a newly released recording. I would not normally question the judgment of the hard-working DYK volunteer who assembled the hook set, but having stumbled upon talk-page evidence that the volunteer who assembled the set had earlier been helping the hook nominator, I wonder if this choice looks "right" to others. At least two of the other hooks in that set also had suitable images nominated (displayed at left). -- Orlady ( talk) 18:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
My German is a bit rusty these days, but I think the hook fact might be wrong for the second hook ( FV 09 Weinheim), based on the article wording and the supporting source. The defeat of Bayern Munich in 1990 was certainly the first first-round defeat, but it looks like they suffered another in 1991 against FC Homburg ... and the article suggests that as well. Could somebody pls check to make sure I've got that right, with a view to correcting the hook if necessary? Danke schön, Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 15:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
What is the purpose of Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed? Because the instructions told me to do so, I've listed several noms there recently when I returned the hooks to the noms page from prep areas, but I don't know what purpose this list serves. -- Orlady ( talk) 21:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a heads up: The new MediaWiki 1.18 has been rolled out and there are bugs, one of which is messing up the references in my footnotes on Anna Essinger, currently in Prep 2. For an explanation of what the problem is, see: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#bug in #tag:ref parser function. I assume (hope?) this will be fixed soon. You may want to hold off using this article until the bug is fixed because although the refs work properly, they look awful. A looooong string of gibberish. It gave me quite a start when I went to look at another article with refs in the footnotes. Marrante ( talk) 09:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
DYKs two maintenance bots appear to have not survived the MediaWiki 1.18 upgrade. A note has been sent to the bot's owner. Hopefully they will be back up shortly but it appears to be manual updates until then. -- Allen3 talk 12:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't work for me in Firefox. Does it work for you? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Scripts are broken in IE because of a Mediawiki MIME type mismatch (something similar to
this). Will look into Firefox next.
Shubinator (
talk)
17:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
DYK check in Modern skin, Firefox and Windows XP. Prose size/Readable prose reads "0"-- Maile66 ( talk) 20:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
My nom here is now at Prep area 2, but as the British Library exhibition opens on November 11, can we hold it off until then (the 2nd batch ideally)? Should have thought before. Thanks, Johnbod ( talk) 01:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
This nom was moved to prep without actually having been given a tick mark, although essentially approved. The discussion was still going on, as to which of the hooks would be used, plus there was some work requested on the article, which I had (then) not yet done. The reviewer wrote to me on my talk page afterwards and mentioned a preference for a different hook, one that referred to the key aspect of the school, that it had been moved lock, stock and barrel from Germany to England in 1933 to escape Nazism. I had written something to that effect as the main hook, but had not mentioned the reason for the move, making the hook much weaker. Having slept on the reviewer's remark, I would now like to pull the nom from the queue so a better hook can be written. I don't have time to do this at the moment, but wanted to note my desire. I will be able to get to this in several hours, if no one else has pulled by then. Thanks. Marrante ( talk) 08:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
"... that award-winning director Garin Nugroho (pictured) liked to bathe in lava streams as a child?" is currently at prep area 2. The article and source might be interpreted that way, but he couldn't really bathe in streams of lava, because lava hardens at 700–1200 °C. It has to mean that lava flowed into a stream of water, which heated it up and added some minerals. But that isn't what "bathe in lava streams" will mean to our readers. I found no evidence that either a technical or non-technical reader would interpret the unexplained phrase "lava streams" to mean water heated by lava. Art LaPella ( talk) 18:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I have just pulled an item from the queue as inadequately reviewed. It seems that it was cleared for posting while only the hook was reviewed. I don't know what other problems might exist, but all I can say is that the prose sucks and needs a lot more work. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi.
I'm currently working on an expansion of the article for the former village of Scammonden ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and I notice that the current content about the bridge plagiarises, if not outright violates the copyright, of this webpage ( which is strikingly obvious). Because the text is not a word-for-word copyvio (although Copyscape may find it very fishy), does the supplemental rule about copyvios count? Sceptre ( talk) 04:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
In Maroon Creek Bridge the claim made for it is not supported by the source in the footnote. In Stab wound the claim does not even appear in the article. How do these get approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.147.165 ( talk) 20:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Great idea ... I've done that now (and I appreciate the work you did to set these pages up. Here's what I found:
On Maroon Creek Bridge, Crisco passed a hook that is original research, unsupported by the source, and from a source easily found on google books. It was a Daniel Case DYK ... this seems to cast the whole Quid Pro Quo concern in a new light (DYK regular passing original research hook, unsupported by the source, for another DYK regular). There are other problems with that article and its sourcing, but can't the hook at least be sourced? And again, the checklist here did not prevent an unsupported, in fact untrue, hook from being on the main page (but it did give us the accountability I've long asked for-- Crisco passed both of these hooks).
The stabbing article-- also passed by Crisco-- is even worse-- the alleged "hook" is not even contained anywhere in the article, which was passed with glaring prose problems, other sourcing problems, and nonsensical statements.
So, thanks for the accountability, and that makes two hooks that were unsupported by their sources-- and yet I see a section right above this claiming DYK is ready to up the volume again. What's up with that? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello there,
I just expanded this article (mostly WP:RS) and was wondering if the article is illegible for a DYK promotion? Thanks, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 18:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I am unable to create a nom page for the article Shite-hawk as 'shit' is blacklisted. Is an article with this name automatically ineligible for DYK (I note that Fucking, Austria was DYK'd in 2009)? And if not, how can I nominate it? BabelStone ( talk) 20:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
G'day All. I've raised this at Crisco's talkpage, but I gather that s/he's gone offline because s/he probably has a life, unlike me. When he posted the JJ Cahill hook to Prep 4, he seems to have shortened the hook. I think it's now rather uninteresting, and probably a bit misleading.
I gather that this was done to make sure that everything fits, or something (even though I'm within the 200 character limit), but I don't think we can let this go through as it stands. I'm not keen on it going through to the front page as it is without a discussion on a new hook (if my original proposed one is unacceptable). ˜ danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy with the current state, if everyone else is happy. ˜ danjel [ talk | contribs ] 22:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
What happened here? Was the Argo tea hook not replaced? Crisco 1492 ( talk) 04:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The Queues are all empty, but the Preps are all full. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.80.113 ( talk) 04:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The Argo tea hook is going to hit the main page in 1 hour and 15 minutes. There was some miscommunication in the modification of the hook. It currently reads "that Argo Tea is a chain of cafés focused on the world's most popular beverage after water?". I had wanted the hook to read "that Argo Tea is the largest chain of cafés focused on the world's most popular beverage after water?" All the ALTs in the DYK nom describe it as the largest and this fact is sourced.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
O.K. can it run in the next batch from queue 6 rather than just resume its old slot.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Could somebody weigh in at Template:Did you know nominations/Harry Powers regarding choice of hook? Thanks. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 07:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The only possible reason for mentioning a salary of $35 (what currency incidentally? We are only meant to use US$, Euro, or £ sterling without posting an equivalent) is to give the impression of a very low salary. This was, however, at least equivalent to the national average wage, it was a managerial role, and his father owned the company. This was not a case of struggling up from the most menial taskrole and overturning the odds. A highly misleading impression is given by the hook. Kevin McE ( talk) 16:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
On 15th October, an exhibition opens in Barcelona of Miro paintings. The Wikipedians are curators. 17 of the paintings are described by new Wiki articles in Catalan, English, French, Russian. There are two DYK noms - "caresss of a bird" now in Prep 4 and "Woman ascending a Staicase" which is in the just created 15 October section. Any help appreciated. Victuallers ( talk) 22:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I removed the description of this man as a vagabond, as was not one when he became the "greeter". I was reverted, on the grounds that it is true that he had been a vagabond, and later became the greeter. In that case, it is equally true to say that he was a pupil at a Danish school before he became the greeter. This looks like an attempt to crowbar onto the main page a word that an editor decided to put into the article, but is not in the cited material, and thus display our ability to use words that many readers will have to look up. Not, I would suggest, a noble use of our main portal. Kevin McE ( talk) 16:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I just nominated an article, and when I did that I saw that I could add something to the article's talk page, but I forgot to do so. It wasn't mandatory to do so, but I'd still like to know what that was. Could anyone advice? Manxruler ( talk) 23:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
== Time to return to 3 hook sets per day? == The hook supply has been growing, leading me to think that it may be time to return to 3 sets per day (one every 8 hours). Alternatively, we could increase the number of hooks in each set to 7. Note that three sets per day increases output by 50%, whereas an increase to 7 hooks per set increases it only 17%. Regardless of the number of queues per day, I'd prefer larger hook sets, as it is easier to balance the content of a hook collection when there are 7 or 8 hooks than when there are only six. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 14:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC) *I think we're ready. Looking at the bot's report, we currently have approximately 18 nominations a day. At 3 preps a day, we would be using 18 to 21 hooks a day; this would keep the number of hooks on T:TDYK stable. [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 15:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC) *More haste, less speed. --<small>[[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt 'kristen itc';text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em;">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]]</small> 04:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC) *From what I see below, the system is not coping at all well with two shifts a day. [[User:Tony1|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><span style="color: darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color: darkgreen">(talk)</font ></span>]] 06:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC) :: Too early to return to 3 per day IMO - I would at least wait until the hook count is over 200. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 14:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC) ::Regretfully concurring that it's a bit early to be sure of a trend, although I'd like to see us back at 3 a day soon, let's first increase the number of hooks per set and revisit the issue after Hallowe'en. (I'm also thinking we don't yet have enough Hallowe'en hooks for 3 sets that day to be spooky enough.) [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 19:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC) :::I think it's time to return to 7 hooks per set. Before we increase, we need to warn the other Main Page projects, so I've inquired at [[Talk:Main Page]]. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 14:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC) == DYK nomination == {{Template:Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE}}
I can find no evidence for the claim of this man becoming figurehead of the city. One colour piece in one Sunday paper refers to him as a symbol. That is no more establishment of a fact than is the same article's description of the people of Sheffield as blunt or of Beck's hairstyle as a thatch. To be a figurehead is to be a leader and inspiration, to be a symbol is to be a recogniseable person associated with the place. Suggest that after the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, dean Peter Beck (pictured) was described as a "symbol of the city"? Kevin McE ( talk) 08:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I noticed something odd while building the preps. It appears that the month of the nomination is not showing up automatically when the nomination is created. I verified this by creating a fake nomination and it didn't show up. It appears this has been so for a few days (5 maybe), and I thought that we needed the categories to keep the entire process easily accessible. Could someone fix the template? Thanks. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 09:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The discussion for "Palestinian rabbis" has been on the noms page for over 2 months, during which time the article has survived an AfD and a couple of requested-move discussions and has undergone extensive editing to resolve multiple issues of copyvio that I identified. There also have been 6 or 7 different hooks proposed, of which I believe only one (ALT4) is supported by the article and RS citations therein.
The article creator is adamant that his preferred hook, which I contend is not supported by the article, must be used. I have given him the choice of using ALT4 or failing the nomination. He doesn't like my opinion, and now is saying "If you are not happy with approving this hook, please don't reject this nom, but request comment from others." He also has suggested that Gatoclass thought one of his hooks was OK.
I've expended an inordinate amount of time reviewing this nomination, but now I'm wondering why I bothered. I am not interested in receiving the inevitable flak that will ensue when this controversially-titled article goes to the main page in DYK if I am also going to get flak from the article creator.
Accordingly, "comments from others" are requested. -- Orlady ( talk) 22:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
There's seems to be a trend here towards more and more catchy or sensationalist hooks, resulting (at least three times this week that I know of) in original research and false statements (see Talk:Maroon Creek Bridge and stab wound). If we're going to put something as a "factoid" on the main page, we really should make sure it's right. If we're going to put words in a dead man's mouth, do we not have some sort of responsibility (to his surviving family and friends, for example) to get it right?
No where is that found in the sources, it's a supposition and original research, trying too hard to be hooky, and inspired by the DYK reviewer, Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Frascino-- not wording that was originally proposed by the article writer. I wonder if his family, on reading that, considered him "privileged" to be dead? Please, let's be more careful on the mainpage to avoid original research-- if the man had said he was "privileged", it would not be plagiarism to restate that, but he did not say that. Neither is Maroon Creek Bridge the only significant remnant of rail travel on that line, as anyone who has taken a train to ski in CO will know. It's on the mainpage-- please stop stretching hooks to make them catchy. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I just submitted my first DYK, at Template:Did you know nominations/History of the birth control movement in the United States. Could some DYK black-belt please check to make sure I've followed the process correctly, and that my submission meets the requirements? I read the instructions, but you never know. Thanks! -- Noleander ( talk) 21:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I recently expanded one article ( HMS Temeraire (1798)) and created another ( Thomas Fortescue Kennedy), and since both are strongly linked to the Battle of Trafalgar (fought on 21 October 1805) I thought it would be good to have them displayed on the impending anniversary, Trafalgar Day. Temeraire has been updated and moved to the queue to appear on that day, but the Kennedy nomination, though approved, is still in the regular queues. I wonder if I could get some action on that before it might be too late? It would also be a nice gesture if the image with the Kennedy nom could be used as well, though perhaps suitably cropped ( seen here)? The battle isn't appearing in the 'on this day' section, so this would be the only way to give it some prominence. I don't have a problem though if people would rather not do so for any reason, I'm happy to abide by what people here think. Benea ( talk) 00:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
A village cannot be a railway station; it can have a railway station. Kevin McE ( talk) 06:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
"more than 48,000 graves on just 16.2 hectares (40 acres)": comparison with some London cemeteries suggests that this is by no means a densely packed cemetery: Highgate Cemetery has 53000 in 37 acres; West Norwood Cemetery is also 40 acres, but has more than 3 times as many burials as Karet Bivak at 160,000; Bunhill Fields has 10 times the density. The word just is not defensible. Kevin McE ( talk) 16:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Kevin, please don't give up-- I think you may be DYK's only hope (and I note that you work in many areas of the mainpage as well). Now, as to DYK-- this is exactly like the other recent cases-- original research. The question(s) should not be those raised here, nor the defense of another poor hook, but 1) what exactly do the sources say, 2) why isn't that text even in the article, and 3) just fix it, for gosh sakes, instead of constantly defending the status quo here. Do y'all ever consider how many very good editors have left DYK, even Wikipedia, in disgust over what goes on here? Just fix it-- we have too many reviewers trying to write sensationalist, catchy hooks, resulting too often in original research. I remember that once, just once, when a problem was found at DYK, the nominator just fixed it. It doesn't have to be that rare, and you don't have to keep causing good editors to give up. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the actual content issue: In this context, it doesn't need to be the case that the cemetery is unique for the word "just" to be OK. All that "just" implies is that, from the point of view of the person saying it, "16.2" hectares is a small amount of space to put "48,000 graves" in; there's no requirement that it be uniquely small. It seems that from the point of view of the person who wrote the source this is indeed a small amount of space. Thus, I don't see anything misleading about saying "just". rʨanaɢ ( talk) 00:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I nominate an article a few days ago. I just renamed it to be more concise: from History of the birth control movement in the United States to Birth control movement in the United States The DYK nom is at Template:Did you know nominations/History of the birth control movement in the United States. Could someone please validate that I did not screw up any links or transclusions? Thanks. -- Noleander ( talk) 14:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Is this right? Art LaPella ( talk) 23:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Why was Alicia Aberley not checked for close paraphrasing?
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
It's always curious to me when copyvio concerns are met with responses based only on wording-- copyvio occurs when structure is copied also. "There's only one way to word it" isn't the right answer in those cases. Besides, the question was, was it checked, or have we already stopped checking ?? Since there is still no directorate at DYK, when admins pass the hooks to the mainpage, do they verify that necessary checks have been done? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks pretty clear to me ... still concerned about the close paraphrasing and structure, and still wonder if y'all have just stopped checking. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Why was Alicia Aberley not checked for close paraphrasing?
I am in the process of expanding BWV 169. I remember that DYKcheck gave me a result for any in-between state, such as when expansion began 2 days ago, to compare, - but no more. Help, please, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Today I took a clearer picture of Jubilee Library, Brighton, to replace the photo that was in the article's infobox. The old photo has also been used in Prep 1, but as it is no longer in the article I imagine it needs to be replaced by the new photo ( File:Jubilee Library and Jubilee Square (from Southwest), Brighton.JPG). I haven't changed the prep area myself as it is my hook. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 22:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
If articles are not expanded 5x, they do not qualify for DYK. Some articles are large to begin with and are expanded 2-4x. Is there any way for them to appear on DYK? For example, see Childhood amnesia.
It's disappointing to the students to not be able to qualify for DYK because their article was too large when they started to qualify for DYK. If the article was sufficiently improved, more than 2x with a number of rs, can we IAR the 5x requirement? Smallman12q ( talk) 01:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I've applied a few bugfixes to DYKcheck for the bugs mentioned here. Thanks to Bruce1ee, Maile66, and Mikenorton for bringing up the three bugs. As always, if you find a bug, let me know. (And sorry for the long delay on these three.) Shubinator ( talk) 22:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)