![]() | 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 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | → | Archive 105 |
What is going on?! The current hook "...that in 1967 Wim T. Schippers, with Gied Jaspars and Wim van der Linden, wrote and directed Hoepla, the first Dutch TV show to display full nudity, leading to questions in parliament and censure for the broadcaster?" has 215 characters. How was this not checked?! Proudbolsahye ( talk) 08:06, 15 October 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) 14:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Move "Did you know" nomination discussions to an appropriate namespace for discussions.. The proposal (it's not mine, I'm just informing about it) is to reformulate the layout of this process, so nominations take place at a talk or wikipedia namespace instead of the template namespace. Please do not answer here, do it there, to keep the discussion centralized at a single place. -- Cambalachero ( talk) 21:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Are mark up characters ('brackets' for links and the 'link root') in the hook counted towards the maximum length of 200 characters? i.e. [[Joseph Smith (song writer)|Joe Smith]] is 40 characters long in edit mode, but only shows itself on the page as 9 characters. Is it counted as 9 for purposes of the hook length? 107.215.12.158 ( talk) 22:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
In the queue at the moment:
"Cop"? A bit of a slang term, I'd say. What's the opinion of others? violet/riga [talk] 22:23, 15 October 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, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
At Template:Did you know nominations/Twilight Zone tragedy. Unexperienced reviewers seem to have derailed this for months complaining about notability (through they never took me up on the offer to AfD it, and I think it is clearly notable) or the fact that it is a subarticle (but content was not reused from the parent article, as it was poorly referenced and hard to verify I wrote the new article from scratch). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The last list is mostly completed, so I've compiled a new set of 38 nominations from the first four weeks of September that need reviewing. We have 258 total nominations, of which 34 are approved, but those aren't sufficient to fill the four queues and two preps currently empty. Thank you for your reviews.
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) 19:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I've just
-tagged {{
Did you know nominations/List of baseball deaths}}: it's well written without problems, and it has nearly 2000 characters of prose, but virtually all of the prose is in lists. May we make an exception to the "don't count list content" rule here? Unlike most lists, this has a few huge entries: following each one- or two-word entry is a substantial amount of text. Unlike your typical list contents, this could presumably be reformatted into normal prose without much difficulty. As I understand it, the point of the criterion is to exclude pages consisting almost entirely of tables or unannotated lists, and excluding this page for that reason would completely miss the point.
Nyttend (
talk)
00:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The 5th hook, the nomination for Meeting at Night, currently in Queue 4 and due to be moved to the main page in a couple of hours, doesn't seem to read correctly? It reads: that in 1845 Robert Browning met Elizabeth Barrett and wrote "Meeting at Night", the most sensual poem he has ever written before? Allen3, Gatoclass or Crisco don't seem to be around at the moment, so hopefully another Admin could have a look? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The previous discussion ( Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 97#Eligibility criteria) stalled slightly when deciding what the best tagline for the DYK template should be. Options expressed were:
To my mind the first sounds better and it seemed to have more support in the previous discussion. AIRcorn (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Did you know has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In line with the discussion above can someone change ''From Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Recent additions|newest content]]:'' at the dyk template to ''From Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Recent additions|new and recently improved content]]:''. Thanks AIRcorn (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi all! I tried to create a DYK nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Sava, but I must have messed up something with the substing of the template. Could someone have a quick look please? I tried to fix the nomination page, but did not manage. Thanks.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 12:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I am concerned that Gibraltar articles are still receiving far more than their fair share of attention at this venue. What can be done to ensure that all topics on Wikipedia have fair access to DYK? Jehochman Talk 13:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I've seen two Gibrlatar articles appearing in DYKS within a few days, first I've seen in yonks. My first thought was why the hell is an article created on June 30 appearing three months later as a DYK. If anything I'd argue just the opposite and say that there seems to still be some sort of discrimination against Gibraltar articles, why else would an article take 3 months to go through?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
If I saw another Gibraltar article tomorrow and the day after, yeah I'd then start to think somebody is up to something, but two articles in a few weeks I don't see any reason to be alarmed. As for insignificant, I mean how many DYKs going through are really pretty insignificant in the wider sense? Most of them in reality. But every article is a mere piece in the jigsaw puzzle. It's not that you really care that people are writing about Gibraltar, it's because you hate to think that somebody is apparently using us for their own gain and are gaining from writing about Gibraltar and using the main page which irks you off. You see five times more articles about US sports personalities and things like mushrooms than you do on Gibraltar. There'll always be an undue weight on certain topics which hold people's interest at DYK and who produce many on the same topic, but you don't like it being about Gibraltar because of the scandal which is understandable, but it doesn't mean you're right to really feel alarmed at how many Gibraltar articles are going through. I doubt you'd batter an eyelid if one of us created 10 articles on slugs or something which all went through in a 72 hour period.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Here are older nominations that need reviewing: three are from July, over two months old, and another 21 are from August. The list could have been much longer, but 37 seemed enough for now. We have 282 total nominations at the moment, of which 61 are approved, but 48 of those are needed to fill the four queues and four preps that are empty. Thank you for your reviews.
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) 16:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi
I just went to add a DYK for today, and it looks like the page is a little messed up. I have added as I think it should have been, but mine and the one previous to mine are not showing. It seems that the French Toast one has an error in there.
Chaosdruid (
talk)
19:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like it's fixed already! Chaosdruid ( talk) 19:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI, the above issue as well as a group of nominations that, in my experience, have almost no hope of success all appear related to a class being led by User:LeshedInstructor. Have dropped a note on the instructor's talk page but we may have a day or two of problematic nominations before word can spread to the majority of the students. -- Allen3 talk 20:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone want to take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/1963 Honduran coup d'état? It's been sitting there since 16 September, but it should be a rather straightforward review, and the 50th anniversary is coming up on 3 October. Aloha, groupuscule ( talk) 06:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Can Fairy Meadows ( DYK nom) be considered a "new" article? It was created in 2006, then turned into a redirect by Darkness Shines on 22 August 2013. Smsarmad replaced the redirect with a stub on 26 August, and expanded it from there. The article as it stands isn't a 5x expansion of the old one, but the old article had (effectively) ceased to exist before Smsarmad started working on the new one. So does that make the article eligible? DoctorKubla ( talk) 07:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I created Lotte Brand Philip on 28 September. Because I'm a DYK newbie, I asked another editor to nom it at DYK for me. He created Template:Did you know nominations/Lotte Brand Philip on 29 September.
It was pointed out to me today that we neglected to transclude the nom page at T:TDYK, so I added it to 29 September as instructed. I just realized it actually belongs under 28 September, but that's now in "Older nominations", so I don't know what to do. Has the article missed its chance at DYK because the nom wasn't transcluded in time? Maralia ( talk) 02:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Daniel Gauntlett, currently listed in Prep area 1, is now a candidate at AfD. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
When reviewing Maurice Yvain I noticed that @ Rosiestep: was credited with working on the article but there had been little to no contribution from that user. A quick check shows similar problems with the following nominations, all from @ Nvvchar::
I don't wish to cause any problems with this and simply raise it as a reminder that everybody needs to be double-checking user contributions for nominations. I'll leave it to Nvvchar to adjust the nominations. violet/riga [talk] 08:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
No comment on this particular situation, but I certainly don't think anyone should be credited who has not worked on an article, that just makes a total farce of the credit system. Gatoclass ( talk) 15:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed the arrarently rather large DYK flow of articles relating to Gordon Ramsay and Swami Vivekananda of late? -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:43, 6 October 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) 06:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I need someone to translate a short German passage at Template:Did you know nominations/Lotte Brand Philip so I can complete the review. Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 12:08, 20 October 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, 22 October 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, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I know that the sentence Did you know that… ? is widely used (also outside WP), but I think the sentence Nice to know that… would be better because:
Sander.v.Ginkel ( talk) 15:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
We're up to 324 submitted hooks, which is a huge number. At the moment we're promoting 3 set of 6 per day, or 18 daily, for 126 per week: it would take us 18 full days to promote 324 hooks. At a minimum, I think we should go to 7 per set/21 per day/147 per week; it would still take us over 15 full days to promote the current load of hooks, with more coming every day. The only question in my mind is whether to go to 7 or 8 per set (147 or 168 per week). Thoughts? BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
For the lead hook here, can we please have something or anything remotely more interesting than " ... that the North and South State Street Historic Districts (pictured) in Belvidere, Illinois were intended to form one large historic district, but had to be split?" This is the showcase slot of DYK. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:29, 24 October 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) 06:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Can someone else check Template:Did you know nominations/Grace Bates? It is currently in the prep areas already, but as far as I can tell, the hook is not supported by the source. The hook claims that she was the only women allowed to do something, while the source claims that it was normally intended for men, and that she had to petition to be allowed to follow the course, but not that she was the only one to do so that year. For all we know, she may have had frien(s) who made the same petition and were granted the same exception, so that they together could follow the men's course. Fram ( talk) 11:40, 25 October 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) 14:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The last list of older nominations is almost entirely completed, so I've compiled a new set of 35 nominations from the last week of September and first week of October that need reviewing. We have 305 total nominations, of which 43 are approved, but those aren't sufficient to fill the five queues and two preps currently empty. Thank you for your reviews.
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) 04:57, 27 October 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 October 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please suggest this for DYKship: Women in Albania - Albanian women can become head of a family after an oath of virginity. Thanks. - AnakngAraw ( talk) 02:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The original hook for the lead hook in this series did not include an image; one was added after the reviewer indicated that the image (in the article) was public domain. However, the choice of image could lead to a misunderstanding, as the ashes of Jews from Treblinka are not buried in the cemetery proper, but under a special memorial in the cemetery. Would you like to substitute this copyright-free image and new hook instead?
There's some hidden text in the prep areas that seems to date from a time when DYK entries didn't have to go through a nomination process. It's completely redundant nowadays, and potentially confusing – should it be removed? DoctorKubla ( talk) 16:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
STOP! BEFORE YOU ADD A NEW ITEM, PLEASE READ THESE NOTES:
- This is NOT a general trivia section.
- This section is only for items that have been listed on "NEW PAGES" in the last 120 hours
- The title of the new article should be BOLD and placed on TOP as the FIRST ITEM.
- Generally limited to eight items, but whatever the case – just make sure it fits whatever else is on the page at that time. Use your common sense.
- NO STUBS (moreover, try to find new articles that are 1,500+ bytes in size)
- Try to pick articles that are ORIGINAL to Wikipedia (not 1911 or other data sources) and that are INTERESTING.
- The "Did you know?" fact must be mentioned in the article.
- Images should be sized to 100px or SMALLER.
- Do not use fair-use images. Instead, find a related free image (PD, GFDL, CC etc.) as an alternative.
Okay, well, I'll remove the hidden text, since I think we're in agreement about that. Whether there should be an edit notice, and what it should say, is a separate issue. DoctorKubla ( talk) 16:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Having attracted this rather devastating critique on a blogsite, this nom, currently lead in Queue 4, should be held back until the problems are sorted. Template:Did you know nominations/Wildlife of Chad - a Blofeld/Rosiestep etc effort. Johnbod ( talk) 13:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't have anything to do with the DYK process. Have long stated that it isn't essential but a number of reviewers started wondering why I'd stopped being credited for them when the others were nominating them. Rather, I encourage collaboration as a group on topics which I believe are poorly covered and need a lot of work even if they're not DYKs. I still think the work we do together is important but occasionally they may not be ready for DYK because of the fact that it is a collaborative effort and almost impossible to keep track of what content and sources have been added. I'm well aware that sometimes problems may creep in, but there's no need to be so snotty Ed about it. Some people just love to moan and take swipes at others on wikipedia, otherwise the author of that blog would have helped correct the article... It's pointless moaning about the lack of scientific expertise wikipedia has to offer when wikipedia offers nothing to experts to write them. I actually do have a Bachelor of Science degree in geography, and one of the other authors is an experienced river management professional of some 50 years experience, but has he considered that editors don't have the time to check each and every source everybody adds to wikipedia? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
What makes you think people would still bother with DYK if that was the case?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Well they're not my submissions anyway. I guess it's up to the others to decide whether they still think it's worth running the gauntlet for. I could pick holes in 90% of the articles which go through DYK, even if I generally appreciate the effort people have made in writing them. The process will always be flawed and editors will always create errors regardless of DYK.. That you think that we're the sole cause of problems and somehow detrimental to DYK's reputation (as if anybody ever took it seriously aside from you lot anyway) shows your own personal bias on the issue. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
You mean do I think DYK is a seriously flawed process which has long been in need of reform, do I think it is run by certain people who take themselves too seriously and seem unwilling to accept the flaws that the process has, and do I think that the majority of wikipedia readers/editors ignore DYK or consider the hooks appearing in them uninteresting or even a joke that they're meant to be interesting"? Absolutely I mean that. There is a difference between taking DYK seriously and taking article content/accuracy seriously. But I often thank article creators for articles on the front page hitting the thank button for articles which I think are decent because they're editing in the spirit of wikipedia, even if I found the hook uninspiring. I bet a lot of people reading this now have been thanked by me and probably have by few others for their work. It's the people who put in the effort to write decent content I respect, not the fact that it happened to be a DYK.
I'd rather the articles which I write or even collaborate on were free of errors but wikipedia being a collaborative project we can't be held responsible for content in every article each one of us happens to edit. Unless one editor is an expert and seriously puts a lot of time into one article double checking everything you're always going to get errors creeping in occasionally. And some sources aren't always obviously "sixth grade work". There is a reason why our group collaborate, and it's central to what the spirit of editing is supposed to be about. We don't have to nominate articles for DYK, but if you did have a close monitoring system of content and sources for each one and the articles that anybody produces, then perhaps this would be a positive thing as it would mean more errors get identified, providing that it isn't too anti-editor and picky.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Given that I often don't have time to even read the articles going through before they are nommed, perhaps a process which involves the checking of every source of our articles which go through would be a productive thing and help prevent too many errors creeping in. I'm sure you'll agree that the content being added is done in good faith and you appreciate at least why they are being produced but you're not happy to see misrepresentations of sourcing and bad sources used. The only way I guess to eliminate this would be to set a limit on how many articles we produce and for each one to be strictly monitored. None of us deserve a hard time over errors and to have to deal with petty reviews, but if there are genuine errors and problems with articles I would strongly hope that they could be identified before an article hits the main page. That is, if editors feel that strongly about the quality of our work going through to put in the effort to check the sourcing and content. I think it largely comes down to sheer number of articles though, a limit might at least give us more time to check over our articles ourselves. But it is unfair of you all to assume that all of our work is bad because of errors such as this, and I doubt we're responsible for more errors than several of the other contributors here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I've proposed something which might help the problem here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
@Gatoclass. Orlady and co, we've begun a new auditing process in light of the concerns at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rosblofnari/Audit. We hope to eventually go through all of our DYKs and ensure that they're up to scratch and won't nominate any articles for DYK now unless they've gone through the auditing process. It will be done gradually. Hope this answers your concerns. The reality is that Rosie and myself often don't have time to make the edits and checks and even additions which are needed because articles were always nominated after 5 days because of the deadline. The Wildlife of Chad article I put enough time into it just condensing to the relevant points and copyediting and naturally didn't have the time to check each source, trusting that the information written was correct. The only way we can keep track of things is to significantly reduce group output and a vigorous auditing process in sandboxes. Hope you're pleased with the effort we're making.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry much further what this blogger has to say. From what I gather she's upset with how she's been treated on wikipedia which if she was a good editor it's understandable that she walked away from the project in disgust and is using the blog as a way to vent her frustration. I see she's picked on Mourdi Depression which if you actually read it and check the sources it is fine. If the source mentioning the barchans only says they exist in the depression how can you possibly elaborate without going into original research? The article says its a depression in the desert of northern Chad and depression is clearly defined in that article, not my fault she doesn't realize what it is. You can see the feature on the last notch of google maps, that's how important the feature is. I wrote most of the article and it's a decent starter article, whatever she thinks of it. I'm sure others here cannot see anything seriously wrong with it either. The flaws with the others are surely exaggerated too, but it's the articles I didn't write and do actually have problems I'm more concerned with, so it has at least made us reconsider how we edit on here and show more responsiblity for our own work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
As part of the above replacement, the hook moved from Prep 2 to Queue 4 was moved without its DYKmake template. Will an admin please insert the following template into Q4? (Or, since there's about 35 minutes left to do so, take care of the DYK credit if the template isn't added in time?)
Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Why is Byrd Spilman Dewey not listed at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/September in accordance with the DYK notice on the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cline ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
{{DYK talk}}
to show articles where a statement doesn't match an #ifexists or #ifeq condition. I did look at the template's code and recognized its complexity—I feel it's worth the price of an endeavor to consider if a solution exists. Above all; Thank you for considering this question so well as to append such a thoughtful reply. —
John Cline (
talk)
17:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that a lot of links to user pages are being included in replies, queries, and other communications on nominations pages, apparently attempting to trigger the user notification system. But everyone should be aware that notifications are not generated by edits in Template space, even though nomination pages are transcluded to a Template talk page. If you want to specifically notify someone that you've responded, or are waiting for their response, or whatever, you'll have to leave a note on their user talk page.
Taking a quick look at the main nominations page, I found many instances, taking various forms such as: <userpage>, User:<userpage>, @<userpage>, and <userpage> (talk · contribs). In most cases, the specified user edited after the mention (probably because they'd watchlisted the page). But I did come across some in which they didn't:
There certainly may be others that I missed. Some users may have already seen these and chosen not to respond; I'm just carrying out the spirit of the attempted notification, not trying to elicit any action. Also, I only checked for subsequent user response and didn't read through these, so some may not require further user input. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:35, 28 October 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) 14:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
There are several hooks (one of which, to be honest, is a nomination of mine) that have been suggested for Halloween that no one has reviewed yet, and we've only got a couple of days to go:
Together with what's already been approved this would make about 15 hooks total; enough, perhaps, for two full sets. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:38, 29 October 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, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Would this come under the definition of unreferenced BLP? If so, I've done a 2x expansion. Schwede 66 18:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I have become increasingly convinced that the Copyvio Check should not be in the DYK toolbox. It's listed first, which makes it look like a primary tool, and the checks it does clearly ignore the actual sources used in the article, since it hasn't yet highlighted close paraphrasing from them in my experience.
The tool of choice for copyvios and close paraphrasing is Duplication Detector; it isn't perfect, but it points out long and short identical strings of words, which is a useful indication that further investigation may be warranted.
I've recently run across DYK and GA reviews where the reviewer's presumption was that due diligence had been satisfied with a Copyvio Check, yet very severe close paraphrasing and copying was found. I believe we need to call a halt to this misguided application of Copyvio Check's capabilities. If this tool has been useful in DYK reviews because it has found copyvios on pages other than cited sources, I'd like to know about it—maybe it should be a supplemental check. But it seems to be used to check something it is not capable of checking, and it's compromising the DYK review process. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the bottom line here is that nobody should be relying exclusively on either copyvio check or duplication detector to check articles. I personally have found duplication detector to be surprisingly useless when confronted with even the most obvious examples of close paraphrasing, so I only use them as a quick method of looking for issues, if they find none I continue with a manual check. Gatoclass ( talk) 01:20, 1 November 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) 06:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, this is a new article. It does include a lot of material from existing articles on the architect's work. I think it would make an interesting DYK if someone wants to nominate it. His work includes what is described as the oldest existing synagogue in NYC, in a building actually designed as a synagogue. And he has several other surviving buildings that are quite ntoable and historic. I would also appreciate any help editing the article. Thank you. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 15:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
As to the first hook in Prep 2 -- that suggests that street food vendors are restaurants. Which I don't think is the case.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 03:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
It has been a while since I submitted an article here, but I was surprised to see that the hook that was approved at Template:Did you know nominations/Tomás Menéndez Márquez was changed when it was moved to the queue without any notice to me or any comment on the nomination. I would have expected that if there were any objection to the wording of the hook, that it would have been brought up at the nomination. I had specifically chosen to use "Indians" in the hook because of the stereotype-bending of "Indians rescue rancher". I feel that the change ('Indians' -> 'Native Americans') lessened the impact of the hook. -- Donald Albury 13:13, 31 October 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) 06:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Whilst reading Wikipedia:Template editor, I noticed that the criteria of implementing changes on protected templates would apply to the DYK queues, which often need to be changed quickly but due to lack of available administrators either aren't or are changed by someone unfamiliar with the process, making mistakes (typically, missing or duplicate credit giving templates). Therefore I would propose that the DYK queues be changed to "template-protected" and DYK regulars apply for the template editor right on this basis. This will allow more oversight on the hooks we put on the main page, and allow errors to be corrected much more quickly.-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 12:56, 2 November 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, 2 November 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) 14:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a hook in Queue 4 about Dan Cohen that will go up on the Main Page very soon. However, at the nomination page, it was agreed that this hook should wait until after November 5 to run because Cohen is currently a candidate in the 2013 Minneapolis mayoral election which is to occur on November 5. If anyone sees this before it hits the Main Page, would you mind swapping the Cohen hook out and reverting the promotion edit at the nom page? Thanks! BobAmnertiopsis ∴ ChatMe! 15:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
*October 8:
Template:Did you know nominations/Comet Ping Pong
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) 21:44, 3 November 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 November 2013 (UTC)
There's a problem with a hook in Queue 1: one hook ends in ?M (remove the errant 'M'). Chris857 ( talk) 14:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
@ Allen3: @ BDD: @ Jinkinson: @ Gatoclass: and Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Ashwood
I appreciate that this issue came to attention because of DYK, as the problems might have otherwise gone unnoticed. That is the good news. But ...
I have many times asked, begged, cajoled, implored reviewers here to please take care when reviewing BLPs, and please take care when reviewing medical topics, and asked that there be some accountability for the admins who are responsible for BLP or faulty medical information going on Wikipedia's mainpage. The particular combination of our policies and guidelines on BLPs and sourcing of medical content require considerable care and expertise in creating content, and many editors at Wikiproject Medicine are available to help-- you only need ask. Please do!
These two discussions illustrate the concern, that is, that DYK in one article put on our mainpage dubious medical sources, a hook about a medical claim based on a press release from the subject's employer (not independent and not MEDRS), and potentially impugned a man who possibly has done nothing but be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Discussion at BDD talk and discussion at the Medicine Project.
I would be interested in hearing feedback from Allen3, as that editor passed this hook to the mainpage, and BDD, as he reviewed this article and even mentioned the Wakefield connection in the DYK review, and I hope everyone active at DYK will review the links above to understand the issue. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I've gone through all of the list you provided (thanks), except I'm not touching Sex-selective abortion. (Abortion is a contentious topic, that one should be thoroughly checked by someone more knowledgeable than I, and I hope someone else does so.)
I am sorry if the "cajoling, begging" etc troubles folks here, but this is the first and best place to educate new (and some established, even some admins) editors on core policies before the bad habits become entrenched. I will continue to raise the issue if I continue to encounter it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:16, 4 November 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) 22:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I worry about giving the appearance that someone is using Wikipedia's MainPage for "frontpage advertising" to promote commercial products, esp. on the first day the product is available for purchase. My bedtime is approaching. I'll let someone finish the hook set on P3. Thanks. -- PFHLai ( talk) 03:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm seeking some input from other users about spinning off articles from sections of existing articles.
This issue came up in Template:Did you know nominations/Twilight Zone tragedy. Only one person, who approved the nomination, commented in agreement with the nominator on this issue, while the dissenting opinions of User:FormerIP, User:George Ho, User:Johnbod, and myself were basically dismissed.
It's possible that users were reluctant to comment in opposition because they were intimidated by the belligerence, bullying, and belittling by User:Piotrus, but I hope some users are brave enough to speak up now.
That this was allowed to pass through and appear on the front page as a "new" article made a mockery of DYK and could set an undesirable precedent, whereby any topic, regardless of how long the topic has already been covered in an existing article, could be spun off into a "new" article eligible for DYK.
Piotrus talked about "a simple logic that expansion requires previously existing text to be expanded from; when content is new, there's no expansion". This is very obviously false. If it were true, anyone could take any article, rewrite it as a "new" 1500-character article, and claim it as a new article acceptable for DYK.
At Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 98#Experienced reviewer needed, Johnbod pointed out that the new article "is actually shorter than the section in the film article". (This is no longer the case.) Piotrus responded to Johnbod, who did not mention the quality of the existing article, by bringing up the quality of the existing article, then complaining "For the n-th time" that he doesn't "understand what the quality of the main article has to do with this nom". Piotrus is the only one who brought up the subject of quality, but he is correct that the quality of the original material doesn't matter.
Piotrus acknowledged that "little content was directly moved", but even if he hadn't copied any, this should have still have been considered an expansion.
Supplementary guideline A4 says: "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it".
This rule in the very strictest sense may not technically address this exact specific situation, but that's because when the rules were written, no one anticipated that someone would take an existing section of an article, rewrite it, and try to pass it off as a new article for DYK. The intention of the rule is very clear. Some common sense is required in the application of existing rules to new situations. If a topic is covered in a previously existing article, then any "new" article should be treated as an expansion of the section(s) covering that topic, whether any of the existing prose was used or not.
I would like to get the opinions of other users. Since the opinions of four people were ignored in favor of the one person agreeing with the nominator, it would be good to get consensus here to prevent this from happening again. Ago lib 22:18, 5 November 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) 06:05, 6 November 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) 23:00, 6 November 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) 11:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The documentation at Wikipedia:Did_you_know#The_hook still asks for the template {{ *mp}}, although the documentation for that template says it has been deprecated. Should the instruction be removed? RockMagnetist ( talk) 15:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
You can still get a DYK for only a 2x expansion of a very short article. Why is this? Well, the DYK rules still say that 'Former unsourced BLPs that have been thoroughly sourced and in which the prose portion has been expanded twofold or more within the past five days are also acceptable as "new" articles'.
And the category in question is apparently up to over 1300! So needs some attention!
So you have lots to choose from... if you're lost for thought on what would make a good DYK, why not give it a try?
I did one of these, expanding this into this. Why not try it, you might have fun and also help out a problem area! -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 22:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
As I write this there are 275 articles nominated for DYK and just 16 approved hooks. If everyone who reads this posting did one or two extra reviews, it would help reduce the backlog a little. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:31, 8 November 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) 12:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I raised 2 issues on my review of Template:Did you know nominations/Amplify Tablet. Neither one was addressed by the nominator; another editor just approved the new hook and off it went to Prep 4. I suggest that the nomination be returned to the queue until the issues are resolved. Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 13:42, 8 November 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) 21:47, 8 November 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) 06:00, 9 November 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) 06:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I reviewed and ticked Did_you_know_nominations/Nell_Truman earlier, and it's now in Prep 1. Its first reviewer had expressed concern about the subject really being first winners of an open tennis event, but I clearly missed their point: that "an open tennis event" isn't the same thing as "a tennis event in the Open Era", which is what it's supposed to mean.
In the article, the word "open" is wikilinked to the Open Era article section, but in the hook it isn't. Suggest changing the hook wording for clarity and precision, either to "a tennis event in the Open Era", or at least to wikilink the word "open" to History of tennis#Open Era as it is in the article. Thanks, Struway2 ( talk) 19:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The last list is now way up the page, so I've compiled a new set of three dozen nominations that need reviewing. We have 273 total nominations, of which only 33 are approved. Thank you for your reviews.
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) 04:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Please see the thread I've started at WP:ANI: [2] The DYK is asserting as fact matters which have never been determined in court - and accordingly, the DYK needs removing from the list as a matter of urgency. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:18, 13 November 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, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Did you know has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The blurb, "that after The Execution of Gary Glitter, a 2009 mockumentary showing Gary Glitter being hanged, the subject's complaint to Ofcom was turned down? seems to have word(s) missing: after it aired? after it was shown? after a complaint was made? As it stands, "after" is left dangling. Awien ( talk) 23:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Awien ( talk) 23:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
This article, currently in prep 2, has come to notice at the BLP noticeboard: Wikipedia:Blpn#Murder_of_Ayakannu_Marithamuthu. AndyTheGrump believes the hook is in violation of the BLP rule. Should it be pulled until the issue is resolved? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The DYK was correctly pulled from the prep area, and both the nominator and reviewer should probably take a good look at what went wrong. But there is another angle here which hasn't so far been discussed (AFAIK). Just imagine for a moment that the article was correctly sourced and that the hook was factually acceptable and ran on the main page. Then try to imagine that you are the wife, parents, children... of Ayakannu Marithamuthu, and that this tragic case graces the main page of Wikipedia in the most sensationalist and callous way possible, years after it made headlines as "news": "that Ayakannu Marithamuthu was butchered at a church, made into curry, and distributed into waste bins around Singapore in plastic bags". That we aren't censored means that we don't hide information because it may be shocking, distasteful, offensive; it doesn't mean that we can't use some dignity and humanity on what we decide to put on the main page, and especially how we do this. Using such a hook doesn't make Wikipedia any better, more complete, more neutral, ..., it only turns it into the tabloid version of an encyclopedia. Please consider not suing such hooks and codifying that in the DYK rules somehow.
Fram (
talk)
14:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#DYK_removed_entirely Beerest355 Talk 00:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The last list has been nicely whittled down, so I've compiled a new set of 38 nominations that need reviewing. As of yesterday, we had 254 total nominations, of which only 36 were approved. Thank you for your reviews.
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) 02:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
World Trade Center Portland becomes World Trade Center, Portland. Stats will be affected, so is minor change necessary? George Ho ( talk) 05:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
* {{DYKmake|World Trade Center, Portland|Aboutmovies|subpage=World Trade Center Portland}}
MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I was surprised to see Charlie Chaplin at DYK today, since it is obviously not a new article, nor has it been 5x expanded. In checking on it I found out that newly-listed Good Articles are now eligible for DYK. I suspect the new eligibility rule is not widely known. It does say so on this Project Page under the Eligibility Criteria, but not under the DYK Rules at the top. Those rules now read
DYK is not a general trivia section. DYK is only for articles that, within the past five days, have been either
- created
- expanded at least fivefold
- newly sourced and expanded at least twofold (only if the article was an unsourced BLP)
I think we should add
to the DYK Rules section. Comments? -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone enlighten me as to in what way the following hook could be considered "interesting" – I have to confess I just don't see it:
-- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I apologise but I've just had to amend my hook. I'm hoping that I am ok to do this. It seems that the original source didn't completely put the quotation in context and thus I've also just had to amend the article. I'm confident that this is now correct. - Sitush ( talk) 16:32, 17 November 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) 22:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, the QPQ checker doesn't seem to be counting DYKs after 27 October, it has 6 5 less than it has given me, which could lead (if it's not just me) to QPQ problems. Thanks,
Mat
ty.
007
19:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I wonder if it would be possible to move the hook regarding the rower in Prep area 1 to a queue where its image can be used. The image is especially good to have with this hook, IMHO, because the rower's apparently vibrantly healthy image contrasts sharply with the content of the hook (that he is not healthy) -- making it especially hooky. And I think the image is fine quality in reflecting his healthy appearance, though I understand not all will agree. I've submitted many DYKs, and I expect this is the first time I've ever asked for reconsideration at DYK of image inclusion. Thanks for your consideration.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 06:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the current set has only 6 hooks? The main-page columns are out of balance. Espresso Addict ( talk) 10:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
The Naresh Gaur DYK hook has been reported as misleading on main-page errors because the quotation a "weaker bet" appears to be from Times of India, not the party. I've reviewed it and I agree with the concern. I'm not sure how this got through what appears to have been a fairly thorough review by experienced reviewers. Espresso Addict ( talk) 12:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
T:TDYK has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This redirect needs Rcats (redirect category templates) added. Please modify it as follows:
#REDIRECT [[Template talk:Did you know]] {{R to other namespace}} {{r from shortcut}} [[Category:Wikipedia Did you know redirects]]
#REDIRECT [[Template talk:Did you know]] {{Redr|to template namespace|from template shortcut|protected}} [[Category:Wikipedia Did you know redirects]]
Template {{ Redr}} is a shortcut for the {{ This is a redirect}} template, which is itself a shortcut used to add categories to redirects. Thank you in advance! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 11:15, 19 November 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, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/U.S. Route 27 in Michigan was initially reviewed by Ritchie333, but per his responses on his talk page, it appears that he no longer wants to continue the review he started. Additionally, his review implies factual errors in the article based on a misreading of the source for the hook. Would someone be willing to take over the review lest this nomination remain for weeks or months containing refuted suggestions of impropriety? Imzadi 1979 → 05:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The queue/prep area is empty and the next update is in three hours, so if someone could throw an update together that would be very helpful. Gatoclass ( talk) 05:45, 20 November 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) 06:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Britten's centenary will be on 22 November. In order to complement the TFA, I wrote an article on a composition, it is reserved for the day, Template:Did you know nominations/Te Deum in C. In the meantime, I wrote another one, even more festive, which is in a double nom with a new church ( Template:Did you know nominations/St Mark's Church, Swindon). I think if it can be only one that day (but why), that latter one should be the one, and pictured if possible. It still needs a review. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:38, 20 November 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, 20 November 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) 14:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
With the number of nominations at T:TDYK these days, it is becoming increasingly difficult to track down the approved noms in order to put an update together. A while back, one user wrote a bot that copied approved nominations to a separate page where updaters could select nominations, but it broke when nomination discussions went to their own separate pages and were only transcluded onto the main nominations page.
I'm still inclined to the view that a page for approved nominations would be useful, not only because it would make the job easier for updaters, but also because it would centralize all approved nominations in one place for administrators and other users interested in quality control to check these noms before they went to prep. Anyone have an opinion on this? Gatoclass ( talk) 08:31, 20 November 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) 22:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
You know me, I love a DYK theme. Next year should be interesting because it's Olympics time again, and we have the WWI Centenary. But before we get to that, we are approaching the Christmas start time for DYK once again. Normally I'd post a couple of days before the 25th November, but I've given some extra leeway this time because we have the potential for taking articles to GA and have them qualify for DYK that way. So previously out of touch articles - say for instance, Santa Claus - could yet be possible for DYK.
So use this section to suggest Christmas themed articles both for the usual expansion/creation for DYK, and potentially for tidying up and taking through GA to qualify for DYK that way. I'll start my yearly trawl for expansions now and post ideas for them as I come across them. Miyagawa ( talk) 14:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've nominated a recently passed GA – the Doctor Who episode City of Death. I realize this is short notice, but could anyone review this quickly so it could be inserted in tomorrow's queue in time for the 50th anniversary? The nomination page is here. Thanks! Ruby 2010/ 2013 15:30, 22 November 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) 07:35, 23 November 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) 06:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
On 10 November 2013 I removed a large portion of unreferenced (and possibly cut-and-paste) material from India Buildings, then re-wrote the article almost completely, using a variety of reliable sources. It was well over a 5x expansion from what had been left, and I considered that this would reasonably satisfy the rules for DYK. With my nomination on 11 November I explained what had happened. The correctness of this has been questioned (but also supported) here, and it was suggested that I raised the question in this forum. IMO my nomination is valid as a 5x expansion. Does it fit the rules? -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 13:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The last list has been almost used up, so I've compiled a new set of three dozen nominations that need reviewing. At the moment, we have 224 total nominations, of which only 34 are approved. Thanks as always for your reviews.
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) 02:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
PFHLai, would it be possible to change " Queen Victoria and Edward VII" into " Queen Victoria and King Edward VII" in Preparation area 2? It seems more natural. Surtsicna ( talk) 13:14, 24 November 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) 22:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
That way, we won't be facing further overdue messages. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The nomination for Wellington Suspension Bridge is the last hook in Prep 4; if I've worked it out correctly, it would be on the main page at midnight, UK time. Would it be at all possible to move it as it will be throughout the night and I wouldn't be able to see it on the main page or address any queries (although, hopefully there won't be any). I do appreciate this might not be possible. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
What gives? If we can't do typical 00:00, 08:00, and 16:00 on time, and if we can't lower down from three sets to two, perhaps we already have a list of older nominations above. And we can advertise a need of more reviewers. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:21, 23 November 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) 06:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
We are having overdues lately. The fact that we have 200+ nominations and 15+ verified doesn't affect how slow the project is getting. Shall we lower to two sets per day until things pack up tremendously? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:00, 27 November 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, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
A Boy was Born is meant for Christmas but is in Prep 3! (Also it will be expanded, and there's a pending move request.) Please return, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:27, 27 November 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) 22:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
jonkerz ♠ talk 17:06, 27 November 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) 06:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The last hook in the set, Template:Did you know nominations/Eduard Pernkopf, is 208 characters long. Yoninah ( talk) 01:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to slightly change the hook about Dayana Kirillova (in
preparation area 1). Cause the hook will be on the main page later than I initially expected.
These are the changes:
The hook would become "... that 11-year-old Dayana Kirillova (pictured) is representing Russia in the 2013 Junior Eurovision Song Contest in Kiev today, on November 30?". I think, it is better like this.
Also: I will be watching the contest and if you let me, I can change "will represent" or "has represented" either when she finishes her song or when the contest ends. Tell me when it would be appropriate to make the change (after she finishes her song or after the contest ends?). --
Moscow Connection (
talk)
09:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, was my addition to the DYK stats page correct? Thanks, Mat ty. 007 09:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Where in the article does it say "Lost in Yonkers"? -- 192.75.165.28 ( talk) 23:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that 1500 characters (the current minimum readable prose count) is really not enough. 1500 characters is barely two or three good paragraphs, in other words, kind of a stub. See User:King jakob c 2/1500 characters of readable prose if you don't believe me. Thus, I propose that the minimum length be raised to 2000 or 2500 characters, but I suppose all currently proposed hooks can be grandfathered in if this proposal is accepted. -- Jakob ( Scream about the things I've broken) 17:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I would have supported this once but I'm not sure now. What I probably would support would be a reduction in the expansion requirement - I think x5 is way too much for larger articles, I think x3 is more than enough beyond a certain article size, I'm just not sure where exactly to set the limit. Gatoclass ( talk) 15:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads up for anyone qualified to review sourcing in the German language. Template:Did you know nominations/Freies Volk seems to be fine, but some of the sourcing, including the hook sourcing, is in the German language. I felt this particular one would be best passed if someone fluent in the language had a look at the hook sourcing. Thanks for your time. — Maile ( talk) 20:37, 1 December 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, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Two of the tools in the nomination template are "External links" and "Disambig links", both of which check the article not the hook on the template. Since nobody mentions those two items in a review, I'm guessing nobody runs a check. My question: What practical purpose do they serve, and does a nomination get rejected if a nominator doen't take care of a dab or an external link with a suspicious connection? — Maile ( talk) 01:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
It's five hours late - IMO might as well wait a couple more hours and it will be more or less aligned with the usual update time. Gatoclass ( talk) 05:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Rose (Doctor Who) has been nominated. The article has already appear in DYK. Is this allowed? Beerest 2 talk 21:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I have just added Template:Did you know nominations/LS3/5A to the template talk page, but clicking on the 'review' button takes me to a page marked "5A". What to do? -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The most recent list has disappeared from this page, so I've compiled a new set of 39 nominations that need reviewing. At the moment, we have 198 total nominations, of which only 33 are approved. Thank you as always for your reviews.
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) 16:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, given that there is currently some stuff going on with foreign language refs, would a Chinese speaker be able to check out the sources here please? Thanks, Mat ty. 007 21:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I have been working with an old GA that was aprox. 30,000b (with adequate reference formatting) and now sits at 90,000b. All of the added content is "new" to the article and taken from several new books (it is now sourced by twice as many books as it did before the overhaul), none of it was taken from other Wikipedia articles. Could this be considered as an exception to the rule based on the 3x expansion? - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
There are a number of issues with the hooks in Queue 6 that an admin will need to take care of:
Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The Stekenjokk hook gives the "windspeed" as "47 m/s (170 km/h)".
{{convert|170|km/h|abbr=on}}
" or its output "170 km/h (110 mph)".![]() | 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 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | → | Archive 105 |
What is going on?! The current hook "...that in 1967 Wim T. Schippers, with Gied Jaspars and Wim van der Linden, wrote and directed Hoepla, the first Dutch TV show to display full nudity, leading to questions in parliament and censure for the broadcaster?" has 215 characters. How was this not checked?! Proudbolsahye ( talk) 08:06, 15 October 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) 14:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Move "Did you know" nomination discussions to an appropriate namespace for discussions.. The proposal (it's not mine, I'm just informing about it) is to reformulate the layout of this process, so nominations take place at a talk or wikipedia namespace instead of the template namespace. Please do not answer here, do it there, to keep the discussion centralized at a single place. -- Cambalachero ( talk) 21:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Are mark up characters ('brackets' for links and the 'link root') in the hook counted towards the maximum length of 200 characters? i.e. [[Joseph Smith (song writer)|Joe Smith]] is 40 characters long in edit mode, but only shows itself on the page as 9 characters. Is it counted as 9 for purposes of the hook length? 107.215.12.158 ( talk) 22:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
In the queue at the moment:
"Cop"? A bit of a slang term, I'd say. What's the opinion of others? violet/riga [talk] 22:23, 15 October 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, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
At Template:Did you know nominations/Twilight Zone tragedy. Unexperienced reviewers seem to have derailed this for months complaining about notability (through they never took me up on the offer to AfD it, and I think it is clearly notable) or the fact that it is a subarticle (but content was not reused from the parent article, as it was poorly referenced and hard to verify I wrote the new article from scratch). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The last list is mostly completed, so I've compiled a new set of 38 nominations from the first four weeks of September that need reviewing. We have 258 total nominations, of which 34 are approved, but those aren't sufficient to fill the four queues and two preps currently empty. Thank you for your reviews.
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) 19:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I've just
-tagged {{
Did you know nominations/List of baseball deaths}}: it's well written without problems, and it has nearly 2000 characters of prose, but virtually all of the prose is in lists. May we make an exception to the "don't count list content" rule here? Unlike most lists, this has a few huge entries: following each one- or two-word entry is a substantial amount of text. Unlike your typical list contents, this could presumably be reformatted into normal prose without much difficulty. As I understand it, the point of the criterion is to exclude pages consisting almost entirely of tables or unannotated lists, and excluding this page for that reason would completely miss the point.
Nyttend (
talk)
00:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The 5th hook, the nomination for Meeting at Night, currently in Queue 4 and due to be moved to the main page in a couple of hours, doesn't seem to read correctly? It reads: that in 1845 Robert Browning met Elizabeth Barrett and wrote "Meeting at Night", the most sensual poem he has ever written before? Allen3, Gatoclass or Crisco don't seem to be around at the moment, so hopefully another Admin could have a look? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The previous discussion ( Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 97#Eligibility criteria) stalled slightly when deciding what the best tagline for the DYK template should be. Options expressed were:
To my mind the first sounds better and it seemed to have more support in the previous discussion. AIRcorn (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Did you know has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In line with the discussion above can someone change ''From Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Recent additions|newest content]]:'' at the dyk template to ''From Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Recent additions|new and recently improved content]]:''. Thanks AIRcorn (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi all! I tried to create a DYK nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Sava, but I must have messed up something with the substing of the template. Could someone have a quick look please? I tried to fix the nomination page, but did not manage. Thanks.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 12:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I am concerned that Gibraltar articles are still receiving far more than their fair share of attention at this venue. What can be done to ensure that all topics on Wikipedia have fair access to DYK? Jehochman Talk 13:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I've seen two Gibrlatar articles appearing in DYKS within a few days, first I've seen in yonks. My first thought was why the hell is an article created on June 30 appearing three months later as a DYK. If anything I'd argue just the opposite and say that there seems to still be some sort of discrimination against Gibraltar articles, why else would an article take 3 months to go through?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
If I saw another Gibraltar article tomorrow and the day after, yeah I'd then start to think somebody is up to something, but two articles in a few weeks I don't see any reason to be alarmed. As for insignificant, I mean how many DYKs going through are really pretty insignificant in the wider sense? Most of them in reality. But every article is a mere piece in the jigsaw puzzle. It's not that you really care that people are writing about Gibraltar, it's because you hate to think that somebody is apparently using us for their own gain and are gaining from writing about Gibraltar and using the main page which irks you off. You see five times more articles about US sports personalities and things like mushrooms than you do on Gibraltar. There'll always be an undue weight on certain topics which hold people's interest at DYK and who produce many on the same topic, but you don't like it being about Gibraltar because of the scandal which is understandable, but it doesn't mean you're right to really feel alarmed at how many Gibraltar articles are going through. I doubt you'd batter an eyelid if one of us created 10 articles on slugs or something which all went through in a 72 hour period.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Here are older nominations that need reviewing: three are from July, over two months old, and another 21 are from August. The list could have been much longer, but 37 seemed enough for now. We have 282 total nominations at the moment, of which 61 are approved, but 48 of those are needed to fill the four queues and four preps that are empty. Thank you for your reviews.
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) 16:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi
I just went to add a DYK for today, and it looks like the page is a little messed up. I have added as I think it should have been, but mine and the one previous to mine are not showing. It seems that the French Toast one has an error in there.
Chaosdruid (
talk)
19:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like it's fixed already! Chaosdruid ( talk) 19:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI, the above issue as well as a group of nominations that, in my experience, have almost no hope of success all appear related to a class being led by User:LeshedInstructor. Have dropped a note on the instructor's talk page but we may have a day or two of problematic nominations before word can spread to the majority of the students. -- Allen3 talk 20:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone want to take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/1963 Honduran coup d'état? It's been sitting there since 16 September, but it should be a rather straightforward review, and the 50th anniversary is coming up on 3 October. Aloha, groupuscule ( talk) 06:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Can Fairy Meadows ( DYK nom) be considered a "new" article? It was created in 2006, then turned into a redirect by Darkness Shines on 22 August 2013. Smsarmad replaced the redirect with a stub on 26 August, and expanded it from there. The article as it stands isn't a 5x expansion of the old one, but the old article had (effectively) ceased to exist before Smsarmad started working on the new one. So does that make the article eligible? DoctorKubla ( talk) 07:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I created Lotte Brand Philip on 28 September. Because I'm a DYK newbie, I asked another editor to nom it at DYK for me. He created Template:Did you know nominations/Lotte Brand Philip on 29 September.
It was pointed out to me today that we neglected to transclude the nom page at T:TDYK, so I added it to 29 September as instructed. I just realized it actually belongs under 28 September, but that's now in "Older nominations", so I don't know what to do. Has the article missed its chance at DYK because the nom wasn't transcluded in time? Maralia ( talk) 02:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Daniel Gauntlett, currently listed in Prep area 1, is now a candidate at AfD. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
When reviewing Maurice Yvain I noticed that @ Rosiestep: was credited with working on the article but there had been little to no contribution from that user. A quick check shows similar problems with the following nominations, all from @ Nvvchar::
I don't wish to cause any problems with this and simply raise it as a reminder that everybody needs to be double-checking user contributions for nominations. I'll leave it to Nvvchar to adjust the nominations. violet/riga [talk] 08:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
No comment on this particular situation, but I certainly don't think anyone should be credited who has not worked on an article, that just makes a total farce of the credit system. Gatoclass ( talk) 15:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed the arrarently rather large DYK flow of articles relating to Gordon Ramsay and Swami Vivekananda of late? -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:43, 6 October 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) 06:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I need someone to translate a short German passage at Template:Did you know nominations/Lotte Brand Philip so I can complete the review. Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 12:08, 20 October 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, 22 October 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, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I know that the sentence Did you know that… ? is widely used (also outside WP), but I think the sentence Nice to know that… would be better because:
Sander.v.Ginkel ( talk) 15:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
We're up to 324 submitted hooks, which is a huge number. At the moment we're promoting 3 set of 6 per day, or 18 daily, for 126 per week: it would take us 18 full days to promote 324 hooks. At a minimum, I think we should go to 7 per set/21 per day/147 per week; it would still take us over 15 full days to promote the current load of hooks, with more coming every day. The only question in my mind is whether to go to 7 or 8 per set (147 or 168 per week). Thoughts? BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
For the lead hook here, can we please have something or anything remotely more interesting than " ... that the North and South State Street Historic Districts (pictured) in Belvidere, Illinois were intended to form one large historic district, but had to be split?" This is the showcase slot of DYK. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:29, 24 October 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) 06:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Can someone else check Template:Did you know nominations/Grace Bates? It is currently in the prep areas already, but as far as I can tell, the hook is not supported by the source. The hook claims that she was the only women allowed to do something, while the source claims that it was normally intended for men, and that she had to petition to be allowed to follow the course, but not that she was the only one to do so that year. For all we know, she may have had frien(s) who made the same petition and were granted the same exception, so that they together could follow the men's course. Fram ( talk) 11:40, 25 October 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) 14:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The last list of older nominations is almost entirely completed, so I've compiled a new set of 35 nominations from the last week of September and first week of October that need reviewing. We have 305 total nominations, of which 43 are approved, but those aren't sufficient to fill the five queues and two preps currently empty. Thank you for your reviews.
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) 04:57, 27 October 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 October 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please suggest this for DYKship: Women in Albania - Albanian women can become head of a family after an oath of virginity. Thanks. - AnakngAraw ( talk) 02:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The original hook for the lead hook in this series did not include an image; one was added after the reviewer indicated that the image (in the article) was public domain. However, the choice of image could lead to a misunderstanding, as the ashes of Jews from Treblinka are not buried in the cemetery proper, but under a special memorial in the cemetery. Would you like to substitute this copyright-free image and new hook instead?
There's some hidden text in the prep areas that seems to date from a time when DYK entries didn't have to go through a nomination process. It's completely redundant nowadays, and potentially confusing – should it be removed? DoctorKubla ( talk) 16:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
STOP! BEFORE YOU ADD A NEW ITEM, PLEASE READ THESE NOTES:
- This is NOT a general trivia section.
- This section is only for items that have been listed on "NEW PAGES" in the last 120 hours
- The title of the new article should be BOLD and placed on TOP as the FIRST ITEM.
- Generally limited to eight items, but whatever the case – just make sure it fits whatever else is on the page at that time. Use your common sense.
- NO STUBS (moreover, try to find new articles that are 1,500+ bytes in size)
- Try to pick articles that are ORIGINAL to Wikipedia (not 1911 or other data sources) and that are INTERESTING.
- The "Did you know?" fact must be mentioned in the article.
- Images should be sized to 100px or SMALLER.
- Do not use fair-use images. Instead, find a related free image (PD, GFDL, CC etc.) as an alternative.
Okay, well, I'll remove the hidden text, since I think we're in agreement about that. Whether there should be an edit notice, and what it should say, is a separate issue. DoctorKubla ( talk) 16:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Having attracted this rather devastating critique on a blogsite, this nom, currently lead in Queue 4, should be held back until the problems are sorted. Template:Did you know nominations/Wildlife of Chad - a Blofeld/Rosiestep etc effort. Johnbod ( talk) 13:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't have anything to do with the DYK process. Have long stated that it isn't essential but a number of reviewers started wondering why I'd stopped being credited for them when the others were nominating them. Rather, I encourage collaboration as a group on topics which I believe are poorly covered and need a lot of work even if they're not DYKs. I still think the work we do together is important but occasionally they may not be ready for DYK because of the fact that it is a collaborative effort and almost impossible to keep track of what content and sources have been added. I'm well aware that sometimes problems may creep in, but there's no need to be so snotty Ed about it. Some people just love to moan and take swipes at others on wikipedia, otherwise the author of that blog would have helped correct the article... It's pointless moaning about the lack of scientific expertise wikipedia has to offer when wikipedia offers nothing to experts to write them. I actually do have a Bachelor of Science degree in geography, and one of the other authors is an experienced river management professional of some 50 years experience, but has he considered that editors don't have the time to check each and every source everybody adds to wikipedia? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
What makes you think people would still bother with DYK if that was the case?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Well they're not my submissions anyway. I guess it's up to the others to decide whether they still think it's worth running the gauntlet for. I could pick holes in 90% of the articles which go through DYK, even if I generally appreciate the effort people have made in writing them. The process will always be flawed and editors will always create errors regardless of DYK.. That you think that we're the sole cause of problems and somehow detrimental to DYK's reputation (as if anybody ever took it seriously aside from you lot anyway) shows your own personal bias on the issue. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
You mean do I think DYK is a seriously flawed process which has long been in need of reform, do I think it is run by certain people who take themselves too seriously and seem unwilling to accept the flaws that the process has, and do I think that the majority of wikipedia readers/editors ignore DYK or consider the hooks appearing in them uninteresting or even a joke that they're meant to be interesting"? Absolutely I mean that. There is a difference between taking DYK seriously and taking article content/accuracy seriously. But I often thank article creators for articles on the front page hitting the thank button for articles which I think are decent because they're editing in the spirit of wikipedia, even if I found the hook uninspiring. I bet a lot of people reading this now have been thanked by me and probably have by few others for their work. It's the people who put in the effort to write decent content I respect, not the fact that it happened to be a DYK.
I'd rather the articles which I write or even collaborate on were free of errors but wikipedia being a collaborative project we can't be held responsible for content in every article each one of us happens to edit. Unless one editor is an expert and seriously puts a lot of time into one article double checking everything you're always going to get errors creeping in occasionally. And some sources aren't always obviously "sixth grade work". There is a reason why our group collaborate, and it's central to what the spirit of editing is supposed to be about. We don't have to nominate articles for DYK, but if you did have a close monitoring system of content and sources for each one and the articles that anybody produces, then perhaps this would be a positive thing as it would mean more errors get identified, providing that it isn't too anti-editor and picky.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Given that I often don't have time to even read the articles going through before they are nommed, perhaps a process which involves the checking of every source of our articles which go through would be a productive thing and help prevent too many errors creeping in. I'm sure you'll agree that the content being added is done in good faith and you appreciate at least why they are being produced but you're not happy to see misrepresentations of sourcing and bad sources used. The only way I guess to eliminate this would be to set a limit on how many articles we produce and for each one to be strictly monitored. None of us deserve a hard time over errors and to have to deal with petty reviews, but if there are genuine errors and problems with articles I would strongly hope that they could be identified before an article hits the main page. That is, if editors feel that strongly about the quality of our work going through to put in the effort to check the sourcing and content. I think it largely comes down to sheer number of articles though, a limit might at least give us more time to check over our articles ourselves. But it is unfair of you all to assume that all of our work is bad because of errors such as this, and I doubt we're responsible for more errors than several of the other contributors here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I've proposed something which might help the problem here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
@Gatoclass. Orlady and co, we've begun a new auditing process in light of the concerns at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rosblofnari/Audit. We hope to eventually go through all of our DYKs and ensure that they're up to scratch and won't nominate any articles for DYK now unless they've gone through the auditing process. It will be done gradually. Hope this answers your concerns. The reality is that Rosie and myself often don't have time to make the edits and checks and even additions which are needed because articles were always nominated after 5 days because of the deadline. The Wildlife of Chad article I put enough time into it just condensing to the relevant points and copyediting and naturally didn't have the time to check each source, trusting that the information written was correct. The only way we can keep track of things is to significantly reduce group output and a vigorous auditing process in sandboxes. Hope you're pleased with the effort we're making.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry much further what this blogger has to say. From what I gather she's upset with how she's been treated on wikipedia which if she was a good editor it's understandable that she walked away from the project in disgust and is using the blog as a way to vent her frustration. I see she's picked on Mourdi Depression which if you actually read it and check the sources it is fine. If the source mentioning the barchans only says they exist in the depression how can you possibly elaborate without going into original research? The article says its a depression in the desert of northern Chad and depression is clearly defined in that article, not my fault she doesn't realize what it is. You can see the feature on the last notch of google maps, that's how important the feature is. I wrote most of the article and it's a decent starter article, whatever she thinks of it. I'm sure others here cannot see anything seriously wrong with it either. The flaws with the others are surely exaggerated too, but it's the articles I didn't write and do actually have problems I'm more concerned with, so it has at least made us reconsider how we edit on here and show more responsiblity for our own work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
As part of the above replacement, the hook moved from Prep 2 to Queue 4 was moved without its DYKmake template. Will an admin please insert the following template into Q4? (Or, since there's about 35 minutes left to do so, take care of the DYK credit if the template isn't added in time?)
Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Why is Byrd Spilman Dewey not listed at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/September in accordance with the DYK notice on the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cline ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
{{DYK talk}}
to show articles where a statement doesn't match an #ifexists or #ifeq condition. I did look at the template's code and recognized its complexity—I feel it's worth the price of an endeavor to consider if a solution exists. Above all; Thank you for considering this question so well as to append such a thoughtful reply. —
John Cline (
talk)
17:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that a lot of links to user pages are being included in replies, queries, and other communications on nominations pages, apparently attempting to trigger the user notification system. But everyone should be aware that notifications are not generated by edits in Template space, even though nomination pages are transcluded to a Template talk page. If you want to specifically notify someone that you've responded, or are waiting for their response, or whatever, you'll have to leave a note on their user talk page.
Taking a quick look at the main nominations page, I found many instances, taking various forms such as: <userpage>, User:<userpage>, @<userpage>, and <userpage> (talk · contribs). In most cases, the specified user edited after the mention (probably because they'd watchlisted the page). But I did come across some in which they didn't:
There certainly may be others that I missed. Some users may have already seen these and chosen not to respond; I'm just carrying out the spirit of the attempted notification, not trying to elicit any action. Also, I only checked for subsequent user response and didn't read through these, so some may not require further user input. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:35, 28 October 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) 14:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
There are several hooks (one of which, to be honest, is a nomination of mine) that have been suggested for Halloween that no one has reviewed yet, and we've only got a couple of days to go:
Together with what's already been approved this would make about 15 hooks total; enough, perhaps, for two full sets. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:38, 29 October 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, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Would this come under the definition of unreferenced BLP? If so, I've done a 2x expansion. Schwede 66 18:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I have become increasingly convinced that the Copyvio Check should not be in the DYK toolbox. It's listed first, which makes it look like a primary tool, and the checks it does clearly ignore the actual sources used in the article, since it hasn't yet highlighted close paraphrasing from them in my experience.
The tool of choice for copyvios and close paraphrasing is Duplication Detector; it isn't perfect, but it points out long and short identical strings of words, which is a useful indication that further investigation may be warranted.
I've recently run across DYK and GA reviews where the reviewer's presumption was that due diligence had been satisfied with a Copyvio Check, yet very severe close paraphrasing and copying was found. I believe we need to call a halt to this misguided application of Copyvio Check's capabilities. If this tool has been useful in DYK reviews because it has found copyvios on pages other than cited sources, I'd like to know about it—maybe it should be a supplemental check. But it seems to be used to check something it is not capable of checking, and it's compromising the DYK review process. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the bottom line here is that nobody should be relying exclusively on either copyvio check or duplication detector to check articles. I personally have found duplication detector to be surprisingly useless when confronted with even the most obvious examples of close paraphrasing, so I only use them as a quick method of looking for issues, if they find none I continue with a manual check. Gatoclass ( talk) 01:20, 1 November 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) 06:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, this is a new article. It does include a lot of material from existing articles on the architect's work. I think it would make an interesting DYK if someone wants to nominate it. His work includes what is described as the oldest existing synagogue in NYC, in a building actually designed as a synagogue. And he has several other surviving buildings that are quite ntoable and historic. I would also appreciate any help editing the article. Thank you. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 15:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
As to the first hook in Prep 2 -- that suggests that street food vendors are restaurants. Which I don't think is the case.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 03:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
It has been a while since I submitted an article here, but I was surprised to see that the hook that was approved at Template:Did you know nominations/Tomás Menéndez Márquez was changed when it was moved to the queue without any notice to me or any comment on the nomination. I would have expected that if there were any objection to the wording of the hook, that it would have been brought up at the nomination. I had specifically chosen to use "Indians" in the hook because of the stereotype-bending of "Indians rescue rancher". I feel that the change ('Indians' -> 'Native Americans') lessened the impact of the hook. -- Donald Albury 13:13, 31 October 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) 06:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Whilst reading Wikipedia:Template editor, I noticed that the criteria of implementing changes on protected templates would apply to the DYK queues, which often need to be changed quickly but due to lack of available administrators either aren't or are changed by someone unfamiliar with the process, making mistakes (typically, missing or duplicate credit giving templates). Therefore I would propose that the DYK queues be changed to "template-protected" and DYK regulars apply for the template editor right on this basis. This will allow more oversight on the hooks we put on the main page, and allow errors to be corrected much more quickly.-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 12:56, 2 November 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, 2 November 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) 14:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a hook in Queue 4 about Dan Cohen that will go up on the Main Page very soon. However, at the nomination page, it was agreed that this hook should wait until after November 5 to run because Cohen is currently a candidate in the 2013 Minneapolis mayoral election which is to occur on November 5. If anyone sees this before it hits the Main Page, would you mind swapping the Cohen hook out and reverting the promotion edit at the nom page? Thanks! BobAmnertiopsis ∴ ChatMe! 15:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
*October 8:
Template:Did you know nominations/Comet Ping Pong
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) 21:44, 3 November 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 November 2013 (UTC)
There's a problem with a hook in Queue 1: one hook ends in ?M (remove the errant 'M'). Chris857 ( talk) 14:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
@ Allen3: @ BDD: @ Jinkinson: @ Gatoclass: and Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Ashwood
I appreciate that this issue came to attention because of DYK, as the problems might have otherwise gone unnoticed. That is the good news. But ...
I have many times asked, begged, cajoled, implored reviewers here to please take care when reviewing BLPs, and please take care when reviewing medical topics, and asked that there be some accountability for the admins who are responsible for BLP or faulty medical information going on Wikipedia's mainpage. The particular combination of our policies and guidelines on BLPs and sourcing of medical content require considerable care and expertise in creating content, and many editors at Wikiproject Medicine are available to help-- you only need ask. Please do!
These two discussions illustrate the concern, that is, that DYK in one article put on our mainpage dubious medical sources, a hook about a medical claim based on a press release from the subject's employer (not independent and not MEDRS), and potentially impugned a man who possibly has done nothing but be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Discussion at BDD talk and discussion at the Medicine Project.
I would be interested in hearing feedback from Allen3, as that editor passed this hook to the mainpage, and BDD, as he reviewed this article and even mentioned the Wakefield connection in the DYK review, and I hope everyone active at DYK will review the links above to understand the issue. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I've gone through all of the list you provided (thanks), except I'm not touching Sex-selective abortion. (Abortion is a contentious topic, that one should be thoroughly checked by someone more knowledgeable than I, and I hope someone else does so.)
I am sorry if the "cajoling, begging" etc troubles folks here, but this is the first and best place to educate new (and some established, even some admins) editors on core policies before the bad habits become entrenched. I will continue to raise the issue if I continue to encounter it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:16, 4 November 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) 22:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I worry about giving the appearance that someone is using Wikipedia's MainPage for "frontpage advertising" to promote commercial products, esp. on the first day the product is available for purchase. My bedtime is approaching. I'll let someone finish the hook set on P3. Thanks. -- PFHLai ( talk) 03:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm seeking some input from other users about spinning off articles from sections of existing articles.
This issue came up in Template:Did you know nominations/Twilight Zone tragedy. Only one person, who approved the nomination, commented in agreement with the nominator on this issue, while the dissenting opinions of User:FormerIP, User:George Ho, User:Johnbod, and myself were basically dismissed.
It's possible that users were reluctant to comment in opposition because they were intimidated by the belligerence, bullying, and belittling by User:Piotrus, but I hope some users are brave enough to speak up now.
That this was allowed to pass through and appear on the front page as a "new" article made a mockery of DYK and could set an undesirable precedent, whereby any topic, regardless of how long the topic has already been covered in an existing article, could be spun off into a "new" article eligible for DYK.
Piotrus talked about "a simple logic that expansion requires previously existing text to be expanded from; when content is new, there's no expansion". This is very obviously false. If it were true, anyone could take any article, rewrite it as a "new" 1500-character article, and claim it as a new article acceptable for DYK.
At Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 98#Experienced reviewer needed, Johnbod pointed out that the new article "is actually shorter than the section in the film article". (This is no longer the case.) Piotrus responded to Johnbod, who did not mention the quality of the existing article, by bringing up the quality of the existing article, then complaining "For the n-th time" that he doesn't "understand what the quality of the main article has to do with this nom". Piotrus is the only one who brought up the subject of quality, but he is correct that the quality of the original material doesn't matter.
Piotrus acknowledged that "little content was directly moved", but even if he hadn't copied any, this should have still have been considered an expansion.
Supplementary guideline A4 says: "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it".
This rule in the very strictest sense may not technically address this exact specific situation, but that's because when the rules were written, no one anticipated that someone would take an existing section of an article, rewrite it, and try to pass it off as a new article for DYK. The intention of the rule is very clear. Some common sense is required in the application of existing rules to new situations. If a topic is covered in a previously existing article, then any "new" article should be treated as an expansion of the section(s) covering that topic, whether any of the existing prose was used or not.
I would like to get the opinions of other users. Since the opinions of four people were ignored in favor of the one person agreeing with the nominator, it would be good to get consensus here to prevent this from happening again. Ago lib 22:18, 5 November 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) 06:05, 6 November 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) 23:00, 6 November 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) 11:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The documentation at Wikipedia:Did_you_know#The_hook still asks for the template {{ *mp}}, although the documentation for that template says it has been deprecated. Should the instruction be removed? RockMagnetist ( talk) 15:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
You can still get a DYK for only a 2x expansion of a very short article. Why is this? Well, the DYK rules still say that 'Former unsourced BLPs that have been thoroughly sourced and in which the prose portion has been expanded twofold or more within the past five days are also acceptable as "new" articles'.
And the category in question is apparently up to over 1300! So needs some attention!
So you have lots to choose from... if you're lost for thought on what would make a good DYK, why not give it a try?
I did one of these, expanding this into this. Why not try it, you might have fun and also help out a problem area! -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 22:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
As I write this there are 275 articles nominated for DYK and just 16 approved hooks. If everyone who reads this posting did one or two extra reviews, it would help reduce the backlog a little. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:31, 8 November 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) 12:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I raised 2 issues on my review of Template:Did you know nominations/Amplify Tablet. Neither one was addressed by the nominator; another editor just approved the new hook and off it went to Prep 4. I suggest that the nomination be returned to the queue until the issues are resolved. Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 13:42, 8 November 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) 21:47, 8 November 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) 06:00, 9 November 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) 06:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I reviewed and ticked Did_you_know_nominations/Nell_Truman earlier, and it's now in Prep 1. Its first reviewer had expressed concern about the subject really being first winners of an open tennis event, but I clearly missed their point: that "an open tennis event" isn't the same thing as "a tennis event in the Open Era", which is what it's supposed to mean.
In the article, the word "open" is wikilinked to the Open Era article section, but in the hook it isn't. Suggest changing the hook wording for clarity and precision, either to "a tennis event in the Open Era", or at least to wikilink the word "open" to History of tennis#Open Era as it is in the article. Thanks, Struway2 ( talk) 19:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The last list is now way up the page, so I've compiled a new set of three dozen nominations that need reviewing. We have 273 total nominations, of which only 33 are approved. Thank you for your reviews.
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) 04:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Please see the thread I've started at WP:ANI: [2] The DYK is asserting as fact matters which have never been determined in court - and accordingly, the DYK needs removing from the list as a matter of urgency. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:18, 13 November 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, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Did you know has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The blurb, "that after The Execution of Gary Glitter, a 2009 mockumentary showing Gary Glitter being hanged, the subject's complaint to Ofcom was turned down? seems to have word(s) missing: after it aired? after it was shown? after a complaint was made? As it stands, "after" is left dangling. Awien ( talk) 23:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Awien ( talk) 23:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
This article, currently in prep 2, has come to notice at the BLP noticeboard: Wikipedia:Blpn#Murder_of_Ayakannu_Marithamuthu. AndyTheGrump believes the hook is in violation of the BLP rule. Should it be pulled until the issue is resolved? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The DYK was correctly pulled from the prep area, and both the nominator and reviewer should probably take a good look at what went wrong. But there is another angle here which hasn't so far been discussed (AFAIK). Just imagine for a moment that the article was correctly sourced and that the hook was factually acceptable and ran on the main page. Then try to imagine that you are the wife, parents, children... of Ayakannu Marithamuthu, and that this tragic case graces the main page of Wikipedia in the most sensationalist and callous way possible, years after it made headlines as "news": "that Ayakannu Marithamuthu was butchered at a church, made into curry, and distributed into waste bins around Singapore in plastic bags". That we aren't censored means that we don't hide information because it may be shocking, distasteful, offensive; it doesn't mean that we can't use some dignity and humanity on what we decide to put on the main page, and especially how we do this. Using such a hook doesn't make Wikipedia any better, more complete, more neutral, ..., it only turns it into the tabloid version of an encyclopedia. Please consider not suing such hooks and codifying that in the DYK rules somehow.
Fram (
talk)
14:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#DYK_removed_entirely Beerest355 Talk 00:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The last list has been nicely whittled down, so I've compiled a new set of 38 nominations that need reviewing. As of yesterday, we had 254 total nominations, of which only 36 were approved. Thank you for your reviews.
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) 02:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
World Trade Center Portland becomes World Trade Center, Portland. Stats will be affected, so is minor change necessary? George Ho ( talk) 05:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
* {{DYKmake|World Trade Center, Portland|Aboutmovies|subpage=World Trade Center Portland}}
MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I was surprised to see Charlie Chaplin at DYK today, since it is obviously not a new article, nor has it been 5x expanded. In checking on it I found out that newly-listed Good Articles are now eligible for DYK. I suspect the new eligibility rule is not widely known. It does say so on this Project Page under the Eligibility Criteria, but not under the DYK Rules at the top. Those rules now read
DYK is not a general trivia section. DYK is only for articles that, within the past five days, have been either
- created
- expanded at least fivefold
- newly sourced and expanded at least twofold (only if the article was an unsourced BLP)
I think we should add
to the DYK Rules section. Comments? -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone enlighten me as to in what way the following hook could be considered "interesting" – I have to confess I just don't see it:
-- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I apologise but I've just had to amend my hook. I'm hoping that I am ok to do this. It seems that the original source didn't completely put the quotation in context and thus I've also just had to amend the article. I'm confident that this is now correct. - Sitush ( talk) 16:32, 17 November 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) 22:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, the QPQ checker doesn't seem to be counting DYKs after 27 October, it has 6 5 less than it has given me, which could lead (if it's not just me) to QPQ problems. Thanks,
Mat
ty.
007
19:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I wonder if it would be possible to move the hook regarding the rower in Prep area 1 to a queue where its image can be used. The image is especially good to have with this hook, IMHO, because the rower's apparently vibrantly healthy image contrasts sharply with the content of the hook (that he is not healthy) -- making it especially hooky. And I think the image is fine quality in reflecting his healthy appearance, though I understand not all will agree. I've submitted many DYKs, and I expect this is the first time I've ever asked for reconsideration at DYK of image inclusion. Thanks for your consideration.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 06:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the current set has only 6 hooks? The main-page columns are out of balance. Espresso Addict ( talk) 10:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
The Naresh Gaur DYK hook has been reported as misleading on main-page errors because the quotation a "weaker bet" appears to be from Times of India, not the party. I've reviewed it and I agree with the concern. I'm not sure how this got through what appears to have been a fairly thorough review by experienced reviewers. Espresso Addict ( talk) 12:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
T:TDYK has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This redirect needs Rcats (redirect category templates) added. Please modify it as follows:
#REDIRECT [[Template talk:Did you know]] {{R to other namespace}} {{r from shortcut}} [[Category:Wikipedia Did you know redirects]]
#REDIRECT [[Template talk:Did you know]] {{Redr|to template namespace|from template shortcut|protected}} [[Category:Wikipedia Did you know redirects]]
Template {{ Redr}} is a shortcut for the {{ This is a redirect}} template, which is itself a shortcut used to add categories to redirects. Thank you in advance! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 11:15, 19 November 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, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/U.S. Route 27 in Michigan was initially reviewed by Ritchie333, but per his responses on his talk page, it appears that he no longer wants to continue the review he started. Additionally, his review implies factual errors in the article based on a misreading of the source for the hook. Would someone be willing to take over the review lest this nomination remain for weeks or months containing refuted suggestions of impropriety? Imzadi 1979 → 05:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The queue/prep area is empty and the next update is in three hours, so if someone could throw an update together that would be very helpful. Gatoclass ( talk) 05:45, 20 November 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) 06:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Britten's centenary will be on 22 November. In order to complement the TFA, I wrote an article on a composition, it is reserved for the day, Template:Did you know nominations/Te Deum in C. In the meantime, I wrote another one, even more festive, which is in a double nom with a new church ( Template:Did you know nominations/St Mark's Church, Swindon). I think if it can be only one that day (but why), that latter one should be the one, and pictured if possible. It still needs a review. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:38, 20 November 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, 20 November 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) 14:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
With the number of nominations at T:TDYK these days, it is becoming increasingly difficult to track down the approved noms in order to put an update together. A while back, one user wrote a bot that copied approved nominations to a separate page where updaters could select nominations, but it broke when nomination discussions went to their own separate pages and were only transcluded onto the main nominations page.
I'm still inclined to the view that a page for approved nominations would be useful, not only because it would make the job easier for updaters, but also because it would centralize all approved nominations in one place for administrators and other users interested in quality control to check these noms before they went to prep. Anyone have an opinion on this? Gatoclass ( talk) 08:31, 20 November 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) 22:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
You know me, I love a DYK theme. Next year should be interesting because it's Olympics time again, and we have the WWI Centenary. But before we get to that, we are approaching the Christmas start time for DYK once again. Normally I'd post a couple of days before the 25th November, but I've given some extra leeway this time because we have the potential for taking articles to GA and have them qualify for DYK that way. So previously out of touch articles - say for instance, Santa Claus - could yet be possible for DYK.
So use this section to suggest Christmas themed articles both for the usual expansion/creation for DYK, and potentially for tidying up and taking through GA to qualify for DYK that way. I'll start my yearly trawl for expansions now and post ideas for them as I come across them. Miyagawa ( talk) 14:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've nominated a recently passed GA – the Doctor Who episode City of Death. I realize this is short notice, but could anyone review this quickly so it could be inserted in tomorrow's queue in time for the 50th anniversary? The nomination page is here. Thanks! Ruby 2010/ 2013 15:30, 22 November 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) 07:35, 23 November 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) 06:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
On 10 November 2013 I removed a large portion of unreferenced (and possibly cut-and-paste) material from India Buildings, then re-wrote the article almost completely, using a variety of reliable sources. It was well over a 5x expansion from what had been left, and I considered that this would reasonably satisfy the rules for DYK. With my nomination on 11 November I explained what had happened. The correctness of this has been questioned (but also supported) here, and it was suggested that I raised the question in this forum. IMO my nomination is valid as a 5x expansion. Does it fit the rules? -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 13:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The last list has been almost used up, so I've compiled a new set of three dozen nominations that need reviewing. At the moment, we have 224 total nominations, of which only 34 are approved. Thanks as always for your reviews.
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) 02:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
PFHLai, would it be possible to change " Queen Victoria and Edward VII" into " Queen Victoria and King Edward VII" in Preparation area 2? It seems more natural. Surtsicna ( talk) 13:14, 24 November 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) 22:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
That way, we won't be facing further overdue messages. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The nomination for Wellington Suspension Bridge is the last hook in Prep 4; if I've worked it out correctly, it would be on the main page at midnight, UK time. Would it be at all possible to move it as it will be throughout the night and I wouldn't be able to see it on the main page or address any queries (although, hopefully there won't be any). I do appreciate this might not be possible. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
What gives? If we can't do typical 00:00, 08:00, and 16:00 on time, and if we can't lower down from three sets to two, perhaps we already have a list of older nominations above. And we can advertise a need of more reviewers. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:21, 23 November 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) 06:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
We are having overdues lately. The fact that we have 200+ nominations and 15+ verified doesn't affect how slow the project is getting. Shall we lower to two sets per day until things pack up tremendously? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:00, 27 November 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, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
A Boy was Born is meant for Christmas but is in Prep 3! (Also it will be expanded, and there's a pending move request.) Please return, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:27, 27 November 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) 22:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
jonkerz ♠ talk 17:06, 27 November 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) 06:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The last hook in the set, Template:Did you know nominations/Eduard Pernkopf, is 208 characters long. Yoninah ( talk) 01:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to slightly change the hook about Dayana Kirillova (in
preparation area 1). Cause the hook will be on the main page later than I initially expected.
These are the changes:
The hook would become "... that 11-year-old Dayana Kirillova (pictured) is representing Russia in the 2013 Junior Eurovision Song Contest in Kiev today, on November 30?". I think, it is better like this.
Also: I will be watching the contest and if you let me, I can change "will represent" or "has represented" either when she finishes her song or when the contest ends. Tell me when it would be appropriate to make the change (after she finishes her song or after the contest ends?). --
Moscow Connection (
talk)
09:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, was my addition to the DYK stats page correct? Thanks, Mat ty. 007 09:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Where in the article does it say "Lost in Yonkers"? -- 192.75.165.28 ( talk) 23:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that 1500 characters (the current minimum readable prose count) is really not enough. 1500 characters is barely two or three good paragraphs, in other words, kind of a stub. See User:King jakob c 2/1500 characters of readable prose if you don't believe me. Thus, I propose that the minimum length be raised to 2000 or 2500 characters, but I suppose all currently proposed hooks can be grandfathered in if this proposal is accepted. -- Jakob ( Scream about the things I've broken) 17:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I would have supported this once but I'm not sure now. What I probably would support would be a reduction in the expansion requirement - I think x5 is way too much for larger articles, I think x3 is more than enough beyond a certain article size, I'm just not sure where exactly to set the limit. Gatoclass ( talk) 15:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads up for anyone qualified to review sourcing in the German language. Template:Did you know nominations/Freies Volk seems to be fine, but some of the sourcing, including the hook sourcing, is in the German language. I felt this particular one would be best passed if someone fluent in the language had a look at the hook sourcing. Thanks for your time. — Maile ( talk) 20:37, 1 December 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, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Two of the tools in the nomination template are "External links" and "Disambig links", both of which check the article not the hook on the template. Since nobody mentions those two items in a review, I'm guessing nobody runs a check. My question: What practical purpose do they serve, and does a nomination get rejected if a nominator doen't take care of a dab or an external link with a suspicious connection? — Maile ( talk) 01:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
It's five hours late - IMO might as well wait a couple more hours and it will be more or less aligned with the usual update time. Gatoclass ( talk) 05:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Rose (Doctor Who) has been nominated. The article has already appear in DYK. Is this allowed? Beerest 2 talk 21:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I have just added Template:Did you know nominations/LS3/5A to the template talk page, but clicking on the 'review' button takes me to a page marked "5A". What to do? -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The most recent list has disappeared from this page, so I've compiled a new set of 39 nominations that need reviewing. At the moment, we have 198 total nominations, of which only 33 are approved. Thank you as always for your reviews.
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) 16:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, given that there is currently some stuff going on with foreign language refs, would a Chinese speaker be able to check out the sources here please? Thanks, Mat ty. 007 21:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I have been working with an old GA that was aprox. 30,000b (with adequate reference formatting) and now sits at 90,000b. All of the added content is "new" to the article and taken from several new books (it is now sourced by twice as many books as it did before the overhaul), none of it was taken from other Wikipedia articles. Could this be considered as an exception to the rule based on the 3x expansion? - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
There are a number of issues with the hooks in Queue 6 that an admin will need to take care of:
Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The Stekenjokk hook gives the "windspeed" as "47 m/s (170 km/h)".
{{convert|170|km/h|abbr=on}}
" or its output "170 km/h (110 mph)".