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 90 | ← | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | → | Archive 100 |
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) 06:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Should a DYK ( "Did you know....") entry appear for the article Wikipediocracy? (And if so, what should be the "hook")?
The proposed DYK is here. The form of the hook as of this writing is
There is also an earlier discussion about the matter above. Herostratus ( talk) 14:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
(N.B.: for the purposes of internal DYK requirements, if any, that DYKs be processed within a given time after article creation, the time that this RfC is open shall not be counted against the age of the article.) Herostratus ( talk) 14:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I separated this into two subsections, for clarity -- Herostratus ( talk) 02:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Summarily close this RFC. The article was taken to AFD, where it was snow kept as containing sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. I noticed the speedy keep and size of the article, which was largely created in two waves by Volunteer Marek and Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. I figured that Marek probably would not nominate it since he had not written as much of the articleas Alf had, and Alf was too quiet and nervous to nominate it, so I nominated it for them. Don't use an RFC to make the DYK fail the technical requirements for DYK articles simply because you don't like the subject matter. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 17:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, there've been a number of editors contending that this is out of process and should be summarily closed. Any uninvolved editor can close an RfC. I don't think it'd be a good idea to summarily close this one, since it's not clear that it is disallowed I don't think. But I'm sensitive to the contention that RfC's on DYK's are out of line (I don't agree with it, but I suppose I could be wrong), so here's what I suggest:
Does this seem like a reasonable way to address this question of legitimacy? Herostratus ( talk) 02:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Crisco 1492 wrote, in the Survey section, {{xt}"Support giving it a chance of a review, and being promoted assuming it meets the established DYK criteria. There is no ban on topics which may be deemed controversial.}}
Well, "being promoted assuming it meets the established DYK criteria" is exactly the problem. (That's why we're having an RfC, and so why I'm writing in this section, to expound on why this RfC is a necessary and good to have.)
The established DYK criteria is essentially or wholely technical: is the article the right age, is the hook the right length, does the article have enough refs, and so forth. That's all well and good as far as it goes. My understanding is that considering matters such as (say) "Will publishing this damage the Wikipedia" or "Will publishing this maybe cause some editors to feel bad" or "Will publishing this maybe cause a firestorm of angry debate on various Wikipedia fora" or "Will publishing this maybe end up in the news" or whatever is not really something that DYK is set up to well consider.
You DYK folks do sterling work which we all sincerely appreciate, but maybe you are getting a little too close to your own work? Llook at the larger picture. DYK exists for a reason. The larger Wikipedia community is interested in and feels a stake in what appears on the main page. One may think that's silly but it is what it is.
No one likes having a boss, but most of us have them. The DYK folks have one: the larger community. If the Wikipedia had a paid professional Editor-In-Chief to answer these questions, she'd surely insist that potentially problematic main page material pass her desk. The main page is important! We don't have an Editor-In-Chief because (for good or ill) we have community decision-making instead, so the larger community serves this function.
Geez, if I were you, I would want the larger community to help me out with these questions. This is a hard question! You have enough to do without have to handle stuff like that without help. That's what an RfC is for: to help. Herostratus ( talk) 03:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Or is the opposition to Wikipediocracy appearing on the DYK section of the main page actually due to its exposure of serious COI concerns with GibraltarpediA, which was blatantly spammed across the main page for months? Hmmm...one has to wonder, given the stuff regularly posted.... Reaper Eternal ( talk) 17:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
[N.B.: part of my answer to Tito Dutta concerns the meta-issue and is in the above subsection -- Herostratus ( talk) 02:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC) ]
Crisco 1492 wrote, in the Survey section, "Support giving it a chance of a review, and being promoted assuming it meets the established DYK criteria. There is no ban on topics which may be deemed controversial."
FWIW, I was just looking at that site (Wikipediocracy) just now, and I see that once again they've ferreted out and published the name and address of a Wikipedia editor, which is something they do do from time to time, with the intent of intimidating that editor (and, really, by the you-could-be-next example, anyone and everyone) from further contributing to the Wikipedia. It's not illegal to do this, but still: c'mon. Do we really have to abet this by giving these people valuable free promotion? I don't think that would show that we're neutral and brave and uncensored, at all. I think it would show that we're stupidly heedless of our own basic interests. I think it would show that we don't care to protect our editors from personal peril or humiliation. I don't think that successful organizations behave like that. Herostratus ( talk) 08:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, this is depressing. An editor User:Allen3 with the user rights to do so published the DYK anyway. This is a big loss to the concept of fair dealing, open governance, and community control at the Wikipedia and a big win for the centrifugal forces tending toward the empowerment of individual projects and other fiefdoms. These forces are always in tension of course, and it's possible that this for the best, but I don't trust the fiefdoms themselves to make that judgement.
Naturally the folks over at Wikipediocracy are pleased. I don't know whether it's more for the publicity or just the demonstration of further breakdown of fair play here. As one WO solon noted "I hope it'll be possible for Wikipediocracy to have a blog post that'll make an especially big impact while it's being mentioned on Wikipedia's main page... While this site is getting a DYK, I think we have a unique opportunity to impact Wikipedia's culture with a hard-hitting blog post, and it would be a shame to not take advantage of that." Oh boy. Herostratus ( talk) 02:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
My question is, how exactly do primary sources factor into DYK nominations? Because there are a fair amount of primary sources in use in the article that are referencing a fair amount of content that doesn't otherwise have a secondary source. What are the normal DYK rules about this? Silver seren C 01:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
... in the poem
The Hymn of Samadhi,
Swami Vivekananda explained experiences of
Nirvikalpa Samadhi?
DYKC says, the hook should be related to real world. Nirvikalpa Samdahi is a real world thing (a type of advanced
meditation). Is this hook okay? --
Tito☸
Dutta
22:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hook 5:
Although only 160 characters long, this is overpacked with diversionary facts, not to mention five links; the theme of the hook (and therefore the DYK) is swamped, and third out of these five links (all of which are in context in the DYK article). Why try to educate readers about "Missa" in a hook? What is wrong with simple, clear, punchy:
One verification point: the reference—Unger's 2005 listener's guide—doesn't seem to provide evidence of this fact. I see other people quoted by Unger, and I see "probably" and "suggest" and, in Wolff's imperfect English, "so it is not surprising if Bach wanted to write ...". Would Wolff p. 143 be a better reference? And could you point to the actual supporting text for the hook fact ("copied and performed")?
But more importantly, could you respond to the issue I raised about verification? Tony (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Hook 1:
Pity that (pictured) is jammed into the middle of the nominal group: the Russell Watson (pictured) version of the song " Faith of the Heart.
Is Russell Watson the arranger ("version" suggests this)? No, I learn. Do we need two additional links, one of them first? Shorter, more direct, and more explanatory:
Last hook:
Why do we need links to common terms vanilla ice cream and garlic? Are they not linked in the DYK article?
Second-last hook:
Why do we need a bunched link for List of world records in athletics after the link for "shot put" (MOSLINK says to avoid bunched links)?
Was Hathorn's ban lifted? Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 72#Proposal to ban Billy Hathorn from DYK. He has put up multiple nominations since yesterday, and the few I've checked have recurring issues that have been discussed over the years and led to the ban (non-reliable sources, padding of articles with off-topic content to meet length/expansion, but I haven't yet checked for copyvio). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Given that he was sockpuppeting even recently and the ban was lifted because people gave up on him, no chance I would lift the ban. Wizardman 22:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
As I said in the original ban proposal, I'm not persuaded a ban is the best option. I would still like to see more effort going into getting Billy to conform with policy, and one way to do that would be to treat his nominations like any other, if he sees his noms are failing because of, for example, close paraphrasing, wouldn't that help motivate him to mend his ways? Gatoclass ( talk) 10:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Copied:
This nom requires some fairly urgent discussion as the hook is currently in a lead spot in the queue - hopefully it can be resolved quickly without having to pull the hook. Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 18:54, 25 June 2013 (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) 06:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me how reviewers can determine what facts are interesting to a broad audience? I don't see how it is even possible. I am tired of editors complaining about hooks due to them thinking that they are boring. Editors are acting like their opinion of what is interesting applies to the majority of the English reading world. Readers of DYK come from a variety of countries and backgrounds so why does anyone believe that the opinion of one reviewer or a small group that is involved with DYK is the same opinion of the very broad audience? Opinions of what is interesting can also come from their cultural bias. SL93 ( talk) 04:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
First of all, the phrase "interesting to a broad audience" is not entirely accurate and does not reflect the actual practice here - I've been intending to tweak that statement for a long time but never got around to it. A hook should preferably be of interest to the widest possible audience, but it doesn't necessarily need broad appeal, because many topics are simply not "interesting to a broad audience" in the first place. But regardless of the breadth of its appeal, a hook at minimum still has to highlight a fact that is likely to be of interest to someone who already has an interest in the topic.
I have intended for some time to write a guideline for hook writing, but unfortunately the time I have available to pursue my wiki-hobby has diminished sharply in recent months, and I no longer have nearly enough time to do everything I would like to do here. However, in response to SL93's query, I would say the primary criterion for a hook is that the hook fact must be unusual or surprising in some way, or alternatively, informative or educational. The kind of hook to be avoided at all costs is the one which states the obvious, which, for example, presents an everyday, common occurrence, or which expresses something which is already self-evident. We don't need to tell people what they already know, or to present them with trivia that no-one needs or cares to know. Gatoclass ( talk) 08:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Of course, these examples can be included in hook as subordinate clauses like "...that Blah river, 19th longest on the Earth, has gold mine in it?" §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 07:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
"... that cloud storage service Tresorit has offered $10,000 to anyone who can hack into their cloud storage servers, and has yet to be hacked?"
I don't know the subject, but perhaps this attempt might help DYK editors to improve it:
"... that the servers of cloud storage company Tresorit have yet to be hacked, despite its offer of $10,000 to anyone who can do this?". Tony (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Generally there seems to be a good treatment of theme in the hooks I've glanced at—that's good work, everyone; but in prep area 3, this stands out as having no clear point at all:
"... that while actress Belén López, was nominated for the Newcomer Award for her role in The Distance (2006), flamenco dancer Belén López was the inspiration of film director Franco Zeffirelli?"
A contrast is set up in the grammar—"while ... ". But what exactly is the contrast between one person's nomination for X, and someone else's inspiration of a film director? Is there a connection between Zeffirelli and The Distance? It's very opaque, and not in an intriguing or interesting way ... just weird and flat. I don't know enough about it to fix it. Tony (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I find the image used for Template:Did you know nominations/Muggeseggele (now in the image slot of one of the prep areas) to be misleading. The hook indicates that a Muggeseggele is pictured. That's not true; a Muggeseggele is a fly's penis, but the image shows two flies mating. Surely I'm not the only one who finds this misleading! Could the "(pictured)" text be revised to say "(utilization pictured)"?? (It would be easier not to use the image.) -- Orlady ( talk) 20:46, 26 June 2013 (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) 14:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
In Queue 1 the Chicken harvester hook. An editor has asked for the wording of the hook to be tweaked on the nomination template. As the article reviewer I would be happy to accept the change. Could an Admin have a quick look before it's moved to the main page in a couple of hours? Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:34, 28 June 2013 (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) 22:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The hook for blackspot shark says (pictured). It is placed in such an area that the picture does not show. Blackspot shark needs to be moved out of this prep area, and to the top of another prep area. I suppose I should learn how to do this, but... Thanks! 78.26 ( I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
For those who donn't follow wiki-drama, Russavia has been writing a userspace article on the artist Pricasso, who has painted a portrait of Jimbo with his penis. Looking at Jimbo's talk page, you'll see quite a controversy and there is also an active deletion debate at commons. Newyorkbrad has topic-banned Russavia from Jimbo and there was edit-warring over the draft that led to full protection. Russavia has now copy-pasted the article to mainspace, losing all the other contributions and making the article appear stable (rule D6 restricts articles with unresolved conflicts), and nominated it for DYK. I have posted a hold on the nomination and am noting here that this article is the centre of an ongoing controversy. I propose we not action the nomination until the dust settles and the wiki and article conflicts are resolved. We do not need a new battleground in this war started here, in my opinion. EdChem ( talk) 04:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Out of interest, should the actions or intentions of Russavia have anything to do with whether or not this DYK ends up on the main page? Per WP:OWN, the article belongs to the community, not this one user despite him/her being the major contributor. And getting the hook up to the main page is not supposed to be primarily a "reward" for the nominator (although in many cases they may feel rightly proud of their achievement, the primary purpose of DKY is to showcase articles not promoting editors). So, given that (a) Pricasso is by all accounts a artist who satisfies WP:GNG, and (b) the dispute is over an image of Jimbo rather than over Pricasso generally, and that image is neither included in the article at present nor mentioned in the hook, and (c) the DYK nomination seems to satisfy all other requirements, is there any reason not to post it? Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 14:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not all that sure that this artist meets GNG - a person who gets zero NYT mentions is not likely all that notable, and the articles on him focus on his "means of production" and not on him as an artist. Notability is something which must reflect on the artist specifically, not on notoriety of "means of production" AFAICT. Collect ( talk) 17:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Just checked at the ANI page on the block - I count 23 admins who endorse the block to 1 against. It pretty clear that this article, at the center of that controversy, is not stable and is not looked upon as one of Wikipedia's best new articles. The instability is showing up in the article's edit history with the commons link being inserted and deleted repeatedly. Certainly if the Commons link is in the article, a large portion of Wikipedia's editors cannot support it being on the front page. And how do we prevent the link from being inserted? Edit protect it while it's a DYK?
As far as the notability of the "artist" - it's clear that he doesn't pass WP:Artist, but that is because he is really a porn star (if you've seen the video you'll understand). Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO either. Smallbones( smalltalk) 22:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I know WP is not censored, but in view of the disruptive intent of the editor, who has now been blocked, the poor quality of the article from almost every point of view (and not just the bad taste of the "artist"), I would propose to remove the article from DYK. WP should be usurped for political purposes. DYK, which already does not enjoy a sparkling reputation, should be even more prudent that this could send it to the dogs. IMHO, to not invalidate the nomination would be an endorsement of his shenanigans and his point-scoring. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
We currently only have 22 approved hooks, and half of those are probably not really approved as they have been challenged since initial approval. The Prep/Queue has only one update remaining. We are going to run out of hooks if more are not approved over the next 12 hours or so. Gatoclass ( talk) 14:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Here are some old noms that are still needing to be reviewed:
Clearing out some of those would help.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
There's no doubt that this is going to survive AFD, but we shouldn't run it on the main page until it does. Could either an admin speedy close the AFD or anyone remove this from prep? — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 03:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I can't make heads or tails of this nom. It has every type of tick that we have. What should be done with it? Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
According to
MOS:FRAC, the "use of the few Unicode symbols available for fractions (such as ½) is discouraged entirely". In the lead hook of
Queue 1, "4½" should be replaced with one of the following: "{{
frac|4|1|2}}
" (producing 4+1⁄2), or "{{
sfrac|4|1|2}}
" (producing 4+1/2), or "four and a half".
MANdARAX •
XAЯAbИAM
08:44, 30 June 2013 (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) 15:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the hook for the article Bob Fu, currently displayed on Wikipedia's main page: "largely funded by wealthy oil magnates from Midland, Texas" is hardly a neutral statement, but full of connotations that I struggle to believe are unintended. The article itself appears mostly balanced, perhaps with exception of the last few sentences from which the statement is derived. I agree that DYK should provoke interest, but not in the same way as a tabloid headline does. Interesting facts, not interesting smearing.-- Nikolaj Christensen ( talk) 15:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Where are the admins? -- 69.158.116.5 ( talk) 00:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The hook was changed due to concerns that someone might mistake the pictured spider with the actual actress. I thought the issue was dealt with at the nomination page by adding the definite article. To be completely honest, I believe the chances of confusing Jolie with a venomous, ambush-hunting arthropod are rather slim. Since the wording made the hook much "hookier", I suggest changing it back. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there any condition that an image can not appear more than once in main page? Reference: File:Swami Vivekananda-1893-09-signed.jpg which has been nominated in another recent DYK. -- Tito☸ Dutta 01:12, 1 July 2013 (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) 14:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hook Foreign rebel fighters in the Syrian civil war should be pulled from Queue 3. It is still a work in progress. Rule R7 of the Supplementary rules: 'There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress. Therefore, articles which include unexpanded headers are likely to be rejected' This article still has an unexpanded header and has seen extensive editing the last days (being related to current events). My opinion is that the article still needs much more information on especially the Arab nations. The article also still has bare URL's (D3). Crispulop ( talk) 21:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
There are only 10 of 154 nominations approved, not even enough to get us halfway through July 4 (and it's already July 3). There are always plenty of older hooks that need attention, as witness those listed below. Thank you for your continuing assistance.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
A hook on Kafka's works is the quirky in prep 1. Is there any chance to get it in a queue (4 or 5)? It's his birthday ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I saw that my article Gabriela Rivadeneira ( Template) was promoted to a prep area this morning and just found out that it probably has already featured on the Main page. But I don't see any DYK Bot message on the article's or my Talk page. Does anyone know what happened? Thanks, Crispulop ( talk) 19:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to review some of the backlogged nominations for DYK but they seem to violate the five day rule. For instance, today is July 3 and there are nominations from June 3. I would think such nominations would fail the five day rule since it's been an entire month since the nomination.
Are we to consider five days from the time of creation / expansion until today? Or are we to consider five days from the time of creation / expansion until the nomination date? If the latter is the case, that should be clearly indicated on the rules page under Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria and on the nominations page under Template talk:Did you know#Backlogged?. Thank you. CaseyPenk ( talk) 18:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Prep 3 contains 2 hooks related to Swami Vivekananda (and both are my articles). Please do not remove the first hook (i.e. "To The Fourth of July"). OR, following WP:IAR you can keep both the hooks/move a to next queue, because tomorrow (4 July) is Vivekananda's death anniversary and this year is is being celebrated as 150th anniversary of Vivekananda. -- Tito☸ Dutta 22:54, 3 July 2013 (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) 06:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The last hook of Queue 3 has a double "that". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
But this one is unsuitable: "... that Peter Hofmann performed the part of Siegmund first at the Opernhaus Wuppertal, two years before repeating it in the centennial Ring in Bayreuth?" So what ... Am I missing something? Aside from the lack of point to the hook, why not widen the scope so that more visitors to the main page get the gist ... "sang the part". Can "Wagner" or "Wagner's" be slipped in? Tony (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Article: I'm unsure what this means: "The house reopened on 14 October 1956, as one of the first damaged theatres in Germany ...". Could have a number of meanings.
"It was designed by the architect Carl Moritz (de) in a style drawing on neo-Baroque and Jugenstil. It was completed in 1907.[2] In 1939 it was changed considerably."—What was changed considerably? The style? The building? I'm confused.
"The opera is known for revivals of operas"—??
"It houses mostly performances of operas"—not idiomatic English. I've pinged Gerda. This shouldn't go on the main page yet, I think. Tony (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2013 (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) 06:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday's DYK hook was ... that Swami Vivekananda (pictured) wrote To the Fourth of July on the celebration of United States' Independence and incidentally died on the same date four years later? Now, the main hook To the Fourth of July got 2669 views yesterday and the article Swami Vivekananda got 14000 views. The article gets around 5000 view everyday, so almost 9000 views came from the DYK. Now, a) will it be added in DYKSTAT? b) I have a long time doubt that a good number of readers don't understand where to click if there are multiple links in a hook. -- Tito☸ Dutta 08:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that people will click on whatever link that they are the most interested in no matter where the link is positioned. SL93 ( talk) 13:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
How is it undermining DYK when people will, no matter what, click on whatever they find interesting? Removing all other links doesn't matter because people still won't click on that link if they are not interested in it. SL93 ( talk) 14:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a complete tempest in a teapot. Fourth of July was the lead hook and Swami Vivekananda was pictured, which doubtless helped drive views to the (linked) person being pictured. Also, because it was the 100th anniversary of Swami Vivekananda's death, and due to a special request, there were two different hooks about him during the 24 hours considered by the edit counter, both with secondary links to his article: one at 13:30 India time, and the Fourth of July one mentioned above, during the day in the U.S. I also doubt that the positioning in the first hook diverted a significant number of readers away from the Fourth of July article. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
There is only four hours to go to the next update, there is no update ready and virtually no approved hooks left to select from at T:TDYK. We urgently need some more completed reviews, thanks! Gatoclass ( talk) 13:13, 5 July 2013 (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) 14:05, 5 July 2013 (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) 22:05, 5 July 2013 (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) 06:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The airplane image in Prep 4 is not used in the article -- a problem that was flagged by the DYK reviewer. However, the article has a nice image of the airplane that later crashed. Either (1) the image from the article needs to be swapped into the hook (changing "exampled pictured" to something like "pictured before crash") or (2) the image that used in the hook needs to be added to the article as a second image.
I almost swapped the image from the article into the hook, but held back because I suspect there might have been a reason for choosing the other image. I can't tell from the DYK review history. -- Orlady ( talk) 04:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Prep area 2:
... that the 1931 recreational vehicle (pictured) that Paramount used to bribe Mae West into making more movies is on display in the RV/MH Hall of Fame?
->
... that the RV/MH Hall of Fame houses the 1931 recreational vehicle (pictured) that Paramount used to bribe Mae West into making more movies?
Tony (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Can the phrase "it is considered the" be deleted from the Samuel Keimer hook (with Benjamin Franklin) that's fourth in this set? The qualifier is not in the article, and makes the hook duller than it needs to be. (Using "the printer" instead of "printer" is not typical of modern American English.) The resulting hook:
I'd appreciate it if an admin could fix this before it hits the main page in a couple of hours. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 13:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I reviewed Prep 2 and decided that it's ready to be moved to the queue, except that I'm dismayed by the wording of one hook. Specifically, I am bothered that the hook "... that the theft of The Weeping Woman from the National Gallery of Victoria was the theft of the most expensive work purchased by an Australian art gallery and that the crime is still unsolved?" is essentially a run-on sentence, has much too long of a link to the article title, and repeats the word "theft". Maybe we can have some fast teamwork on rewording it. One idea I've had:
Hi, just trawling through the multi-DYK hook "that paleontologists have discovered the fossilized eggs of cephalopods, fishes, and reptiles, with some dinosaur eggs (pictured) being preserved with pathological shell deformities?". Dinosaur eggs has every sentence tagged in the scientific sections—like a dozen 11s one after the other. Ref tags are retrospective, and if there's no particular reason to tag more than one sentence in a row with the same source, please let's spare readers the ugly, disruptive effect. I've left a note with the main author and a copy-edit tag on the article. Tony (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the Priyanka Chopra filmography, it is worth noting that Copyvio check (Earwig @ toolserver) is malfunctioning on this specific article. As noted on the Village Pump, this is a bug that affects select articles. Doesn't look like it will be resolved soon, so the only alternative seems to use Dup detector from the nom template and check each of the article's 85 citations individually. Unless someone else has a suggestion. — Maile ( talk) 11:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried filling prep area 3, but I have a problem. I placed two Civil War hooks in the prep area because there are so few accepted hooks. Finding a hook with a picture for the first spot is a problem because the only reviewed one with a picture, that I didn't review, is another Civil War hook. I reviewed several articles so those could be promoted and one of them includes a picture. One of them could also be used to replace one of the two war hooks if needed. I didn't want to promote articles that I accepted because I figured that it wouldn't go over too well. So I'm basically asking for someone to help fill the prep if they want to. There is plenty of time. SL93 ( talk) 00:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
There are only 13 of 127 nominations approved, not even enough to fill the two empty preps, much less the four empty queues. There are always a great many older hooks that need attention, as witness those in this list. Thank you as always for your continuing assistance.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
We have two full prep areas - about 16 hours' worth - but only four approved hooks, which is not enough to assemble another prep area. QPQ reviews will not be enough; so the only source of hooks is the backlog of hooks marked "need another review". Hawkeye7 ( talk) 01:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
We currently have only 150 nominations total. IMO it's time we went to two updates a day for a while, until both the number of noms and approvals build up a bit. Gatoclass ( talk) 12:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Strike Eagle has been nominating articles with close paraphrasing issues. His articles have been promoted since June and possibly earlier. These are examples of close paraphrasing from promoted articles - [4] ( INS Chennai) and [5] ( Russian submarine K-51 Verkhoturye). The issue was pointed out to him on June 25 - Template:Did you know nominations/INS Kamorta. I reviewed a July 6 nomination with the same problem - Template:Did you know nominations/Russian submarine K-18 Karelia. SL93 ( talk) 06:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It is close paraphrasing because it is more than missiles and proper nouns as anyone can see in my review. SL93 ( talk) 14:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you really think that these can't be reworded? It is simple.
That's fine. I don't hold grudges anyway. SL93 ( talk) 14:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
At the end of Alberto Suárez Laso, at the end of the "Nominated by" line, is {{DYKsubpage |monthyear=July 2013 |passed= |2=
It looks odd, and I opened the Laso template. Doesn't seem to be a part of that one. I can't figure it out, but maybe it's another nom that isn't showing on the page under July 5. — Maile ( talk) 15:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University Initially they pulled off the hook mentioning "politicians lay foundation stones of new buildings all the time", did they read, the foundations stone was laid by the Prime Minister of the country — the highest designation of Ministers? And, no, Prime Misters do not lay foundations stones often. Then they added a close paraphrasing issue where sentences were rewritten. -- Tito☸ Dutta 21:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if it is possible to wikilink Temptation of Saint Anthony in visual arts to The Temptation of St. Anthony on the hook for The Private Affairs of Bel Ami. SL93 ( talk) 02:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see conversation on DYK Maximiliano Óscar Rodríguez Magi. This has taken a turn on the DYK policy that would be better discussed here. A reviewing editor has taken exception to Eligibility criteria of the basic rules on newness - and seems to want to argue the point indefinitely on this template, rather than allowing a review to happen. Could be considered disruptive. Rather than hold up a full review of that particular nomination, which meets the DYK criteria of newness, the policy should be hashed out here. If it continues on that template, it's counter productive at a time when we badly need completed reviews. — Maile ( talk) 11:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I was told at Template:Did you know nominations/Spirit Touches Ground that the article needs some copy-editing, but I don't know what is meant by that. Saying that the article need copy-editing does not tell me the how and why of what needs copy-editing. SL93 ( talk) 15:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I have made a series of changes. Comment is requested on whether this is sufficient copy edit to address concerns from Orlady and BlueMoonset, and whether this is helpful as an example for SL93. Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 13:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm in the process of reviewing the DYK nomination for Typhoon Longwang and I'm stumped. The DYKcheck tool says that the article has not been 5x expanded. It was 2,422 characters of prose at the time of expansion and the current amount of characters is 12,812. An exact 5x expansion should have been 12,110 characters. Is there something that I missed? SL93 ( talk) 20:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that the project suffered from lack of new nominations, and had to slow down to two slots per day, so I thought this was the time to nominate a couple of article that was too old. Template:Did you know nominations/Vegard Lysvoll was reviewed and accepted within minutes, but was later rejected because one user believe we do have a backlog of other nominations. I disagree with that argument, so I want a second opinion on that nomination. I don't care much if that or Template:Did you know nominations/Aleksander Solli is promoted or not, I just thought this was my chance to add a couple of nomination to DYK, as I don't have the time to expand or create an article during five days any longer. Mentoz86 ( talk) 10:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I gave it a pass as a second opinion based on 5-day Not Exactly. We've done this before, and that's what "Not Exactly" is there for. With the shortage we have, better to go with an easy nomination than to spin our wheels on nominations that are bogged down in issues. We're talking about 11 days past the 5-day guideline, not a month or more. — Maile ( talk) 16:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I am fine with what I did being rejected, but this should be a known thing for nominators if that is allowed. They should know that it is possible, at the current time, to nominate articles late. Something this important should not be hidden on a page where barely any nominators look. SL93 ( talk) 17:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The hook about William de Courcy (the second one in Template:Did you know/Queue/6) needs grammatical corrections. It states "that William de Courcy a 12th century Anglo-Norman baron not only gave land to Abingdon Abbey but also a fishery named "Sotiswere"?" This should be corrected to "that William de Courcy, a 12th century Anglo-Norman baron, not only gave land to Abingdon Abbey but also a fishery named "Sotiswere"?". 069952497a ( U- T- C- E) 19:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
We have a queue ready, but the DYKUpdateBot didn't move it to the main page at 21:00 (UTC) as scheduled. The queue appear to have the DYKbotdo template required, so that shouldn't be gumming up the works. I've just pinged Shubinator, but he may not see the note to restart the bot for a while.
If there's an admin who knows how to do a main page update from the queue ( Queue 6, in this case), that would be appreciated. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The article at Template:Did you know nominations/Badger flea was removed from the prep with the statement that the article was not approved. However, it was approved as I said in the discussion. SL93 ( talk) 04:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
An update was due about 15 minutes ago. Not sure why the bot is not doing it.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 08:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Could someone have a quick look at the hook in Prep 2 for this nomination, please? I think the word 'sat' should read set; I was just about to change it myself but the wording of the hook generally doesn't seem to feel right - I do admit I know absolutely zilch about football so maybe it's just me! SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the hook for Extol should say reunion instead of re-union. Re-union does sound wrong to me though. SL93 ( talk) 16:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Tony (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please check Template:Did you know nominations/Devil's Gap Footpath and provide a third opinion? Prioryman ( talk) 12:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Notability is part of the DYK criteria from the supplementary guidelines. SL93 ( talk) 19:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
(ec)Does anyone else feel that Prioryman is probably the last person who should complain about someone biased reviewing Gibraltar-related articles for DYK? Apparently it is no problem if someone with a clear bias pro Gibraltar-related articles approves these, but if someone with legitimate complaints notices that many Gib-related articles have serious flaws, then he should be disqualified from reviewing... Thanks, Prioryman, you have just provided enough ammunition to keep (or strengthen) the DYK restrictions for Gibraltar for years to come, first approving a deficient article and then wanting to bar the person that actually found the problems with it. As for the "bogus" reasons, I have replied on the nomination page, and surprise surprise, neither is actually a bogus reason, since it is part of both the DYK criteria and of WP:V. Self-published sources are only allowed if "the article is not based primarily on such sources.", which is the case here, and DYK criteria include that articles must meet core guidelines and policies. I hope you are not arguing that WP:N is not a core guideline (if you do, I wonder which article-related guidelines are actually "core" in your opinion, if the one used to delete articles isn't...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram ( talk • contribs) 19:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, thanks for editing the plot section on the article that I nominated. SL93 ( talk) 21:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The wording of two similar hooks was approved by a reviewer to be chosen by the promoter, but another hook suggestion was added. The reviewer's hook should be approved by someone else if they think it should be chosen. SL93 ( talk) 13:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The reviewer said that my hook suggestions are inaccurate after I already brought forward two hooks that are accurate based on our conversation. SL93 ( talk) 05:37, 14 July 2013 (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) 10:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:WikiProject Rosblofnari, I noticed an expression of bewilderment that Template:Did you know nominations/Palikir was never promoted to the main page, in spite of having been approved back in May. I tried to figure this out, but I can't find any evidence that it was ever transcluded to the noms page. Not being listed on the noms page would, of course, be an excellent explanation for not being moved to a prep area!
Can anyone else shed light on what might have happened here? I surmise that it could have been reviewed and approved as a result of being listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Rosblofnari, but that doesn't explain how its absence from the noms page could have been overlooked. -- Orlady ( talk) 18:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm an active new page patroller and I also enjoy promoting articles to DYK. These two things seem like they would be cross compatible, but the problem is that the new page backlog is currently at 115 days, way way past the 5 day limit, and new page patrollers are encouraged to patrol from the back of this queue. I've come across numerous pages that I would love to take to DYK - well-written, well-cited, quite interesting articles - but they are sadly, months old, despite having never been patrolled: A few examples are Chang Hsien-yao, Battle of Santo Domingo (1586), and Chromosomal instability.
My question, I guess, is if there is some kind of workaround I'm missing - It's a shame that these pages will miss out on DYK simply because the queue is insane. Have exceptions ever been made, for example counting the five days from the date the article was marked as reviewed, as opposed to five days from creation? (I know, I know, and I understand why there is the 5-day age cap - I'm just curious and a little frustrated, I guess)
These aren't my articles, as one doesn't patrol their own work; I just think it would be a boon, both to editor retention and to both projects, if there was a way to latch the two together, or a way to allow nppatrollers to DYK pages they come across while patrolling, without having to patrol the front of the queue. -- TKK bark ! 00:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the hook "that the cargo vessel SS Gallic had its name changed seven times during 37 years in service, despite the superstition that it is bad luck to change a ship's name?" presently in Prep 4, the hook portrays it like this is a present-day superstition, or at least that it was a superstition back when Gallic existed (1918-1956). As a source for this is cited some type of boating website.
A quick Google Books search (search text: "bad luck to change a ship's name") shows that, indeed, at some point in time there was such a superstition, but as early as November 1938 MotorBoating magazine said: "Often I have wondered what became of that old superstition that it is bad luck to change a ship's name. A glance through Lloyd's register would make most of them unlucky-if the old adage held good." Besides, there's no mention of anyone connected to SS Gallic holding such superstitions. There doesn't seem to be a connection. The article says this is a "... prevailing maritime superstition", but with only the boating website (of unknown reliability) to back that up. I suppose the superstition might have been present in the 19th century, but nowadays, as well as in the period of Gallic, ships very often change their names, usually when ownership change. Manxruler ( talk) 11:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I see. Even if the superstition angle wouldn't necessarily hold water now, might a single ship having seven different names and six different owners across three different nationalities and continents still be noteworthy? Aumnamahashiva ( talk) 13:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Need a lead hook for Q1 within the next few hours, please. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Aren't the coordinates in the Asana River article excessively precise that it looks quite ridiculous? I don't know enough about these to go round changing these myself, so someone else ought to look at it. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 07:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I see that Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Darren Ng has been promoted already. The creator and nominator now wants to use a similar hook for another article he wrote Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Elsie Lie. I would suggest combining these into a one double hook, if the nominator agrees. Rlendog ( talk) 19:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I've just completed a major series of re-writes on the SK8 article. The original was largely a copyvio from a former Apple page, no longer available on the 'net but still there in all it's 1990s glory in the Archive (thank you Mr. Kahle!).
I'd like to list this for DYK, but I'm not sure how it works in this case. The content is all-new (I hope!) and the article is entirely different, but unless I ignore the former close-quoted version, I'm not sure it hits the 5x requirement - although I'm not great with the tool...
Am I OK to post this one?
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 20:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
(undenting) I think the point may be getting lost here... the question is when an article, any article, consists largely of copyvio or similar, does the original length count for DYK purposes when it is re-written? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 21:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Queue 2, which is next in line for the Main page, is missing a lead article. Manxruler ( talk) 21:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
This has been taken care of. SL93 ( talk) 23:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
At the nomination, the reviewer pointed out a concern with a reference. The reference says that it is a reprint of an article by Lisa Grace Lednicer for the Oregonian, but the author link points to a member at [8]. Lednicer actually is a staff writer for the Oregonian though. I was wondering if someone could verify if it is an actual reprint to help the reviewer and myself out. SL93 ( talk) 02:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I am concerned about potential WP:BLP issues with this nomination and would like to hear some other opinions before this nomination is promoted. My concern is that the hook discusses a "suspected perpetrator" to a recent crime that the article names and shows has been arrested in connection to a recent crime (10 July 2013) and police investigation. However, there has not yet been time in which to hold a trial or provide any other form of due process. My primary concern is with the potential of indirectly describing the arrested individual on the Main page and then learning a few days later that he has been cleared of all wrong doing. -- Allen3 talk 18:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
At Template:Did you know nominations/King & Maxwell, I requested a Wednesday or late Tuesday queue, but realized afterwards that I want a Tuesday or late Monday queue. Allen3 ( talk · contribs) promptly put it in a Wednesday queue, but can someone swap it into a Tuesday queue?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see Symbolic ethnicity. Another discussion trying to disqualify an article that was moved to main space within the time frame. It's taking a different turn, an accusation that these started as redirects. Please refer to the above link and comment at will there. — Maile ( talk) 23:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Pls check the credit templates. Thanks. -- 174.89.158.208 ( talk) 01:00, 18 July 2013 (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 90 | ← | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | → | Archive 100 |
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) 06:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Should a DYK ( "Did you know....") entry appear for the article Wikipediocracy? (And if so, what should be the "hook")?
The proposed DYK is here. The form of the hook as of this writing is
There is also an earlier discussion about the matter above. Herostratus ( talk) 14:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
(N.B.: for the purposes of internal DYK requirements, if any, that DYKs be processed within a given time after article creation, the time that this RfC is open shall not be counted against the age of the article.) Herostratus ( talk) 14:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I separated this into two subsections, for clarity -- Herostratus ( talk) 02:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Summarily close this RFC. The article was taken to AFD, where it was snow kept as containing sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. I noticed the speedy keep and size of the article, which was largely created in two waves by Volunteer Marek and Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. I figured that Marek probably would not nominate it since he had not written as much of the articleas Alf had, and Alf was too quiet and nervous to nominate it, so I nominated it for them. Don't use an RFC to make the DYK fail the technical requirements for DYK articles simply because you don't like the subject matter. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 17:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, there've been a number of editors contending that this is out of process and should be summarily closed. Any uninvolved editor can close an RfC. I don't think it'd be a good idea to summarily close this one, since it's not clear that it is disallowed I don't think. But I'm sensitive to the contention that RfC's on DYK's are out of line (I don't agree with it, but I suppose I could be wrong), so here's what I suggest:
Does this seem like a reasonable way to address this question of legitimacy? Herostratus ( talk) 02:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Crisco 1492 wrote, in the Survey section, {{xt}"Support giving it a chance of a review, and being promoted assuming it meets the established DYK criteria. There is no ban on topics which may be deemed controversial.}}
Well, "being promoted assuming it meets the established DYK criteria" is exactly the problem. (That's why we're having an RfC, and so why I'm writing in this section, to expound on why this RfC is a necessary and good to have.)
The established DYK criteria is essentially or wholely technical: is the article the right age, is the hook the right length, does the article have enough refs, and so forth. That's all well and good as far as it goes. My understanding is that considering matters such as (say) "Will publishing this damage the Wikipedia" or "Will publishing this maybe cause some editors to feel bad" or "Will publishing this maybe cause a firestorm of angry debate on various Wikipedia fora" or "Will publishing this maybe end up in the news" or whatever is not really something that DYK is set up to well consider.
You DYK folks do sterling work which we all sincerely appreciate, but maybe you are getting a little too close to your own work? Llook at the larger picture. DYK exists for a reason. The larger Wikipedia community is interested in and feels a stake in what appears on the main page. One may think that's silly but it is what it is.
No one likes having a boss, but most of us have them. The DYK folks have one: the larger community. If the Wikipedia had a paid professional Editor-In-Chief to answer these questions, she'd surely insist that potentially problematic main page material pass her desk. The main page is important! We don't have an Editor-In-Chief because (for good or ill) we have community decision-making instead, so the larger community serves this function.
Geez, if I were you, I would want the larger community to help me out with these questions. This is a hard question! You have enough to do without have to handle stuff like that without help. That's what an RfC is for: to help. Herostratus ( talk) 03:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Or is the opposition to Wikipediocracy appearing on the DYK section of the main page actually due to its exposure of serious COI concerns with GibraltarpediA, which was blatantly spammed across the main page for months? Hmmm...one has to wonder, given the stuff regularly posted.... Reaper Eternal ( talk) 17:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
[N.B.: part of my answer to Tito Dutta concerns the meta-issue and is in the above subsection -- Herostratus ( talk) 02:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC) ]
Crisco 1492 wrote, in the Survey section, "Support giving it a chance of a review, and being promoted assuming it meets the established DYK criteria. There is no ban on topics which may be deemed controversial."
FWIW, I was just looking at that site (Wikipediocracy) just now, and I see that once again they've ferreted out and published the name and address of a Wikipedia editor, which is something they do do from time to time, with the intent of intimidating that editor (and, really, by the you-could-be-next example, anyone and everyone) from further contributing to the Wikipedia. It's not illegal to do this, but still: c'mon. Do we really have to abet this by giving these people valuable free promotion? I don't think that would show that we're neutral and brave and uncensored, at all. I think it would show that we're stupidly heedless of our own basic interests. I think it would show that we don't care to protect our editors from personal peril or humiliation. I don't think that successful organizations behave like that. Herostratus ( talk) 08:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, this is depressing. An editor User:Allen3 with the user rights to do so published the DYK anyway. This is a big loss to the concept of fair dealing, open governance, and community control at the Wikipedia and a big win for the centrifugal forces tending toward the empowerment of individual projects and other fiefdoms. These forces are always in tension of course, and it's possible that this for the best, but I don't trust the fiefdoms themselves to make that judgement.
Naturally the folks over at Wikipediocracy are pleased. I don't know whether it's more for the publicity or just the demonstration of further breakdown of fair play here. As one WO solon noted "I hope it'll be possible for Wikipediocracy to have a blog post that'll make an especially big impact while it's being mentioned on Wikipedia's main page... While this site is getting a DYK, I think we have a unique opportunity to impact Wikipedia's culture with a hard-hitting blog post, and it would be a shame to not take advantage of that." Oh boy. Herostratus ( talk) 02:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
My question is, how exactly do primary sources factor into DYK nominations? Because there are a fair amount of primary sources in use in the article that are referencing a fair amount of content that doesn't otherwise have a secondary source. What are the normal DYK rules about this? Silver seren C 01:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
... in the poem
The Hymn of Samadhi,
Swami Vivekananda explained experiences of
Nirvikalpa Samadhi?
DYKC says, the hook should be related to real world. Nirvikalpa Samdahi is a real world thing (a type of advanced
meditation). Is this hook okay? --
Tito☸
Dutta
22:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hook 5:
Although only 160 characters long, this is overpacked with diversionary facts, not to mention five links; the theme of the hook (and therefore the DYK) is swamped, and third out of these five links (all of which are in context in the DYK article). Why try to educate readers about "Missa" in a hook? What is wrong with simple, clear, punchy:
One verification point: the reference—Unger's 2005 listener's guide—doesn't seem to provide evidence of this fact. I see other people quoted by Unger, and I see "probably" and "suggest" and, in Wolff's imperfect English, "so it is not surprising if Bach wanted to write ...". Would Wolff p. 143 be a better reference? And could you point to the actual supporting text for the hook fact ("copied and performed")?
But more importantly, could you respond to the issue I raised about verification? Tony (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Hook 1:
Pity that (pictured) is jammed into the middle of the nominal group: the Russell Watson (pictured) version of the song " Faith of the Heart.
Is Russell Watson the arranger ("version" suggests this)? No, I learn. Do we need two additional links, one of them first? Shorter, more direct, and more explanatory:
Last hook:
Why do we need links to common terms vanilla ice cream and garlic? Are they not linked in the DYK article?
Second-last hook:
Why do we need a bunched link for List of world records in athletics after the link for "shot put" (MOSLINK says to avoid bunched links)?
Was Hathorn's ban lifted? Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 72#Proposal to ban Billy Hathorn from DYK. He has put up multiple nominations since yesterday, and the few I've checked have recurring issues that have been discussed over the years and led to the ban (non-reliable sources, padding of articles with off-topic content to meet length/expansion, but I haven't yet checked for copyvio). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Given that he was sockpuppeting even recently and the ban was lifted because people gave up on him, no chance I would lift the ban. Wizardman 22:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
As I said in the original ban proposal, I'm not persuaded a ban is the best option. I would still like to see more effort going into getting Billy to conform with policy, and one way to do that would be to treat his nominations like any other, if he sees his noms are failing because of, for example, close paraphrasing, wouldn't that help motivate him to mend his ways? Gatoclass ( talk) 10:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Copied:
This nom requires some fairly urgent discussion as the hook is currently in a lead spot in the queue - hopefully it can be resolved quickly without having to pull the hook. Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 18:54, 25 June 2013 (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) 06:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me how reviewers can determine what facts are interesting to a broad audience? I don't see how it is even possible. I am tired of editors complaining about hooks due to them thinking that they are boring. Editors are acting like their opinion of what is interesting applies to the majority of the English reading world. Readers of DYK come from a variety of countries and backgrounds so why does anyone believe that the opinion of one reviewer or a small group that is involved with DYK is the same opinion of the very broad audience? Opinions of what is interesting can also come from their cultural bias. SL93 ( talk) 04:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
First of all, the phrase "interesting to a broad audience" is not entirely accurate and does not reflect the actual practice here - I've been intending to tweak that statement for a long time but never got around to it. A hook should preferably be of interest to the widest possible audience, but it doesn't necessarily need broad appeal, because many topics are simply not "interesting to a broad audience" in the first place. But regardless of the breadth of its appeal, a hook at minimum still has to highlight a fact that is likely to be of interest to someone who already has an interest in the topic.
I have intended for some time to write a guideline for hook writing, but unfortunately the time I have available to pursue my wiki-hobby has diminished sharply in recent months, and I no longer have nearly enough time to do everything I would like to do here. However, in response to SL93's query, I would say the primary criterion for a hook is that the hook fact must be unusual or surprising in some way, or alternatively, informative or educational. The kind of hook to be avoided at all costs is the one which states the obvious, which, for example, presents an everyday, common occurrence, or which expresses something which is already self-evident. We don't need to tell people what they already know, or to present them with trivia that no-one needs or cares to know. Gatoclass ( talk) 08:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Of course, these examples can be included in hook as subordinate clauses like "...that Blah river, 19th longest on the Earth, has gold mine in it?" §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 07:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
"... that cloud storage service Tresorit has offered $10,000 to anyone who can hack into their cloud storage servers, and has yet to be hacked?"
I don't know the subject, but perhaps this attempt might help DYK editors to improve it:
"... that the servers of cloud storage company Tresorit have yet to be hacked, despite its offer of $10,000 to anyone who can do this?". Tony (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Generally there seems to be a good treatment of theme in the hooks I've glanced at—that's good work, everyone; but in prep area 3, this stands out as having no clear point at all:
"... that while actress Belén López, was nominated for the Newcomer Award for her role in The Distance (2006), flamenco dancer Belén López was the inspiration of film director Franco Zeffirelli?"
A contrast is set up in the grammar—"while ... ". But what exactly is the contrast between one person's nomination for X, and someone else's inspiration of a film director? Is there a connection between Zeffirelli and The Distance? It's very opaque, and not in an intriguing or interesting way ... just weird and flat. I don't know enough about it to fix it. Tony (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I find the image used for Template:Did you know nominations/Muggeseggele (now in the image slot of one of the prep areas) to be misleading. The hook indicates that a Muggeseggele is pictured. That's not true; a Muggeseggele is a fly's penis, but the image shows two flies mating. Surely I'm not the only one who finds this misleading! Could the "(pictured)" text be revised to say "(utilization pictured)"?? (It would be easier not to use the image.) -- Orlady ( talk) 20:46, 26 June 2013 (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) 14:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
In Queue 1 the Chicken harvester hook. An editor has asked for the wording of the hook to be tweaked on the nomination template. As the article reviewer I would be happy to accept the change. Could an Admin have a quick look before it's moved to the main page in a couple of hours? Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:34, 28 June 2013 (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) 22:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The hook for blackspot shark says (pictured). It is placed in such an area that the picture does not show. Blackspot shark needs to be moved out of this prep area, and to the top of another prep area. I suppose I should learn how to do this, but... Thanks! 78.26 ( I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
For those who donn't follow wiki-drama, Russavia has been writing a userspace article on the artist Pricasso, who has painted a portrait of Jimbo with his penis. Looking at Jimbo's talk page, you'll see quite a controversy and there is also an active deletion debate at commons. Newyorkbrad has topic-banned Russavia from Jimbo and there was edit-warring over the draft that led to full protection. Russavia has now copy-pasted the article to mainspace, losing all the other contributions and making the article appear stable (rule D6 restricts articles with unresolved conflicts), and nominated it for DYK. I have posted a hold on the nomination and am noting here that this article is the centre of an ongoing controversy. I propose we not action the nomination until the dust settles and the wiki and article conflicts are resolved. We do not need a new battleground in this war started here, in my opinion. EdChem ( talk) 04:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Out of interest, should the actions or intentions of Russavia have anything to do with whether or not this DYK ends up on the main page? Per WP:OWN, the article belongs to the community, not this one user despite him/her being the major contributor. And getting the hook up to the main page is not supposed to be primarily a "reward" for the nominator (although in many cases they may feel rightly proud of their achievement, the primary purpose of DKY is to showcase articles not promoting editors). So, given that (a) Pricasso is by all accounts a artist who satisfies WP:GNG, and (b) the dispute is over an image of Jimbo rather than over Pricasso generally, and that image is neither included in the article at present nor mentioned in the hook, and (c) the DYK nomination seems to satisfy all other requirements, is there any reason not to post it? Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 14:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not all that sure that this artist meets GNG - a person who gets zero NYT mentions is not likely all that notable, and the articles on him focus on his "means of production" and not on him as an artist. Notability is something which must reflect on the artist specifically, not on notoriety of "means of production" AFAICT. Collect ( talk) 17:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Just checked at the ANI page on the block - I count 23 admins who endorse the block to 1 against. It pretty clear that this article, at the center of that controversy, is not stable and is not looked upon as one of Wikipedia's best new articles. The instability is showing up in the article's edit history with the commons link being inserted and deleted repeatedly. Certainly if the Commons link is in the article, a large portion of Wikipedia's editors cannot support it being on the front page. And how do we prevent the link from being inserted? Edit protect it while it's a DYK?
As far as the notability of the "artist" - it's clear that he doesn't pass WP:Artist, but that is because he is really a porn star (if you've seen the video you'll understand). Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO either. Smallbones( smalltalk) 22:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I know WP is not censored, but in view of the disruptive intent of the editor, who has now been blocked, the poor quality of the article from almost every point of view (and not just the bad taste of the "artist"), I would propose to remove the article from DYK. WP should be usurped for political purposes. DYK, which already does not enjoy a sparkling reputation, should be even more prudent that this could send it to the dogs. IMHO, to not invalidate the nomination would be an endorsement of his shenanigans and his point-scoring. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
We currently only have 22 approved hooks, and half of those are probably not really approved as they have been challenged since initial approval. The Prep/Queue has only one update remaining. We are going to run out of hooks if more are not approved over the next 12 hours or so. Gatoclass ( talk) 14:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Here are some old noms that are still needing to be reviewed:
Clearing out some of those would help.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
There's no doubt that this is going to survive AFD, but we shouldn't run it on the main page until it does. Could either an admin speedy close the AFD or anyone remove this from prep? — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 03:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I can't make heads or tails of this nom. It has every type of tick that we have. What should be done with it? Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
According to
MOS:FRAC, the "use of the few Unicode symbols available for fractions (such as ½) is discouraged entirely". In the lead hook of
Queue 1, "4½" should be replaced with one of the following: "{{
frac|4|1|2}}
" (producing 4+1⁄2), or "{{
sfrac|4|1|2}}
" (producing 4+1/2), or "four and a half".
MANdARAX •
XAЯAbИAM
08:44, 30 June 2013 (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) 15:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the hook for the article Bob Fu, currently displayed on Wikipedia's main page: "largely funded by wealthy oil magnates from Midland, Texas" is hardly a neutral statement, but full of connotations that I struggle to believe are unintended. The article itself appears mostly balanced, perhaps with exception of the last few sentences from which the statement is derived. I agree that DYK should provoke interest, but not in the same way as a tabloid headline does. Interesting facts, not interesting smearing.-- Nikolaj Christensen ( talk) 15:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Where are the admins? -- 69.158.116.5 ( talk) 00:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The hook was changed due to concerns that someone might mistake the pictured spider with the actual actress. I thought the issue was dealt with at the nomination page by adding the definite article. To be completely honest, I believe the chances of confusing Jolie with a venomous, ambush-hunting arthropod are rather slim. Since the wording made the hook much "hookier", I suggest changing it back. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there any condition that an image can not appear more than once in main page? Reference: File:Swami Vivekananda-1893-09-signed.jpg which has been nominated in another recent DYK. -- Tito☸ Dutta 01:12, 1 July 2013 (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) 14:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hook Foreign rebel fighters in the Syrian civil war should be pulled from Queue 3. It is still a work in progress. Rule R7 of the Supplementary rules: 'There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress. Therefore, articles which include unexpanded headers are likely to be rejected' This article still has an unexpanded header and has seen extensive editing the last days (being related to current events). My opinion is that the article still needs much more information on especially the Arab nations. The article also still has bare URL's (D3). Crispulop ( talk) 21:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
There are only 10 of 154 nominations approved, not even enough to get us halfway through July 4 (and it's already July 3). There are always plenty of older hooks that need attention, as witness those listed below. Thank you for your continuing assistance.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
A hook on Kafka's works is the quirky in prep 1. Is there any chance to get it in a queue (4 or 5)? It's his birthday ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I saw that my article Gabriela Rivadeneira ( Template) was promoted to a prep area this morning and just found out that it probably has already featured on the Main page. But I don't see any DYK Bot message on the article's or my Talk page. Does anyone know what happened? Thanks, Crispulop ( talk) 19:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to review some of the backlogged nominations for DYK but they seem to violate the five day rule. For instance, today is July 3 and there are nominations from June 3. I would think such nominations would fail the five day rule since it's been an entire month since the nomination.
Are we to consider five days from the time of creation / expansion until today? Or are we to consider five days from the time of creation / expansion until the nomination date? If the latter is the case, that should be clearly indicated on the rules page under Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria and on the nominations page under Template talk:Did you know#Backlogged?. Thank you. CaseyPenk ( talk) 18:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Prep 3 contains 2 hooks related to Swami Vivekananda (and both are my articles). Please do not remove the first hook (i.e. "To The Fourth of July"). OR, following WP:IAR you can keep both the hooks/move a to next queue, because tomorrow (4 July) is Vivekananda's death anniversary and this year is is being celebrated as 150th anniversary of Vivekananda. -- Tito☸ Dutta 22:54, 3 July 2013 (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) 06:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The last hook of Queue 3 has a double "that". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
But this one is unsuitable: "... that Peter Hofmann performed the part of Siegmund first at the Opernhaus Wuppertal, two years before repeating it in the centennial Ring in Bayreuth?" So what ... Am I missing something? Aside from the lack of point to the hook, why not widen the scope so that more visitors to the main page get the gist ... "sang the part". Can "Wagner" or "Wagner's" be slipped in? Tony (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Article: I'm unsure what this means: "The house reopened on 14 October 1956, as one of the first damaged theatres in Germany ...". Could have a number of meanings.
"It was designed by the architect Carl Moritz (de) in a style drawing on neo-Baroque and Jugenstil. It was completed in 1907.[2] In 1939 it was changed considerably."—What was changed considerably? The style? The building? I'm confused.
"The opera is known for revivals of operas"—??
"It houses mostly performances of operas"—not idiomatic English. I've pinged Gerda. This shouldn't go on the main page yet, I think. Tony (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2013 (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) 06:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday's DYK hook was ... that Swami Vivekananda (pictured) wrote To the Fourth of July on the celebration of United States' Independence and incidentally died on the same date four years later? Now, the main hook To the Fourth of July got 2669 views yesterday and the article Swami Vivekananda got 14000 views. The article gets around 5000 view everyday, so almost 9000 views came from the DYK. Now, a) will it be added in DYKSTAT? b) I have a long time doubt that a good number of readers don't understand where to click if there are multiple links in a hook. -- Tito☸ Dutta 08:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that people will click on whatever link that they are the most interested in no matter where the link is positioned. SL93 ( talk) 13:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
How is it undermining DYK when people will, no matter what, click on whatever they find interesting? Removing all other links doesn't matter because people still won't click on that link if they are not interested in it. SL93 ( talk) 14:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a complete tempest in a teapot. Fourth of July was the lead hook and Swami Vivekananda was pictured, which doubtless helped drive views to the (linked) person being pictured. Also, because it was the 100th anniversary of Swami Vivekananda's death, and due to a special request, there were two different hooks about him during the 24 hours considered by the edit counter, both with secondary links to his article: one at 13:30 India time, and the Fourth of July one mentioned above, during the day in the U.S. I also doubt that the positioning in the first hook diverted a significant number of readers away from the Fourth of July article. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
There is only four hours to go to the next update, there is no update ready and virtually no approved hooks left to select from at T:TDYK. We urgently need some more completed reviews, thanks! Gatoclass ( talk) 13:13, 5 July 2013 (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) 14:05, 5 July 2013 (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) 22:05, 5 July 2013 (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) 06:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The airplane image in Prep 4 is not used in the article -- a problem that was flagged by the DYK reviewer. However, the article has a nice image of the airplane that later crashed. Either (1) the image from the article needs to be swapped into the hook (changing "exampled pictured" to something like "pictured before crash") or (2) the image that used in the hook needs to be added to the article as a second image.
I almost swapped the image from the article into the hook, but held back because I suspect there might have been a reason for choosing the other image. I can't tell from the DYK review history. -- Orlady ( talk) 04:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Prep area 2:
... that the 1931 recreational vehicle (pictured) that Paramount used to bribe Mae West into making more movies is on display in the RV/MH Hall of Fame?
->
... that the RV/MH Hall of Fame houses the 1931 recreational vehicle (pictured) that Paramount used to bribe Mae West into making more movies?
Tony (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Can the phrase "it is considered the" be deleted from the Samuel Keimer hook (with Benjamin Franklin) that's fourth in this set? The qualifier is not in the article, and makes the hook duller than it needs to be. (Using "the printer" instead of "printer" is not typical of modern American English.) The resulting hook:
I'd appreciate it if an admin could fix this before it hits the main page in a couple of hours. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 13:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I reviewed Prep 2 and decided that it's ready to be moved to the queue, except that I'm dismayed by the wording of one hook. Specifically, I am bothered that the hook "... that the theft of The Weeping Woman from the National Gallery of Victoria was the theft of the most expensive work purchased by an Australian art gallery and that the crime is still unsolved?" is essentially a run-on sentence, has much too long of a link to the article title, and repeats the word "theft". Maybe we can have some fast teamwork on rewording it. One idea I've had:
Hi, just trawling through the multi-DYK hook "that paleontologists have discovered the fossilized eggs of cephalopods, fishes, and reptiles, with some dinosaur eggs (pictured) being preserved with pathological shell deformities?". Dinosaur eggs has every sentence tagged in the scientific sections—like a dozen 11s one after the other. Ref tags are retrospective, and if there's no particular reason to tag more than one sentence in a row with the same source, please let's spare readers the ugly, disruptive effect. I've left a note with the main author and a copy-edit tag on the article. Tony (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the Priyanka Chopra filmography, it is worth noting that Copyvio check (Earwig @ toolserver) is malfunctioning on this specific article. As noted on the Village Pump, this is a bug that affects select articles. Doesn't look like it will be resolved soon, so the only alternative seems to use Dup detector from the nom template and check each of the article's 85 citations individually. Unless someone else has a suggestion. — Maile ( talk) 11:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried filling prep area 3, but I have a problem. I placed two Civil War hooks in the prep area because there are so few accepted hooks. Finding a hook with a picture for the first spot is a problem because the only reviewed one with a picture, that I didn't review, is another Civil War hook. I reviewed several articles so those could be promoted and one of them includes a picture. One of them could also be used to replace one of the two war hooks if needed. I didn't want to promote articles that I accepted because I figured that it wouldn't go over too well. So I'm basically asking for someone to help fill the prep if they want to. There is plenty of time. SL93 ( talk) 00:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
There are only 13 of 127 nominations approved, not even enough to fill the two empty preps, much less the four empty queues. There are always a great many older hooks that need attention, as witness those in this list. Thank you as always for your continuing assistance.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
We have two full prep areas - about 16 hours' worth - but only four approved hooks, which is not enough to assemble another prep area. QPQ reviews will not be enough; so the only source of hooks is the backlog of hooks marked "need another review". Hawkeye7 ( talk) 01:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
We currently have only 150 nominations total. IMO it's time we went to two updates a day for a while, until both the number of noms and approvals build up a bit. Gatoclass ( talk) 12:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Strike Eagle has been nominating articles with close paraphrasing issues. His articles have been promoted since June and possibly earlier. These are examples of close paraphrasing from promoted articles - [4] ( INS Chennai) and [5] ( Russian submarine K-51 Verkhoturye). The issue was pointed out to him on June 25 - Template:Did you know nominations/INS Kamorta. I reviewed a July 6 nomination with the same problem - Template:Did you know nominations/Russian submarine K-18 Karelia. SL93 ( talk) 06:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It is close paraphrasing because it is more than missiles and proper nouns as anyone can see in my review. SL93 ( talk) 14:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you really think that these can't be reworded? It is simple.
That's fine. I don't hold grudges anyway. SL93 ( talk) 14:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
At the end of Alberto Suárez Laso, at the end of the "Nominated by" line, is {{DYKsubpage |monthyear=July 2013 |passed= |2=
It looks odd, and I opened the Laso template. Doesn't seem to be a part of that one. I can't figure it out, but maybe it's another nom that isn't showing on the page under July 5. — Maile ( talk) 15:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University Initially they pulled off the hook mentioning "politicians lay foundation stones of new buildings all the time", did they read, the foundations stone was laid by the Prime Minister of the country — the highest designation of Ministers? And, no, Prime Misters do not lay foundations stones often. Then they added a close paraphrasing issue where sentences were rewritten. -- Tito☸ Dutta 21:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if it is possible to wikilink Temptation of Saint Anthony in visual arts to The Temptation of St. Anthony on the hook for The Private Affairs of Bel Ami. SL93 ( talk) 02:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see conversation on DYK Maximiliano Óscar Rodríguez Magi. This has taken a turn on the DYK policy that would be better discussed here. A reviewing editor has taken exception to Eligibility criteria of the basic rules on newness - and seems to want to argue the point indefinitely on this template, rather than allowing a review to happen. Could be considered disruptive. Rather than hold up a full review of that particular nomination, which meets the DYK criteria of newness, the policy should be hashed out here. If it continues on that template, it's counter productive at a time when we badly need completed reviews. — Maile ( talk) 11:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I was told at Template:Did you know nominations/Spirit Touches Ground that the article needs some copy-editing, but I don't know what is meant by that. Saying that the article need copy-editing does not tell me the how and why of what needs copy-editing. SL93 ( talk) 15:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I have made a series of changes. Comment is requested on whether this is sufficient copy edit to address concerns from Orlady and BlueMoonset, and whether this is helpful as an example for SL93. Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 13:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm in the process of reviewing the DYK nomination for Typhoon Longwang and I'm stumped. The DYKcheck tool says that the article has not been 5x expanded. It was 2,422 characters of prose at the time of expansion and the current amount of characters is 12,812. An exact 5x expansion should have been 12,110 characters. Is there something that I missed? SL93 ( talk) 20:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that the project suffered from lack of new nominations, and had to slow down to two slots per day, so I thought this was the time to nominate a couple of article that was too old. Template:Did you know nominations/Vegard Lysvoll was reviewed and accepted within minutes, but was later rejected because one user believe we do have a backlog of other nominations. I disagree with that argument, so I want a second opinion on that nomination. I don't care much if that or Template:Did you know nominations/Aleksander Solli is promoted or not, I just thought this was my chance to add a couple of nomination to DYK, as I don't have the time to expand or create an article during five days any longer. Mentoz86 ( talk) 10:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I gave it a pass as a second opinion based on 5-day Not Exactly. We've done this before, and that's what "Not Exactly" is there for. With the shortage we have, better to go with an easy nomination than to spin our wheels on nominations that are bogged down in issues. We're talking about 11 days past the 5-day guideline, not a month or more. — Maile ( talk) 16:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I am fine with what I did being rejected, but this should be a known thing for nominators if that is allowed. They should know that it is possible, at the current time, to nominate articles late. Something this important should not be hidden on a page where barely any nominators look. SL93 ( talk) 17:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The hook about William de Courcy (the second one in Template:Did you know/Queue/6) needs grammatical corrections. It states "that William de Courcy a 12th century Anglo-Norman baron not only gave land to Abingdon Abbey but also a fishery named "Sotiswere"?" This should be corrected to "that William de Courcy, a 12th century Anglo-Norman baron, not only gave land to Abingdon Abbey but also a fishery named "Sotiswere"?". 069952497a ( U- T- C- E) 19:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
We have a queue ready, but the DYKUpdateBot didn't move it to the main page at 21:00 (UTC) as scheduled. The queue appear to have the DYKbotdo template required, so that shouldn't be gumming up the works. I've just pinged Shubinator, but he may not see the note to restart the bot for a while.
If there's an admin who knows how to do a main page update from the queue ( Queue 6, in this case), that would be appreciated. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The article at Template:Did you know nominations/Badger flea was removed from the prep with the statement that the article was not approved. However, it was approved as I said in the discussion. SL93 ( talk) 04:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
An update was due about 15 minutes ago. Not sure why the bot is not doing it.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 08:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Could someone have a quick look at the hook in Prep 2 for this nomination, please? I think the word 'sat' should read set; I was just about to change it myself but the wording of the hook generally doesn't seem to feel right - I do admit I know absolutely zilch about football so maybe it's just me! SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the hook for Extol should say reunion instead of re-union. Re-union does sound wrong to me though. SL93 ( talk) 16:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Tony (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please check Template:Did you know nominations/Devil's Gap Footpath and provide a third opinion? Prioryman ( talk) 12:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Notability is part of the DYK criteria from the supplementary guidelines. SL93 ( talk) 19:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
(ec)Does anyone else feel that Prioryman is probably the last person who should complain about someone biased reviewing Gibraltar-related articles for DYK? Apparently it is no problem if someone with a clear bias pro Gibraltar-related articles approves these, but if someone with legitimate complaints notices that many Gib-related articles have serious flaws, then he should be disqualified from reviewing... Thanks, Prioryman, you have just provided enough ammunition to keep (or strengthen) the DYK restrictions for Gibraltar for years to come, first approving a deficient article and then wanting to bar the person that actually found the problems with it. As for the "bogus" reasons, I have replied on the nomination page, and surprise surprise, neither is actually a bogus reason, since it is part of both the DYK criteria and of WP:V. Self-published sources are only allowed if "the article is not based primarily on such sources.", which is the case here, and DYK criteria include that articles must meet core guidelines and policies. I hope you are not arguing that WP:N is not a core guideline (if you do, I wonder which article-related guidelines are actually "core" in your opinion, if the one used to delete articles isn't...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram ( talk • contribs) 19:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, thanks for editing the plot section on the article that I nominated. SL93 ( talk) 21:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The wording of two similar hooks was approved by a reviewer to be chosen by the promoter, but another hook suggestion was added. The reviewer's hook should be approved by someone else if they think it should be chosen. SL93 ( talk) 13:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The reviewer said that my hook suggestions are inaccurate after I already brought forward two hooks that are accurate based on our conversation. SL93 ( talk) 05:37, 14 July 2013 (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) 10:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:WikiProject Rosblofnari, I noticed an expression of bewilderment that Template:Did you know nominations/Palikir was never promoted to the main page, in spite of having been approved back in May. I tried to figure this out, but I can't find any evidence that it was ever transcluded to the noms page. Not being listed on the noms page would, of course, be an excellent explanation for not being moved to a prep area!
Can anyone else shed light on what might have happened here? I surmise that it could have been reviewed and approved as a result of being listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Rosblofnari, but that doesn't explain how its absence from the noms page could have been overlooked. -- Orlady ( talk) 18:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm an active new page patroller and I also enjoy promoting articles to DYK. These two things seem like they would be cross compatible, but the problem is that the new page backlog is currently at 115 days, way way past the 5 day limit, and new page patrollers are encouraged to patrol from the back of this queue. I've come across numerous pages that I would love to take to DYK - well-written, well-cited, quite interesting articles - but they are sadly, months old, despite having never been patrolled: A few examples are Chang Hsien-yao, Battle of Santo Domingo (1586), and Chromosomal instability.
My question, I guess, is if there is some kind of workaround I'm missing - It's a shame that these pages will miss out on DYK simply because the queue is insane. Have exceptions ever been made, for example counting the five days from the date the article was marked as reviewed, as opposed to five days from creation? (I know, I know, and I understand why there is the 5-day age cap - I'm just curious and a little frustrated, I guess)
These aren't my articles, as one doesn't patrol their own work; I just think it would be a boon, both to editor retention and to both projects, if there was a way to latch the two together, or a way to allow nppatrollers to DYK pages they come across while patrolling, without having to patrol the front of the queue. -- TKK bark ! 00:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the hook "that the cargo vessel SS Gallic had its name changed seven times during 37 years in service, despite the superstition that it is bad luck to change a ship's name?" presently in Prep 4, the hook portrays it like this is a present-day superstition, or at least that it was a superstition back when Gallic existed (1918-1956). As a source for this is cited some type of boating website.
A quick Google Books search (search text: "bad luck to change a ship's name") shows that, indeed, at some point in time there was such a superstition, but as early as November 1938 MotorBoating magazine said: "Often I have wondered what became of that old superstition that it is bad luck to change a ship's name. A glance through Lloyd's register would make most of them unlucky-if the old adage held good." Besides, there's no mention of anyone connected to SS Gallic holding such superstitions. There doesn't seem to be a connection. The article says this is a "... prevailing maritime superstition", but with only the boating website (of unknown reliability) to back that up. I suppose the superstition might have been present in the 19th century, but nowadays, as well as in the period of Gallic, ships very often change their names, usually when ownership change. Manxruler ( talk) 11:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I see. Even if the superstition angle wouldn't necessarily hold water now, might a single ship having seven different names and six different owners across three different nationalities and continents still be noteworthy? Aumnamahashiva ( talk) 13:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Need a lead hook for Q1 within the next few hours, please. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Aren't the coordinates in the Asana River article excessively precise that it looks quite ridiculous? I don't know enough about these to go round changing these myself, so someone else ought to look at it. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 07:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I see that Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Darren Ng has been promoted already. The creator and nominator now wants to use a similar hook for another article he wrote Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Elsie Lie. I would suggest combining these into a one double hook, if the nominator agrees. Rlendog ( talk) 19:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I've just completed a major series of re-writes on the SK8 article. The original was largely a copyvio from a former Apple page, no longer available on the 'net but still there in all it's 1990s glory in the Archive (thank you Mr. Kahle!).
I'd like to list this for DYK, but I'm not sure how it works in this case. The content is all-new (I hope!) and the article is entirely different, but unless I ignore the former close-quoted version, I'm not sure it hits the 5x requirement - although I'm not great with the tool...
Am I OK to post this one?
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 20:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
(undenting) I think the point may be getting lost here... the question is when an article, any article, consists largely of copyvio or similar, does the original length count for DYK purposes when it is re-written? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 21:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Queue 2, which is next in line for the Main page, is missing a lead article. Manxruler ( talk) 21:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
This has been taken care of. SL93 ( talk) 23:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
At the nomination, the reviewer pointed out a concern with a reference. The reference says that it is a reprint of an article by Lisa Grace Lednicer for the Oregonian, but the author link points to a member at [8]. Lednicer actually is a staff writer for the Oregonian though. I was wondering if someone could verify if it is an actual reprint to help the reviewer and myself out. SL93 ( talk) 02:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I am concerned about potential WP:BLP issues with this nomination and would like to hear some other opinions before this nomination is promoted. My concern is that the hook discusses a "suspected perpetrator" to a recent crime that the article names and shows has been arrested in connection to a recent crime (10 July 2013) and police investigation. However, there has not yet been time in which to hold a trial or provide any other form of due process. My primary concern is with the potential of indirectly describing the arrested individual on the Main page and then learning a few days later that he has been cleared of all wrong doing. -- Allen3 talk 18:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
At Template:Did you know nominations/King & Maxwell, I requested a Wednesday or late Tuesday queue, but realized afterwards that I want a Tuesday or late Monday queue. Allen3 ( talk · contribs) promptly put it in a Wednesday queue, but can someone swap it into a Tuesday queue?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see Symbolic ethnicity. Another discussion trying to disqualify an article that was moved to main space within the time frame. It's taking a different turn, an accusation that these started as redirects. Please refer to the above link and comment at will there. — Maile ( talk) 23:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Pls check the credit templates. Thanks. -- 174.89.158.208 ( talk) 01:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)