Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 65

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

→

Archive 70

Request for DYK review

Template_talk:Did_you_know#1997_Central_European_flood - is about to expire. I've added references, but the reviewer keeps demanding more - even through at this point almost all sentences are references, some with multiple refs... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, every sentence is referenced. I think it's good to go, and have marked it so at Template talk:Did you know#1997 Central European flood. OCNative (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Smart Cover DYK removed

On March 9, 2011, 4meter4 (talk · contribs) removed the DYK submission for the Smart Cover article, with the edit summary "remove nom with concerns that have not been responded to in 6 days." According to the DYK submission page, DYKs may be deleted; this deletion "occurs if the hook is more than about eight days old and has unresolved issues for which any discussion has gone stale." The hook, with the issues, stayed up for only 6 days—no {{DYKproblem}} was provided. Until recently, I did not check, as the hook was previously moved to WP:DYK/Q, then moved back without warning.

I would like to continue the discussion, as I do not believe the deletion was warranted. I have copied the hook's thread and responded to the queries below.

The article was authored by one editor, and as such, may have had a certain slant, simply due to the my writing style. However, I see several issues with the way this was handled:

1. It was approved, which worries me—the reviewer should not have approved the hook if it was POVed.
2. It was moved back to the submission page. How was I supposed to know? At the very least, contact me with {{DYKproblem}} or bring the issue up here.
3. It was removed, after six days, not according to the process. The nominator and/or the person who approved it did not comment. They were not notified.
4. My original hook was fairly unbiased. The editor who approved it did not add a new hook, replacing my own. It might have been 'more interesting', but it was more POV, I suppose.
5. Orlady asked for 'more opinions', yet two opinions including Orlady hardly qualify for 'more'. My original hook was a bit bland, I will admit, but it was replaced with a more POVed one.
6. If the hook or the article seem biased or slanted, then fix it. The article is fairly positive, as there's not been much coverage of the product. It will come.

Please review my points and respond. Thank you.

Mono (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(Just chiming in about the {{DYKproblem}} issue, I don't have any comment about the overall status of this nomination.) Just FYI, while it is certainly nice of people to notify nominators personally when there are issues with the nomination, as far as I know there is no requirement that they do this, especially when it comes to relatively everyday actions like adding a (for more unusual things, such as pulling a previously approved hook off of the queue, it's more important to notify the nominator, since the nominator may have stopped watching after the hook was promoted). It is generally expected that nominators will take responsibility for keeping an eye on their own nominations. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. However, I thought the nomination was ready, so I didn't bother looking. Mono (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The chronology does not include the "Moved to prep area" edit:

23:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Miyagawa (talk | contribs | block) (192,178 bytes) (→Smart Cover: Moved to prep)

In summary, we see a DYK nom that was self-nominated 12 minutes after the article's creation, approved for DYK by another editor (one with no other DYK activity) 30 minutes after it was nominated, and moved to the prep area by a third editor 30 minutes after that. Seventy-two minutes from initial article creation to DYK prep area may be a record! I'm afraid I had the mistaken impression that several people (not including any of the DYK "regulars") were very interested in this nomination. Since the hook got a favorable review and some apparently unsolicited positive comments just 30 minutes after being created, I had the impression that half the world was excited about the SmartCover, and I am frankly surprised that iPad 2 enthusiasts didn't leap to the hook's defense when I returned it to the suggestions page. My apologies if I misjudged. --Orlady (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

For my part, I was just following normal DYK procedure for dealing with older noms. It is standard practice during the clearing process to remove older hooks that have issues with no responses after several days. Six days had gone by with no comment, and, since this was an older nom, the removal of the hook was just part of the normal clearing process. It would have been nice if Orlady had informed the nominator of the objection made on March 3, but she was not required to. It is the responsibility of nominators to watch what is going on with their hook during the nomination process. I think that the ruling should stand as is as a matter of precedent; otherwise we'll have many more people who weren't conscientious enough to watch their nominations be asking for special consideration after the fact.4meter4 (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree if the hook hadn't already been moved to a queue. It's unreasonable to expect a new or casual DYK participant to keep checking the nominations page after their hook has been moved to the queue. You always find things in the last place you look because once you find them, you stop looking. The author and nominator should have been notified that their hook was "lost" again. Under this set of circumstances, it would be perverse not to reinstate the hook. - Dravecky (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I can see your point. I would support moving it back to the suggestions page then, but there is still a need for Orlady's concerns to be addressed before the hook is promoted.4meter4 (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward

It seems like we have two options.

1. Use the original hook. It's rather bland, but fairly descriptive and neutral.
2. Generate a new hook. Address the issues brought up with a sparkly new sentence.

For reference, the original hook was

• ... that the Smart Cover is an accessory for the iPad 2 tablet computer designed by Apple Inc.?

Mono (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Your comment about "original hook" got me going. It took some research to determine that your nomination was for the above "original hook", but the editor who speedily reviewed the nomination wrote a new hook, revised the article to support that new hook, and approved his/her own hook. For future reference, DYK reviewers should not do that sort of thing.
  The article prominently displays a template proposing a merger, which template would currently disqualify it from DYK. Moreover, the article is only slightly longer than 1500 characters, so it's only minimally qualified on length, and some of that length is attributable to advertising verbiage like "According to Apple, the cover will be available in ten colors. The polyurethane cases come in pink, orange, blue, green and gray; the leather is available in tan, brown, black, navy blue, and red..." Moreover, the proposed merger is to iPad 2, which article has already been featured on DYK -- and generated significant controversy for being an advertisement on the main page. No discussion of the merger was ever initiated, but since this is merely an Apple-produced accessory to the iPad 2, I am finding it hard to imagine a defensible argument against merging it into iPad 2.
  Additionally, looking at the article, I see that the only sources cited in the article are best described as glorified versions of Apple's promotional announcement of the iPad 2.
  My bottom line: This is more of a product advertisement than an encyclopedia article, and it should not be featured on the main page. --Orlady (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• I must say, I agree with all of Orlady's points here. My only concern in this was that the nominator should have been notified when the hook was returned so that all of these concerns could have been addressed on the Discussions page instead of here. Looking at the article and hook, I would not have approved it and I'm quite concerned by the out-of-process way in which it was approved but that's why we have a Discussion page. - Dravecky (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• It meets the DYK criteria. What else do you want? Mono (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's just over the minimum length, but only because it's padded with unrelated promotional text for the iPad2. A puff piece rewrite of a press release by MacWorld is a tenuous grasp on notability. It would be far better as a section of the iPad2 article... but about 80% of the relevant text is already in the "Smart Cover" section of that article. Per Additional Rule D13, those are reason enough to reject the nomination. If it had been on the Discussion page for more than a couple of hours, these issues could have been raised there. - Dravecky (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Expansion question

Not too long ago, I thought I read that occasional exceptions might be made for significant expansions that just fall short of the 5x expansion rule, but I'm not seeing it now. The reason I ask is that the WikiProject Mammals collaboration team is working on Slow loris, and although we have a little bit more expansion to do, we are likely to fall slightly short of the 5x requirement. According to my estimates, from the beginning of our most recent wave of expansion (started here) to our latest edit (here), we are presently at either 3.7x expansion (using a bytes estimate) or 4x (using Kb). Again, we hope to expand a few more things later today or tomorrow, and I am hopeful for 4.5x expansion. If we can push above the 4x expansion mark, could an exception be considered for this significantly expanded article? – VisionHolder « talk » 18:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The bigger expansion the better. I'm leaning "yes" but will reserve my opinion and see waht others say. It is good to get less esoteric articles here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The article has been expanded to at least 4.5x, if not 5x (by my count) and has been nominated. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

By my reckoning, it's a 4.6 times expansion to a readable prose size of 30 kB. I've given it the green tick of approval despite it being somewhat short of the requirements given that it's such a substantial article. Feel free to comment if you have an opinion on this. Schwede66 18:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Shortage of hooks to review

It appears to me that there is a shortage of hooks for DYK nominators (with more than 5 DYK credits) to review. Perhaps it is time to revise the criterion from:

New nominators (those with fewer than 5 DYK credits) are exempt from this requirement, but are nonetheless encouraged to help out by reviewing.

to

Nominators with fewer than 10/15/20/25 DYK credits are exempt from this requirement, but are nonetheless encouraged to help out by reviewing.

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A shortage of unreviewed hooks is not a bad problem to have, of course, but I support Black Falcon's proposal. I'd suggest moving incrementally and start by exempting users with fewer than 10 DYK credits. Cbl62 (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Cbl62. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Before we move the bar up from 5, we could encourage submitters to give existing hooks a second review. Since the QPQ requirement, somce of the reviews have been facile and incomplete so a second set of eyes would be welcome. - Dravecky (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment There are hooks needing review for April Fools Day. Wouldn't a review of an AFD hook count for the purpose of the requirement? Mjroots (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would. cmadler (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a need to move the requirement to 10 DYKs. If there's a lack of hooks to review, that's a good thing, but if there's an actual shortage of hooks, then there's nothing to stop users from reviewing a hook that's already been reviewed - the more people who check out an article, the better. Gatoclass (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Dravecky and Gato. The more eyes that review a nom, the better. There are plenty of hooks that could use second reviews and there are always more "complicated" noms (usually in the "older noms" section) that would greatly benefit from more viewpoints. Perhaps we should clarify in the rules that "second reviews", especially when there is a shortage of new noms, do count? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well and it will automatically adjust if a backlog starts.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Encouraging second reviews, and counting them for the purpose of the requirement, would effectively eliminate the shortage of hooks, and it probably would raise the quality of the review process, so I like the idea. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Multiple contributors?

How does one write up a nom when the content for a new article has been created by more than just a single editor? VernoWhitney (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Use Template:NewDYKnomination/guide, whether it be a single or multiple editors. Schwede66 01:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You use the new article nom template, but add extra author fields: |author2= |author3= | (etc). The Interior (Talk) 01:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

See instructions at Template:NewDYKnomination/guide or Template:NewDYKnomination. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

And that'll teach me for not rereading the instructions when I can't find something the first time through. Thanks. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Error in Queue 2

The hook about the Akuntsu should read "victims", as I originally nominated it. Tribe is a collective noun. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 09:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

the hook then doesn't read well ... that the Akuntsu tribe, victims of a massacre perpetrated by Brazilian cattle ranchers in the 1980s, currently numbers just five individuals? Materialscientist (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That reads fine to me, it's the other way that looks strange. Looking in to it, it seems it's a British vs. American English thing. In which case, doesn't WP:RETAIN apply? —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 10:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess not... —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 16:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Netball articles

Perhaps we can clarify the rules for the benefit of all concerned. A user has been taking the sections of Netball that discuss specific nations and splitting them off into separate articles. She then nominates them for DYK without a five-fold expansion. Prior discussions led me to believe that split-off articles must be expanded five fold to count. Please clarify the rule and take a look at:

• Netball in the Cook Islands - already ran on March 10
• Netball in South Africa - already ran on March 16

I believe more in this series are forthcoming, so please clarify what the rule is. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

For Netball in South Africa, the section in the Netball article is ~2,302 characters w/o spaces and the actual article is 15,437 characters, so it seems like 6.7x. You can always do a deeper investigation but from what I see, it seems like 5x was achieved. If someone takes big chunks from different articles or sections that edge it over 5x, then I think more work needs to be done.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket's understanding is correct. Articles created from (or expanded with) pre-existing text from another article must be a 5x expansion of that text. cmadler (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

March 15 section heading needs restoring

The section heading for March 15 has not been displaying for the past few hours, and I determined that the cause of its disappearance was this edit (the "<!--" included by accident). I'd fix it myself, but I don't know how to convert the signature the right format while putting the correct time stamp on it, so someone else please take take of it. SJ Morg (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. To sign for someone, you can use {{unsigned|username|time}} Materialscientist (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Queue 6 tweaks

The fifth hook of Queue 6 includes spaced em dashes. Per WP:EMDASH they should be replaced with spaced en dashes (my personal preference) or unspaced em dashes. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

And another: the picture needs to have the right| parameter removed from it, to make the text wrap round it correctly. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed "right" and all dashes, as I do not see a need for them (correct me if I'm wrong). Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Repeated DYK

Queue 2 has a repeat of the article on W R Hearst purchasing monastery stones & not using them, it also currently on MP (1916hrs GMT) 86.63.26.124 (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The above comment seems to have been posted after Queue 2 was moved to the main page, but before it disappeared from a cached version of Queue 2. No worries! --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the other links weren't on the MP though...? 86.63.26.124 (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Queue count not updating

Shubinator has been alerted, so it is reasonable to hope that the hook count on the queue page will start updating again soon. In the meantime, I used the full table of contents for the suggestions page to count the hooks on the suggestions page. I counted 139 hooks in the "date created" sections; with the notable exception of April Fools' Day, there are no hooks in special occasion queues for near-term dates. I didn't try to count the number of approved hooks. Regardless, the hook drought continues. --Orlady (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

400 free Credo Reference accounts available

Another 400 free Credo Reference accounts have been made available for Wikipedians, kindly donated by the company and arranged by Erik Möller of the Wikimedia Foundation. We've drawn up some eligibility criteria to direct the accounts to content contributors, and after that it's first-come, first-served. The list will open on Wednesday, March 23 at 22:00 UTC, and will remain open for seven days. See Wikipedia:Credo accounts.

Feel free to add your name even if you're lower on the list than the 400th, in case people ahead of you aren't eligible, and good luck! SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Rhacophorus vampyrus

Rhacophorus vampyrus is suppose to be submitted as a new article and for a few months has been approved and is currently sitting for halloween this year (in 7 months). I know some may disagree (per IAR likely-And maybe they are right) but i do feel this isnt in the spirit of of a new article since it will appear on the main page nearly 10+ months after creation. I feel it should have already been placed within the queue now. Otherwise the article should be re-reviewed prior to halloween under five fold expansion criteria. Sorry but I just feel its against the spirit of telling readers on the main page its a new article. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'd suggest guidelines for the "special occasion holding" (with the obvious long-time exception of April Fools' Day):

• Nominations should be made at least 5 days before the requested date. Less than this, and it might get through, but don't count on it.
• Nominations should be made no more than 1 month before the requested date. Holding nominations longer than this would violate DYK's "newness" rule.

cmadler (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And yes, this concern also applies to Rizal Day, nominated on January 20 and being held for June 19, a five-month holding time. cmadler (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. 10 and even 6 months is excessive. If people truly want to hold off till a particular date that is several months ahead they should just keep the article in their sandbox till then. Support cmadler's suggestion of a 1 month limit (with the April Fool's Day exception). Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I also support cmadler's suggestion of a one month limit (with april fools day exemption).Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I support this going forward, but am uneasy about an unwritten rule being written, and then applied retrospectively. —WFC— 20:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

We could grandfather the clause on the current nominations (posting a note below the affected current nominations to prevent new ones being added, there are two), or we could just move those two to the dyk queue now and then apply the new rule to the list, thoughts anyone? Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any harm in just moving those two into queues now. They'll still appear on DYK, so the creators/nominators won't be penalized (by missing the credit) for us holding them as long as we have. cmadler (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support moving back to main queue. Holding an article for more than a month is excessive under any circumstance, even if there is no rule, written or unwritten, against it. What's more, I fail to see any direct link between the subject of this article and Halloween – there's certainly nothing in the article creating that link. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comments: I think it's alright to have semi-annual exemptions (amnesty?), one on April Fools' Day, and one on Halloween, to accept noms of articles older than the usual "5 days" maximum. The catch would be: the hook had better be very good for these special occasions. Twice a year is okay. --PFHLai (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

April Fools day exemption, yes, because it is more difficult to find the right kind of articles and carefully worded hooks that fits the project-wide theme. Halloween is not that different from other holidays such as a Christmas, New Years, Earth Day, Labor Day, etc. We can still accommodate those holidays and several other dates of significance with a 30-day/month before type grace period. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Halloween is very different in one way: we actually have someone here at DYK every year willing to put in the time and efforts to get the day's hooks organized. And it happens to be about half a year from April Fool's Day. --PFHLai (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think one month is a little too harsh of a cut off. Two months seems more reasonable and fair to me. I started writing a Christmas re-lated hook in early November this last year after visiting my local mall and already hearing Christmas music and seeing Christmas related items on the shelf. lol4meter4 (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I like a 6-week maximum. We need some "limit" here. --PFHLai (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be OK with 6 weeks, though I'd prefer 1 month. I think 2 months is too long. I'm ambivalent regarding adding a Halloween exception to the existing April Fools' Day exception, but I feel strongly that we should not have more than two such exception dates. cmadler (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I support a one-month maximum, but I'll concede to six weeks if consensus goes that way. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Preference on 6 weeks limit, but not opposed to one month. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess 6 weeks would be ok, but I would prefer 8 weeks.4meter4 (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• As a contributor to the Halloween effort, I've observed that some Halloween articles are written in mid or late August. A good new article takes effort, and if a contributor wants to make several contributions (many do), then the time-frame for getting these into article-space will be longer than eight weeks. In my experience, most of the Halloween topics are also already covered by an article. Many of these are not in the best of shape, so that means a five-fold expansion to not only get them into shape but also to qualify them for DYK. Five-fold expansion takes a lot more time than a 1,500-character new article stub. What we face with the article Rhacophorus vampyrus is that contributors are competing to get a new article into article-space. That indicates that contributors do not want to hold articles back in sandboxes, but rather want to get them into article-space as soon as possible (for to get credit for the DYK). That competitive spirit is something we should encourage, and that benefit is a significant one. I, too, was surprised that this article might wait nine months for the Halloween effort. But April Fool's is not the only time DYK has permitted an article to wait many months. (Remember the FBI shield controversy?) Placement of article this far out should not be encouraged, but they should not be discouraged either, I would argue. - Tim1965 (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• One other comment: I've noticed that although the Halloween effort covers 48 hours (to get worldwide coverage), not all slots in the event have gotten covered in the past three years. I think that's evidence that it's tough to create quality DYK Halloween articles. This, I think, supports a longer acceptable time-frame for supplying articles for that annual DYK effort. (It may not be the project's goal to fill all these slots, but I think it is a laudable goal which should be encouraged so long as high quality is maintained.) - Tim1965 (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that although some of us would prefer 8 weeks and some prefer 4 weeks, 6 weeks is generally acceptable. It also appears to me that we are agreed to continue with the long-standing April Fools' Day exception. It appears to me that we are not yet agreed regarding making a new exception for Halloween, but that we are agreed that if there is another exception there will only be one other exception and it will be sometime from September to November (approximately half-way through the year from 4/1). Based on that, I'll boldly more the Rizal Day hook into the very next open prep area to run ASAP -- that way we don't continue to hold it, but the nominator isn't penalized for a good-faith nomination that was valid at the time. I'm going to leave the Rhacophorus vampyrus hook in the holding area pending further discussion here on Halloween hooks. cmadler (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Did what I said above, plus mentioned the six-week limit at Template talk:Did you know#Special occasion holding area. cmadler (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

April Fools Noms

I could really use some help reviewing the nominations at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know. So far I have been basically the only one reviewing, and there are a some that i can not review due to involvement in selecting the hook. There is tons of discussion for each nom, but no one is passing any. Any help would be great!--Found5dollar (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Machan

The hook for Machan that has been approved and moved to prep area 1 is almost identical to the hook for the director Uberto Pasolini which I reviewed and verified. Rather than running the same basic hook twice, I suggest swapping the Pasolini hook into the prep area, bolding the name of the film, and making this into a multi. The Pasolini hook is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree and done. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

James Moody

This nom does not have one ref per paragraph. I just spent time fixing naked links, refs in places that didn't belong, refs that were duplicated (rather than being listed as a, b, etc.) and I don't have time to fix the rest. The lede should be worked on -- it does not describe the article -- and the references could be used a lot better. I suspect this is a case of an article having been approved by someone who didn't really know what the requirements of DYK are. Marrante (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The nom in question seems to be Moody 4B, prep3. James Moody, sax player, is just mentioned. He doesn't have to follow the strict rules of DYK, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Marrante did good job fixing the article which will be linked from the main page, so kudos :-). Materialscientist (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No doubt about a good job, just no reason to withdraw the nom. The same way, I improved Kim Kashkashian a bit (for yesterday) and will the Hilliard Ensemble, - unbelievable that one of the greatest vocal ensembles ever is tagged like that, they deserve better, but give me some time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the mix-up. I was in a big hurry and should not have been going though the Moody article when I did in the first place. Then, seeing the problems and taking the time to fix the worst of them, I completely forgot I'd clicked on a link and not the actual nom itself. I didn't have time to do more, so just wrote a quick note here, not even taking the time to check the title of the article. Next time, I'll at least take that moment out. Thanks for the complement, Materialscientist. Marrante (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Pictures and prep areas

Question here: There are so many DYKs with pictures that there is frequently a backlog of over a dozem image DYKs. This makes it hard to prepare a set for the prep area because of the lack of DYKs without images. Is it generally frowned upon to move some accepted DYK hooks with pictures to the prep area, but leave out the picture so as to move it there more swiftly? Or would it be O.K. for me to accept a DYK hook but leave out the image> MobileSnail 16:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

J6 says "Not every submitted picture can be featured in the picture slot" so yes, some hooks that did have suitable pictures, will inevitably end up being featured in DYK but without their picture. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been a month or two since I've put together a prep set, but I've probably placed a few hundred hooks in non-lead slots without the suggested images. If the picture is particularly striking and the article is strong (and the free status of the image checks out, of course), I'd put that in a lead; if not, a non-lead slot is fine. 28bytes (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Queue 2 tweak

The sixth hook of Queue 2 includes "Comedy-Horror" which should be lower case. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed by Art LaPella. Materialscientist (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ordering the queues

Would it be worth introducing something like Template:Did you know/Queue/NextPrep for the queues, so that the next empty queue (oor the next to move to the Main Page) is displayed first, rather than the current numerical order? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If we want to do it, I can tweak the queue transclusion code. Shubinator (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

My first reaction on seeing HJ's post was "wonder what Shubinator thinks about that?" Since Shubinator doesn't seem to object, I'll go on record agreeing with HJ that putting the queue that's about to get moved to the main page at the top would make the queue page easier to follow. 28bytes (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Shubinator (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good! 28bytes (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That was easy, thanks guys. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem :) Shubinator (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Just did something really dumb.

I'll hold my hand up as the person who did it - I just filled the prep areas with normal hooks for April 1st. Didn't realise they were the April 1st prep areas until I checked the publishing times for them afterwards. So can whichever admin puts together the April Fools hooks store these sets somewhere safe till April 2nd? Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I should raise my hand as well. I filled prep4 earlier today also without realising that it'll hit the Main Page on April 1. Sorry. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran

I'm concerned that this one has been uploaded to the queue. The article has so far generated 42k of discussion on its talk page, and it seems clear to me that there are significant POV issues pertaining to this article that have yet to be resolved. It looks to me as if it should be pulled until an appropriate resolution of the outstanding issues has taken place. Gatoclass (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no need to pull it just yet, I think I can probably rectify the problems fairly quickly. Gatoclass (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

April Fools day

AFD is almost upon usm but why are there hook in two places for this? Mjroots (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1 left two noms both on 1 April and regular suggestion pages as acceptance in the former is tougher and is not guaranteed. This is Ok with me, and we should just remove duplicates when one nom is promoted. Materialscientist (talk) 10:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We need someone to start building the Queues for April 1st... all the approved hooks can be found Here.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I see some additional ones in the normal Special Occasions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The ones in the special occasions are duplicates of ones on the April Fools Page.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I will start assembling some updates. Based upon the number of available hooks, would there be any objections to running 4 sets of hooks on April 1st (updates every 6 hours) instead of the current 3 per day? --Allen3 ^talk 14:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Queue 6 is scheduled to be used on April 1, but it does not look as April 1 hooks are in there. We have to have at least 4 Queues for April 1.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Shuffling queue contents to have the April 1 hooks appear at the appropriate time is a simple task. I will make sure it is done if nobody else beats me to the punch. As for the number of updates, the April 1 hooks all tend to be shorter than the average DYK hook. As a result, I was able to fit more hooks than usual into each update and it looks like 3 hooks sets is all that is needed for the current set of approved hooks. --Allen3 ^talk 16:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Both Queue 6 and Queue 5 are going to be partly used for April 1. Why not to change the hooks that are there now with April 1 hooks, using the current hooks on a later day?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless pressed to meet a deadline for the next scheduled update, my usual practice is to leave newly created hook sets in the prep areas for a couple hours to allow anyone, not just admins, to correct any problems that I missed. The extra scrutiny the prep areas receive has a tendency to spot previously unnoticed issues. --Allen3 ^talk 17:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not talking about prep areas. I am talking about Queue 6 and Queue 5.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@Mbz1 - this is a long debated issue with the consensus to keep the 1 April hooks for 24 hours sharp - humorous hooks can be featured around the day, or on any day, but not in the blatantly hoaxing 1 April style. @Allen3 (and other involved) - many thanks, from me at least - I was anticipating a hard day today preparing the sets for the 1 April and it was truly relieved to find it all done :). Materialscientist (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

How about running each Queue for 6 hours versus 8 hours?It used to be this way last year.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

UFO

Moved from WP:ERRORS. Materialscientist (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"that in early 2010 reporters claimed that an unprecedented attack on Jordan was targeted at both terrorists from Al-Qaeda and U.S. Military bases?" (queue 2) should be changed to "that in early 2010 reporters claimed that an unprecedented attack on Jordan was targeted at Al-Qaeda and U.S. Military bases?" because the bases were unoccupied. Marcus Qwertyus 23:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The original doesn't read to me as terrorists were as the US bases. BTW, why not "was targeting" instead of "was targeted at"? Materialscientist (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't what I was alluding to but I suppose that is another reason to change it. The original says that the attack targeted terrorists even though the Al-Qaida bases were unoccupied by terrorists.

Okay I just re-read the source and it looks like both the author and I misinterpreted the source. The bases were not formerly operated by Al-Qaeda. They were allegedly used to detain Guantanamo Bay inmates. Still though, no one is alleging that they were housed as inmates at the time of the attack.

This hook starts to fall apart even more upon closer inspection. The hoax didn't explicitly say that the attack was targeting military bases. It was later speculated that the reasoning for the hoax location was the military population. There are replacements waiting on Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know. Marcus Qwertyus 02:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It is April 1 hook. BTW why it is here. It is not at the main page yet, and not going to be there for another 40 hours?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The queue is fully-protected and it is not necessary to wait until it goes live to post here. Marcus Qwertyus 02:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the hook. The source states "Mr Barhoumeh did not say why Jafr was chosen as the butt of the joke, but the area is notorious for a nearby military base that sometimes hosts US troops for joint training exercises.Human rights groups claim the base once housed alleged al-Qaida militants, some of whom were transferred from Guantanamo Bay, but Jordan has denied the charge."So, yes, Americans allegedly used the bases, and there allegedly were some al-Qaida militants.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It was allegedly formerly used to detain prisoners. It was not used as a prison at the time of the attack. These are only some of my concerns. Marcus Qwertyus 03:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In a worse case scenario the hook could be changed to "...that in early 2010 reporters claimed that an unprecedented attack on Jordan was targeted at the bases used by U.S. Military?", but I do not believe such change is necessary.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternatives

• ... that eating boogers has been described as one of the best ways to stay healthy?

Created by Bbarnwel (talk). Nominated by Marcus Qwertyus (talk) at 20:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's an online reference [1]. Marcus Qwertyus 02:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It was created in 2009, and IMO it is not the right place to nominate alternatives.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• It was a userspace draft until 2010 when it went live. Marcus Qwertyus 03:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• I see. I do not like that hook, it is too disgusting IMO. In any case it is not the right place for the nomination. This one is. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• We displayed a picture of a fly feasting on excrement as the featured picture on the main page once. Social norms don't matter. A hook that is intriguing is always going to be preferred over a mundane one. Marcus Qwertyus 04:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Public Domain, primary sources, and close paraphrasing

Could use some more opinions on this situation: on FBI Atlanta Field Office, we have a close paraphrase of this FBI history page (in the "History" sections), which was not cited in the article. I understand that the close paraphrasing is not really an issue in itself, because the FBI source is U.S. gov. and public domain. But as it is also a primary source (the Bureau's own official history), it's a bit complicated. The Interior (Talk) 07:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No takers? The author hasn't responded and I really don't know what to do with this one. The Interior (Talk)

Transcribing a public domain source, properly credited, is fine for mainspace but it's not proven a successful way to get a DYK credit. The idea is for people to write new articles, not cut-n-paste as many PD sources as they can find then demand "credit" for their "work". - Dravecky (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Expansion of developed articles

Has there ever been discussion on modifying credits for expansions where if an article starts at over 10K characters a DYK credit might be given for a 3x expansion (and maybe 5-10K could get a credit for a 4x expansion)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I would definitely support that. I have worked on a few articles where because of their size, I was simply not able to reach that magical 5x number. Marrante (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I started a thread about it back in April 2009 with a larger discussion taking place the next month when another editor proposed a similar idea. More recently, this past February, there was a brief discussion about how successful the 2x BLP expansion has been and the possible idea of a graduated scale for DYK. Each time it is brought up, it seems to get a fair amount of support but the discussion doesn't retain traction long enough to have a consensus firmly solidified to actually put it into practice. But each time, different editors get an opportunity to chime in with their views so I see that eventually this will become part of DYK. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to agree in spirit, but fail to say that you support my proposal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I also support this, while not sure of the particular ratios. Expanding medium length articles is a lot of work, and should be allowed in the same spirit of the 5x expansion (which is appropriate for stubs, but not for longer stuff) The Interior (Talk) 01:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Same with me. I support the idea but I think the exact graduated scale and ratios will need more discussion. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This issue has come up numerous times, although usually for particular nominations rather than for general disussion. As far as I know, the consensus in the past has always been that if an article is so big you can't feasibly expand it 5x, that probably means it shouldn't be expanded 5x and it would be better to focus on GA instead (working on quality rather than quantity). There's no reason that DYK has to cover every sort of article improvement that is logically possible, and no reason that every good deed anyone ever does on Wikipedia needs to go on the main page for 6 hours. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As with the three discussions I linked to in a previous comment on this thread, the interest in this initiative is more broad than just for individual nominations. The benefits behind the idea of a graduated scale for more developed articles is numerous goes beyond just rewards for a good deed.

• Better articles - Encourages editors to take on more challenging articles for improvement beyond just the low hanging fruit. Not every editor is interested in going through the FA process and not every editor believes that there is much value in the GA system.
• Potentially more interesting topics - Potentially more interesting hooks came appear more frequently when we go beyond just the low hanging fruit and easy to expand stubs.
• Minimizes the "crap penalty" on expansion (also known as rule A4) - Editors will be penalized less for unsourced, POV, OR and other "crap" that they need to remove from an article if the expansion is calculated on a graduated scale. This eliminates the "subjectiveness" that bound DYK to the A4 rule in the first place. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agree. I don't see this as encouraging quantity over quality. DYK can be the initial peer review for longer articles which can then move up to GA and FA. The Interior (Talk) 02:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a need for this. The rules are complicated enough as it is. I mean, I'm not completely opposed to it, but we have already recognized that the rules are too complex, and now we want to add more? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I remember a discussion about this last year and a big point was that DYK is aimed at creating new articles and expanding stubs. It sounds nice but I don't think the instruction creep is necessary; you can get it to GA or FA. I think every project has a purpose. I brought Grand Coulee Dam up to 59k from 23k last year and it was about a 4x expansion. I was hoping i'd get a DYK but I maxed out what I could put in; oh well.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Ed and NortyNort. Also, I think this would erode DYK's intended focus on new articles. Cbl62 (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I also feel that DYK should remain dedicated to new articles. Expanding a larger article is extremely commendable, but adding content to an already-established article doesn't fit into DYK's mission. (For my current nomination, I expanded a stub over nine times, and nothing remains of that original stub, so it truly is a new article.) What I would like to see would be the replacement of "On this day" with a section highlighting accomplishments such as major expansions and new GA promotions. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the 5x expansion (easy for stubs, complicated for common articles) is precisely meant to prevent the existence of a bare stub from being an obstacle for the promotion of a new article here. In facts, we reward the creation of an article of at least basic quality where there was none, or where there was just a 2 lines description. 2x expansion of unsourced BLP is just to encourage such sourcing.

As for an expansion, a basic article as approved here may still be expanded many times in the way to FA status, we can't stay rewarding it all the time. Once an article is at that stage, the nominator should take his time, complete the work, and then go for GA nomination. The standards for a GA are higher than for a DYK, but the process is basically the same: someone nominates the article, a single user reviews it, and approve, reject or put it on hold as needed. The low DYK standars are just adapted to what we can realistically expect from new articles written just a few days ago, GAN has no deadline and expects higher quality in return. MBelgrano (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

While I hope that DYK will someday reduce the minimum qualifying expansion size for existing articles, there is no need for this change in the foreseeable future. In addition to the desire to have DYK articles better represent the qualities that Wikipedia desires of all articles (proper sourcing, neutrally written, ...) the other primary factor in tightening of DYK requirements over the last few years is the general abundance of hook submissions. We are currently running 21 to 24 hooks per day. This seems to be a better overall rate than the frenzied 32 to 40 hooks per day that we were running at the height of last year's Wikicup contest. As long as we have enough incoming submissions to maintain a reasonable run rate, there is no need to loosen the DYK rules to encourage a larger pool of article nominations. --Allen3 ^talk 23:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

We have a next practical case to discuss: Mykola Leontovych. - Generally: I feel that some articles don't get better by expanding (I like this one as it is and not ask for more, as the rules do). Some articles would profit from reducing less important details and promotional language. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That one didn't even make it to the 2x expansion required of unreferenced BLPs... and this article does not qualify for that exemption. DYK is for new articles, not "all articles people work on" even if they work pretty hard on them. - Dravecky (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I seem to have a math problem, please see the question at the nom, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Queue 1

The hook "... that the Australian government requires high risk sex workers to wear full-face respirators (example pictured)?" needs a hyphen in "high risk", so it reads. "... that the Australian government requires high-risk sex workers to wear full-face respirators (example pictured)?" Ericoides (talk) 07:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In Queue 2, the hook "... that the U.S. Military hopes to incorporate Transformers into its combat units?" should read "U.S. military" (it's not an official title, so there's no need for upper-case), so that it corresponds with the same phrase in Queue 1 (Ntrepid hook 2). Ericoides (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Q1. But the Q2 "Military" issue? Ericoides (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've previously decapped another Military in Q2. Materialscientist (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Ta anyway. Ericoides (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

New tool of potential use to reviewers

Hi. :) There's a new tool that reviewers may find useful in helping determine if copyright issues exist in articles: Duplication Detector. It compares an article with another page, including PDFs. It has little bells and whistles, such as permitting you to omit quotations or eliminate numbers. And it lists its output by priority. Mind you, it can't catch some close paraphrasing, since it relies on strings of duplicated text and the default setting of 2 words in tandem will generally need to be adjusted (I myself use 4 or 5, depending). There is also a template that goes with it, {{dupdet}}, if you'd like to link to its findings. For an example of this in action on a real issue, {{dupdet|Andrei Silard|http://arh.pub.ro/mcristea/Silardcv.htm}} produces {{dupdet|Andrei Silard|http://arh.pub.ro/mcristea/Silardcv.htm}}. This example is not likely to be with us long (unless permission is provided). :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran (again)

Again, I am going to have to request that this article be pulled from the queue. I thought perhaps we had a stable version but Mbz has just turned up an hour before it is due for promotion to make wholesale changes that she knows are contested. The article should never have been promoted to the queue to begin with, given that it clearly had unresolved NPOV disputes on the talk page at the time it was promoted, and it's become clear at this point that the disputes are unlikely to be resolved quickly. Gatoclass (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with removing the article form the queue. Gato is objecting me quoting New York Times and The Globe and Mail. There are no reasons for his objections.--16:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that's the whole point. There is a disagreement about the content. I think some of your additions violate NPOV and those issues should be straightened out before the article is promoted. If you hadn't left your changes until an hour before the article was due for promotion, we might have had time to resolve them while the article was still in the queue, but there is insufficient time now, particularly as I am about to log off for the day and won't be able to return to the discussion until tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

My changes were made after your changes that violated NPOV. I made my changes at 8 in a morning as soon as I logged to Wikipedia and saw your changes. I could not have done those any earlier.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Nicole Kaczmarski

Although I understand the intent is to be ironic, the hook in queue 4 strikes me as unduly negative and potentially misleading. It suggests that Kaczmarski couldn't find a good job after college and ended up working as a waitress at an Outback Steak House. The source article does say she was working as a waitress on the day of the WNBA draft, but she subsequently played professional basketball in Europe and in the WNBA, pursued a career in healthcare and has worked as a TV basketball analyst on the MSG network. The hook may be fine, but I thought I'd note it and see what others think. Cbl62 (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I too don't like the hook because it basically says that a basketball player started waiting tables - I doubt she is that famous worldwide, and indeed, there is no information on how long did she work as a waitress (could well be a few days). Suggestions for the alt? How about "most career points scored in Long Island women's high school basketball"? If so, then better current second ranking or past 1st? Materialscientist (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

California Balloon Law in Queue 2

I've corrected an error in the California Balloon Law article. The hook is currently in Queue 2. The law does not restrict Mylar balloons; it bans ones made of "electrically conductive material". Mylar is the opposite of electrically conductive; it's actually used as an electrical insulating material. I corrected the article by adding "metallized" to the description. The remaining problem: the hook says that the bill makes the sale of the pictured balloons illegal, but the balloons pictured in the hook appear to be plain, non-metallized Mylar, which are not illegal. The photo should be replaced with one depicting balloons of the correct type, such as File:Balloonsanimals.jpg pictured here.

Also, the picture in the hook currently on the Main Page, for Sodium ethyl xanthate, does not appear in the article. Was an exemption to the rule made for it? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed all, added "metallized" to the hook in Q2 for correctness - please check that this doesn't spoil the joke. Materialscientist (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. While the original picture was explicitly wrong, I think that just using a vague "balloons" without the "metallized" is acceptable (and probably preferable) for April 1. But use your own judgment. If "metallized" is removed, "balloons", currently linked to BoPET should be unlinked, or linked to either balloon or metallised film. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

 DoneThis is April Fools Day, the intention was specifically to leave metalized out, so as obscure the fact that we aren't talking about normal balloons, to get people to read it. It does spoil the joke. I'm not worried about the other changes, but that one does undermine the april foolishness of the hook!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleberately misleading DYKs

When I went to the front page this morning I was astonished to discover

:From Wikipedia's newest articles:

... that the Australian government requires high-risk sex workers to wear full-face respirators (example pictured)?

... that Ntrepid was paid $2.76 million by the U.S. military to create sock puppets?

... that Batman is half female?

... that nesting is not used by breeding Mute Swans but they do use this thing?

... that Robert Tappan Morris was convicted of a crime for releasing a worm?

... that Dr. Who's parents are Brazilians from a family known for pineapples?

... that even small amounts of dead cat can explode when heated?

... that Europe was ruled by a child during the American Revolutionary War?

... that a typical Labia minor is chocolate brown, up to 7 mm long, and equipped with pincers?

• When clicking the link for sex I get redirected to Sodium ethyl xanthate
• When I click the link for batman I get redirected to Batman Province
• When I click the link for dead cat I get redirected to Diethyl azodicarboxylate
• And more.

It really hurts Wikipedia's credibility as a source for information when our front page contains these deliberateley misleading DYKs. I know this might be trolling related to today's date, but if someone could point me to the concensus to make these DYKs so deliberateley misleading that would be great. Hasteur (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The rules/guidelines for this harmless bit of fun are here: Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know. 28bytes (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"Proper capitalization, title formatting, and linking standards, may be disregarded only if doing this will give away the joke." It's just an opinion, but if you have to disregard the conventions of the English language to try and make a point, it's not a very good or original joke. This hook, for example, "that Europe was ruled by a child during the American Revolutionary War?" is utterly banal. It's so contrived to be devoid of any wit whatsoever. While I wouldn't go so far to say that the practice hurts Wikipedia's credibility, as it's clearly a bit of fun, it does suggest that some Wikipedians have a very poor sense of humour. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 13:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

My standard reply to complaints that a hook is too boring is an invitation to help suggest improvements on the suggestions page while they are still being reviewed. To extend this to the April 1 hooks: if you've got a more interesting hook to offer, by all means suggest it! We're always on the lookout for interesting hooks. 28bytes (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I rarely participate in the April Fool's Day project, but I agree that some of the hooks were lame this year and wish I'd have spent some time vetting them. It's a subproject that needs attention from as many people as possible, maybe Simon would like to help out next year? Gatoclass (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Still, it was again very popular with the readers. Lots of impressive statistics, including 37.7k views for the hook which I wrote for Materialscientist's Batman Province article. This set a new record as the most-viewed non-lead hook of all time. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure thanks. I was more surprised by that Batman sells much better than sex (the lead in the same set). Materialscientist (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Listing-did I mess up?

My first time nominating-nominated Nick Perito. Not sure if I listed it correctly as it seems to be the only listing for March 30 that hasn't been reviewed. Any help or advice appreciated. Thanks, We hope (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing occurs randomly, not by the nomination date, and it is not uncommon to have a nomination unreviewed until it moves up to the top of the suggestion page. Nothing to worry about. Materialscientist (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much! We hope (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Black hook

The Rebecca Black hook in queue 6 does not appear to be supported by the source. The Wiki article says: "The song received negative critical response, with some critics calling it the 'worst song ever.'" The last point is not supported by the source. The source is actually a singular yahoo blogger -- not "some critcs." Also, the cited blogger doesn't positively assert that this is the "worst song ever." Instead, the headline from the blog simply asks: "Is YouTube Sensation Rebecca Black's 'Friday' The Worst Song Ever?" Look, my teenage son has played the song for me, and it's definitely bad ... really bad. But I don't think we should be posting inaccurate and negative facts about a 13-year-old girl on the Main Page. The hook should be removed from queue IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Concur and will replace it shortly. Materialscientist (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it's really important to pull hooks with minor factual misstatements, whereas articles with POV content added against consensus and which reinforces ethnic stereotypes, are not a problem. Gatoclass (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No, because I tend to fix easier tasks first :-). The lead of Rebecca Black was saying that her song was named the "worst song ever", which is not a minor misstatement, but a libel, not stated even by that blog ref. Materialscientist (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I could accept that as an explanation if you, or somebody else, had responded to my request to pull the Koby Mandell hook at all. I asked twice to have that hook pulled so outstanding disputes could be properly resolved before its promotion. The first request was up for 14 hours without anyone bothering to respond, before I left a message saying I thought the problems could be resolved quickly. The second time I made the request, no response whatever. Gatoclass (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Gato, I am quick to responding at DYK only 1/3 of a day maximum. I did have a quick look at the problem before and couldn't decide on pulling the hook at that moment - it looked like a mostly two-editor dispute over not-so-clear issue. Maybe it was my fault and the mere fact of article instability was enough. Please try to dumb things down in the future for people like me - POV is a topic too vague. Materialscientist (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well if it was more detail you required, you could at least have let me know so that I could have responded to your doubts. Obviously I am unable to respond to a concern that is not expressed.

I must say though, that in my opinion if a user in good standing requests that a hook be pulled for POV reasons, there ought to be a very good reason for not pulling the hook. POV is probably the most serious content issue behind copyvio and BLP, so if there's a doubt, we should always err on the side of caution. We do after all have a longstanding convention here that articles are not promoted until disputes are resolved. But at least now I have some idea why my request was not acted upon. Next time, I will endeavour to summarize my concerns in any such request, so that hopefully this problem will not recur. Thanks for your explanation. Gatoclass (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it clear. Under "POV content" User:Gatoclass meant that I added to the article two exact quotes from 2 RS New York Times and The Globe and Mail, the quotes that are supported by at least CNN; Associated Press and USA Today. The only way to respond such claims was to ignore the request, and ignored it was.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said to you on my talk page, this discussion wasn't about the relative merits of our respective edits, it was a discussion about process, and for the moment at least it's been resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Queue 4 punctuation

The last hook of Queue 4 has a spaced em dash, which, according to WP:EMDASH, should not be used. It should be replaced with a spaced en dash, an unspaced em dash, or a comma, or it could probably just be removed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Could probably be removed, but I replaced it with comma, to have a pause for the quirky part. Materialscientist (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

the James Monroe Smith hook

The hook -- ".... that James Monroe Smith, who had been forced from the presidency of LSU on fraud charges......" -- is not supported by the James Monroe Smith article. Nowhere does it state he was forced from the LSU presidency. It says he resigned, and doesn't give a reason for his resignation. WP:SYNTH seems to be at work here.Moriori (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC).

Thumbnail picture not showing

The photo of Ditsworthy Warren House in the March 31 section of DYK nominations Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_March_31 is not showing. Any idea why and how to correct this? Other photos are showing on the same page ok. Stronach (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I see it well. There are some wikimedia database problems today that cause such effects - some images not showing on long pages. There is a headline message on Commons "System notice: Thumbnail serving is slow, a solution is being worked on". Materialscientist (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks - good to know. Stronach (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Order question?

This is more just to satisfy my own curiosity than for any pressing reason, but how is the order from which the hooks are moved to the prep area decided? I only ask because I see articles from older dates sitting in the discussion page while newer ones get picked. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There are many variables: the nominations should be ready for promotion, be of various topics, fit into the supposed timezone, etc. Normally, the oldest ones are to be promoted first, but this is not a requirement. Materialscientist (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a very long "tail" at the moment. Somebody should really be either verifying or rejecting those old hooks, but it's not happening. I've made an attempt to do so on a couple of occasions recently, but got bogged down in the fine details. I'll give it another try later today. Gatoclass (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Follow On (hymn)

Follow On (hymn), currently in Queue 3, looked pretty stubby, so I did a DYKcheck. It reported 1511 characters, but nearly a third of that was a quote. The article also needed some copyediting. After I did a little cleaning up, and indented the quote, DYKcheck now says it's 1002 characters. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on that but one is trying to do ones best with the limited sources around. I've included a bit more so hopfully I've found that extra 498 characters. I must say I'm surprised this was overlooked but at least it's good to get these things sorted out. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's got 1677 characters now. It's good to go. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It does, indeed, now satisfy the length requirement. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Queue 3 error

In the fourth hook of Queue 3, "Wyoming" is incorrect. It should be "Colorado". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed and fixed. --Allen3 ^talk 19:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Problem in prep area 4?

One of the hooks in queue four currently reads

... that in response to Jalen Rose's comments in The Fab Five, which was the highest-rated ESPN documentary ever, Grant Hill authored The New York Times most-emailed story

First of all, shouldn't it need a question mark? Second of all, shouldn't the New York Times have some sort of apostrophe in it to indicate possessiveness, or be rephrased to read something like "most-emailed story of The New York Times?"--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I meant prep 4, not queue 4.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Black hook, again

I see in Template:Did you know/Queue/4 that we still have the following hook listed:

... that "Friday", a 2011 single by teen pop singer Rebecca Black that went viral on March 11, has been called the "worst song ever"?

This seems to be a violation of the rule which says that "Articles and hooks which focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals, or which promote one side of any ongoing dispute, should be avoided." Yes, we have sources that "Friday" has been called the "worst song ever", but that is just the opinion of some people. We shouldn't have a hook about a living person based solely on negative reviews of their work. (And I can't say the hook would be more impressive if the "worst song ever" description was attributed to someone who actually expressed that as their opinion, such as Alex Staub of URLesque.com, rather than repeating someone else's characterization of the song.) Surely we can find a more neutral thing to say about Rebecca Black at DYK. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. My guess would be that Black has gotten so much publicity precisely because her track has been called the "worst song ever". As they say in the industry, any publicity is good publicity. Besides, it's not as if people can't listen to it and make up their own minds. Gatoclass (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tweaked the hook to put a more positive spin on it. Gatoclass (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

One more minor (and, thankfully, uncontroversial) change: per rule C7, the apostrophe s should be replaced with {{`s}}. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Not sure how I missed that, but thanks for pointing it out. Gatoclass (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Possessive of New York Times

An apostrophe-ess is needed: "New York Time's"  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 19:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You can say that again :) --Yaksar (let's chat) 19:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, but the hook is sourced to a dead link... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I found the dead article on another site. It looks like it was not, however, the Times' most emailed story, or at least is not sourced that way. Rather, it was on the Times' most emailed list for some time, which is a rolling list which is consistently updated, not a listing of what holds the all-time record. This should probably be fixed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The hook's original wording confused me. It should be fixed now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I was the editor who picked up the nomination after 4 hooks were suggested, and I suggested another 4. The one we ran with was preferred by the nominator. I put a note on his talk page alerting him to this change. BTW, I think a 202-character hook lacks all punch. Best, Yoninah (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well being on the NYTs top ten most-emailed list isn't all that impressive either... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• A total of 8 hooks were suggested during the lengthy reviewing process. I don't understand how you could bypass them all without discussing it with the nominator. BTW, the nominator was also fine with:
• ... that The Fab Five, the highest-rated ESPN documentary ever, sparked a verbal war between Michigan's Jalen Rose and Duke's Grant Hill? Yoninah (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• The hook is now in Queue 1. I suggest that it be changed for the one above. Yoninah (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Queue 4

I'd like to suggest that the Rebecca Black hook be amended to "with the video attracting over 80 million Youtube hits", since views are now at 83 million. Yoninah (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Amended. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

End of the hook drought?

It looks to me like the hook drought is over. Any objections to returning to a 6-hour rotation? --Orlady (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I was recently thinking the same thing myself, but the number of submissions has actually dropped in the last couple of days. So I think we could probably stay on the 8-hour cycle for a few more days to get a better idea of where things are heading. Gatoclass (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gatoclass that the current 8-hour cycle is appropriate. The recent increase in the backlog was due to short lived special occasions surge (April 1) and not from a sustainable change in submission rate. The number of submissions page entries has dropped by 20-30 noms over the last week. --Allen3 ^talk 14:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear policy of the United States

The hook for the article Nuclear policy of the United States was moved to the prep areas this morning, but the image was omitted. I understand the admins have some discretion and not all hooks can have an image. However, this is one of the best articles produced by through WikiProject United States Public Policy under the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and I would like to see it get a little bit more visibility. A day or two ago, the article was moved to the prep area, and after a short discussion, it was moved back to the list to wait for an opportunity to use it with the image. Can we do this again, please? – VisionHolder « talk » 14:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've moved it back to the suggestions page. --Orlady (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I originally moved it to the Prep Area without the picture because I wanted to make sure the article was seen since it seemed to be of high quality and part of a long discussion. I have now moved it to Prep Area 4 with the picture. OCNative (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Clock - 24 hour or 12 hour acceptable ...

But not a combination of both terminologies, please! Would it be at all possible for chaps/chapesses to tidy up the schedule so that it reads either (f'rinstance) 05:00, 17:00, or 5 pm? The current "05:00" with a "PM" on the line below causes confusion (most people, on seeing 05:00, will interpret it as AM, as 05:00 PM does not exist ..... and the fact that the PM is on a separate line makes the wrong assumption all the more likely. Pesky (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:MOS#Times. Materialscientist (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What about it? The MoS is for articles, but it would seem to back up Pesky and I agree with him. "05:00 PM" is just confusing. We should use either 1700 (my preference, because it's the least ambiguous) or 5pm. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant the New Delhi column. Materialscientist (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer a 24-hour clock: I think it's easier to read when scanning across the columns, and it has a smaller footprint. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Switched to 24-hour clock. Shubinator (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

That looks much better, thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

C'mon, seriously?

"... that at the height of battle the wolf's head of the Dacian Draco (pictured), with its several metal tongues, made a shrill sound and its strips of material waved in the wind?"

This is easily the single most confusing and poorly phrased hook I have ever seen at DYK. I would enumerate everything that is wrong with it, but I fear that would require the use of exponential notation. Here is an abridged version:

• It is totally unclear what is causing the shrill sound. The wind? Someone blowing into it? The phrase "at the height of battle" is the only clue, but this implies that the thing is alive.
• The hook tries unnecessarily to jam two tidbits into one inordinately long sentence: the shrill sound, and the waving strips.
• "at the height of battle ... its strips of material waved in the wind" So the owner only did battle when it was windy?
• What is a "strip of material"? This could easily compete alongside "flappy things" in the Be as Vague as Possible competition.

I sincerely hope that someone who is familiar with the article's content make some effort to remodel this into a coherent hook. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was good enough. The "height of battle" seemed odd to me (was there a way to silence it before and after?), but the primary point of the hook is to get people to click through to the article, not to provide them with complete answers to everything they might want to know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Queue 6 fix & query

The first hook of Queue 6 needs a "pictured". Do we need to have the reptile's scientific name in the hook? —Bruce1ee^talk 05:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess not. Changed. Materialscientist (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Top of suggestions

I think that by now the suggestions could start again with "This page is for nominations to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page" and the - well established - "change" could be changed to a description within the procedure. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've removed {{DYK rules change}} from the nominations page and requested its removal from the (fully protected) editnotices page. I think that once it is removed, the template can probably be deleted. cmadler (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Do we need to send the template to TfD, or would a consensus here be enough? Mjroots (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

    As the template was created as a convenience tool for this page, consensus here should be enough to justify speedy deletion under Speedy deletion criteria G6 (uncontroversial maintenance and other technical deletions). --Allen3 ^talk 05:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

    • I've deleted it under G6. Mjroots (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this seems premature to me, especially since there doesn't seem to be any instructions to replace the instructions in the template. How are new users supposed to know they will be required to review hooks? That info still needs to be somewhere on the T:TDYK page. Gatoclass (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that new users should continue to be encouraged to review articles. But this does not require the template; it can just be stated on the page. Schwede66 20:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If the deletion is premature, then the template may be restored without further reference to myself. The system has been running for 3 full months now, so the majority of contributors should be aware of it. The rule is mentioned on the nominations page, and any editor not complying with it can be gently reminded at their nom of the requirement. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(Addressing Gatoclass's concern) The requirement is listed at the bottom of the "How to list a new nomination" section on the nominations page. It's also rule #5 at the rules page. Do you see anywhere else that it needs to appear? cmadler (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Polish-Lithuanian (adjective)

{{edit protected}}

I'd like to suggest minor corrections to the hook about Polish-Lithuanian (adjective) in Template:Did you know/Queue/6:

• ... that the adjective "Polish-Lithuanian" refers to pre-nationalistic and multicultural inhabitants of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, not be confused with the modern understanding of Polish and Lithuanian nationalities?

— Kpalion^(talk) 12:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It reads better to me, but is 220 characters long (the limit is 200). Something could be removed, maybe the pre-nationalistic and multicultural part, but I would listen to comments on that. Materialscientist (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

How about this? — Kpalion^(talk) 13:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• ... that the adjective "Polish-Lithuanian" refers to pre-nationalistic, multicultural inhabitants of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, unlike the modern understanding of the two nationalities?

Sure, just link nationality too. I remember old days when the 200 characters rule was bendable for better hooks, but I guess the iron cage of bureaucracy is getting stronger on Wiki all the time... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Linked nationalities in the hook above. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Swapped. Bendable, but as an exception, and not for this kind of hooks (with lots of choices to shorten). Materialscientist (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know#Authenticity in art

Would some DYK regulars review Authenticity in art and Template talk:Did you know#Authenticity in art? At issue is whether a maintenance template (in this case {{expert-subject}}) makes an article ineligible for DYK. I remember there was a rule for this in the past but have been unable to find any guidance about it at Wikipedia:Did you know and Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional rule D6 is what you were thinking of. Not sure whether this is a 'dispute' tag. Schwede66 05:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) My view: this is to be decided on case-to-case basis. If the template meant to say "there are serious problems", then the article should not be featured. If it meant to say "further polishing is required", then I see no problem. Formally, such template can be removed if there is no explanation on the talk page (as in this case - the talk threads are old). Informally, I would invite the person who added the template to the DYK review process - after all, the goal is to improve the article (to some reasonable level). Materialscientist (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion of the template took place on the talkpage of the nominator and I. Basically, he or she improved the article a lot, and asked if I thought we should remove the tag. I said that it was up to the editor, and they felt it would be best for the article to leave it in place to attract an expert review.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Schwede66, for the link and Materialscientist, for the input. Because {{expert-subject}} is not a dispute template and the article does not have serious problems, I have no objections to its being featured while tagged with the expert-subject template. Cunard (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As the editor who expanded the article I left the tag in part, perhaps mainly, because it seemed amusing: "this article requires authentication or verification by an expert". Authenticity in art discusses expert authentication and verification of works of art. I did not mean to trigger a discussion here, although I have learned something from it. I have removed the tag. My apology if I wasted other editors' time. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As one who voted for its deletion, I must congratulate Aymatth on a fine job! The tag can certainly go now - since it covers about 8 different subjects, it should have read "about 8 experts needed". Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Change of queue please? is this possible?

My article, Ditsworthy Warren House is currently in Queue 3. Would it be possible to move it to Prep 2? I ask because it mentions War Horse, the Spielberg movie, and the play of the same name (both are based on the book War Horse) is opening at the Lincoln Center in New York on the 14th, so I thought it would be nice to have it appear on the day, and at a time in the US when people would be awake to read it! Currently it would go out the day before (13th) in US time. I hope this can be done? Thanks. Stronach (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Stronach (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hook swap request

I timed the writing of Colin Campbell Cooper specifically so I could submit a DYK which would run in the US on April 15, the anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic. It's currently the lead hook of Prep 3, which will appear in Los Angeles on the 14th during all but its final hour. As Cooper was an American artist strongly associated with New York and the L.A. area, it would be great if the hook could be moved into Prep 1, which will appear in L.A. on April 15 at 09:00. The current lead hook of Prep 1 is also about the Arts, so swapping them should be harmonious. If it was someone else's hook I would just swap them myself, but I felt I should not do it for my own hook. Thanks a lot! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The swap is doable but the queue selected was based upon the time of the events depicted and not upon the timezone of the artist's home. According to the RMS Titanic article, the ship struck the iceberg at 23:40 (April 14), sank around 02:20 (April 15) with the RMS Carpathia arriving to rescue survivors at 04:10, completing rescue operations by 08:30. It is not clear whether the times are local time (UTC−03:00 based upon location of the sinking) or "ship time" (probably UTC based upon port of embarkation), but in either case the update that best corresponds with the time of day when the majority of events happened is the 00:00 April 15 (UTC) update. --Allen3 ^talk 20:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, when I saw the time it was scheduled to run, I figured that was the reasoning and I appreciate the thought that went into that. But I don't see it as important that the hook appear at the exact time of the events. People think of anniversaries in terms of dates, not hours; the date of the sinking is the 15th, and the majority of Americans won't see Prep 3 on that date. The Titanic incident is but a very small part of the article about an important American artist, and I still feel that Prep 1 is a much better place to showcase it to the target audiences in L.A. and NY. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Passing by, I understand that the hour of the remembered event doesn't matter so much if it's not seen. - I have Sandeep Bhagwati in the next slot, who has an Indian name but works in Germany, - I wouldn't mind having him swapped to a later time when people in Europe don't sleep. Good night, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks to Allen3 for putting the hook into my desired timeslot! That was very kind and I greatly appreciate it! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Prep 4

I won't use the lead image in prep 4 because it rather shows a monument on that hill than the hill itself. Materialscientist (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The hooks have been shuffled to place a different (and better developed) article into the image slot. I would recommend flipping the order that Prep 4 and Prep 1 are moved to the queues to keep from running images related to African wildlife back-to-back. --Allen3 ^talk 15:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

My DYKs are MIA!

Hi everyone. I submitted five DYK's a few weeks ago and four were accepted, one was not okayed yet. Perhaps someone can lend insite into where they are - one is in the queue (Confluence (sculpture)) and the others are missing: Bench Around the Lake, Indianapolis Art Center, Above and Below and Charles Alston. Any help on where they might be would be great! THANK YOU! Missvain (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

At Template talk:Did you know#Bench Around the Lake, Template talk:Did you know#Indianapolis Art Center, Template talk:Did you know#Above and Below and Template talk:Did you know#Charles Alston, so not missing at all, in fact... Bencherlite^Talk 14:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They're all still on the suggestions page. Links... Bench Around the Lake, Indianapolis Art Center, Above and Below and Charles Alston Worm^TT · (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I'm embarrassed :) That's what I get for doing Wiki-work before being caffeinated :) Missvain (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Bah, another dropout

Looks like we're having another dropout in page hit statistics, since April 7. And just in time for my own hooks again - the same thing happened last time I wrote some DYKs. I was really looking forward to seeing how many hits that Abe Lincoln hook got too :/ Gatoclass (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The stats are often recovered later, thus wait and see. Materialscientist (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I hope so :) Last time I wrote some DYKs, I don't think they were. Gatoclass (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you check back? In the past, I found some stats later which had been missing before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The missing days have been filled in. Congratulations – the Lincoln hook got 7.4k views. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, although we had to wait more than a week for the update :) 7.4 isn't quite as good as I hoped, but as I suspected, most people just clicked on the photo instead - that got 21k hits. Gatoclass (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Queue 6 italics

In Queue 6, the video game Laser Clay Shooting System in the last hook should be in italics, as per WP:ITALICS. "Computer and video games (but not other software)" is listed under the items that should be in italics. OCNative (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

See this. MuZemike wrote the article and knows this area. You can ask him why. Materialscientist (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Laser Clay Shooting System is just that – a system and not a proper (i.e. proper noun) video game. First, it was constructed was a device in which games would be made on (kind of a like a very early concept of a video game console), in which later modifications would utilize different games, as noted with Wild Gunman and Duck Hunt; secondly, consisting of overhead projectors, 16mm film, and laser-sensing rifles (it had few, if any, actual electronic equipment), I don't know if I would even consider this a video game in the sense that we know it, but this was where the distinction (remember, this was the early/mid 1970s) between what would and would not be considered a video game became very blurred. Also, in the context of Nintendo's history, they would not turn their focus toward actual video games until 1977, when Hiroshi Yamauchi met Shigeru Miyamoto for the first time (even though I think they did distribute the Magnavox Odyssey in Japan, their focus was not on actual video games at that time). –MuZemike 11:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Queue 6

The fifth hook German destroyer Z9 Wolfgang Zenker has 219 characters (including spaces). Does it matter? It could easily be trimmed by removing the date, which in my opinion doesn't add anything useful. Schwede66 18:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the date is not needed. The name of the battle provides temporal context and anyone interested in the specific date can follow a link to either the article about the ship or the battle. Hook shortened as suggested. --Allen3 ^talk 19:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Dates should never be included in hooks IMO unless the hook is dependent on them - usually just a reference to the year will suffice. Gatoclass (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Update size/frequency revisited

For the last week or so the backlog of nomination has been growing and the daily submission rate has been in the 22–26 range. I suggest we increase the size of updates to 8 hooks in size (24 hooks per day with current 8 hour updates). Once we get back under 200 in the backlog we can return to the current 7 hooks per update. --Allen3 ^talk 06:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't there an objection to that on the grounds that it makes the DYK section too long? I'm pretty sure that's why we went to 7 hooks in the first place.

I'm not too fussed about it myself, but some people might prefer to just switch back to 6 hour updates for a while. Gatoclass (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should switch to 6 hour updates again. Schwede66 23:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be a preference for 6 hour updates. As there are a number of date requests currently in the queues, I would propose the change begin with the 00:00 18 April (UTC) update (i.e. with the set currently located at Prep 4). --Allen3 ^talk 12:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Update frequency changed to once every 6 hours. --Allen3 ^talk 00:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ryzhkov picture in prep 3

Can someone double-check the image? It has been uploaded on commons with an apparent claim that it was taken by the uploader (whose account is a redlink, but who, we are to assume, sat down with the Soviet Gvt Chairman back in the '90s), no OTRS or anything - it may be a copyvio, or entirely untraceable. Dahn (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Having taken a closer look, I share your suspicions that the provided source information may not be correct. The information provided at File:RyzhkovNI.jpg (the image at question) indicate it was taken on 11 January 2011. A check for other images of Ryzhkov on Commons provides samples such as File:Nikolay Ryzhkov2.jpg and File:Nikolay Ryzhkov4.jpg, both dated to November 2009. Comparing the facial wrinkles, hair line, and age spots of the "2009" images to the "2011" image suggests that either Ryzhkov has had a cosmetic surgery or the dates on one or more of the images is incorrect. Given the inconsistencies in the available data, combined with the fact that WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, I would strongly suggest a different image be used. --Allen3 ^talk 16:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

So what happens next? Do we remove the image? do we remove the hook? do we change the picture? Dahn (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I replaced the image in the article and the queue. --Orlady (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Prep 2

There are a couple of hooks exceeding the 200 character limit in prep 2. I don't really like messing with hooks this late in the piece, hence I bring this here. The first one is a bit easier to deal with:

• original ... that William F. Yardley was the first African American candidate for governor of Tennessee and is believed to have been the first African American attorney to argue before the state's supreme court?
• ALT1 ... that William F. Yardley, the first African American candidate for governor of Tennessee, is believed to have been the first African American attorney to argue before the state's supreme court?

The second one is more tricky:

• original ... that when nominated to be a correspondent of the Brazilian Academy of Letters, replacing the deceased José Saramago, historian Leslie Bethell became only the second English citizen elected to that body?
• ALT1 ... that historian Leslie Bethell became only the second English citizen elected to be a correspondent of the Brazilian Academy of Letters when he replaced the deceased José Saramago?

My proposed ALT1 hook avoids the awkward construction of "when nominated ... became elected". If they did have a vote, as opposed to appointing him (can't confirm; the source is in Portuguese), then he was certainly elected after he was nominated; the hook implies to me that nomination and election happened simultaneously. Schwede66 19:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected. I've shortened the Brazilian hook much more. Please shout if I went too far. Materialscientist (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Composers sleep in, q5

Can the hook in Queue 5 about 3 living European composers (Redmann, Duda, Waterhouse) please be swapped to a time when they are less likely to sleep? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Swapped to P1 that should be online the next morning in Europe. Regards SoWhy 14:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Queue 3 -- the parasitic wasp

The hook says "...that the only side of the extinct parasitic wasp Neanaperiallus visible is the left side?"

If it's extinct, how is it visible to us? We need to explain, something like "...that the only visible side of the extinct parasitic wasp Neanaperiallus which is fossilized in amber is the left side?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriori (talk • contribs) 00:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Taking a look at the article, this extinct wasp has only one known sample. This sample is preserved in amber. Other stuff in trapped in the same piece of amber which blocks views of the wasp's right side. Thus the only visible side of the only known sample is the left. Q.E.D. --Allen3 ^talk 01:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I know that. You really should have commented on my point instead. Moriori (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked the hook - please correct me at will (I don't think it is essential to the main page reader which side is visible). Materialscientist (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice one, much better. Moriori (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

...that ?

Would we lose anything (except an extra, repetitive word) by removing "that" from DYK's entirely? When I read over the list, I see as string of non-informative words before the unique facts. If grammar were an issue, we could move 'that' to the header (Did you know that...). So, better to present interesting facts without the 'that' in front? Ocaasi ^c 23:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

So we'd be WP:DYK...T now? :P –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You know, I think you might actually have a point. I remember thinking the same thing when I first came to DYK, but accepted the status quo because I thought the "that" makes things a little neater grammatically speaking. But now I'm not so sure. The "that" is not really required for grammatical correctness, it looks redundant being added to every hook, and when I think about it, it probably makes the hooks that much more difficult to read - as well as making all the hooks longer of course. Maybe it's time we had a rethink about this? Gatoclass (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess we can vote for elimination of "that". The "From Wikipedia's newest articles" bit in the main page layout would become ungrammatical, and I don't know what to do about it (remove?). New users might start capitalizing first letter of the hook, but I guess we can cope. Some hooks don't start with "that", but their number is so small that we can sacrifice those. Materialscientist (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that would become ungrammatical, unless you count it as being part of every hook, ie "Did you know from wikipedia's newest articles: that ... ?". But it isn't actually written that way in any case, because the word "From" is capitalized. Gatoclass (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Started a thread here. Materialscientist (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you know...there's never been a consensus for requiring hooks to start with "that"? cmadler (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Under the current format, I don't see how "that" can be removed without rendering the resultant sentence structure grammatically incorrect.
If we want to make the section more readable and eliminate unnecessary clutter, we should abandon the question gimmick entirely. In other words, we should switch from

• ... that the extinct parasitic wasp genus Aspidopleura is known from only two fossils found in Baltic amber?

to

• The extinct parasitic wasp genus Aspidopleura is known from only two fossils found in Baltic amber.

The section could be renamed "Did you know?" (replacing the ellipsis with a question mark). —David Levy 16:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is grammatically correct either way:

Did you know the extinct parasitic wasp genus Aspidopleura is known from only two fossils found in Baltic amber? is grammatically correct. The "that" might make it slightly smoother but both versions are acceptable English. But when you are talking about a series of hooks on the front page, the "that" is adding nothing essential and just looks redundant. Gatoclass (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

To me, that seems grammatically sloppy. I'm unaware of your nationality, so I don't know whether this is an English variety issue. (I'm American.)

In any case, I believe that the section's question gimmick (with or without the inclusion of "that") is the greatest barrier to ease of reading. What is your opinion of my above suggestion? —David Levy 17:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that's another issue, which would require a separate discussion. One thing at a time. Gatoclass (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue, as I understand it, is that we want to eliminate extraneous copy and make the section easier to read. I'm suggesting an alternative implementation. I see no need for separate discussions. —David Levy 20:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I like your suggestion of changing the section title to "Did you know?", eliminating both the ellipsis and the "that," and turning hooks into stand-alone sentences. For most hooks, as long as the ellipsis is in place, my ear requires the "that", but the proposed change in structure would fix things. --Orlady (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It also would result in a much more straightforward presentation (of particular benefit to readers with limited English comprehension). It might be cute to word declarations as interrogative sentence fragments intended to be combined with separate text, but it certainly doesn't make the section easier to read. We seek to tell people things, so let's simply tell them. —David Levy 20:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I fully support dropping "that" as superfluous wording. I agree with Gatoclass it is gramatically correct to remove it altogether and retain a complete and correct sentence. As a second choice, I would support putting "that" once before the opening colon instead of repeating it in each hook. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't support dropping the "that", because the example above reads to me like "Did you know the extinct parasitic wasp (personally)?" I would support full sentences. The German Wikipedia does that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It reads that way to me too. —David Levy 20:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on. It's quite clear from the context it means no such thing. In any case, the whole current format is ungrammatical. Sentences are currently in the format: "Did you know ... From Wikipedia's newest articles: ... that ? It's completely ungrammatical, removing the "that" will not change that, but it will reduce the length of the hooks and make them easier to read. Gatoclass (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

1. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that a person fluent in English would arrive at such an interpretation after reading the complete text. The point is that it seems ungrammatical to some of us (perhaps depending on our national English varieties), with the beginning parsing as described above.

2.The "From Wikipedia's newest articles:" portion is not intended to be included as part of the sentence. However, I agree that this fragmented format is unnecessary and potentially confusing (particularly to those with limited English comprehension). That's why I propose that we eliminate it entirely, thereby reducing the length of the hooks and making them easier to read. —David Levy 05:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the current flow just fine, so consider this is a nod for the status quo. Seems to emphasize the questioning nature more and keeps the top to the snappy "Did you know," and "that" is basically invisible to those reading it. Reminds me how they tell new writers that it's okay to repeat words like "said" a lot, as the average reader filters them out, and needlessly adding synonyms is only distraction. If we did switch, I agree that going to "Did you know?" with complete sentences as entries would be preferred. SnowFire (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not like the idea of simply dropping "that", but rewording to form full sentences suits me fine. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that each hook was an extension of the sentence "Did you know that....." set-up as Did you know...that (insert hook here), But rather than adding a redundant Did you know to each hook, as it is stated at the header with the three eclipse. If we change the header to just "Did you know", drop the ..., and list the hooks as a set of facts it would fit more in line with what is being done at ITN (main page set consistency). Also agree to drop the "from Wikipedia's newest articles bit", as has been brought up, as many are indeed from expanded, not new articles. The second part might be more controversial, but the first still keeps the spirit of the project, while keeping the grammar "clean". Does kind of change the concept of a "hook" to more of an interesting "fact". Calmer Waters 07:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You talk about "consistency" as though it's necessarily a positive, but in this case that's not at all clear. I've always seen the DYK question format as providing some welcome variety to the main page, that invites a response from the reader. I'm not at all persuaded that dropping the format in favour of yet another plain list of facts would be a good idea. Gatoclass (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a cute gimmick. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that it's as unwieldy as it is cute. I'm not confident that the cuteness outweighs the impracticality, and I'm even less convinced that it effectively "invites a response from the reader." It might be eye-catching, but I seriously doubt that it evokes reactions along the lines of "No, I didn't know that Ruislip Manor was largely undeveloped rural land at the turn of the 20th century until the arrival of the Metropolitan Railway in 1912!". —David Levy 12:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it will work. I gave it a try in my sandbox. The questionmark emphasizes the unusual nature of the info being presented - without it most of the hooks look flat and dull. Gatoclass (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. To me, the question mark simply renders the sentence interrogative, which amounts to unnecessary (and potentially confusing) window dressing for something truly declarative in nature.

Also, most of the information isn't particularly surprising or unusual. And that's fine, but I see no need to pretend that we're delivering something along the lines of Ripley's Believe It or Not!. —David Levy 19:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Have a look for yourself.[2] Gatoclass (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked yesterday. Sorry, I'm just not seeing what you're seeing. In my opinion, the use of a question mark instead of a full stop adds no sense of excitement or wonderment. —David Levy 16:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Gatoclass. I was originally fine either way, but seeing the actual examples swayed me. The current format may be a little gimmicky, but it's a gimmick that works. Without it, the hooks seem to lose their "sparkle" and just appear as dry facts. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The sandbox example changed my mind, too. Keep the status quo. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing it, but it obviously is a matter of opinion.  :) —David Levy 06:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem in the sandbox, but it doesn't look great enough to change an working established system. I saw signs in a Spanish nature park, pointing out nature facts in DYK style, with the "?" Made me smile. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Good Friday

I would like to see De Nederlandse Bachvereniging on Good Friday, with their tradition of a Bach Passion since 1922. I faced problems referencing, but hope now, and invite to look at it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Admins: Please note!

I just approved a hook which should go into the queue on 22 April (Good Friday). Thank you for putting it in the right prep area. Yoninah (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hamfisted multiple DYK frenzy

Hi,
In the last couple of days I've written a small pile of articles.

• The "parent" is Taxation in the Ottoman empire. The "children" are Nüzül, Tekalif-i orfiye, Emin (Ottoman official), Resm-i çift, Rav akçesi, Ispence, Avariz, Adet-i Ağnam, Resm-i arusane, Tuz resmi, Muafiyet, Resm-i bennak, Bedl-i askeri, Gümrük resmi. Sursat, Muskirat resmi, Temettu, Adet-i destbani, and Damga resmi. There are a few more children which are currently short of the size requirement - but rather than expand them, but I'd prefer to concentrate on cleanup of the ones already listed here (especially improving the refs).
• All of those are a series of different taxes, apart from Emin (a tax official) and Muafiyet (an exemption from tax), so writing a hook would take a little work, but it shouldn't be impossible. Probably a hook along the lines of "... that A, B, C, ... M, N, and O were Taxes in the Ottoman empire, whilst Muafiyet were exemptions, and Emins were tax-collectors?"

Anyway, I'm new to your arcane arts of DYK, and don't want to tread on any toes; what's the best way to set about a big multiple-DYK? Are there any unwritten rules which I should worry about? If the first of those articles appeared 3 days ago, should I spend the next 2 days on refining the existing ones, or is there spare time to create a few more, or should I spend time lavishing gifts and flattery on whoever is foolhardy enough to try reviewing them all? My understanding is that the 200-character limit can be stretched for multiple DYKs, but how far could it stretch?
All suggestions welcome, before I drop the bomb on the suggestions page... bobrayner (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the 200-char limit, the way I generally apply it for multis is to not count the characters for each additional hook over one. But you probably have some extra flexibility there anyway. As for what you should do for writing multis, you should keep them all in your sandbox until you've finished the lot, and then add them to mainspace at the same time, to ensure they are all eligible. Gatoclass (talk) 04:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Those are fine points. However, my first sandbox draft gathered dust for months - bringing it into article-space provided motivation to write everything else; there's no incentive like a deadline! bobrayner (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that you have them into mainspace already, I'd say put your nomination in by the time the oldest article hits 5 days. If you then manage to write further articles whilst this is going through the motions, we can amend the hook. Post a note here when you've nominated, and I'll add some suggestions to the nomination as for the review process. Schwede66 04:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Groovy; thanks. 25 now on the suggestions page; there's a few more I could write but it's time to stop, go out in the sun, and do something non-wikipedia for a while. bobrayner (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Last Supper in Christian art

I'd like to claim a co-nom for this as I have added 50% or more of the article as it now stands. It's at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3. Reviewed Marilyn's Cross. I won't add myself. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Accepted. Materialscientist (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Daylight saving

Queue 4 says "... that due to the long sunlight hours of the climate of the Falkland Islands the government decided to keep daylight saving time in winter?" But Climate of the Falkland Islands#Sunshine actually says that in summer (not winter) there are long daylight hours (not sunlight hours) because of the latitude, but not much sunlight summer or winter because of the clouds. So what did you really mean? Art LaPella (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Daylight hours it should be then, not sunlight. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean "... that due to the long daylight hours of the climate of the Falkland Islands the government decided to keep daylight saving time in winter?" The long daylight hours are in summer, (according to the source; that assumes that summer starts before the solstice, which isn't true in the U.S.; see Summer#Timing) but that phrasing sounds like long daylight hours in winter. Does it mean "... that due to the long summer daylight hours of the climate of the Falkland Islands the government decided to keep daylight saving time in winter?" Maybe, but why would they decide timekeeping in winter based on daylight in summer? Art LaPella (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Returned to T:TDYK because the source doesn't elaborate on the reasons of this governmental decision. Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Shorten hook about Oregon Oregon newspaper

I suggest the following shortening, given that the Hoss Award and the U. of O. are not the subjects of the story ( Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 00:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)) :

• ... that, after The Redmond Spokesman won the Hoss award for Oregon's best weekly newspaper three times in five years, the trophy was retired and awarded to The Spokesman's publisher?

The current hook is too long (and should spell-out "3" and "5"), and needs two commas:

• ... that after The Redmond Spokesman won University of Oregon's Hal E. Hoss trophy for the best weekly newspaper in Oregon 3 times in 5 years the award was retired and given to The Spokesman's publisher?

Dispute on an article that is next in the queue

One of the articles in queue 6 (the next to go to the mainpage) has been turned to a redirect. Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 now redirects to SAFE Port Act, I suppose it should be replaced with something in the prep area until settled but want to see how someone with more experience handle's this. J04n(talk page) 02:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I returned it the suggestions page, pending further developments. Since queue 6 has 6 long hooks, I am not replacing it with anything else. (I think it's plenty long enough with those 6 hooks.) --Orlady (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:SAFE Port Act#Merger with Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006? for those who wish to discuss the issue. OCNative (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Heads up - Good Friday hook needs putting in Q

There's a verified hook for Good Friday which is still at the bottom of the suggestions page. It needs to go into a queue so that it appears on the day. Mjroots (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Moved De Nederlandse Bachvereniging to preps (I think this thread was about this nom). Materialscientist (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That it was. Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you (from author) to everyone involved (s.a.), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

How to find whether an article has already been in DYK?

I have a few ideas, but I would have guessed that at least should be on DYK. Is there any way to check on this? If an article has already been on DYK, can it appear again with a different hook? (subject to a further 5x expansion, which I may be able to do as I usually go for GA) --Philcha (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Usually, there should be a DYK tag on the talk page of that article. We've had a discussion on how long should we wait for a second-time nomination of the same article. There was no certain number, but it was something longer than 2 years as I recall. Materialscientist (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It could be argued that the 5x expansion requirement is there to select articles which are effectively new because almost all of the content has been newly-written. In that case, should it matter how long ago any previous DYK was? It's not the same article any more. ;-) bobrayner (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't want to encourage two-step expansions (sparing details for the next expansion). Materialscientist (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Going back to the previous discussion mentioned by Materialscientist, I believe there was widespread agreement that an article can't repeat within 2 years, and can't repeat for the same editor(s). There was, however, no clear consensus on changing the rule to allow repeats beyond that, so I'd say that, barring a consensus here, the longstanding rule that an article can only appear on DYK once still stands. cmadler (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Last discussion on the issue was here, which led to this. So yes, only one DYK per article. Shubinator (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Click on image, go to article

I'd like to propose that clicking on a DYK image takes one to the article rather than to the image page. As the hook image is required to be present in the article, people wishing to see the image page can still click on the image when they get to the article. The purpose of DYK is to highlight new article content, but the images often get many more hits than the articles. Let's face it – for most of the articles featured in DYK, this is their one and only chance to get widespread exposure. I think that opportunity should be maximized instead of directing people away when they click on the image. Going to the article is often what is intended anyways; I myself have sometimes mistakenly clicked on an image when I wanted to go to the article because I'm so used to things happening that way on so many other sites.

This is something which I've been thinking about for a long time, and I finally decided to suggest it after reading comments by Gatoclass about USRC Wayanda. The following are some example stats for recent articles:

article views		image views
Conservation of slow lorises	0.9k	image	3.0k
USRC Wayanda	7.4k	image	21.3k
Salaì	12.9k	image	33.4k
Spirit of the Dead Watching	3.8k	image	7.8k
Lernaeocera branchialis	7.3k	image	11.6k

I only checked very few, so there are certainly many more examples, probably many with even more dramatic statistics. And even for the ones that aren't so dramatic, a significant number of people are still seeing a pretty picture rather than reading the article which someone worked so hard to write. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I suspect most people expect clicking the image to take them to the article rather than to a file description page. I've always kind of wondered why it wasn't set up that way. 28bytes (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we are allowed to do this. PD images would be fine, but with CC images we must provide a link to the image page. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Adabow is right. A helpful alternative, however, might be to add some template on top of hte image page (for the duration of the time it's on DYK) saying something to the effect of "This is the description page for the image X.jpg. If you were looking for the article about Y, click [[here]]". rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As the CC images should be present in the linked article (and in most cases are the first image, so there when loaded), we may be able to get away with linking to the article and letting them follow through. Two points, though:

a) changing the behaviour of in-text images for only some images in the encyclopedia is likely to confuse as many readers as it helps - the one good thing about our unusual "click image to go to description page" system is that it's consistent and, presumably, while a lot of people get it wrong a lot more have remembered how it works by now;

b) and on a similar note, if we want to do this we really need to do it for all four in-text images on the main page at once (FA, DYK, ITN and OTD; obviously not FP). Shimgray | talk | 22:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I support this in principle. I'd just like to point out that it would totally skew the long term DYK stats, unless somebody goes through and adds the image views to the stats. Also, the threshold would probably have to be increased. Schwede66 20:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Queue 3 punctuation

I realize I'm being horribly pedantic, but shouldn't the comma come after "(pictured)" in the Queue 3 lead hook, rather than before it? OCNative (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Although personally I'd refactor it slightly;

Current: ...also designed St Mary's Church, Itchen Stoke, (pictured) in Hampshire?

My idea: ...also designed St Mary's Church (pictured) in Itchen Stoke, Hampshire?

Of course, Hampshire could also be wiki-linked but personally I see that as unnecessary 'field of blue' - 'coz the Itchen link clearly says where Hampshire is anyway.  Chzz  ►  00:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Changed to .. also designed St Mary's Church (pictured) in Itchen Stoke .. as I also try to avoid those multiple "geography" commas. Materialscientist (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Queue 4

Hook 6 in Queue 4 is missing a leading "that". I don't know if this was deliberate in light of the recent discussion on "that", but I don't think consensus was reached. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Added. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Botching hooks

I realise that WP:DYK says "Please note that hooks are subject without notice to copyediting as they move to the main page". However, with no restrictions put on who can queue hooks from the suggestions page into the preparation area (and once in there, they're pretty much through), I wonder about the sense in allowing any random editor to change well considered and consensus approved hooks on their own whim. While one of the main concerns may be to shorten overly verbose hooks, when it leads to hooks losing their meaning or potentially being made wrong, or punchy hooks losing their impact, it's clearly a bad thing. I think this 'rule' needs reconsidering, and a better process needs to be adopted. --jjron (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can see the hooks that are in the queue, and can leave a note here if they notice the hook has been changed to something incorrect. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

In general this situation is best handled by admins simply being aware that ill advised edits, or even vandalism, can occur on rare occasion and performing basic sanity checks. When moving sets to the queues, I do check the edit history to see what kinds of changes have been made since the set was composed. Only once have I found anything other than the types of changes that are encouraged. The one exception was when a user decided to completely rewrite a hook, using facts that were not present in the highlighted article. This change was reverted before the set was moved to the queues. --Allen3 ^talk 20:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of editors who keep an eye on the prep areas, and many useful tweaks are made before hooks progress to the queue. I'd say that this is working really well, but that's not to say that things can go wrong, too. Have you got a specific example, Jjron, that prompted you to voice your concerns? Schwede66 20:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, a great many hooks have been improved on their way to the main page or after getting there, I can think of few if any examples where the opposite was the case. Gatoclass (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Iffy ref in article

I have reviewed Clement W. Payton and raised a concern with the proposer about the reliability of the referencing for the hook. The proposer has modified the hook and found a new (and acceptable) reference. The proposer appears to accept my concerns about the source, but the challenged fact is still in the article, although no longer in the hook. I am not sure what DYKs position on this sort of thing is nowadays so I have come here for advice. I am inclined to pass it as I could not say the source is definitely wrong, or even likely to be wrong. But there may be other ideas... SpinningSpark 23:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Queue 4: James C. Nelson

I was wondering if the James C. Nelson hook could be moved out of Queue 4 since that queue will appear on the main page in the middle of the night in the United States, and few people in the U.S. will be awake. Thank you. OCNative (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It's already been featured, but basically, we don't move hooks just because they'll be featured in the middle of the night in the relevant country without good reason, because otherwise, we'd have all US hooks at one time of day, all British ones at another, etc. Gatoclass (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding - for example - European topics when Europe is asleep, would still leave a mix of the rest of the world for that time and seems a good idea, imo, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

So there is just Europe and the rest of the world? Asia and America are also asleep at different times and different from Europe. Australasia is different again. This proposal amounts to ghettoisation of DYK. It is also unworkable because there is not a neat balance of articles from all round the world. SpinningSpark 00:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't I say "for example"? Replace Europe by Australia ... you name it. I see enough diversity in the rest of the world if one region is representent less when it is asleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I figured it wouldn't be moved, but I thought I'd give it a shot since one person lucked out on #Composers sleep in, q5 above. OCNative (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Nominators and reviews

Is it only self-nominators that should review other DYK nominations, or is it all nominators that should do a reciprocal review? I'm asking because I noticed several nominations where the nominator hadn't mentioned or linked to another nomination they had reviewed. Also, should reviewers check that reviews have been done by the nominator if no diff has been supplied for checking, or is it acceptable to ask for a diff to be provided? Carcharoth (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Only self nominators with 5 or more DYK credits have to do a reciprocal review. It makes sense to make sure a review has been done if required - you can always ask, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm not entirely sure it makes sense to exempt those nominating other articles (what happens if two editors nominate each other's articles for instance?), but at least that answers my question. Maybe it should be made clearer in the instructions? I also saw at least one case where a nominator cited a review they did, once for one nomination, and then again for another nomination. I only noticed because I was searching the template talk page for the mentions of 'La Maison de la Magie Robert-Houdin'. Though the diffs are different. It seems that returning to a review after (say) asking a question, and then completing the review, counts as a new review? I would consider it all part of a single review. Carcharoth (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about that, reviews are counted by hook, not by number of responses. So feel welcome to point out when a reviewer does that so he can be set on the right track. Gatoclass (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've done that in this case, but it is rare that anyone would spot this (I only did so by accident). It might be worth trying to tweak the wording in the relevant places, both on this and to make clearer that it is only self-noms that need to do these reciprocal reviews, though I still think that leaves the system open to the off-wiki "please nominate my article so I don't have to review another hook and I'll nominate one of your articles" requests-type of mild abuse. The way I see it, any nomination (even of someone else's article) should be accompanied by the nominator reviewing a DYK (unless they don't feel able to do so - i.e. someone new to the whole process). Carcharoth (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've brought this up before, but there's no support for requiring those who nominate other editors' articles to undertake a review. Schwede66 20:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Vladimir Velichko

The hook for Vladimir Velichko is incorrect. Velichko was, according to the article First Deputy Prime Minister of the Soviet Union, actually the last First Deputy Prime Minister of the Soviet Union, along with Vitaly Doguzhiev. Also, First Deputy Prime Minister of the Soviet Union redirects to First Deputy Premier of the Soviet Union, so perhaps the hook should be changed to reflect that. PhantomPlugger (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Copy-and-paste in expansions

I've raised a query at T:TDYK#Russian battleship Borodino about the use of copy-and-pasted text to claim (rightly or wrongly) a 5x expansion. Basically, while the article Russian battleship Borodino qualifies as 5x expanded, a large chunk (all of the design section) has been copied and pasted from the article on her sistership Russian battleship Knyaz Suvorov (with the name changed where appropriate). If this text is discounted the article would no longer meet the requirements. I seem to remember use of such boilerplate text was generally disapproved of when calculating expansions, is this still the case? Does the article pass, or is more expansion required? Benea (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say it breaches the spirit of the guidelines, if not the letter. I encountered this with a series of baseball articles as well, though I forget which ones. Something about some baseball statistic copied across multiple articles and reused each time a new article was written. Carcharoth (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Copied text must go through a five-fold expansion as though pre-existing in the DYK article. See WP:DYKAR#A5. cmadler (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Local dupes of Commons material

Moved from User talk:Materialscientist

Hi,

Just a quick note here, I'd like to ask you to stop uploading local copies of Commons images (unless it's a {{m-cropped}} or something). There is no need for this as there is a bot currently that automatically applies forwarded cascading protection from Main Page and Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow to Commons. Local copies costs you time to upload, maintain and delete the image. And, in my opinion, it also damages the experience people have when visiting the English Wikipedia main page. Mainly the fact that they will be unable to properly link to our files as the link will turn into a 404 error the next day, whereas if it would be hotlinked from Commons, it would stay functional. Aside from that, the File-pages with big warnings like "This image has been temporarily uploaded" and (for international users) untranslated interface (since all those tempaltes are English-only) also leaves much to be desired. And lastly, it will decrease the likelihood of people discovering Wikimedia Commons (if images would be linked from Commons they might continue browsing there as well, and discover the great media repository).

Please note that I'm not critizing anyones personal actions in particular, this local-copy workflow has been around on Wikipedia for a long time, and was one of the few methods that actually succeeded in preventing vandalism. But there's an alternative now, and I think we should let that new method do it's magic as soon as possible.

If you have any questions, please reply here or contact me on commons:User talk:Krinkle, Thanks, Krinkle (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

My heart fills with joy hearing that we don't need to do this anymore (uploads from commons). However, please post a message with detailed explanation (or links to) of the protection mechanism and timing at WT:DYK. Without such explanation nothing will change in practice. Materialscientist (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

end of moved section

@Materialscientist: Hereby done, reworded it a little bit. Krinkle (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Looking at what is protected (see Commons:User:Krinkle/enwiki mainpage for the current set), it looks like for DYK only the current Main page image and the image for the next set to be displayed are covered. As current practice is for images to be protected when a set is moved to one of the six queues, this new practice raises an obvious question: Is protecting just the current and next DYK image sufficient for our needs? If not, then can protection be expanded to cover images in all six queues? --Allen3 ^talk 22:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I've asked Krinkle for detailed explanation so that we could think about possible rebuilding of our procedures, instead of copying the thread. I can't imagine a Commons protection scheme which would be compatible as is. The key is we don't have admin privileges on Commons. Materialscientist (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I was very active at DYK during the time when this method was devised (along with Gatoclass). The images were protected in the queues so that there wasn't an issue with someone copying locally during the few minutes in between hitting the main page and it getting cascading protection from being on the main page. So having Commonsprotection on the current image plus the image in the next queue is easily sufficient. Krinkle, can the images in all of the queues be added to the new protection mechanism on Commons? By the way, I'm an admin on Commons so there is at least one dual admin in the DYK group. Too bad that I don't have time to be very active anymore. Royalbroil 03:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be easy to protect all queue images on Commons. We'll loose our ability to alter them, but this might be not a big problem. The problems is regular DYK admins (who normally are not admins on Commons) and our DYK bot need to know how to see if the process stalled on Commons and what to do if it did. Ideally our bot should reliably detect a problem and alert our admins to upload the image locally. This all comes back to my request for technical details. Who or what updates User:Krinkle/enwiki_mainpage/core? How stable it is? How about this bug in cascade protection? Materialscientist (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting proposal. I like it overall, but there are a few nagging issues:

• The bug that MatSci's linked above shows that cascading protection isn't immediate. This isn't an issue when DYK is running smoothly and most of the queues are filled, but what about when we only have 1 queue filled at any given time? (And Royalbroil, this isn't a matter of minutes...the delay can stretch on for hours.) This isn't too much of an issue because DYKUpdateBot should detect that it hasn't been protected and won't update.
• I'm much more concerned about a smart vandal. For someone with knowledge of the DYK image protection process (and for that matter, the main page image protection process), it wouldn't be too hard to slip in vandalized images with the current proposal (assuming a bot is updating Krinkle's cascade-protected userpage).

As for changes to DYKUpdateBot, doesn't look like any changes are necessary. The bot will already check for image protection both on Commons and here (cascade-protected or otherwise) and raise an error if not. Shubinator (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The "See also" section at T:TDYK

I've removed the "See also" section because AlexNewArtBot is dead. The linked page had not been updated in well over a month and thus was serving no useful purpose. The section can be replaced once a new bot is up and running. Mjroots (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Q: Special timing requests

I'm new to special timing requests for DYK, and I RTFM'd a little late I guess. I've made a request for Garden of Ridván, Baghdad to show on the main page on either the 29th of April or 2nd of May. Is there anything else I have to do besides make the request (which is done)? --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 03:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• You actually did what you were supposed to do. After it has been reviewed, it will be moved to the Special occasion holding area. I have done so for Garden of Ridván, Baghdad. For future reference, the nomination does need to be made at least five days before but no more than six weeks before the occasion (incidentally, you nominated Garden of Ridván, Baghdad six days before the date, so your timing was actually fine). OCNative (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• OK, thanks! ^_^ I wasn't sure about the timing, but I figured it'd be OK since there are actually two major Bahá'í holy days coming up, and either one would be fine. Cheers, dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• ...and it made it on the DYK page a little over 30 minutes ago. It is the 29th of April everywhere in the world except for the West Coast of North America, where it's already very late on the 28th. OCNative (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-standard images/files as DYK leads

are not supported by the internet explorer - a major browser - because they put a squared image/file above the DYK set with a large blank to the left (paste this to an IE window to see the effect). This applies to anything that is not formatted as [[File:xxxxx|100x100px]] - non-images, scrolled images, etc. We need either to fix that or ban such formatting. For now we need another lead in prep4. [3] Materialscientist (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

An aside - it is a good practice to leave one prep empty for reshuffle. Leaving a hook at T:TDYK increases the chances to spot errors (full review is visible to everyone). Materialscientist (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

On my computer it looks the same in both Firefox (4.0) and IE (8). rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. On my IE7 it leaves a gap to the left. We usually get complaints at WP:ERRORS from IE users when we feature such files, which is why this thread. Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I think IE7 (and even IE6) are still more widely used than IE8, so this is indeed a problem. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

According to this, as of 27 April, IE 7 is used by 6.34% of Internet users while IE 8 is the most popular browser in the world, as it is used by 29.54%. (Firefox 3.6 is used by 17.55%. Chrome 10 is used by 16.64%. Firefox 4.0 is used by 8.49%. All other browsers—including IE 6—are used by less than 5% of users. While I am one of the 8.49% of people who use Firefox 4, I also have an oddball streak, as I am one of the 3.14% who use IE 9.) OCNative (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The featured article on April 22 used an audio file. Was that a problem in IE? —Bruce1ee^talk 07:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks same in IE7 and Firefox, because TFA uses slightly different image placement. There should be a DYK image nesting compatible with IE7. I tried once to play with it for a few minutes, but failed. Materialscientist (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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:

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• DYKUpdateBot blanked this page when it placed the above message. I've attempted to restore it, but if I messed anything up, sorry! I also notified Shubinator of the issue. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  The bot has also reported "Queue 4 is not tagged with {{DYKbotdo}}". When I check the queue, the template appears to be on the first line of text. Could a couple other people take a look just in case I am not seeing the obvious. --Allen3 ^talk 16:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Its' been updated now, but I saw the same thing. I noticed it just after I posted about the blanking, but you had already added your comment on Shubinator's talk page. cmadler (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Need lots of reviewers

There is a 25-article hook currently awaiting review at Template talk:Did you know#Taxation in the Ottoman empire, Emin (Ottoman official), Tekalif-i orfiye, Resm-i çift, Rav akçesi, Nüzül, İspençe, Avariz, .... So far, three people have reviewed three of the articles and confirmed those three meet the DYK criteria. Could more people join in to help review, so we can get this megahook done? If everyone who sees this message reviews just one of the articles in the hook, we could surely finish. OCNative (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(pictured)

Prep area 1 (or the queue file it will eventually be moved to) is missing (pictured), as required by J7. I'd add it, but describing exactly what is "pictured" can be controversial (it isn't the entire German High Seas Fleet, for instance). Art LaPella (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Tried with "squadron pictured"; cropped the image (which showed more than a squadron). Better suggestions are welcome. Materialscientist (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks OK. An alternative is to picture a different hook. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If the info isn't provided with the nomination, I'd simply pick another one as the lead hook. Schwede66 02:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It barely passes J2, too. Edward John Trelawny has a nice portrait and an interesting hook. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

... and a very comprehensive article. Schwede66 03:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Trelawny was meant to be the quirky one. Got replacement for that? His photo is not much better, and the ship article is a GA. Materialscientist (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The ships just aren't that great seen at 100px. I could put a picture of Beyonce in Run the World, but (seeing as its mine) I don't want a COI. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't take me wrong. The ship picture is a poor thumbnail. My point was to think about the set as a whole. Sure any Beyoncé image would look better, but it is an April 2011 song, so be prepared to the usual MP comments "how much did she pay wikipedia to have it as a lead on the main page". having it in the middle is better in this sense. Materialscientist (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, yes that could happen. I mean the ship image is OK, and I'm fine with keeping it so, I was just searching for alternative hooks+images. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Prep 2

The ship's speed is given in mph. The speed of ships is measured in nautical mph, better known as knots. Therefore the measurement should be ½ kt (0.9 km/h). Mjroots (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not actually correct. Ships and boats used on coastal or inland routes usually use mph/kmh. In my experience, it's generally only ships used for deepwater oceangoing service, between countries for example, that have their speed measured in knots.

In any case, a DYK hook is really not the venue for such quibbles - DYK hooks have to be clear and accessible to a general readership, and there's no question a lot more people will be familiar with mph/kmh than knots. Gatoclass (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

feast or famine?

Hi all, do we have a backlog of articles currently or is it still lean? I see there is a long "tail" date-wise. If there is a feast I'll leave off for a bit (or write a multi-one), otherwise I'll write more. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a surge of submissions during the late-March to early-April time frame that prompted an increase to the update frequency two weeks ago. Since then new submissions have been at a manageable level and the backlog has been steadily declining. Based upon current trends, we will probably be reverting the change to the update frequency in two to four weeks. --Allen3 ^talk 09:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so the queue is decreasing. I'll make up some more...Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Prep3 article up for deletion

In hook 2 of Prep3, Lisa Head is up for deletion. Perhaps the hook should be moved back to T:TDYK pending the outcome. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Returned, replaced, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've placed Wedding dress of Kate Middleton as the lead in prep3 per request at my talk that it would be better to feature this hook soon. Please do criticize this choice as much as you wish. Materialscientist (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well developed article; good photo. Thus, it's lead hook material. And I can guarantee you that it will get a huge number of views. Good choice. Schwede66 21:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

lack of proper info on placenames?

Very frequently when I read the "did you know" section I am left baffled about where the places are that are being mentioned. For example, "...that the church of Llangadfan (pictured), near Dyfnant Forest, was visited by Saint Cadfan who founded a church there before moving to Bardsey Island in 516?", so the author thinks "Llangadfan (pictured), near Dyfnant Forest" is an adequate explanation of where the place mentioned is. I think "Llangadfan, Wales" would've been far more appropriate and informative. I notice the other entries also merely mention which particular US state is relevant to the article mentioned, while the only entry that actually mentions a country is for an article relating to Mexico. It seems the author(s) are presuming quite detailed geographical knowledge when it comes to Britain and America and none when it comes to other countries. It would be nice if the author(s) could exercise some degree of consistency on this matter and treat articles relating to English speaking and non-English speaking countries the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.251.76 (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Admin assistance request

Could an admin please update the queue. There are currently 4 empty queue slots. I would like to start preparing more prep areas but they are all currently full.4meter4 (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ready now, sorry for the delay. Gatoclass (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Review requested

Internationale Maifestspiele Wiesbaden, Hessisches Staatstheater Wiesbaden were nominated last week (first IMF expansion, then Theater new)), a reviewer had a question on 28 April, I expanded and added refs and informed the reviewer, no reaction so far. I would appreciate if another reviewer could take a look, interesting opera involved, but that's a different story, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Lolita, prep 2

I mentioned the opera Lolita with the Internationale Maifestspiele, now in prep2. I didn't know it was bolded as a new article there, and nominated it seperately, stressing the composer and the subject, relevant to the opera. Can the bolding and DYKmake be undone, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Already done.4meter4 (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Couple of questions

Hi all I have been working on a new article here User:Jim Sweeney/Sandbox campaign. It will be titled Operation Mallard which is at present a redirect.

1. First when entering for DYK do I list it as a new article or a x5 expansion ?
2. Just having noticed that today's date is just a month away from the anniversary of the operation. I now intend to enter it for DYK on 6 June. Knowing there is often a two week or more delay between nominations and new articles appearing on DYK, what is the procedure for requesting a date for it to be on the front page. I don't mind keeping it in user space for a week or two if that would help in a nomination.Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Re #1, I normally submit redirects turned into articles as an expansion, but either way is fine, I think. 28bytes (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• It's a new article, however, you should note that any text copied from the section of the existing article must undergo a 5x expansion. Regarding timing, go ahead and move it to article space and nominate it when you're ready. Requests for specific dates need to be nominated at least 5 days before the date in question, and no more than about 6 weeks ahead of time. We're already in to that window, so any time now is fine. cmadler (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies - I started from scratch and have not copied any text so that's not a problem.Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Image help plz

I added an image to the DYKMake for Spademan binding, but it doesn't seem to be showing up. Can some have a look and see what I did wrong? Thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and do I add "pictured" or such to the tag? Or does that happen if/when it hits the queue? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the image, but you still need to add alt-text to the image and modify the hook so it includes "pictured".

Images do not go in the {{DYKmake}} template. To add an image while nominating please review the guide to nominating. To add an image later you can always just look at some other entry that has an image and copy the wikitext. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll go add it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

License of postage stamp image

The license on the postage stamp image File:Cezanne-france1961-CardPlayers.jpg, currently in Prep 3, applies to the image depicted on the stamp rather than to the stamp itself. I know extremely little about such issues, so hopefully someone more knowledgeable can take a look. If it is a problem, an image of the painting which is unquestionably free, can be substituted. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The artist died in 1906, so the stamp is in the public domain. Specific info here.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know that works by Cézanne are PD, which is why I mentioned substituting an image of his painting. But the link provided deals with the designer of the stamp, who is unknown but has definitely not been dead for 70 years. Although the design elements are minimal, choices were made. A similar example: a photograph of a PD painting which includes a three dimensional frame is not PD because the photographer selected the viewpoint and lighting. For the stamp, a designer decided upon such things as the border design and the placement and style of the words. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's the US, I would say that's fine, because the addition of font and a border isn't original enough to qualify for a new copyright. For France, it's probably the same, but I wouldn't put money on it.. howcheng {chat} 00:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I approved this hook with the picture. It is not disputed that the painting is PD. Once copyright has expired, it cannot be recreated. The real issue here is what copyright applies generally to works of the French Government. An original design stamp issued in France is copyright, one that uses a PD image is not, per the evidence presented at Commons. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Most postage stamp issues are copyright. The US was unusual in not having a stated copyright until 1969, but having special laws until then greatly restricting use of postage stamp images (e.g. movies had to use "fake stamps" even in background shots). Many countries, however, send out images with "cancels" (often a small diagonal black line in the corner) for publication. In any case, the postage stamp itself is not PD, no matter what the basis of the vignette is. Collect (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC) See also [4] On 1st January 2009, it appears that all postage stamps of France issued until 1918 seems to be in the public domain (and not the 1919 stamp known as "the two orphans" - cause: no informations found on the date of death of Surand and Jarraud Collect (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Loire

Really? An article created nearly nine years ago is eligible for DYK? The 5x expansion criteria applies to "former redirects, stubs, or other short articles", yet this broke the 10,000 byte mark in 2008. Hardly in the spirit of highlighting Wikipedia's newest articles.   jroe ^tk_cb  18:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

From the rules (emphasis added): "Former redirects, stubs, or other short articles in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are also acceptable as "new" articles. The content with which the article has been expanded must be new content, not text copied from other articles." It was already a reasonably long article at 5.6k of prose, and it was expanded in April to 35k of prose. Schwede66 19:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In which case there's something wrong with either the articulation of the rule, or the nomenclature "newest articles." Someone who isn't very familiar with Wikipedia is going to react, "Holy crap, it took these yahoos this long to come up with an article about a river this important? They must be stupid and/or doomed." The inclusion of the Loire under "newest articles" doesn't reflect well on the encyclopedia, even if there's a perfectly good reason for it. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 19:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that was actually meant in response to me, or if you were just quoting the rules in full for the benefit of others, in which case feel free to ignore this... but I clearly read the rules, since I quoted the same one myself. I'll do so again: "former redirects, stubs, or other short articles". The point being that Loire has not been a stub or short article for several years and therefore the 5x expansion rule clearly should not apply. I'm not trying to pedantic, really, I just think that handing out DYK credits to veteran Wikipedians for articles that are in no sense new is a bit of a slap in the face to less established editors for whom getting their contributions featured on the main page feels like more of an achievement. There are lots of other ways of recognising mature articles. Plus, like ZenSwashbuckler said, it does give a bad impression - "how the hell did we not have an article on the Loire until now?" was exactly my first thought.   jroe ^tk_cb  20:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's much more of an effort to expand an article that is already quite substantial than to write a new one that only just complies with DYK's length requirements. But it's technically not exactly in line with the rules, and I thus propose to amend the rules by omitting one word as shown here: "Former redirects, stubs, or other short articles in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are also acceptable as "new" articles. The content with which the article has been expanded must be new content, not text copied from other articles." Schwede66 21:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I support such an amendment of the rules. If an article is expanded fivefold, there is a lot of new information, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Schwede66 18:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

But it's still not a new article. Changing the rules like this is boils down to changing the purpose of DYK from recognising new articles to recognising any expansion. I don't mean to diminish the Loire editor's hard work, but they could have taken the article to GA or FA instead.   jroe ^tk_cb  07:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

On: "the article stood there for ages". Bytes don't tell much about content. Most such articles taken to DYK were a dump of unreferenced information, often translated from another wiki - and this information is often trashed upon rewriting. DYK rules require some quality, namely referencing, wlinks, coherent prose, etc. Thus rewritten article can be viewed as a new article. There are tons of such dump around, and they will not get any better if we think of them as "well-developed articles". Materialscientist (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Short" is obviously a subjective term. Relative to the current article, the prior version was short. This also suggests that relative to its potential, the prior article was short. Considering the Croughton-London rule, and keeping in mind that we're only looking at written prose (so excluding the lists of tributaries and of départements and towns through which it passes) we probably wouldn't call the prior article a stub, but it's certainly reasonable to call it "short". cmadler (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Interesting, a few weeks ago I brought Edward John Trelawny from around 8K to around 42K bytes of prose. The article had existed since 2004 and been about the same length since 2007. I decided to expand it 5x partially for the purpose of getting it on DYK. There are a lot of short articles on obscure subjects with tons of available information, and I think we're better off giving people any motivation possible to expand them. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Rule on election candidates on DYK

A new user, BelloWello, and I are discussing my self-nomination of Bernard Trottier, a newly elected Canadian MP. As the election occurred two days ago, BelloWello rejects the nomination on the basis of this rule: "Articles and hooks featuring election candidates within 30 days of an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a 'multi' which includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates." I contend that the rule exists to prevent electioneering and provided links to Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 59#Electioneering hooks, this diff, and this diff that show the origin of the rule. Could someone weigh in at Bernard Trottier? Thanks! OCNative (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've signed it off. We should change the wording of the rules, removing the unintended ambiguity. Schwede66 05:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Did the trivial and obvious change. Collect (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Queue#Local update times

Perhaps it's a good idea to change "Tokyo" (UTC+9) to "Hong Kong" (UTC+8) as there are arguably more English speakers in that time zone? Plus, Tokyo is just one hour ahead of Sydney (UTC+10). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

May 6th queues

I just realized that the Template talk:Did you know#POLYGON experiment has a connection to May 6th. The leader of the experiment was born on May 6th, and would have turned 94 tomorrow. It's a bit short notice, and I know the queues are already ready, but I was wondering if there was some way to IAR and have it on the may 6 queues, possible by moving some entry to appear on May 7. If not, it's not really a big deal, but I figured I'd at least ask. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not, I would also think, but then better mention the date somehow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Prep 1 image

File:Spademan binding blue.jpg currently in Prep 1 is still waiting for OTRS approval. I don't know if it will be cleared before the picture hits the Main page. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be no change in the image status (still waiting for OTRS approval). As it is getting time to move the set to the queues, I have shuffled the hooks and swapped to a less problematic image. --Allen3 ^talk 11:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Local update times

I've been looking at a world map, and we're missing a few key location, both in terms of geography and of editing communities. I would be nice to add

• Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
• Moscow, Russia
• Beijing, China

As well as the UTC times to the tables, IMO. Opinions? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• London is UTC, so that's already on the table (just not marked as such). There's a proposal above to replace Tokyo, which is UTC+9 -- only one hour ahead of Sydney (UTC+10) -- with Hong Kong, which is UTC+8, the same as the entire People's Republic of China, and I think that's a fine idea. As for Moscow and Rio, keep in mind that this is the English Wikipedia, so this should be based on what's most convenient for English-language editors. I suspect that listing New York, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Hong Kong, and Sydney puts a listing no more than one time zone over from the vast majority of potential English-language editors. The biggest gap is probably eastern Europe, western Russia, and the Middle East; I really don't know how many English Wikipedia editors are from that area, though I'd guess that it's not a huge percentage. cmadler (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that London is UTC+1 since it's summer there. — MT (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

London is UTC+1, but Summer don't start until 21 June. Wikipedia runs on UTC though, so midnight, 6am, midday and 6pm updates are 1am, 7am, 1pm and 7pm London time. Mjroots (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I dislike adding more timezones to the template; we're running out of space. Keep in mind that it's May now, so "6 May 2011" fits on one line fairly well..."23 December 2011" takes up a lot more space. Shubinator (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have too strong an opinion as to whether more zones are good or not. But if space is the issue, wouldn't a short date format (e.g. "23 Dec") do the trick? Schwede66 00:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think more timezone is needed, but maybe a line under the city/location defining the timezone would make it clearer. Something like this:

	Los Angeles UTC-7	New York UTC-4	London UTC+1

This would make it easier for users who are not living in these timezones, to easily calculate when will the next update occurrs. Any opinions? — MT (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should have UTC (at the moment I believe London is on British Summer Time?) and include the actual relation to UTC beneath the cities' names. Shortened dates are also a good idea. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Queue 1, hook 5

I want to suggest a slight modification to the hook:

• From: ... that basketball player Othyus Jeffers and his two older brothers, Gerome Allen and Edmund Allen, were all shot during three separate shooting incidents in their hometown, but only Jeffers survived?
• To: ... that basketball player Othyus Jeffers and his two older brothers, Gerome Allen and Edmund Allen, each was shot during three separate shooting incidents in their hometown, but only Jeffers survived?

to prevent misunderstanding and to clarify that only one of them shot during each incident. Thanks. — MT (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

how about "... that, in three separate incidents in their hometown, basketball player Othyus Jeffers and his two older brothers, Gerome Allen and Edmund Allen were shot, but only Jeffers survived? " betsythedevine (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I still like my original suggestion, but any hook is fine as long as it's not misleading like the current version. And yes, shooting could be ditched. Anyway, I'll let the admin who will modify the hook to decide which hook is better. — MT (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone?? The hook will be featured in the main page in less than 7 hours. — MT (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Screen capture request

An article I wrote, Twicket featured in DYK yesterday; and I missed it because I was working in a polling station for the UK local elections all day :-(

Can anyone tell me where I can get a screen-shot of the main page, for yesterday, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where you get a screen shot for the whole page from, but you can find the hooks at Wikipedia:Recent additions. Schwede66 21:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

IceMole prep 1

I was to late to raise the following questions while it was still in the suggestions. I found IceMole tagged "major restructuring" and a stub, that should probably be cleared before appearing. A footnote in the university article says that Aachen has a Fachhochschule AND a university, if that's true it can't be the Fachhochschule OF the university. The article has no link to the university, so I guess the hook should not have it. I don't have time to dig deeper, real life ..., --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gerda. The article is not ready for front page publication in its current state. 21:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I have now returned the article to the nomination area. Schwede66 05:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed the "stub" tag and "underconstruction" tags (both placed by me very early in the development of the article). It appears Fachhochschule Aachen has an article on English Wikipedia titled "FH Aachen", and it is itself a University of Applied Sciences. Have amended the hook accordingly. May I request revetting? AshLin (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Gerda Arendt's latest concerns appeared to be regarding the equivalence of English and German words. I have addressed the concerns there. Please reconsider the DYK hook. I am happy to reply to any other observations, thank you. AshLin (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Concerns were addressed in a pleasing way, but I suggest someone who knows the terms of scientific research better than I do has a look at the hook and the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Women in Vietnam

See my comment on the talk page. How did this ever get to DYK? I wrote "The first paragraph reads like a propaganda piece, totally neglecting the other side of the story. The second paragraph is was off by hundreds if not thousands of years. Wife-buying, kidnapping, rape, etc did not just start in the 1980s. This article needs serious rework and should never have made it to DYK."BarkingMoon (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass commented there and agrees the article is random and wholly inadequate.BarkingMoon (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfair not to give credit. It technically went live on main page. - AnakngAraw (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

See my reply at the article talk. Reputations of WP, DYK and individual editors are more important here. Once they are maintained, there will be many more credits to go. Materialscientist (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Asserting though that problems about it should have been discussed at DYK suggestions so I could have addressed it there. - AnakngAraw (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It should have been discussed at T:TDYK before promotion. After it went live, it was unfortunately too late to fix the article or initiate the discussion. This is not a regular situation, sorry about that. Materialscientist (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously you must be feeling very disappointed, but in this case I don't see how more discussion at T:TDYK could have resolved the problem. "Women in Vietnam" is a potentially huge topic, your article was little more than a random collection of facts. DYK submissions do not have to be perfect but we do have a requirement, per additional rule D7, that Articles which fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. When you pick a very broad topic for a DYK submission like "Women in Vietnam", you are effectively inviting rejection unless you have written a very substantial article. I suggest next time you choose a more specific topic to write on, it's far more likely you will achieve success that way. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I take responsibility for approving this for DYK. I realized that the subject is very broad, but I thought that it was more like a start-up article that other editors could add to. The page did strike me as essayish, and now I understand the objections to it as a collection of random and possibly POV facts.

The page creator has recently submitted similar articles to DYK that are all along the same lines. Some have received approval, some not. See:

Template talk:Did you know#Women in Singapore

Template talk:Did you know#Women in Indonesia

Template talk:Did you know#Women in Thailand

Template talk:Did you know#Women in Armenia

Template talk:Did you know#Women in Oman

Template talk:Did you know#Women in Cambodia

Template talk:Did you know#Women in Northern Cyprus

Template talk:Did you know#Women in Laos

Yoninah (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I moved a fair amount of these to the Prep area before I saw this discussion. I'm not sure what action is appropriate at this point. There are currently four of them, on Armenian, Oman, Singapore and Indonesia in the Prep area. I fear they have the same problems... BelloWello (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the Women in Cambodia article and it looks okay to me, it does have some obvious problems IMO with tone, weight and so on, but it certainly provides a much more comprehensive overview of the topic than the Women in Vietnam article. So I think these submissions will probably need to be assessed on an individual basis. Gatoclass (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Women of Cambodia moved to prep. Can someone please look at the four I mentioned previously before they go live? BelloWello (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The only ones left in the Queue are Women in Oman and Women in Singapore. Women in Oman is okay, Women in Singapore is a bit scratchy but I think it can probably squeak in. It's not bad enough to be worth the wikidrama of pulling it anyhow. Gatoclass (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait, I see there's a couple more. I have some NPOV concerns about Women in Armenia, and I think Women in Indonesia is inadequate. So I think they should go back to T:TDYK. The creator may want a little more time to work on them, but quite honestly, I think the Women in Armenia article is too thinly sourced and I very much doubt the problems can be fixed in a reasonable timeframe. Gatoclass (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Those that will be DYKd will be DYKd. But don't make it live on mainpage then pull it off afterwards. Somewhat unprofessional, because it was approved. There is room on article to edit it while live plus a talk page to put comments on how to improve the DYKd article further. Time to be more open and collaborative. Really. - AnakngAraw (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad

I've linked Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad ITN a few days ago, and it stood there that way - linked, but not bolded. Now it is the lead in prep3. Should we feature it? Materialscientist (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind using something else as the lead. I just thought it was a kinda "newsy" DYK that readers would find interesting and be drawn to. If you want to use something else, that is 100% fine with me. BelloWello (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Prep area 3, non-neutral hook pointing to article with POV tag

This hook, as was pointed out in the DYK discussion, contains one word of criticism to balance a heap of praise : "... that Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle was called both "biased" and "a rich and insightful read" which demonstrates how the rest of the world could learn from Israel's case?" I do not think the hook is neutral and the article still has major POV issues as well: [[5]].

The rules say that anyone can remove a bad hook from prep and restore it to this page for more work, but I don't know how to do this nor do I want to do such a thing unilaterally. Because I have been involved in trying to improve the article, I would like to ask somebody neutral to offer advice. When I say somebody neutral, I mean somebody experienced at DYK, not somebody whose main contributions at DYK have been to support or endorse this article or other articles with similar themes or by the same author [6][7][8] betsythedevine (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Multiple neutral DYK reviewers who did not edit this article (including myself) gave this article the thumbs up. And even one who initially opposed, Gatoclass, approved it ultimately. The only other editors who opposed the promotion were editors like Betsythedevine which do not regularly review at DYK and were involved in editing the nominated article. Betsythedevine appears to have a POV axe to grind. She's trying to upset the already neutral balance achieved in the article because it doesn't fit well with her own bias. Are we going to allow neutral articles on controvercial topics to be submarined at DYK, just because a biased editor unfairly accuses it of POV issues? I should note that when I promoted the hook, the POV tag had been removed by another editor. 4meter4 (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not see that Gatoclass had approved the article. My "bias" is that Israel is a wonderful country with much to be proud of but that articles promoting one country's virtues overmuch should be balanced with what critics say. It is funny that just as I was writing up a polite notice to 4meter4 on his talk page, he was over here blasting me for my concerns. I really will defer to Gatoclass if he thinks the article has been balanced, even though I don't agree completely. But I still think the hook is unbalanced. I also notice that brand-new editor BelloWello has responded to my concern about balance by removing even more of the critical remarks. betsythedevine (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I lost my temper and was unfair in my criticism of you. I had one of those 'open mouth insert foot' moments when I read your message on my talk page. lol I should remember to wait until I remain calm to respond. In his last post, Gatoclass said to wait a day to promote it, which I did. He assured me that the problems were basically worked out. However, clearly they haven't or we wouldn't be here. I personally am not convinced that there are any POV problems, although I don't think any criticisms should have been removed. A clear majority of non-involved reviewers gave the article a thumbs up, but if we need to take it back to the suggestions page again we can. Best,4meter4 (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, 4meter4. I just learned something even more at the talk page which I did not really understand before, something very helpful explained by Gabriel F, which makes me see how I have been going around putting both big boots into my own mouth without realizing it. Now in my opinion, 4meter4 and Khazar are absolutely uninvolved, good-faith reviewers who approved the article. But three others endorsing the article (BelloWello, BorisG, and Broccolo) seem by their histories to speak as friends admirers of the author, not as neutral parties. I don't consider them more "uninvolved" than Gatoclass. Now I am going back to the article to write a Mea Culpa and then I am going to sleep so I hope that experienced smart good peoplelike 4meter4 will figure out what to do that will be the best thing for Wikipedia. betsythedevine (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I had never edited a Israel/Palestine related article of any sort (unless I edited a bio without remembering) on this account or my previous; neither have I had a any interaction of any sort with the nominator/author until this particular hook landed right underneath my nomination and got my attention. Your assertion that I was somehow "involved" when I gave a thumbs up to it is untrue and inappropriate, as is your insinuation that my judgement at that time was in any way influenced by its nominator who I had never interacted with before. Please strike that in the whole. BelloWello (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My inference about the interests and attitudes of your current account was based on 5 edits made on your second day of editing here on DYK, April 25, your only 5 edits at DYK that day. betsythedevine (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• 20110425 supports hook for Mbz1's article "Orphan's Decree"
• 20110425 confirms Mbz1's article Encyclopedia of Pleasure
• 20110425 confirms Mbz1's article Start Up Nation overriding concerns just expressed by Gatoclass and others
• 20110425 defends Mbz1's article Start Up Nation as NPOV
• 20110425 defends "Hamas school bus attack" article as NPOV.

(ec) ... that Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle was called both "biased" and "a rich and insightful read" which demonstrates how the rest of the world could learn from Israel's case?

Whatever the POV, this hook makes no sense to me - it says that (i) I can lean something from the fact that somebody called some book "biased" and "insightful" and (ii) suggests that Israeli can learn nothing from this book. Materialscientist (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent point Materialscientist. I got so distracted by the whole POV bickering that I actually didn't give the hook itself as much of a critique as I should have. I've moved the whole thing back to suggestions. So, problem solved... sort of.4meter4 (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• • @Betsy. The talk about "involved", "uninvolved" and "friends" as something bad is very damaging. We all must be friends; we all must help each other. It's good to be friends. Let's be friends. It means compromising on content created by others even if we think it is less than perfect.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Very good advice, and I would be honored to be your friend! Let me clarify that I mention the histories of BelloWello, BorisG, and Broccolo only to balance the repeated claim by BelloWello that all those supporting the article were "uninvolved" editors. I absolutely did NOT mean to suggest any impropriety by them or by Mbz1, whose contributions to Wikipedia have justifiably gained her many admirers. To clarify that I just went back and changed what I said to describe them as her admirers rather than her friends. But of course everybody has a right to express an opinion and let's hope we all have the same goal of making things better here. betsythedevine (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree the article is "balanced", it reads rather too much like a publicity blurb to me, and the "About the authors" section I added was removed, along with some criticism of the book. However, whatever issues remain are not serious enough at this point IMO to challenge its promotion. Regarding the hook, as an alternative how about:

• ... that according to the authors of Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle, Israel has more companies listed on the NASDAQ than any country except the United States? Gatoclass (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll start by saying I was fine with the original hook; I don't consider it POV to introduce a book by mentioning its thesis, which is how the rest of the world can learn from Israel's case, especially when it's made clear that that thesis is controversial. (I never read the hook outside of the pull-quote as an endorsement of that thesis, but rather a restatement of it). That said, I agree that Gato's is more concrete, more clearly NPOV, and more interesting, so I agree that it would be preferable. I've confirmed its source in the WSJ article. And by the way, how terrific has Gato been in helping this nomination get main-page ready despite her/his initial reservations about the article? A class act. -- Khazar (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Amen, to the praise for Gato. Double amen on the class act. Gato's new hook is fine, in my opinion, but would it be more of a teaser to say something like * ... that according to the authors of Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle, compulsory military service in Israel has given a boost to its economic success?" BTW I took the POV tag off the article since (as per Gato) despite whatever issues it might have, the huge improvements via collaboration of diverse users make any remaining issues seem minor by comparison. betsythedevine (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Queue 1

Um, List of La Sierra University Presidents in Queue 1 doesn't meet the 1,500-character requirement for DYK. How did it make the DYK queue? 75.62.159.131 (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently some of its text was removed [9] after it had been approved and passed to prep [10] betsythedevine (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Returned to T:TDYK. Materialscientist (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

THe text has been readded and an explanation provided on talk page. BelloWello (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

What's going on with this one? I don't find it on the nominations page or anywhere in the queue, and the article doesn't even seem to exist except within project-space at Wikipedia:SDA/LSUPresidents. cmadler (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I just saw Matsci's note at the article. cmadler (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Queue 1 (Chanel suit hook)

I asked the question at the reference desk (here) whether the "inauguration of President Lyndon B. Johnson" should be the "inauguration of Lyndon B. Johnson" (ie, drop "President"). The discussion there is a bit inconclusive but I feel it would be best to remove "President" from the hook, just to be on the safe side, as it would then certainly not be incorrect. Ericoides (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Dubious. Johnson was inaugurated as vice-president before his presidency. Materialscientist (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Please could I draw the attention of reviewers to...

...the remaining unreviewed hook under the May 2 heading: the six-part Multi-hook: churches in St Leonards-on-Sea. Sorry for making an appeal here – it feels rather pushy, which is not my intention – but I fear it may have been overlooked, and in the next few days I will have very little time indeed on WP to attend to any changes/queries, unfortunately. Thanks, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This has now been reviewed, for which many thanks. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Queue 1

In the lead hook, should "its" be replaced with "it"? To me, it doesn't sound right, but it could be a BEng / AEng issue. Schwede66 21:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Changed by Allen3. It sounds right (better) to me too. Materialscientist (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No, 'its' is correct. Could you please it back to "its", which is how I submitted the hook? Ericoides (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"Its" is the possessive adjective of "it" (a reference to the dress). What is the dress supposed to be possessing? --Allen3 ^talk 16:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The property of being stained, of course. Despite is a preposition; it has to be followed by a noun phrase like "its being stained". "It being stained" is an absolute construction, not a noun phrase. —Angr (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The sentence includes a possessive gerund; neither form is correct or incorrect, but some people prefer one or the other.

We can just avoid the issue entirely by rewording "despite it being stained" to "even though it was stained". rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, a happy compromise. Ericoides (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Prep 3 Queue 5 too new?

I recognize that hooks do not need to be placed in the preps in order of date, but Prep Area 3 seems to be full of relatively new hooks when there are many older approved hooks left on the suggestion page. Surely, some of the older hooks could have fit in the set instead of stuffing it full of new hooks. Specifically, of the Prep 3 Queue 5 hooks: Met Ball is from May 4; Chinatown, Newcastle is from May 6; FCC v. AT&T Inc. is from May 7; the rest are from May 8 or later. Of the approved hooks sitting on the suggestions page, there are:

• 15 hooks from April 30 to May 3 (older than every hook in Prep 3 Queue 5)
• 21 hooks from May 4 to May 5 (older than every hook in Prep 3 Queue 5 except Met Ball)
• 23 hooks from May 6 to May 7 (older than half the hooks in Prep 3 Queue 5)

In other words, the 36 approved hooks from April 30 to May 5 are older than all but one of the Prep 3 Queue 5 hooks, and the 59 approved hooks from April 30 to May 7 are older than half the Prep 3 Queue 5 hooks.
Surely, some of those numerous older approved hooks could have been promoted before promoting these newer hooks. I would put some of these older hooks in myself, but there are no empty prep areas, and I don't want to send an entire prep set back to the suggestion page without discussion here. OCNative (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the issues, I would repeat - it is a good practice to keep one prep empty. Materialscientist (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with OCNative. Further, many times newer hooks are not viewed by more experienced reviewers who tend to focus on the older noms. The approved hooks on the bottom of the page often have mistakes in the reviews which are not caught until they get up into the expiring noms area. I personally think we should set a policy saying that only approved expiring hooks can be promoted, unless there are not enough approved hooks in the expiring section to promote. Further, I think all of the hooks in Prep 3 Queue 5 should be moved back as they should not have been selected over the older hooks.4meter4 (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems Prep 3 has been moved to Queue 5 now. OCNative (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles and hooks promoting one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided

"The DYK section gives publicity to newly created or expanded Wikipedia articles," says WP:DYK.

DYK's publicity value should not be exploited to showcase on our front page contentious material about any nation or religion. Wikipedia is not censored, but getting a link to "your" article onto the front page via DYK should require that both article and hook conform to Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Selection_criteria -- one element of which states "Articles and hooks which focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals, or which promote one side of any ongoing dispute, should be avoided." (Emphasis added.)

I believe that the following articles were created, nominated, and supported in good faith by people who perceive their own WP:POV to be simple and accurate truth -- but I also believe that all of them violate our rule against promoting "one side of any ongoing dispute."

• April 25 nom
• April 20 nom
• April 15 nom
• March 3 nom
• February 22 nom
• February 22 nom

We should of course be equally opposed to seeing DYK misused to promote anti-Israel articles or hooks, or anti-Obama or anti-Trump or anti-anything efforts by anyone to land damaging blows on any kind of enemy via DYK. betsythedevine (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the use of DYK to gain exposure for partisan hooks and articles has been a problem, and that this needs to stop. It might be that the Village Pump would be the right place to propose this, but what would you think of starting with a requirement that fair notice for a reasonable length of time be required on an article's talk page when an article is going to be proposed here, along with disclosure of the proposed hook, or at least a link to it, and to the right place to comment about the proposal?

I suggest this because I was disturbed, some time back, to learn that an article I was collaborating on was about to go "live" on the main page with what I considered an extremely POV hook based on a description I'd objected to in the article itself, and one that I believe several other editors working on the article would likewise have objected to, had they known of it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) Two of those nominations (April 25 and the earlier February 22) appear to me to be reasonably neutral hooks for reasonably neutral articles about obviously non-neutral books. That is, the books promote one side of an ongoing dispute, but the articles and hooks seem to me (after a cursory look) to be reasonably neutral. cmadler (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I do like the idea of putting a notification on the talk page of nominated articles (especially if it could be done by bot!). That's a reasonable courtesy to (other) article contributors. cmadler (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to CMadler -- A link from Wikipedia's front page is a very nice advantage for a non-neutral book. Letting DYK be gamed for political advantage is against the spirit of our policy.

Response to Ohiostandard -- The DYK process is meant to be a quick way to get interesting stuff onto the front page; there is an obvious conflict between DYK's purpose and the lengthy process needed to put contentious material into NPOV shape. Note also that the long history of bitter conflict enshrined at W:ARBPIA gives little hope that consensus will be quickly reached on any related article. To quote one of the principles cited at W:ARBPIA: "Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited." And this principle should also be followed at DYK. betsythedevine (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes. But are you saying you think people working on an article don't have a reasonable right to know of its presentation here, and of the proposed hook? Because without such a notification being required (I love Cmadler's bot idea) the only way for that to happen is if everyone working on any article watchlists DYK, which I don't think is a fair or realistic requirement.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion is excellent. What I was trying to say was that on truly contentious topics notifying more people won't suffice to stop enthusiasts from promoting inappropriate articles to the front page. Contentious articles should be flagged from the get-go as ineligible for DYK based on existing policy. "signed" Betsy who is not signed in on this computer. 140.247.145.208 (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with the idea that entire categories of topics should simply be off-limits. Regarding the books, lots of things are not neutral but still noteworthy. (Consider, in the US, the phenomena of 9-11 "truthers", "birthers", etc.) We should strive to cover such topics in an NPOV fashion, not avoid those topics! Also, could you explain why you feel Jafr alien invasion promotes one side of an ongoing dispute? cmadler (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

<--My link above was not to the much-improved article Jafr alien invasion but to the hook originally proposed for it by Mbz1: "...that on April 1, 2010 security forces of Jordanian town of Jafr were sent into desert to look for flying saucers (pictured) that reportedly landed there a night before, but were not able to find any?" [11] In my opinion, this was one of many "sneering at stupid Arab nations" hooks and articles that have been front-paged via DYK. Similar examples would be " that the governor of South Sinai said the idea that Israel was responsible for the recent shark attacks (species pictured) on tourists in an Egyptian resort needed further study?" [12] and "that Saudi Arabia's officials detained a vulture, as the one (pictured), and accused him of spying for Israel?"[13]

Of course Wikipedia should "cover" controversial topics in NPOV fashion. I am merely calling attention to policy for DYK. DYK promotes only a tiny fraction of Wikipedia's new articles. If an article on a contentious topic can truly be made POV, it would be fine for that article to go to DYK if the hook is also neutral. What happens instead is that partisan editors create, nominate, and approve each other's articles and hooks, said articles move to the queue and get front-paged. Using DYK "to promote one side of an ongoing dispute" violates DYK policy. I am willing to believe that all this occurs in perfect WP:GF -- that many sincerely believe praising Israel or smearing Israel's critics is a perfectly legitimate use of DYK and the front page.

Consider the case of Itamar attack, where several DYK editors raised red flags about the article's POV -- but Epeefleche and Mbz1 marked it ready to go, so off to the prep and then the front page it went with the hook "that the Itamar attack was an incident in which five members of a family were stabbed to death in their beds in the Israeli settlement of Itamar in West Bank?" pointing to an article that not only was not NPOV and "stable" on March 23 but remains in bitter dispute even today. To create a "stable" article on a contentious topic is not easy.

So, what I'm saying is ... contentious topics in Wikipedia articles? Great idea, let's write about them all and try to cover them with NPOV. Contentious topics in DYK? There is an obvious problem between DYK policy, that articles and hooks must be NPOV, and the difficulty of creating NPOV articles on such topics. I would just urge other editors to keep an eye out for articles on such topics, instead of letting them get pushed up into the queue by fans of one side or the other despite problems obvious to a neutral observer. And if you see a hook or an article with a problem, flag it so others can take a look at it. betsythedevine (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that a DYK just about a book may be questionable. However, if this book reveals some interesting facts, it does belong to DYK. Remember that facts themselves are perfectly neutral, even if one does not like them.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The DYK rule says hooks and articles should be NPOV. If someone writes a DYK about a book full of interesting facts, that book could sail through DYK with no problem, assuming the article and hook are NPOV. Suppose the interesting facts in this book are contentious, however, then the article may become a battleground as partisans for different sides of an ongoing dispute seek to add interpretations that favor their own side and censor interpretations that they don't like. Reaching NPOV in the article then becomes difficult. Until the article is stable at NPOV, however, it is unsuitable for DYK placement on the front page. That is DYK policy, even if one does not like it. betsythedevine (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I only said that facts by themselves can not be "contentious", but only their representation or interpretation. Sure, let's follow NPOV. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Betsy's comments seem prescient, given the recent strife over the DYK/Article for Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle, a book by an AIPAC affiliated venture capitalist who focuses on Israel and who maintains that Israelis are much better entrepreneurs than any other country's citizens. The exceptional ability he posits is, as he explains it, the result of two factors: immigration, and what he views as the extraordinarily positive value of compulsory service in the Israeli military, an institution his book praises to the skies.

It's been my own view that this book is more of the same nationalistic flag-waving that we've seen here recently, and that its cheering for the Israeli military isn't something we needed to promote on our main page. I'd also objected strongly to the recent state of the article on NPOV and due-weight terms, in that it included around three times as much praise as criticism. I'd also objected that pro-Israel editors expunged the single-sentence mention of the first-author's AIPAC involvement; they were very insistent that this not be included in the article, and it isn't, presently. Further, I'd raised wp:redflag concerns about its claim that the Israeli start-up scene is pretty much a "streets are paved with gold" environment, when an independent report by the Milken Institute actually paints a rather grim picture of that scene.

Finally, I'd likewise objected to using Wikipedia's voice to parrot the book's ubiquitous statement that "Israel has more companies listed on the NASDAQ than any country except the United States" (yesterday's main page DYK hook) as if that were evidence for its entrepreneurial excellence. The Milken report would lead one to believe that it's actually evidence for the opposing view: That Israel has more companies on the NASDAQ than other countries because its own domestic stock market is underdeveloped relative to the domestic capital markets in other countries. One could reasonably conclude that Israel has little choice but to use a foreign stock market for most of its IPOs, and that the NASDAQ is merely its most attractive choice.

I mention these points not because I want to renew the controversy over them (don't let's, please) or rehash the strife that took place at this article's talk (link/permalink) and at (the article's entry) at T:TDYK, but because they serve as a further illustration of what I see as the recent use of DYK to promote highly political and highly nationalistic themes.

Again, I've posted this here so uninvolved editors can consider it as part of this present thread. Please don't anyone use its occurrence here as a springboard to renew the controversy over this.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A small measure of recognition for an under-appreciated community!

I am new to DYK and have been pleasantly surprised at the amount of value reviewers of DYK add not just to the proposed DYKs but also to the articles concerned. As a small acknowledgement of those countless bits of value added by innumerable DYK reviewers, I collectively award them, as a gesture of thanks from the community, the DYK Medal. AshLin (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

		The DYK Medal
		This medal is awarded to all DYK reviewers in recognition of the value added to articles during the reviewing process. AshLin (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Somebody should say thank you for this kind gesture, so I will. Schwede66 17:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for DYK

This may have been asked or suggested before if so apologies. There are many (hundreds) of articles with very little of no references. Some of the big unreferenced articles can/could never be expanded x5 because of their size. Can I suggest to improve Wikipedia as a whole and as an incentive, that any unreferenced article that has been improved by the addition of reliable sources even if not expanded x5 (it may even have decreased in size) be eligible for DYK. A good guide could be the WP:MILHIST B class assessment. If an article was only start class but an editor has improved it and brought it up to B class, within five days it can then qualify for entry at DYK. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

i don't think this would work. We need solid criteria for article improvement. The criteria for B, C, etc., class are very vague and vary between the projects. Some articles can be well referenced with two sources, some need at least 20, yet this tells nothing about their quality or amount of work required. Materialscientist (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That was just an example the focus was on article improvement. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules#A4: "expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was .... This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article."

As has been said before, there are lots of ways to improve an article, and there's no reason that every small improvement everyone makes needs to be on DYK. I like to believe that editors are capable of improving articles from time to time without having a carrot dangled in front of them... rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)