Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 68

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

→

Archive 75

Has anyone double DYKed?

Anyone ever taken a DYK and gotten another DYK on same article via expansion?TCO (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope not. D1 - Items that have been on DYK before (pre-expansion, for example) are ineligible. Worm^TT · (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This has been brought up in the past under an IAR exception. I believe it had to do with an article that had been nominated 2 years prior. I believe that there is a kind of unwritten rule that an article can't be renominated for a period of time after appearing at DYK. Consensus at the time was against an article appearing again to soon (2 - 3 years). I could possibly find the discussion, but may take awhile to comb the archives Calmer Waters 04:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict, still the first question:) Not me (never even thought of it, "Do it right the first time"), but it happened more than once that I mentioned a stub in a hook and then got so fascinated by that subject that I created an article, s. Paulinerkirche, Leipzig, which was pictured with the first hook, not its own. (It was a stub when I suggested it in an ALT, but no longer when it appeared, as I had promised.) - As for hits (which I don't think are as important as content): they have much more to do with the time of day and the picture, and can't be compared anyway, some 6-hours, some 8 hours. I was lucky to have an unpictured hook together with the cicada mentioned above, that got an unexpected number of hits, I conclude that if the lead picture is attractive the whole section gets more attention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually. thinking about Gerda's answer, I have... ish. Tripled, in fact. I've had Doom Bar as a DYK, and then as a sub link twice. I've also done the same with Stargazy pie, but only once there. Hooks are here - but the bold one only appeared once. Worm^TT · (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the article Santa Muerte has appeared as a DYK on the main page twice. Once in 2004 and again in 2009. Calmer Waters 05:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

@Calmer Waters, I remember that, it was one of the older German warships written by User:Parsecboy. I thought the consensus was none at all, but that's just my recollection. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like it. Calmer Waters 06:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, my "good memory" would have been much worse if it hadn't been a ship. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• My recollection and sense of the prior discussion is that there was strong agreement that an article can't come a second time from the same nominator/expander, and it can't come a second time within about 2 years. There was no consensus reached on allowing repeats that met those constraints, and so the status quo (no repeats at all) was retained. cmadler (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

One I expanded appeared twice, only because nobody including myself had noticed. I forget what it was. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK images: time for greater flexibility in size?

There have been two major threads about thumbnail image size on the main page recently. Even David Levy, who's cautious about these matters, agrees that some pics could be larger, at least in TFA. DYK has the benefit of occupying 55% of the horizontal width of the page, as opposed to the 45% allowed for the bulletted OTD and ITN hooks. This gives more latitude for boosting pic size where appropriate, given that text wrapping is logically and in practice less of an issue on the left side of the page. Is there any reason the queuing admins (and by suggestion the nominators) can't size the the occasional pic a bit larger than the 100px squint-size. This size has remained stuck and inflexible for five years, irrespective of the level of detail in the pic, and how eye-catching it is. Why can't 110px or 120px be used occasionally?

This one, for example, seems to work OK at tiny size. It's a portrait, and not at high res anyway.

This one is richer in detail and interest, and I think readers would find it much more effective at a bigger size. 100, then 110, then 120:

This is just a speckled yellow rectangle to me, and defeats the purpose:

This one is lovely, but I think it fails the image rule at squint-size. What exactly is it?

Chavruta, a current nom, has a pic of what looks like mould on a wall. But wait ... let me move my nose very close to the monitor. Thoughts? Tony (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that some pics would look much more informative if larger, thinking of this

Having said that, I would like to see it, BWV 75, go to prep the sooner the better, to avoid to many Bach cantatas in a bunch, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I used to set DYK image width or height up to 150px, only to be reverted by some main page admin. This needs consensus at talk:Main Page. Materialscientist (talk) 09:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently there's no issue if TFA images go larger. I will raise it at the main page. Gerda, I don't understand your comment. Tony (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Which comment? The unrelated remark that I would like to BWV 75 for last Sunday go to prep, because the next one is BWV 10 for the feast 2 July? - Different question: How do I make a pic square? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

<--I recommend, if possible, making a picture square, since it gets shrunk down based on its largest dimension. The DYK image must be in the article, so for my Nasothek article I kept the bigger picture showing context and added the square close-up I'd created for DYK so people could see the finish of different noses in more detail. What would others think of changing the DYK rule so the image should be "already in the article, or a detail of an image already in the article"? Sharktopus ^talk 11:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Rule change: I agree. But I'm at a loss as to why the picture should be of square dimensions. Hardly any pics are. Tony (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed rule change/clarification; a detail from an image used in an article is acceptable. As for why a picture should be of square dimensions, take a look at my comment below about the Nikolaikirche photo. Whatever size limit we use will be applied to the longer dimension of an image. The more-nearly square an image is, the larger it will be. cmadler (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• The Brunias painting was extra-problematic because of black borders on the sides. Of course, images can always be cropped further when needed. First image is the original, second has the black borders removed, third is cropped to show detail, all are at the current standard DYK size of 100px in the longer dimension.

cmadler (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• • Similarly, I think the Nikolaikirche photo could be cropped to remove the bottom 1/4 or so, and since that shortens the longer dimension, it makes the image much larger. Current image at standard DYK size is 66x100=6600 pixels; cropping the bottom 1/4 makes it more nearly square, giving an 88x100=8800 pixel image...it's 33% larger, plus it's zoomed on the area of interest! cmadler (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree and asked above how that could be done. I didn't upload the pic and have little experience in editing pics, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your question. The only way I know to do it is to download the original image (make sure to get the full-resolution version), edit it on your computer using image editing software of your choice, and then upload it (using a different file name so you don't overwrite the original), indicating the file of which it's a derivative. cmadler (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Shark says: "it gets shrunk down based on its largest dimension". Really? I'm not sure I understand, technically ... is this just for the main page that this happens? I very much like Gerda's St Nicholas pic in its verticality, which suits the whole composition and effect of the image. It would be a pity to crop it. This is why I think queuing admins should have the latitude to resize a pic to whatever is most effective (within limits). Tony (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I should be clearer and say just "my observation is that my pictures have been shrunk down on T:DYK based on keeping their longest dimension below some minimum. Then they go to Prep/Queue/Front page with the picture just the way the DYK software shrank it when I submitted it to T:DYK." When I noticed the "penalty shrink" on non-square pictures, I started looking for ways to crop my pictures to be square, to show more detail in the DYK format. Some pictures look better uncropped, of course. Here is a version of Gerda's image edited square to show at 100 x 100. Sharktopus ^talk 21:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, taken to the nom, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• The decipherability for the reader is much better, because it appears bigger (it is bigger in area, I guess). But gone is that lovely vertical composition. Can you tell me, is it only the main page that applies this "penalty shrink"? Is it a written-down procedure, or just a practice? Tony (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• • I was going to suggest raising this at Main Page talk, but I see it is already there. They also reference some archived discussion that recently said no to making images bigger. Sharktopus ^talk 05:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are DYK candidates being passed with questions unanswered?

Why are DYK candidates being passed with questions unanswered? This isn't just a one-off by a single person. Three people have each passed candidates on to the prep area. Did three people each come up with the same error independently within days of each other, or is there a systematic problem with the process?

Can we slow down a bit? Lightmouse (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw two such events where you pulled an approved hook out of prep, maybe you can point out the third.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=436647275 A hook confirmed on June 22 by Albacore. On June 27, Lightmouse added a question, but without specifying said question should cause a fail to the already-confirmed hook. :Which bit is extraordinary? The loan or the height? Lightmouse (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=436691202 A hook confirmed on June 22 by Nvvchar. On June 27, Tony1 added a question but without specifying said question should should cause a fail to the already-confirmed hook. Discussion ensued. On June 28 some apparent chat continued about possible improvements to the article. "Bob, I'm delighted to find that glossary exists. Would you consider inserting some pics, as the Association football guys have done? These glossaries really deserve to be worked up to featured list noms, they are so valuable. Also, you might consider formatting on single lines as they've done. Up to you. TTT, the "(2005 – 2, 2008 – 2, 2009 – 2, 2010 – 2, 2011–2)" gobbledy is still there; any way this could be formatted in a kinder way to readers (especially non-experts)? Tony (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)"

DYK uses symbols to indicate an article is not ready for prep, but such symbols were not used in either case. I am not aware of a policy supporting the idea that questions raised, with no indication that the article is unsuited to DYK, put a permanent hold on an approved article's going into prep. Articles are approved, or they are not approved. Those two were approved. Sharktopus ^talk 16:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see any suggestion in the first case that the article or hook was unsuitable or not ready. With Owen Crowe, there was a request for further edits which were not done (changing "US$" to "$" after the first use and reformatting "(2005 – 2, 2008 – 2, 2009 – 2, 2010 – 2, 2011–2)"), but this is confused by Tony's extraneous comments requesting photos and formatting changes in the glossary of poker terms. Tony also worded the requests very weakly ("any way this could be formatted in a kinder way to readers (especially non-experts)?") and in no way made it clear that he expected the DYK appearance to be held until this was fixed. Tony: this is exactly why we have those five reviewing icons, which you seem to be unwilling to use. In this case, a simple would have clearly indicated that, although the article and hook are generally suitable for DYK, it's not ready yet. Lacking any such clear indication, I find it understandable that a hook marked as verified would be moved into a prep area. cmadler (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this right: you're in such a hurry to speed through this crazy production line that you don't even bother to quickly read through reviewers' comments, or to see that the nominator hasn't even bothered to address them. Encouraging nominators to dump and run (many seem to think it unnecessary to return once they've dumped) is a fast track to a mediocre product, flying in the face of reviewers' good will. No wonder LM is non-plussed. This system of pretty symbols is not mandatory, and often it flies in the face of collaborating with nominators to improve hooks and/or articles; please read the rules. Tony (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What cmadler is suggesting is that using the "pretty symbols" properly can help flag a hook that's been approved but still has problems that need to be addressed. Assembling prep queues is a pretty thankless job, but you can help them do a better job by adding the appropriate visual cues. 28bytes (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict, but fits) The system of symbols is useful. So much reading is necessary in the process, - a simple system is desirable. I think a green is a green, and if there is no other symbol below, I don't blame someone who moves to prep. Example 1: I approved one today and at the same time suggested an alternate hook. Even without the nominator returning, a prep composer might take that or the other. Example 2: a hook is approved, later questions are raised without a symbol, a prep composer might take the approved version if s/he likes it. Example 3: a nom is marked red, then green by the same reviewer, - that looks misleading, and I personally would "blow out" that red light. Green for this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

To give another example, I occasionally add a question like "would this sound better without (redundant word X) or with (phrasing Y)?" without feeling strongly enough about it to hold up the nomination; by leaving off the icon, I (try to) make it clear that it's okay with me whether other editors incorporate the suggested change, or not. If it's a question I feel needs to be resolved pre-queue (that is, one pertaining to core DYK criteria), then I add the appropriate icon. For me, it makes a convenient and clear shorthand. And while I agree with Tony broadly that nominators should try to track the progress of their hooks, it has to be said that the current format of this page makes that extremely inconvenient. I don't feel it's the best use of editors' time to ask them to check back daily for two weeks running just in case somebody adds an additional question (especially after their hook's initial approval), but rather that reviewers should be encouraged to notify those nominators with the standard template if they have concerns beyond the first review; the latter only takes a moment to do and saves all the double-checking. With luck, though, we'll be switching to a watchlist-style format per the above discussion and this will become a moot point. Khazar (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In light of what I found here, I'm going to be brutal. None of the above excuses washes. There is no lack of coloured icon on this page adjacent to my name/comment, yet Allen3 (talk · contribs) saw fit to wave this through without supplementary comment by me. It seems that Frogger thought it was OK in the end, but nobody thought to notify me if I thought the article remained problematic. This is unacceptable. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• I do not see why reviewers should be obliged to put icons adjacent to their comments. Sure, they are useful and allow for quick processing, but is there really such a rush to post stuff that hasn't been properly reviewed? What is more, there is no rule to say something cannot be queried at any point in time. After all, that's what is being asked of us reviewers... DYK is still going full-pelt, with the fairly recent plagiarism scandal seemingly a distant memory. Those defences aside, to those of you arguing for visual cues, the current notation is thoroughly confusing: it is not immediately clear what each of the five pretty icons mean, viz: {{subst:DYKtick}}; {{subst:DYKtickAGF}}; {{subst:DYK?}}; {{subst:DYK?no}}; {{subst:DYKno}}. The active 'hold'. The one that causes me the greatest brain-ache is 'Symbol possible vote.svg {{subst:DYK?no}}'... has anyone noticed it is purple (and anyone slightly colourblind would be incapable of telling the difference) and also has what resembles a tick on it?? The icon representing outright rejection, is illogically a light orange colour, whereas it should be an unambiguous red. If anything, the orange icon should represent 'hold' --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• I've just been informed that there's an WP:ACCESSIBILITY problem in distinguishing two of the colours (red–green colour-blindness).

  Don't forget the extra time and bother of cutting and pasting those symbol templates (not inconsiderable, when you've just written your verbal suggestions/advice, which sometimes takes considerable application, and none of the symbols quite matches what you want to say). The key to the symbols doesn't mention hooks; why can't there be a symbol for unsatisfactory hook alone (but article passes)? But I'd rather just write it.

  As Khazar points out above, the page makes it impossible for nominators and reviewers to watchlist individual noms: I've been told by a techie editor (I'm hopeless at that) that this would be trivially easy to arrange. Why can't it be done? The current system makes it laborious to relocate a nom, and when you press [edit]], you often have to go backwards, refresh, and try again. This is a broken page, technically. Tony (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  • (Responding to both Ohconfucius and Tony) If you believe there is a problem with the current icons, whether of color or of shape, you are welcome to create and propose new icons with which to replace them. As for an article that passes but a hook that's unsatisfactory, I'd use , which the legend gives as "DYK eligibility requires that an issue be addressed", but if you feel strongly that such cases need a distinct icon, again, feel free to create and propose one. As for the ability to watchlist individual noms, you might want to take a look at WT:DYK#Page restructuring (and further discussion at User talk:Shubinator#DYK thoughts), where this is currently being discussed. This will also fix the problem you mention with editing. There is clear consensus for the change, but I don't know how to do it, you say you don't know how to do it, so we're stuck waiting for someone who does know what needs to be done to do it or let us know. In the meantime, complaining about it isn't really productive. cmadler (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

@Tony Not trivial. If I were more sensitive, I'd think my technical work at DYK were unappreciated. No, us techies who actually do the work put in a lot of sweat so the end-result is seamless for you guys. Shubinator (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• A change in symbology seems like a good idea. Regardless of the symbology on the suggestions page, note that anyone can move a hook out of a prep area, returning it to the suggestions page for more discussion (or total rejection, as appropriate). More eyes on the prep areas (and, for that matter, the approved queues) are always welcome. --Orlady (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Implementing AfD-style transclusions

I just made User:Rjanag/T:TDYK as a test of how this will work. Scroll to the bottom for the interesting stuff. It's basically as simple as this; instead of using {{NewDYKnom}} to nominate the article at T:TDYK, they just use the exact same template to make the same nomination at a subpage (e.g. T:TDYK/some article), and then transclude that subpage onto T:TDYK. This is roughly the same as how AfD is done. It takes one click more than before (nominators have to both edit the subpage and add their nom to T:TDYK; adding noms to T:TDYK is probably something that could be bot-ified but I think it's probably easier, for now at least, just to let nominators do it and give them clear instructions).

Really, the only thing that needs to be done to start doing this is to update the instructions for nominators (ideally with a clickable <inputbox> form to create the subpage they need, and an editintro with that inputbox that gives them instructions on transcluding their nom into T:TDYK) and update the instructions for reviewers. I imagine promoting hooks would be a pain under this system (since you'd have to edit the subpage to grab the hook and the author/nominator credit templates, and then back out and edit T:TDYK itself to remove the transcluded nom—we could talk about other options, such as putting some parameter within the subpage itself that when turned on would <noinclude> the whole thing). Other than that, I don't think anything special needs to be done; people could just start nominating like this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Something like this:

rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) I was working on test instructions in my sandbox (User:Cmadler/sandbox/DYK transclusion) and taking a bit of a different approach, locating the discussion at a sub-page of the talk page of the nominated article. Take a look at the direction I'm going and see what you think. cmadler (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess both methods work. (Yours is similar to how AfDs are done in, for instance, fr-wiki.) Personally, I think the method I outlined might have less of a learning curve for familiars who are already familiar with how we do AfD, MfD, FAC, and PR (although, to be fair, GAN does work more like your method), and it seems like it would be more organized (all DYK nominations are subpages of the same page, although I don't know if that really matters). Also, the inputbox I made makes it easy to preload the template and stuff, which should help standardize how people post their noms, although I think it's possible to do the same thing using your method as well.

(By the way, if anyone has any feedback on that inputbox above, feel free to let me know. I took advantage of the space and listed every possible parameter of NewDYKnom in there, but I don't know if maybe that will scare editors.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My idea was that doing it this way could combine it with the talk-page notification that we've previously discussed (but not implemented?). cmadler (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've added the same preload template into mine (at User:Cmadler/sandbox/DYK talk template). Putting the template on an article talk page creates a link to the subpage with preloaded template, and then once the subpage is created, my template becomes a transclusion, so the entire DYK discussion shows on the article's talk page. cmadler (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a pretty much up-and-running version together now at User:Rjanag/T:TDYK now. Feel free to go there and try out posting some fake nominations.

I also just tried out the version at User:Cmadler/sandbox/DYK transclusion, which also is more or less ready to go. It's very similar to mine, the main difference is that it involves one additional edit (similar to AfD, you first edit the talk page of the article you want to nominate, then click a link to write the nomination page, then transclude the nomination page here; in mine, the first step is removed because of the button box). All the other differences are trivial (the issue of whether the nom page is a subpage of T:TDYK or the article itself is immaterial, because either of those can be made to happen in both Cmadler's and my setup).

I don't see any clear advantages or disadvantages of my or Cmadler's version, as far as I can tell it just boils down to personal preference, so it would be great if people could comment as soon as possible on which version they like better, so we could streamline our efforts in the same direction. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Both versions look excellent to me. I suppose my slight preference would be for Cmadler's version, as it's a nice touch to include a template on the talk page of the nominated article to potentially bring in additional comment that way. Thanks to you both for the time you've put into this. -- Khazar (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion can be transcluded on the talk page in either version with essentially the same amount of work. In Cmadler's version it's a necessary part of the process; in my version it's optional but can be done with a single edit by placing

== Original, interesting, extraordinary ==

Three words are used in the guidelines about a hook: Original, interesting, extraordinary.
:Section 1 says that a hook has to be original and interesting.
:Section 3 says: "The hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation, since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article. The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it, since the fact is an extraordinary claim; citing the hook fact at the end of the paragraph is not acceptable."

This does not mean, to my understanding, that a hook fact HAS to be an extraordinary claim, the term - which didn't appear before - seems merely used to give a reason for the citation requirement.

I believe that a hook fact should be worth knowing, regardless of sensation and "extraordinary claim". If the guidelines get interpreted differently, may they be changed? Or do I misinterpret them? --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 11:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
:Criterion 3 clarifies that hook-facts are assumed to be an extraordinary claim; that is, out of the ordinary. If you want to change it from "extraordinary" to "out of the ordinary", that would seem reasonable. For all intents and purposes, it would make little difference. A hook-fact is not any old fact. In addition, there's "punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article". [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 11:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
::That is a very good suggestion, Tony, and I have added a clarification to criterion 3 to the end you suggest: (Note, "extraordinary" is used here to mean "out of the ordinary", not "exceptional to a very marked extent.") <font style="font-family:sans-serif;color:black;"> <span style="text-shadow:#0099cc 0.12em 0.12em 0.12em; class=texhtml">  '''''[[User:Sharktopus|Sharktopus]]'''''</span> [[user talk: Sharktopus|<sup>talk</sup>]]</span></font> 12:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
:::Thank you! --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 12:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
::::Thanks, Sharktopus. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 17:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::Just for fun, on "extraordinary": what do you think is the ratio in hits of a peace treaty and a Sonderkommando? (same slot, first guess, then [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Germany/DYK_2011#June|look]])  --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 18:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
*Sorry Gerda, before I look at the answer and spoil it, where do I find the hooks? [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 05:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
:*If you click "look", you do not see the answer, so don't be afraid. You get to the articles listed by date, 28 June. If you click the date, you get to the archive with the hooks, if you click the article's talk, also the hooks. If you want more guessing, don't click "look", but guess "Fortress of Mimoyecques", --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 10:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

== [[Baku Museum of Modern Art]] ==

Could I ask for some new eyes to look at [[Template_talk:Did_you_know#Baku_Museum_of_Modern_Art|this DYK nomination]]? It was rejected because of some fixable flaws, but those flaws have now been repaired, in my opinion.  <font style="font-family:sans-serif;color:black;"> <span style="text-shadow:#0099cc 0.12em 0.12em 0.12em; class=texhtml">  '''''[[User:Sharktopus|Sharktopus]]'''''</span> [[user talk: Sharktopus|<sup>talk</sup>]]</span></font> 12:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
:With large thanks to Ynglingadatter for helping to bring the article up to DYK-ability, I am happy to report that this article became its creator's first DYK. <font style="font-family:sans-serif;color:black;"> <span style="text-shadow:#0099cc 0.12em 0.12em 0.12em; class=texhtml">  '''''[[User:Sharktopus|Sharktopus]]'''''</span> [[user talk: Sharktopus|<sup>talk</sup>]]</span></font> 11:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

== Both quantity and quality ==

I've been reading the earlier discussion with interest, where it was suggested to reduce the number of DYKs and focus on quality. I also read the various arguments for and against this, and the essay-type response at "Back to the basics". I particularly agreed with the comment ''"wikipedia needs both quality and quantity to achieve its purpose and maintain its relevance"''. Pondering on that, I did have an idea where DYK would retain the current quantity, but would change slightly to allow a focus on a subset of increased quality that some have been suggesting.<p> The basic idea would be:
*(1) All reviewed and vetted submissions get used (none that are usable are rejected)
*(2) The best X submissions per cycle are used as a series of hooks (selected by director or vote)
*(3) The rest for that cycle are put in a running list (just article name, no hooks) at the bottom of the DYK section
The exact numbers and frequency of change could be adjusted to fit the volume (e.g. the hooks could stay for longer and the running list of hookless new article names could refresh more often). Would something along these lines be workable? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 00:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

:I like the idea of separating interesting hooks from the junk that technically meets the DYK requirements but is boring. On the other hand, though... I hate to sound like a broken record, but point (2) sounds pretty similar to the "interestingness criterion" that I have argued against in the past discussions, and I can't think of any way to make it happen that would be fair and not invite a lot of drama fests. <b class="IPA">[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b> ([[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]) 01:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
::Interesting proposal and in an ideal world it would strike a better balance than what we currently have. Unfortunately, I have to agree with Rjanag that the subjectivity element would create a 'drama monster' that none of us want to live with. On a side note, glad to hear that what I wrote is being read and taken seriously.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 03:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
:::Rjanag, let's ''make'' it an ideal world. Everything is subjective, as the opening to the DYK rules says. I have a good feeling about Carcharoth's proposal. But a few queries:<p>"All reviewed and vetted submissions get used (none that are usable are rejected)"—isn't that the case now?<p>"The best X submissions per cycle are used as a series of hooks (selected by director or vote)"—Yes ''please''. But voting would be messy, slow, and cumbersome. We need a directorate as a natural evolution of this process. FLC is humming with its directorate, which was instituted in 2007. They've never looked back. I have great confidence in the admins who run the queuing system: it's hard work and requires the balancing of a number of matters beyond what we reviewers and nominators have to deal with. But they a vote of confidence by editors at large to extend their role to selecting and rejecting new and recently expanded articles (the whole point of DYK) on the basis of the rules. The process needs to gain more control over matching supply, demand, and quality. A major factor in doing this is the availability of sufficient reviewers. At the moment, we don't have enough for the tumultuous flow of noms.<p>"The rest for that cycle are put in a running list (just article name, no hooks) at the bottom of the DYK section"—I'm concerned about this. I say either hook it or chuck it. Hooks are the magic of DYK, and they make the main page magic, too. We have to accept that not every new or recently expanded article has a hookable fact (and one that is citable ''in situ''). [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 08:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

::::I imagine sufficient reviewers will always be a problem. In my experience, there is pretty high turnover of reviewers, with many people doing a stint for a couple months and then moving on (although there are a few editors who have reviewed regularly for years, they are definitely the minority). I myself fall into that category, as I haven't reviewed articles in over 2 years except on a sporadic basis. To be honest, reviewing these things gets quite boring (at least, for me it did; and given the large number of other editors who have also stopped reviewing, I imagine it did for them as well). <b class="IPA">[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b> ([[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]) 13:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::I've been reviewing only for a short while. I'm wasn't bored with it, it's rewarding to see that a little bit of collaboration in review sometimes brings out a really good hook. The thing that stopped me drove me away was seeing candidates moved to prep with either
:::::* review questions unanswered
:::::* answers posted but the candidate vanished before the reviewer could see it.
:::::Both cases made me think review is regarded as optional. [[User:Lightmouse|Lightmouse]] ([[User talk:Lightmouse|talk]]) 17:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

::::Responding here to Tony's comment ''"I say either hook it or chuck it"'' - it was the proposal to chuck some DYK nominations that are perfectly valid that caused most of the objections to your proposal. That was specifically why my proposal explicitly stated that all valid DYKs would be accepted (if there are problems with poor article quality, NPOV, dubious sources, plagiarism, copyvio, etc., that should be dealt with separately and the DYKs rejected for those reasons alone).<p> My proposal is intended to subdivide the accepted ('approved') DYKs into two sets: (1) those that are most 'hookable' and/or of really good quality and/or of a particular type; and (2) All the rest, which would get put on the main page, but as a list of 'new articles' (not quite streaming across the bottom like a ticker tape, but almost like that). The main objection would be that these would be 'second-class' DYKs, but the idea is to motivate people to aim for higher-quality DYKs if they want to be in the 'hooked' section and also to allow the 'hooked' section to have a slower turnover than the 'hookless' list. To meet the 'subjectivity' objection, the DYKs with hooks could instead be 'expanded' articles (rather than new ones) or some other criteria - the problem being that a 5-fold expansion of a single-sentence stub is essentially equivalent to a new article. Hardest of all is expanding 5-fold an existing longish article (one that is already a few thousand words) - it is that sort of expansion that doesn't get enough recognition, although it is these expansions that arguably improve the encylopedia most.<p> Two other objections would be that it would be harder to tailor the DYK output to geographical areas/time zones (as is done now), and the effort spent suggesting hooks for articles that were run without hooks would be wasted. But one thing I would like to see is a way to distinguish (in terms of absolute size): (i) small new articles; (ii) larger new articles; (ii) small expansions of existing articles; (iii) large expansions of existing articles. Expansion of existing articles should be encouraged more. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 02:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::Carcharoth, I just think the ''type'' of newly created or newly expanded article has been gradually changing. It's due to the fact that we're approaching 4 million articles, like, one for every 100 native speakers. When there were 1.5 million articles, the low-hanging fruit were relatively plentiful. This has begun to and will increasingly be something that DYK needs to deal with in how it scopes eligible articles. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 18:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

== Improving DYK via [[WP:CIVIL]] and reducing drama ==

I'm concerned that people are getting their tempers frayed in some encounters here, resulting in bity-ness spreading to other encounters. Sharktopus has not been guiltless but means to do better, and in particular to abide by the part of [[WP:CIVIL]] that says "avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible." 

No DYK submission, no opposing reviewer's argument, no matter how flawed, should be dismissed in a rudely contemptuous way. When people get angry, they start looking for public revenge against the one who made them angry -- and we-the-captive-audience end up wasting time that could be spent writing articles. So, don't say things that are likely to make people angry. Please. 

If you have a real complaint about another editor, take it to ANI or WQA or even RFCU -- and then, acronymically, please just STFU. Don't create drama in T:DYK or WT:DYK, and don't let drama impact the professional way that you interact with any editor's actual editing. <font style="font-family:sans-serif;color:black;"> <span style="text-shadow:#0099cc 0.12em 0.12em 0.12em; class=texhtml">  '''''[[User:Sharktopus|Sharktopus]]'''''</span> [[user talk: Sharktopus|<sup>talk</sup>]]</span></font> 07:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

== "New article" requirement too stringent? ==

[[Micronecta scholtzi]] was a stub consisting of one line of text plus an infobox. I happened across a BBC article detailing a little-known fact about this insect and feel that it should be exposed to more readers. The present criteria for inclusion as a DYK make that impossible. [[User:Androstachys|Androstachys]] ([[User talk:Androstachys|talk]]) 09:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
:You're right that it's not currently eligible, but it's not for the reason you think. In addition to new articles, DYK also accepts articles that have been expanded at least five-fold (measured by readable prose), which that has (nearly ten-fold). The key thing still keeping it from DYK right now is length; DYK articles need to be non-stubs with at least 1500 characters of readable prose. Right now that article is at 912 characters, so you need to expand the readable prose by at least 588 more characters (and make sure it's no longer a stub) to get it into DYK. Thanks, [[User:Cmadler|cmadler]] ([[User talk:Cmadler|talk]]) 09:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
::(ec)A stub with an infobox could easily become a DYK, as per [[Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Selection_criteria]], if you expand the prose fivefold, etc. and get it up to 1500 characters of "readable prose." Right now it has only 900-something characters, but you are well on your way. There is a JavaScript extension ( [[User:Dr pda/prosesize.js]]) you can use to check length and expansion. It sounds like a very good future DYK so far, thanks for bringing it here. <font style="font-family:sans-serif;color:black;"> <span style="text-shadow:#0099cc 0.12em 0.12em 0.12em; class=texhtml">  '''''[[User:Sharktopus|Sharktopus]]'''''</span> [[user talk: Sharktopus|<sup>talk</sup>]]</span></font> 10:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

* For an existing article you need to expand the text 5x in 5 days, and to at least 1,500 chars. As it was only about 97 chars before you edited it today, you only need 1,500 chars in total in the next 4 days - and your edits today took it to 913 chars, so you need only another 600. I looked at Google Scholar and there seems to be enough to support much more than the minumum. Look for: [[taxonomy]]; feeding; reproduction and lifecycle; regions and conditions in which this insect lives ("distribution" and "ecology"). --[[User:Philcha|Philcha]] ([[User talk:Philcha|talk]]) 10:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

::'''Comment''': The five times expansion requirement is honestly a bit ridiculous. The only time they would only really be applicable is when expanding stubs. There should be a subjective range for it (like say 5x for articles with less than 1500 chars. And say 3x for much larger articles, at least closer to the BLP requirements).

::The creation time limit of 7 days is also a bit restrictive. Most of us who write new articles which are already fairly lengthy have to needlessly scramble in order to finish the article on time. DYK seems to have Start-class articles in mind unlike some of us who aim for at least a C-Class at initial creation. I've found out that the only way to avoid the time pressure is to sandbox it first.

::Isn't DYK's main function to encourage expansion and creation of articles? If so, it's failing. It's come to a point that I'm afraid of touching articles I plan to expand later on for fear of it becoming ineligible for DYK if one of my edits is older than 7 days or if in the course of my edits, the text length became too much for a 5-fold expansion. I'm betting a lot of us here have had to 'inflate' the text just to fit within the 5x limit.

::Anyway, just venting. ;D hehe. Ignore me. I know this has probably been a perennial topic for DYK.-- '''<span style="font-family:century gothic">[[User:Obsidian Soul|Obsidi<span style="color:#ffc046">♠</span>n]]<sup>[[User talk:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:#ffc046">Soul</span>]]</sup></span>''' 10:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

:::Yeah, the question of expansion of larger articles comes up so often that there's a standard answer: [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Meanies]].

:::As for the editing time frame, different editors have different styles and preferences. My last DYK was an article that I took from what I'd call start-class (unassessed) to nearly-GA (GA review came later, but the changes subsequent to DYK were minor, mostly MOS stuff) in three days of editing. If I were to guess, I'd say that the actual quality of DYK articles is about 50% start-class, 35% C-class, 10% B-class, and 5% GA+ (or could be with minor fixes). [[User:Cmadler|cmadler]] ([[User talk:Cmadler|talk]]) 12:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded the article to fit the size constraint - can I leave its nomination to someone else? cheers [[User:Androstachys|Androstachys]] ([[User talk:Androstachys|talk]]) 16:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

:(not a response to any comment in particular) This whole discussion could have been avoided if you had taken 1 minute to read the rules before coming here to complain. The rules and procedure for DYK are documented for a reason. <b class="IPA">[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b> ([[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]) 16:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
::You're quite right. Wikipedia is already perfect in all its systems and procedures. How silly of me to think that some of the details could be improved. [[User:Androstachys|Androstachys]] ([[User talk:Androstachys|talk]]) 19:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
:::You weren't suggesting an improvement, you were complaining about a rule that doesn't exist because you hadn't bothered to look at the rules. <b class="IPA">[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b> ([[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]) 19:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
::::This is a forum for discussion and from the comments above it should be perfectly clear that there are a number of issues about which editors are not happy. That is the only way to improve a system. I'm sorry you think it is a waste of time, but then no one is forced to participate. Positive input, of course, is always welcome. cheers [[User:Androstachys|Androstachys]] ([[User talk:Androstachys|talk]]) 04:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::That would be true if you were actually suggesting a way to improve the system, which you weren't. Your comments were no more constructive than mine would be if I started running around saying, "Wikipedia would be better if people could ''edit'' it!". <b class="IPA">[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b> ([[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]) 04:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::I misread the requirements and at that time made what I thought was a positive suggestion ('complaint' in your view). All the other editors weighing in were positive in their reaction and gave useful advice. Can you say the same about yours? [[User:Androstachys|Androstachys]] ([[User talk:Androstachys|talk]]) 05:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

:For big expansions you can always use a sandbox to avoid the time limit. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 18:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

== Hyphens and dashes ==

Can we please establish that some editors' opinion that hyphens need to be replaced by dashes is not a reason to fail an article for DYK. By all means fail an artice if it has ''major'' problems, but not over something which makes very little difference to the naked eye. As I've said before, ''when'' I'm provided with dashes on my keyboard, ''then'' I'll start using them. Until then, I will make do with a hyphen. If anyone really ''wants'' to go round changing hyphens to en-dashes, they are at liberty to do so. In the meantime, I prefer to ''write articles''. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 11:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
:Is there one that has been failed? I share you feelings about hyphens not being on the keyboard. I haven't been too involved at DYK in the past few months and it seems the standards have skyrocketed. I remember when I was called pedantic for asking that every paragraph be cited and references formatted.--[[User:NortyNort|NortyNort]]  <small>[[User talk:NortyNort|(Holla)]]</small> 12:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
::I don't know if this will work for others but my keyboard is equipped with an en-dash and em-dash -- just a regular '-' but I hold down the Option key to get '–' and Shift-Option to get '—'. (A non-Mac person might need Alt instead of Option.) I also think somebody somewhere has a bot that does that, because I noticed the bot fixing some of my articles before I knew how to make funny dashes myself. Does anybody know which bot that is and where to get one?
::That said, I would prefer to see reviewers in a collaborative process to improve DYK's quality by working with article creators to make their work better. It is easier to fix people's minor MOS goofs when reading the article than to list them and demand someone else make the changes. <font style="font-family:sans-serif;color:black;"> <span style="text-shadow:#0099cc 0.12em 0.12em 0.12em; class=texhtml">  '''''[[User:Sharktopus|Sharktopus]]'''''</span> [[user talk: Sharktopus|<sup>talk</sup>]]</span></font> 13:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
:::I have no problem with reviewers a) pointing it out (as a suggestion for improvement, not a requirement), and/or b) fixing it, if they observe such a problem, but given that 1) the guideline is currently unsettled (there appears to be [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting|an ongoing debate]] at MOS about the appropriate use of dashes), and 2) compliance with this guideline isn't required of Good Articles, I don't think it should be ''required'' at DYK. [[User:Cmadler|cmadler]] ([[User talk:Cmadler|talk]]) 13:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
::::Nortynort, not failed, but being argued over - [[T:TDYK#SS Noemijulia]]. I've go better things to do than argue over something that can barely be seen and I'd prefer to spend my time writing articles. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 16:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::Sharktopus, Alt + - doesn't produce anything, nor does Alt + Shift + - on my keyboard. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 16:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::FYI, [[Wikipedia:How to make dashes]] lists a whole slew of ways to do it (under "Long explanation"). [[User:Cmadler|cmadler]] ([[User talk:Cmadler|talk]]) 16:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
*Mjroots, you need to turn NumLock on. I've been told by a Windows tech "Why would you ever turn it off". Dunno. GregU's dash script is very successful. I'll run it on DYK articles (takes three seconds) to save issues, where I visit them. Would be good to get the message across about year and page ranges. But at the Manual of Syle, it's accepted that non one's gonna be criticised for using a hyphen if they really can't organise a macro or use the button under the edit-box; others will come along and auto-fix it some time. Would be nice, though, to have prof. typography via the main page, that's all. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 16:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
== Veto power for individual editors ==

I am curious what the policy, custom, or practice is here for a reviewer to re-review a DYK that somebody else has already reviewed. My impression is that if Reviewer A has put an article on hold, it is contentious for Reviewer B to confirm that article unless 1) the policy-based concerns of Reviewer A have been addressed and 2) there has been some passage of time, suggesting that Reviewer A has lost interest. Is there any policy prescribing this? 

The symmetric case would be where Reviewer A has already confirmed a DYK but Reviewer B comes by to ask a question. My feeling is that Reviewer B should still be able to put an article on hold in that case but that 1) an appropriate icon should by used to indicate to someone making up prep that the green check has been superceded and 2) the nominator should be notified.

I don't think our policy does or should give irrevocable veto power (or OK power) to any individual A or B over a DYK submission. I am glad that making nominations watch-listable is in the works. <font style="font-family:sans-serif;color:black;"> <span style="text-shadow:#0099cc 0.12em 0.12em 0.12em; class=texhtml">  '''''[[User:Sharktopus|Sharktopus]]'''''</span> [[user talk: Sharktopus|<sup>talk</sup>]]</span></font> 08:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
:I agree in principle with what Sharktopus says here. The relationship between nominators and reviewers, and reviewers and reviewers, needs to be based on a shared goals and mutual trust. My experience of reviewing has been very positive, and I must say some of the prep rooms show sets of mostly very good hooks. The articles vary in quality, but DYK needs to take the opportunity to be a seeding ground for excellence in article creation and expansion. As a number of people, including Casliber, have pointed out, the trajectory DYK–GA–FA/FL works really well. This is the foundation, and we need a system that nurtures quality from the start. It's ideal for training, and should be an informal part of the raison d'etre for DYK.<p>I'm delighted that watchlisting is in the pipeline. Bring it on, I say! [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 08:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
::I agree with most of Sharktopus's statements. If Reviewer A has put an article on hold, it is not contentious for Reviewer B to approve it ''if the policy-based concerns of Reviewer A have clearly been addressed''. Passage of time is not needed, but if Reviewer B is in doubt, they should make a comment to that effect, and/or drop a note at Reviewer A's talk page ("It looks to me as though this is resolved, but please take a look and make sure."). I fully agree with Sharktopus's comment about the symmetric case. I think the underlying principal is that ''any editor can hold an article due to a policy-based objection at any stage in the process'', and in practice, this has gone up through pulling an article from a queue and returning it to T:TDYK. However, I think this is not the case for non-policy concerns (e.g. "I find this hook uninteresting", "The article could be further improved by...", "Did you consider..."). [[User:Cmadler|cmadler]] ([[User talk:Cmadler|talk]]) 13:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
:::IMO, [[WP:OWN]] applies to the review process -- just as no one owns an article, no one owns a DYK review. If a reviewer has approved a hook, that does not prevent another reviewer from raising objections. If a reviewer has identified a serious problem with an article or hook, that does not prevent another reviewer from disagreeing, finding that the initial reviewer made a mistake, or determining that the problem has been fixed. As cmadler points out, in both kinds of situations there should be discussion. However, there's no requirement that the initial reviewer (nor anyone else in particular) must give approval to the final determination. (There are many good reasons why no one should [[WP:OWN]] a review. For example, I should be able to do an initial review of a hook and leave a note with the creators/nominators regarding the issues with that hook, then go off on holiday without feeling obligated to check in from a cybercafe in Mongolia to see whether the responsible parties have addressed my concerns. If I've documented my concerns adequately, many other DYK participants should be able to determine whether the issues have been resolved.) --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 15:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

::::This is a good point. In a short space of time, I've seen several cases where two reviewers disagree. That very diagreement has often led to further discussion as each reviewer sees another response and thence to a much better solution. If a reviewer asks a question and a response is given, how long is a reasonable time to wait so that the questioner has a chance to see the response? [[User:Lightmouse|Lightmouse]] ([[User talk:Lightmouse|talk]]) 15:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::Which is why we need to trust our queuing admins to make more calls. But not by ignoring unaddressed concerns by reviewers; and sometimes it's hard to tell whether a concern ''has'' been addressed in an article. This is why I look forward to the early introduction of watchlistability: then I think it will be reasonable to ask both nominators and reviewers to watchlist the individual noms in which they participate. Sharktopus, what do you think the timeline will be for this? [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 15:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

::::::While I agree that being able to watchlist individual noms would be nice, I don't think it's indispensable and I don't think it in of itself will solve any problems. Expecting nominators and reviewers to watchlist a nom is no different in principle than expecting them to check up on the nom every now and then, which is already expected. If people want to be good, active participants in the nomination and review process, they don't need watchlisting to do so; likewise, if people don't care or aren't interested in being good participants, the ability to watchlist won't make them change.
::::::As for a timeline on implementing AfD-style transclusions, it shouldn't take long at all, because there's not much technical involved. The only real work is rearranging the layout of the page and the instructions for nominating. Anytime now someone could make up a sandbox version of T:TDYK to get this figured out and working, and once everyone's sure it's ok we could just start doing it. I can try it in the next few days if I'm feeling bored. <b class="IPA">[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b> ([[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]) 15:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Well, it seems silly to wish boredom on you, but one can always hope. This sounds very promising. I did leave a brief note on Shub's page before I read this. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 15:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::::(ec)I've attempted a sandbox start at this at [[User:Cmadler/sandbox/DYK transclusion]]; Tony (and others here), feel free to jump in and work on that. [[User:Cmadler|cmadler]] ([[User talk:Cmadler|talk]]) 17:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
*Cmadler, the sandbox looks ready to go. Why not launch it? [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 04:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
**There are two alternatives described '''[[#Something new|below]]''', Cmadler and I have been waiting for input for a couple days now. It would be best if some of you DYK regulars could try posting some fake nominations at both my and Cmadler's sandboxes, and then let us know which version people like the best. (When it all comes down to it, they are quite similar anyway.) <b class="IPA">[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b> ([[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]) 05:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

== DYK nomination ==

{{Template talk:Did you know/THIS ARTICLE}}

on the talk page, much like you would for a GAN. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Something new

In my first comment above, I complained about how promoting articles under this system might be annoying because promoters would have to make one edit to the subpage to grab the hook and credits, and another edit to T:TDYK to remove the promoted nomination. I threw together a workaround in my sandbox, here is what it looks like.

• The {{NewDYKnom}} and discussion are themselves wrapped up in a template that, when its |passed= parameter is empty (the default, does nothing but show the discussion and include the nomination in a category Category:Pending DYK nominations. In this state, it also shows up at T:TDYK. (See here and edit the page for an example of what the subpage looks like in "pending" status; see here and edit the page for an example of how it shows up at T:TDYK.)
• When someone promotes it, they update |passed= to |passed=yes, and subst the wrapper template. This causes a few things to happen. First of all, it puts an AfD-style archive box around the nomination saying what the result was and that it shouldn't be edited anymore. It also moves the nomination into a category Category:Passed DYK nominations. Most importantly, it <noinclude>s the whole nomination, so that it still is visible on the subpage but it disappears from T:TDYK. (To try it, go back to here, add yes after the |passed=, and add subst: right before the "User:Rjanag/template2" but after the {{, then save the page. To see how it disappears from T:TDYK, go back to here and edit the page.)
• On the other hand, when someone rejects it, they update |passed= to |passed=no, and subst the wrapper template. It does basically the same thing as above, except it puts the nom into a different category, Category:Failed DYK nominations.

Basically, the various promoted/rejected subpages are still sitting on T:TDYK, but not transcluded there. (I believe the images, links, etc. in those nominations won't be processed and thus won't affect the load time of T:TDYK, although I'm not 100% sure on that; if it turns out they do, I think this can be reworked to use <!-- --> rather than <noinclude> </noinclude>.) The subpages can be physically removed from T:TDYK whenever that date is emptied.

I think this would both reduce the number of clicks promoters need to make when they fill up the preps, and it allows a couple potentially useful things on the side, like automatically categorizing the subpages. The only drawbacks I can think of are, 1) passed or failed nominations would also not show up on talkpages (of course, it's still possible to access through them with a link, but it wouldn't be possible to transclude them, at least not the way I have them set up now; it might be possible to set up some parser function to only <noinclude> them in the Template talk namespace); and 2) will the tiny bit of extra code in the edit window scare nominators? It doesn't look like a lot to me, but then again I have been working with it all day so I'm used to looking at it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is an ideal solution; having the subpages sit on T:TDYK but not display anything will still eventually lead us to load-time problems. At some point old ones need to get cleared off. But I have another idea. What about turning T:TDYK into only an instruction page (how to nominate)? Since we're moving to sub-pages, each nomination can go into categories. For example, we could, as you describe have a category for all pending nominations (into which new nominations are automatically placed, perhaps via the preload or via the nomination template). We could have another category for approved but not promoted nominations (the reviewer changes the category). We could have another category for promoted nominations (since this category will eventually get quite large, it might be good to have sub-categories either by month or date used). Also, there's the idea of an AfD-style daily log, which I carried across into my sandbox version; this also takes the nominations of T:TDYK entirely. cmadler (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The old ones would still get cleared whenever a date is done with and gets removed from T:TDYK. Also, I'm not sure it would lead to load-time problems, since this uses <noinclude> rather than <div style="display:none">, although I might want to ask about that at the village pump.

I don't think doing the whole thing through categories is a good idea, since you can't see the content of the subpages from the category page. I think a lot of reviewers want to be able to scroll around T:TDYK and read noms (or search the page for their name to check back on ongoing reviews), so I think it's pretty necessary to have all pending noms transcluded in one place (either T:TDYK or AfD-style daily logs; I guess those are six of one, half a dozen of the other, although to me setting up daily logs seems like extra effort given that we already have T:TDYK). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjanag (talk • contribs)

The above comment wasn't really unsigned but there was a mess of formatting that caused the four tildes not to convert to a signature. cmadler (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for catching that! rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the response I got at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 121#Transclusions, noinclude and load times, the <noinclude> method should reduce load time the same amount as simply removing the transclusions would. So I don't think that is an issue, although the other issues I mentioned in my first post above may still be relevant. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Any thought from other editors on one version or the other? It would be nice to decide which route to go, so we can move ahead with putting this in place. I'm loath to spend more time refining it until we get some kind of idea what the community prefers. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK nom numbers

Is it just me or have the DYK nomination numbers (nom quantity) been exceptionally low lately? The table shows 138 noms, 78 approved (many of which have alts pending and other issues). It also seems the number of reviewers has dropped. I know we can't control the number of noms coming in but to me this seems too low. BarkingMoon (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, the conditions at DYK recently haven't really been conducive to new nominations. A drop shouldn't be unexpected, and I wouldn't bet on that its the less-than-high-quality nominations that may be reducing in numbers. What I would bet on, is that any drop will be used as an argument for switching to 12-hour DYK periods. How nice. Manxruler (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Historically the rate of DYK nominations has been cyclical, rising and falling for a variety of reasons. While I make no claim to understand all the influences that affect the submission rate there are several obvious influences that have contributed to the recent slowdown. First is the most recent round of WikiCup ended on June 28. As the next round starts tomorrow, it is likely that short term spike in nominations will be seen during the next week or two. Second, many universities in Europe and North American are on summer vacation. There is usually an increase in submissions as students return to class and regain access to university library resources. Finally, as noted by Manxruler, the change in friendliness levels seen over the last few weeks has depressed the submission rate. I personally know of several potential submissions that have not been made to Wikipedia as their authors wait for a more conducive atmosphere. --Allen3 ^talk 22:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree, but I would support changing to the 8hr cycle after the next update and would do that if nobody objects. Number changes are slow, and we can't be sure wikicup will boost them. Materialscientist (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Support a switch to 8hr updates. Recent level of new submissions has been too low to sustain the current pace of 28 hooks/day. --Allen3 ^talk 23:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The friendliness thing I totally understand, and the other factors. I now totally understand why users, especially new ones, leave wiki in droves. At T:TDYK there seems to be a lot of personal preferences being pushed as rules. While this is understandable to some extent, it seems to me to have gotten worse in the last 2-3 weeks. BarkingMoon (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's not overlook some friendly acts, such as deciding on a preferred hook for a nom for 2 July. The two hooks in Special occasions for that day should go to prep soon if the cycle switches, only prep looks full. (Sorry to be boring again.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Dearest Gerda-I noticed that a few hours ago and have not forgotten them nor you, a dear wiki friend. As long as I am able to be online and onwiki tomorrow, I will help with that. BarkingMoon (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(blushing) thanks for your friendly act mentioned above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Friendly, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I read BarkingMoon's statement as this: proper reviewing = personal preferences; critical comments WRT the rules = unfriendliness. This attitude is a great pity. We actually have too many noms coming through, so if people really do want to walk away, that's fine, although they should be discouraged from doing so if DYK is going to fulfill its function of encouraging high-quality new articles. Tony (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

138 noms doesn't look particularly unusual to me. In my experience DYK noms have, as Allen3 points out, waxed and waned with time. Keep in mind that you've only been here a few months. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

My usual threshold for going to 8 hours is 120 hooks or less, so I think we could probably hold off going to an 8-hour cycle for a few days yet. Gatoclass (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Prep 2, Visitation

For BWV 10, the position of (pictured) in "Mary when she visited Elizabeth (pictured)" would tell me that Elizabeth is pictured, but she is almost hidden, the "visit" is pictured for the Feast of the Visitation which will probably also be mentioned in "On this day ...", or might we say (arrival pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

How about (visitation pictured)? —Bruce1ee^talk 10:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"Visitation" then, but I would rather prefer not to use the "technical term". Perhaps I am the only one who reads that Elizabeth is pictured, the pic tells easily that she isn't, and it can stay as it is, the simpler the better, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think let's leave it as it is. I don't see it as Elizabeth being pictured, I see it as the visit that's pictured. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Due to the three sets a day, it looks to me as if it will go to q1, a day too late, at least in Europe. Any chance prep2 could go to the queue before prep1? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

July 1 (Canada Day) Special Occasion Holding Area DYKs

Hi all, the hook for Hockey: Canada's Royal Winter Game in prep area 3 and the hooks for declaration of war by Canada and Duke of Cambridge's Personal Canadian Flag in prep area 4 were all held in the special occasion holding area for Canada Day, which is today, July 1. However, when the switch from 6 hour updates to 8 hour updates occurred, it altered the timing, such that prep area 4 won't run until July 2. Can those three hooks be placed in queues 3 and/or 4, so they actually run on Canada Day? Queue 5 is too late, as that will be July 2. (Also, for full disclosure, Declaration of war by Canada was my self-nom.) OCNative (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Materialscientist! Your tireless work on DYK isn't pointed out enough, Matsci; your DYK work is much appreciated. OCNative (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please get consensus for any new DYK policy rule

There is now a complaint about a DYK hook at Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors, saying that "ETA" should have been a wikilinked to ETA. Yes, it should, as per WP:MOS and WP:UNDERLINK. We should link to "relevant connections" and to "relevant information."

One unfortunate result of having a few people doing many, many reviews at T:TDYK is that certain preferences get cited so often they're confused with policy. One such preference now being enforced is a desire to minimize links in DYK hooks. DYK policy says nothing about minimizing links in DYK hooks or about competition among links in DYK hooks. WP:OVERLINK forbids only linking to items whose meaning is obvious -- "plain English words", "major geographic features", etc.

Do we want to omit links to avoid link competition? Do we want that badly enough to break WP:MOS in hooks on the project's Main Page? Please get consensus for any change to policy before enforcing it on DYK submissions. Sharktopus ^talk 17:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

People need to just use common sense. Links that aren't necessary to understand the hook (e.g., "<some year> in film") should of course not be used, as they are distracting. But if the hook uses jargon, abbreviations, or proper names that aren't widely known, and it's reasonable to assume that the reader might need to know what those things are to understand the hook, then it makes sense to include them. (Granted, in many cases the reader should be able to find the same information from the lede of the article--for instance, in this case if they click on the link to the DYK article, the lede defines "ETA" early on. But since DYK articles are not vetted to ensure the ledes are good, we can't rely on this.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If there were enough character space, my pref would be to spell out the name "Basque ....". ETA is a bit more linkable than China or UK or US. Depends on the context. Tony (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK deprecates links to "plain English words", to dates, to "the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, and common professions" —in short, links to things that are obvious. ETA is not even close to "obvious." It should have been linked in that hook. WP:UNDERLINK has much longer list of kinds of things that should be linked than the short list of "common sense" non-links in WP:OVERLINK.

Underlinked hooks will be flagged by others as errors on the Main Page if we omit links that WP:UNDERLINK says should be there. Whether or not the article lead explains every term in the hook, a standalone hook on the Main Page should follow WP:MOS. Sharktopus ^talk 19:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

And yet another unnecessary WP:DYK Main Page error right now because somebody unlinked Dominica when hooks were in Prep. Please, WP:UNDERLINK says we should link to "proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers." Sharktopus ^talk 20:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally I prefer to err on the side of overlinking, particularly with regard to the main page. We are an educational project after all, not everyone may be interested in a particular hook but they may see a word they don't understand or name they don't know and be motivated to follow the link, in which case we have done our job in engaging their interest and teaching them something new. Gatoclass (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No, overlinking is discouraged by WP's guidelines. Shark, it's not a policy, it's a guideline. I don't mind if Dominica is linked, but bear in mind that DYK is different from article text: all of the links are in the DYK article. Tony (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The rules or guidelines or whatever that we cite in reviews at T:TDYK should be actual rules or guidelines that have group consensus. It creates confusion when T:TDYK becomes an echo chamber for new "rules" that no consensus ever agreed to -- such as "avoid diluting hooks with low-value links." A few weeks ago, until WT:DYK pushed back, T:TDYK echoed with the demand that every hook fact must be "extraordinary" in the strong sense of that word. This kind of echo-chamber effect is the natural result when a few editors become so active at T:TDYK that they lose sight of WP:OWN. Another example of this is DYK articles put on hold until one of the favored few gives his OK. Any reviewer can approve an article, any reviewer can put an article on hold for policy-based concerns, any reviewer should be competent to determine if policy-based concerns have been solved or not. DYK is a place where we support creating new articles. Sharktopus ^talk 07:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all Tony, WP:LINK refers to link usage in articles, not in other Wikispace. The main page is in my view a special case, where it is acceptable and even desirable to link more frequently than in articles themselves. But in any case, I did not say we should overlink, I said we should err on the side of overlinking, which is not the same thing. Gatoclass (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Gato, I'm struggling to see the difference. I agree that the main page is special, although exceptions to articles rules should be made only in relation to its particular functions. Linking less, not more than in articles seems to be perfectly logical, given the function of this process. Tony (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine why you would think we should link even less on the mainpage than in articles. The rationale behind avoiding overlinking in article pages is that we don't want to distract the reader with links that are irrelevant to the topic he has chosen to read, but that doesn't apply to the mainpage. Most users IMO will be perusing the main page to look for a topic which strikes their fancy, in which case it only makes sense to supply plenty of links. Gatoclass (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are we bothering to put the DYK article through this process, then, if the link to it in the subject hook has to compete with a tranche of lower-value links? All of the links are at the DYK article. I just can't see the point. It undermines the whole model of DYK. Tony (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see links as "competing", just as adding additional choice. If someone is interested in a link he will click on it, if not he won't. Adding additional links just caters to a wider variety of interests, it's not as if there are only a certain amount of hits to be distributed per day, it all depends on how many people are interested in a particular topic. Gatoclass (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. Ever famous example: Bach cantatas. A short term saying what the German mess is about, and if linked, both highlighted and an offer to link for those who really don't know and for whom we otherwise would have to say each time "The notable German Baroque composer Johann Sebastian Bach" ... (spare me the rest). You, Tony blessed now a hook without those links, a nice experiment for a change to find out how many hits for Bach cantata derive from the main page and how many from the article. I take it as such, no more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian, prep2

A simple question, for a change: is it "a Hungarian" or "an Hungarian"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Since neither "a" nor "an" sounds convincingly right here, I propose changing the hook to "a German-Hungarian trade union council" -- and the article says it was a "continuation of the German-Hungarian Gewerkschaftskartell ('Trade Union Council')." Sharktopus ^talk 20:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's "a" if the first letter of the next word is a consonant and "an" if the first letter of the next word is a vowel, so "a Hungarian" is correct and sounds fine to me but Sharky's alt is okay too. not a big deal. BarkingMoon (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the usual but have also seen it demanded that if a word beginning with "H" has its accent on a syllable that's not the first, people use "an." I've often seen people saying "an historical." But those were crazier people than Sharky and (if I may call you so) Barky. Sharktopus ^talk 21:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict, agree,) I know the rule, but the H is more or less not spoken, that's why I ask, as it's "a Uralic" (in Hungarian language), because a consonant is spoken before the U. That added "n" seems meant to ease pronounciation, I would expect it depends on speaking, not writing. Right? But the alternative serves two purposes, thanks. Still would like to know, learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's a dialect thing to some degree but I usually go for the KISS principle. BarkingMoon (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

BarkingMoon has the rule mostly right, except that it's determined by whether the following word begins with a vowel sound or a consonant sound. So the question here is whether the "H" in "Hungarian" is usually pronounced or left silent. Wiktionary doesn't give pronunciation for "Hungarian" but gives "Hungary" as /ˈhʌŋ.ɡə.ɹi/ for US and UK, which suggests that the "H" sounds and we should use "a", rather than "an". cmadler (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, helped, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

509 characters, 8 DYK articles, in one hook?

It's in prep room 1. Looks weird. Tony (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at some of the the hooks at Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Hall_of_Fame#DYK_hooks_with_5_or_more_articles for some truly interesting lengths. A long held, classic IAR exemption for ingenuity. Is your concern the length or how it reads? Calmer Waters 03:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

For a long time people have liked trying to see how many articles they can cram into one hook. Personally I don't like it (it seems like more of a way for editors to pat themselves on the back than something to help readers or the encyclopedia) but there seems to be consensus for it... rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought we actually encouraged the multis, and that the hook was catchy. I offered this as a multi not to "cram" but to avoid 9 separate hooks about Yale football coaches. Took quite a lot of effort, and all 9 articles were carefully researched. Filling in holes on 9 head coaches for the preeminent football program of the early 20th Century does IMO "help readers [and] the encyclopedia." Cbl62 (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think the first half of the hook ("despite compiling a combined record of 127–11–10 and winning seven national championships from 1899 to 1912") should just be removed. The fact that the team had 14 coaches isn't made any more interesting, as far as I can tell, by their record during that time. This seems like a classic case of trying to cram too many facts into one hook. Pointing out that they had 14 head coaches in 14 years and that the coaches came from weird backgrounds is already enough; why try to cram in more? Additionally, "despite" implies some sort of logical connection between the first and second half of the hook (i.e., since they had such a good record, you wouldn't expect them to have had a lot of coaches) which I don't think is necessary for conveying the "punchy" part of the hook. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The record is what makes the hook interesting since a team with such a remarkably high winning percentage and 7 national championships would not be expected to change their coach every year. Such a revolving door of coaches is typically associated with a really bad team. To have that record despite undergoing a coaching change every year is unprecedented in college football history (and probably in any sporting history). With 9 articles being supported by a single hook, I really don't think that the length (56 characters per article) is excessive. Cbl62 (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that Rjanag went ahead and cut it. The way that the hook has been cut back (without the record, without the 7 national championships, and without any time period notation) renders the hook a collection of unrelated trivia about a group of coaches. Please consider restoring the hook to its prior form. The collection of 9 articles was the product of a huge week-long effort, and considerable effort went into presenting a hook that tied them together in an interesting way. Cbl62 (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the cut information. I would definitely concur with Cbl62 on this one. Lousy teams having high coaching turnover is actually quite normal. National championship teams usually do a great job of retaining coaches for the long haul. Also, anyone familiar with American sports would be shocked to know that Yale had seven national championships, considering the lousy state of 21st century Yale football. OCNative (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much OC. Cbl62 (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

If it really is that important to discuss their record, you could just shorten the hook to "that the Yale football team maintained a winning record [or "a 127–11–10 record"] despite having 14 coaches in 14 years, including...". The way it is presently written, it is both too wordy (e.g., "compiling a combined record of" says the same thing as "had a ___ record", only using twice as much space), and still crams in details that are not necessary (e.g., both the win record and the national championships, whereas only one of those are necessary to express that the team was good) to make the hook punchy. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I have moved this very long hook to P2, so that the rest of the hooks currently on P1 can get on queue without getting held back because of it. --PFHLai (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say just go ahead and use it as is (in P2, now that it's there). I still don't really like it, but even my suggestion is not a huge improvement for it anyway, so there's no point holding it up any longer; I don't think it's going to get much better than it already is. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Visually and functionally, it completely unbalances the whole set. The number of DYK articles should be vastly reduced (three, I'd say). Why not split it and run another in a few weeks' time? Tony (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the record phrase could be dumped as the point is already made with the championship record, otherwise I have no problem with the hook and I'm sure it will get plenty of hits. Gatoclass (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If the hook needs shortening, I'm fine with Gato's suggestion that the hook start "... that despite winning seven national championships from 1899 to 1912, ..." Cbl62 (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I've shortened the hook, per Gatoclass's suggestion. As prep area 2 has been reduced to five hooks to accommodate this hook, it should fit just fine without causing DYK to exceed its allotted space on the Main Page. OCNative (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Nominations by anon users

Do we have any guidelines for anon/IP users nominating articles, or other people nominating articles or which an anon user was a contributor? In particular, I'm thinking about the filling out of the {{NewDYKnom}} template, where for the |expander= or |creator= fields require that you input a username, not a ~~~~. Obviously, an anon user nominating their own work may very well not know what their own IP address is. How have these cases been handled in the past? rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

In the past, I have nominated at least one, maybe two DYKs on behalf of an anon via AFC. In my case, I simply substituted the IP address for the username. I would think that if an anon was familiar enough to know about how to transcribe a nomination and pick a hook, it's probable that they would be also able to find their current IP address per their IP page/talk page. Can't see a down side to your suggestion of replacing the nomination username with the four tildes. Seem like a win-win to me. Calmer Waters 05:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that. It would require some reworking of the template. It's probably possible but I don't think it's necessary if there's not a major need for it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing Queue 2 Main Page link?

Shouldn't Iowa State University have a link to Iowa State University in Queue 2 on the main page, per WP:UNDERLINK? I don't think the average reader is particularly familiar with Iowa State University. OCNative (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Virgin Islands dwarf sphaero hook in Prep room 4

The nominator has asked for it to be held off for a week or so. I'm unsure why, but he told me when I asked his advice about my addition of a few words to it. Tony (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• It's a little weird, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt on that, so I've moved it from Prep 4 into the special occasion holding area for July 10. If the nominator wishes to have a further delay, it can be changed to a different date. OCNative (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • If it's going ahead now, I'll really need to fix the ending, which doesn't work. But the nominator seemed to to want more time to rejig it. Tony (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Had it stayed in prep area 4 at that point, it would have been picked up for queue 4, which goes up in 14 hours. I moved it into the special occasion holding area to delay it. I picked July 10, as it's a week (since the nom mentioned that timeframe) from now, but if you want to hold longer, feel free to pick another date. I'm comfortable waiting up to August 9 (six weeks after the 5x expansion on June 28, the maximum delay allowed by the special occasion holding area). Needless to say, this one does not follow any normal set of rules. I'm using IAR on this one for two reasons: 1) I don't want the poor nom to lose his job; 2) it sounds like there'll be much better info for the article from the nom if we hold off. OCNative (talk) 10:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Thank you, and I apologize for this unfortunate situation. The two reasons you gave are a fair assessment of the situation. There may also be WP:BLP issues. So before I start quoting secondary sources that report on either side of the debate, I've been asked to hold off until the quotes can be verified. I hope to have that ability within a week, but it could take a week or two longer than that. My fear is that if the article hits DYK, there will be enough people who will read the article, recognize the island, and immediately make the connection between this gecko and the controversy. Then if someone goes in to add information about the controversy, not only may they see my commented-out content (and possibly restore it), they may write their own take on the controversy, which could come out as non-neutral, highly inflammatory, and would very likely be ascribed to me (off Wiki). If you can hold this article off as long as possible (until August 9), I will do everything in my power to restore the controversial information and ensure as much neutrality as possible. Thanks. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Btw, it's not about me potentially getting fired, but about me salvaging my career from the toilet. One of the reasons why my career is in the toilet is because I wrote a neutral, conservation-oriented piece (here on Wiki) about a failed colony of golden-crowned sifaka at the Duke Lemur Center (DLC). I was told offline to remove all mentions of the colony immediately, and despite my attempts to explain that it was better for me to write something neutral (ideally with their approval) than to let other editors uncover the sources that might give grounds for writing something with a biased animal-rights slant, within a short period of time I was told not bother applying for future job openings. This time, I have a chance to get a very important job, but people in the industry are concerned that I may have misstepped by publishing material without approval. (I disagree with this, just as I do with the DLC's decision, because my Wiki work is independent, neutral, and based on reliable secondary sources.) But since I have a chance of salvaging this situation, not only for myself, but also for the betterment of the article, it is best that I keep this article as quiet as it normally is (between 2 and 20 hits per day) until decisions are made and I have a chance to get approval from both sides for the content I wrote. I don't want to push for approval before the decision because I'm worried that I'm already walking on thin ice. If this is inappropriate, I apologize. But at this point, salvaging my career is (slightly) more important than my reputation on Wikipedia. Again, I will do everything I can to make up for this and rectify the situation. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've moved it to August 9. In the future, please be more careful! Remember, unless you work for the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia is never worth endangering your career over. OCNative (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Error in Great Mosque of al-Nuri hook

Could someone please change the Great Mosque of al-Nuri hook in queue 3, to which someone has added an error? It should read:

... that the leaning minaret (pictured) of the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul, Iraq, reputedly gained its tilt after it bowed to the prophet Muhammad?

The picture is of the minaret, not the mosque. Prioryman (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK image sizes on the main page

Talk:Main_Page#Image_size_for_DYKs. Tony (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is to shrink the number of DYK items on the Main Page by using much of the DYK space for a large image pointing to one favored DYK article. Sharktopus ^talk 07:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Where? Tony (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the link Tony1 offered above will make things pretty clear. Similarly, this quote from Tony1 at [W:Template_talk:Did_you_know#Jewish_ghettos_in_German-occupied_Poland]: "Real pity have to ruin that pic by having it so squinty-small, but I suppose it's better than no pic. Frankly, this pic should be the size it is in the article, on the main page." Yes, it's a fine picture, an important event. But if DYK gets to be a nice shortcut to the Main Page for showcasing images, what is going to happen to the ordinary function of DYK? One worthy image after another will turn up here to demand its rightful turn in the Main Page spotlight. But why underplay worthy images by just replacing most of DYK for one 8-hour period? How could the mere function of creating new content for a great online encyclopedia possibly compete with the importance of displaying worthy images, one after another? Sharktopus ^talk 09:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting that at squint-size a single reader will be able to decipher what on earth the pic is? Tony (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • • (replying to Tony) No, I'm suggesting that the function of DYK is not to display images, no matter how worthy the image. DYK exists to display links to many different worthy articles. I disagree with your wish to have DYK promote many fewer articles. I hear rather an echo of that wish in last week's campaign argument to give images increased space in DYK, and in this week's campaign argument to replace a big chunk of one queue with one big image promoting one article. Sharktopus ^talk 08:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Rather than going along with your characterisation of it as a "campaign", with all of the military overtones, may I contend that it's an argument I've put, and not just about DYK, but about the whole of the main page, which uses dysfunctionally tiny images, except for POTD. You seem to be coupling your feelings of discomfort about reform with something about linking. I'm struggling to see the connection. In any case, could you point to where your version of the mission of DYK is written? Tony (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
        • • Quoting from WP:DYK, "The DYK section gives publicity to newly created or expanded Wikipedia articles. This serves as a way to thank editors who create new content, encourages editors to contribute to and improve articles and the encyclopedia, and brings new and expanded articles to the attention of readers who view the Main Page." Sharktopus ^talk 13:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Isn't that we have the bracketed "pictured", the rollover text and alt text? Seems pretty straight-forward to me. If a reader still can't decipher what on earth the pic is, then there's a fair chance said reader will click the pic. Manxruler (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for tabulated list

When talking about a 5x expansion, in a list with tables, does this only apply to the text not in the table when going for a DYK? Simply south...... digging mountains for 5 years 23:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Normally, tables, images and bulleted lists are discarded, and the DYK prose check script does that automatically. In some cases, insufficient prose expansion is forgiven if much information is added as tables and lists, but this is WP:IAR sort of decision and should not be relied on before submitting an article. Materialscientist (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination discussions added to prep areas

I have thought about this briefly at different times and thought I would bring it up here to get an opinion from others. What would you think to adding a section to the prep areas that would include the prior submission discussions that are removed when a hook is promoted. Not to affect the appearance of how the queue page looks, but rather, what appears after you click the individual prep area page. This would be very little additional work to the prep preparer, but would greatly help with final additional checks by others reviewing pending approved submissions. This would also greatly assist administers to not only double check the hook and article before moving to the protected queues, but also to check against everything that had been discussed earlier on the nomination page. This would include greater accessibility to the prior information than searching through the constantly growing page history or waiting for long uploading of the prior version of the page. I believe this would greatly enhance and add efficiency to our ability to review and correct what appears on the main page before going into the protected queues. Any thoughts? Calmer Waters 03:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Mild Oppose. While this has benefits, I think this would just prolong the already prolonged discussions that seem to be getting more and more drawn out. BarkingMoon (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The transclusions setup (see #New nomination setup) should mitigate this issue. With each discussion on its own subpage, it will not be necessary to search through the history of T:TDYK to find the discussions. It's probably possible to get promoters to add links to the subpages in the prep areas. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The prolonged discussions are one of the issues of why I have brought it up. The initial promoter should not only be evaluating that the hook and article passes the rules, but also if all concerns brought up have been adequately addressed. It would allow a more thorough and efficient double check that the hook should have been promoted in the first place (ie. who reviewed it, what concerns were raised, etc.). Also, those copy-editing the prep areas may find it helpful to be able to reference the prior discussion. The transclusions in the works will indeed help greatly with this somewhat making this a moot point. I'm sure if the new setup goes through, I can make a semi-automated script that can add the relevant links to the nomination sub-pages within the prep queues (pending approval of-course). Calmer Waters 19:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

How about a diff to the discussion if there was a dispute? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Was thinking of something like a slightly modified User:Bawolff/DYKVerified with a specific focus on the prep queue's hook nominations. Calmer Waters 22:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This function itself should be modified because it lists a nomination as verified which isn't (s.b.), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

But now it is, thank you, Sharktopus, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the reviewer?

In case of questions to a nomination, we have a template to notify the nominator. I would like something similar to notify a reviewer. Case: first reviewer gave a green tick, second reviewer questioned it by the toughest blue (without a notification, btw), I supplied two alternatives on 29 June, no reaction so far. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this something that comes up very often? I usually don't bother notifying reviewers because I assume that, if they care, they will be checking back periodically. If someone thinks this template is need, though, they are welcome to make one. {{DYKproblem}} could easily be adapted for it (just some small changes to wording). rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I confess: it never happened to me before, both that green was turned to dark blue, and then no reaction. Nicely said: "if they care", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I confess further that I was not quite serious about a template (although it happened before that a reviewer asked questions and never returned) but couldn't resist to speak up in the name of proper reviewing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the watchlistable sub-pages will largely resolve this issue. cmadler (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I still don't think watchlistable subpages are a panacea, for reasons I mentioned somewhere above (but don't remember where anymore). If people want to keep track of their noms/reviews, they can already do so easily by searching T:TDYK for their own name (which is what I have always done). If people don't want or care to keep track, the ability to watchlist won't change their attitudes; it's possible not to watchlist, and it's possible not to pay attention to things on your own watchlist. But any any case, I think the problem described here is not a big one anyway. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

All queues empty

All the queues are empty. I've noticed this trend lately that only 1-2 queues are filled when the preps have had several filled and am wondering why. Just curiousBarkingMoon (talk) 09:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's helpful to leave sets in prep queues for a while so that non-admins can fix problems in them. Is there an advantage to moving them to the queues quickly? 28bytes (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

They're left there too long. Some for days. And yes, when there's only 1-2 in the queues, or as today, zero, why have queues 3-6? BarkingMoon (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been leaving them in the prep queues as long as possible so that others have a chance to make any corrections as needed. With a 8 hour update, two queues can ensure updates prepared for up to 24 hours. Is the issue that they are there too long or that more can't be prepared till they are moved? The past shows the quicker a hook goes from template --> prep --> queue, the more likely it will face issues while protected in either the queues or on the main page. Calmer Waters 00:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I am moving some across now - have asked for image protection on commons rather than reuploading on enwiki. Admins over there have been very quick to help. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

How to see whether an article has been moved from user space

I reviewed List of colonial buildings and structures in Jakarta as not eligible since it is not new (nor sufficiently expanded). However I just realized that it might have been moved from user space on July 5. How can I see in the history whether the article was created in user space or in article space? bamse (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There's two ways: the DYKCheck tool will tell you automatically; if you're not using that, just check for the word "moved" in the article history page. 28bytes (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is actually eligible and you should not have declined it. It was moved to mainspace today (on 14:08, 5 July 2011 to be exact). You can easily see it in the article history. All page moves automatically generate an edit summary saying where the page has been moved from and when. You can see the diff here.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 00:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional manual checking: in the very very unlikely scenario that you suspect a user faked the edit summary, you can check his contributions (Special:Contributions/Rochelimit), you will see a big bold N next to the pagemove summary indicating the page is new to mainspace on that date (this can not be faked but is not visible in the article history).-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 00:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I initially thought that the N would also be in the history (why isn't it?). Reverted my initial review and did a proper review. bamse (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Queue 5

On the second-to-the-last hook, can someone change "tomorrow" to "today"? Thanks. –HTD 16:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Calmer Waters 17:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I dunno who added "Philippines" in there but that greatly reduced the shock factor. (Think of it as the greatest blurb ever: "...that Batman was half-female?") –HTD 19:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, it's this one. LOL at deliberately misleading. –HTD 19:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the April Fool's batch of hooks. If you want to try to trick readers, you should save your hook for that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The unaltered hook was as factual as the altered one. –HTD 12:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't factual. I said it was deliberately misleading, which it is. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not misleading. The NCAA started yesterday. What's misleading is if the blurb said it will start tomorrow when it started yesterday. –HTD 18:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It's only misleading from a highly US-centric position, which assumes that the US National Collegiate Athletic Association is the only organization with that name. cmadler (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Lost opportunity there I must say. –HTD 15:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

New nomination setup

There are two new possible designs being developed for the DYK nominations to be made as subpages (per discussions at #Page restructuring and previously). One is at User:Rjanag/T:TDYK and one at User:Cmadler/sandbox/DYK transclusion. People who are interested in the page restructuring issue, please try posting some fake nominations using both of those sandboxes and let us know which one you find easier to use or prefer for whatever reason. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting those -- I was trying to figure out how to post a test link earlier today but got distracted when no easy solution showed up. And even more, thanks for the effort you both put into this project for improving DYK. Sharktopus ^talk 23:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can't figure out how to post a nomination, that seems like a major problem. What sort of problems were you running into? rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No ... What I meant was, I was searching in vain for a link to your testing sandbox earlier today. But I had only minimal time between planes to get wifi, so my failure does not say anything about your sandbox. I did just test a nomination, using your link, and it was easy. Well done, I am very impressed! Now off to try cmadler's... Sharktopus ^talk 00:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ok, that sounds much better--I was worried for a moment!

By the way, you didn't add your test nomination (Template talk:Did you know/Fascinating article) to the main page (User:Rjanag/T:TDYK, a substitute for the real T:TDYK). I don't know if you intentionally skipped that step or not; if you didn't do it intentionally then that's ok, but if you weren't aware that you needed to then I probably need to do something to make the instructions clearer. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Instructions? No, sorry, I thought it was just a sandbox thingy like when you nominated an article called Foo. It is 3 a.m. in Sweden now and even though my computer and I are now in the US my brain is not. I don't want my dumb joke Fascinating article on T:TDYK please, so I'm glad the sw did not put it there, and please don't put it there, ok? Sharktopus ^talk 01:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Things posted to User:Rjanag/T:TDYK aren't actually posted to T:TDYK. That page is just for testing. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

....And I just nominated a stub I created a few days ago Heydar Aliyev Foundation, using cmadler's thingy. I liked it that it worked by creating a notice on the article talk page. But it would be good if that notice included a link to the actual discussion page, instead of just a link to the form for creating a DYK. Also, the discussion I created is at Talk:Heydar+Aliyev+Foundation/DYK‎; I think underlines are more standard than + signs for multi-word articles. So both actually do creat a DYK nomination-looking thingy, and both are easier to use than squeezing multiple text strings into the current template for filling out a nomination. Now nobody should want any more advice from me because my brain is fried now. Sharktopus ^talk 01:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Normally the talk page notice should make a link to the nomination subpage. It looks like I messed something up in one of my recent edits to it. I'll have a look at it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've fixed it; could you please try Heydar Aliyev Foundation again? Here was the nomination:

====Heydar Aliyev Foundation====
<!--
-->
*... that .... in [[Azerbaijan]], the '''[[Heydar Aliyev Foundation]]''' funds more schools than the Ministry of Education?
<!--
-->
:*''Reviewed'': {{T:TDYK|Norma Lyon}} ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=437128578])
<small>Created  by [[User:Sharktopus|Sharktopus]] ([[User talk:Sharktopus|talk]]).  Self nom at 01:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)</small>
<!--
*{{DYKmake|Heydar Aliyev Foundation|Sharktopus}}
-->
:*<!--Make first comment here-->

rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

DYKcheck shouldn't be affected by either proposal since the end-result HTML looks the exact same. Rjanag, if we go with your proposal, we should put barriers in place to prevent someone from creating "Template talk:Did you know/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE" (see what RfA has done). Benefit to using Rjanag's proposal: since all the nominations are subpages of T:TDYK, it's easier to analyze all of the nominations. For example, if you remember a particular Manual of Style issue being brought up, but can't pin down when/where, you can simply run a search. Also, it's easier to find incomplete noms; noms that have been created but not transcluded. Shubinator (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Trying again, this time with a real nomination for Heydar Aliyev Foundation, which I finally unstubbed. But I think I did something wrong with Rjanag's form, since it ended up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know/YOUR_ARTICLE_TITLE Neverthe less, I will now paste something to User:Rjanag/T:TDYK and hope that's what you want. Sharktopus ^talk 00:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC) OK, figured it out and fixed it, now there is a page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know/Heydar_Aliyev_Foundation Sharktopus ^talk 00:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• After pretending to be Franklin Roosevelt and nominating attack on Pearl Harbor created by Isoroku Yamamoto for DYK under both forms, I prefer Rjanag's form overall. Its format is more user-friendly, particularly Step I (and frankly, even as an experienced user, I just found Rjanag's form easier to use). While there are a lot of DYK regulars, I do believe DYK's emphasis on new content makes it more likely to attract novice users than most other areas (e.g. GA, FA, AfD), so we should try to aim for the more user-friendly format. I also like that this creates a subpage of DYK rather than a subpage of the article. I do like Cmadler's notification on article talk pages. In my ideal scenario, we'd use Rjanag's process with Cmadler's Step I serving as Rjanag's Step IV. In other words, a DYK nomination occurs using Rjanag's process followed by Cmadler's notice on the article talk page. OCNative (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• I must say I second OCNative's opinion; Rjanag's form is much easier to use. Although Cmadler has a good idea (to note at the article's talk page that it is being nominated for DYK), the ability to create the page automatically with just a click of a button is much more user friendly. A couple comments:

1. On Rjanag's form it is possible to change Template talk:Did you know/whatever to something else, like Main page talk/whatever. Is it possible to change it so we can only change the subpage's title and not what page it will be a suppage of, with the new article created automatically becoming a subpage of Template talk:Did you know? If for example I accidentally erase Template talk:Did you know from the form then enter Template Talk:Did you know (big T), my nomination will go in the wrong place (if it is even created at all) and be eligible for speedy deletion.
2. Are there too many parameters in the DYK nom template? Going up to Article 9 and Author 4 automatically seems a big much. Automatically leaving space for Article 2 and Author 2 is enough, but more than that feels like overkill.
3. Will these noms be archived or deleted? If they are to be deleted when finished we will need some more admins, and if they are to be archived when finished we will need a bot.
4. Could we have a bot to automatically transclude nominations to the T:TDYK if the author forgets? I think AFD uses something similar.

Other than those questions/suggestions, I think Rjanag's form works well. I also second OCNative's above suggestions that a notification can be posted on the article's talk page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I agree with OCNative that having talkpage notifications is nice, and like I mentioned above (and OCNative suggested) it's possible in both setups--in Cmadler's it's built in to the nomination, whereas in mine it's optional but could be done just by transcluding the nomination into the article talk page in the same way. It's up to you guys whether it would be better to be added as a "step IV", or as an optional recommended thing (similar to notifying article creators with {{adw}} when you do an AfD).

REgarding Crisco's questions:

1. That's a great idea; this should solve it.
2. It's definitely possible to remove some parameters from the preloaded template. If you guys reach a consensus on which parameters to include by default and which not to, I can make the change easily.
3. I don't see any reason to delete the noms. There are many ways archiving could be done. In my proposal above was a mechanism for automatically categorizing all the noms (as passed, failed, or under-review), and those categories would serve as an archive of sorts, albeit disorganized. Additionally, passed noms could simply be left on T:TDYK, and then instead of deleting a date subheading when it becomes empty (which is what editors do now), an editor could simply move that date subheading into an archive when it's over 5 days old and all the nominations for that date are resolved. Since deleting old days is already a task editors do by hand, I see no need for a bot to be developed right away, although if someone wants to make one they are welcome to.
4. I assume it would be possible to get a bot to automatically transclude these nominations if the authors forget. My experience with bots is very limited so I won't be the one to make it, but if someone else wants to they are welcome to. I don't think it's something urgent and I don't think we need to delay moving forward on the rest of the proposal while we wait for a bot.

rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Very quick reply, I must say. Regarding your points:

1. That is much better, thank you. Hopefully it will make new page patrollers' jobs easier.
2. I'd support it, but I am still in Lampung so I will not start a discussion yet.
3. Manual archiving? Sounds pretty good. Does that mean that the noms would be hidden like they are at AFD once they've passed, or would we manually archive every time an article passes (instead of deleting)? If all noms are still shown on the page even after featuring (as long as there are noms waiting approval) the page will get very big very quickly.
4. Agreed. Getting a bot running should wait; this is a big enough change already and it should be the main focus of our discussions and efforts right now.

Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The way I have it set up currently, the noms become boxed-out and hidden when someone promotes them to the queue. Later on, someone would remove them from T:TDYK (after a whole day's worth of noms is finished with) and put them into an archive. Alternatively, it could be made more AfD-like (and more like Cmadler's proposal is set up now), with people transcluding their noms directly onto by-day log pages, which are in turn transcluded on T:TDYK. In the end it's a similar amount of work I think. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Before working so hard, might we try the simple step - mentioned above - which Voceditenore brought up for the archive of the opera DYK: only show the link to the picture, not the picture itself. Only one ":" to add or remove. It might be added by the reviewer who is taking care of a nom, changing nothing for the nominator, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, a lot of people opposed that suggestion. And if the subpage system works as people are hoping, the need to reduce load times will be even less, so I don't see why this is necessary. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(And besides, Cmadler and I have already worked hard to set up the proposals in place. Might as well make it useful.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Misunderstanding, sorry: I thought your hard work was in the future. If it's mostly done, fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Good job Rjanag and cmadler for putting these together. I played around with both without saving any changes, and it's not quite as much of a pain as I feared it would be. Both are nice but overall I think I prefer Rjanag's version. 28bytes (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• Colleagues, I'm so sorry not to have commented. RL work is pressing until Monday. Congratulations to those who are working on this: progress looks good on a quick read through the thread. Thank you very much. Tony (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Queue 6 & Queue 2 need reshuffling

Hi, I think the Queue 6 hooks need to be rearranged, as do the Queue 2 hooks. The last hook in Queue 6 is: "... that on 12 June 1944, during the Battle of Breville, friendly fire killed the commander of the attacking force and wounded two British brigadiers?" The last hook in Queue 2 is: "... that Germany, prohibited by the Treaty of Versailles from having an airforce, operated the secret fighter-pilot school Lipetsk in the Soviet Union from 1926 to 1933?"

Friendly fire and a secret fighter pilot school just don't seem very quirky or funny to me. For Queue 6, I'm not going to make a suggestion for which hook should be moved into the last slot for two reasons: 1) there's several quirky hooks; 2) I have a conflict of interest because I have two noms in that queue. For Queue 2, perhaps the hacktivists hook or the poker hook would be better choices (though they're not particularly quirky or funny, just not as unquirky or unfunny as the fighter-pilot school). Also, shouldn't "airforce" be "air force" in that hook? OCNative (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Reshuffled, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That was quick. Thanks! OCNative (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Otterburn

Hello. Earlier today, I double nom'ed Otterburn Hall and Otterburn Tower in the July 4 section. I don't currently see them there, or in a Prep area, the Queue, or Main page. Where else should I look? Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

In these cases it's always helpful to check the page history of T:TDYK. Your nom was removed mere seconds after you posted them, probably by accident (from an edit conflict): [1]. You should re-post it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I've undone the offending edit here. So your nom is back again. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought that might have been the cause but didn't want to assume so. Thanks for the speedy re-instatement. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2 hook 1

I was about to move prep area 2 to the Queue but the first sentence is hard to scan. I think linking the two words oboe d'amore and viola da gamba would help as the last clause is confusing. I'll alert the nominator..just think it might need tweaking. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I had them linked in an alternative and think links would greatly improve the readability, especially because of the "more than one word" unusual instrument names. But the hook is already in q2, I can't change it to oboe d'amore and viola da gamba. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I can link them, and I might understand the hook, but it is hardly comprehensible to most readers. Any chance to clarify it?

• ... that Bach has a trumpet tell God's glory in cantata Die Himmel erzählen die Ehre Gottes, BWV 76, first performed in the Thomaskirche (pictured), but oboe d'amore and viola da gamba "brotherly devotion"?

 Done linked them now, which I think highlights the nouns a little better anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is still hard to scan. I suggest that an additional verb -- perhaps "announce" or "proclaim" -- is needed between "viola da gamba" and "brotherly devotion", as well as some other rewording. Then we'd have something like

• ... that Bach's cantata, Die Himmel erzählen die Ehre Gottes, BWV 76, first performed in the Thomaskirche (pictured), uses a trumpet to proclaim God's glory; later an oboe d'amore and a viola da gamba tell of "brotherly devotion"?

cmadler (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

As I think about this, that last clause should end with a full stop. One way (allowed by DYK rules) is to split it into a second sentence:

• ... that Bach's cantata, Die Himmel erzählen die Ehre Gottes, BWV 76, first performed in the Thomaskirche (pictured), uses a trumpet to proclaim God's glory? Later an oboe d'amore and a viola da gamba tell of "brotherly devotion".

Another way, which I prefer (but requires and IAR) is just to end with a full stop without splitting it:

• ... that Bach's cantata, Die Himmel erzählen die Ehre Gottes, BWV 76, first performed in the Thomaskirche (pictured), uses a trumpet to proclaim God's glory; later an oboe d'amore and a viola da gamba tell of "brotherly devotion".

I prefer the latter, but either of these is better than what we have now. cmadler (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's the composer who "uses", and "tell the glory" has to be in the first half, because it translates the title ("erzählen" is "tell", "narrate", not "proclaim") . New suggestion, probably too long, play with it:

• ... that Bach uses a trumpet to tell God's glory in Die Himmel erzählen die Ehre Gottes, BWV 76, first performed in the Thomaskirche (pictured), but oboe d'amore and viola da gamba [in Part II] to express [the epistle's] "brotherly devotion". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

or - to speak of the 2 parts, let the readers find out why such a contrast:

• ... that Bach first performed Die Himmel erzählen die Ehre Gottes, BWV 76, in the Thomaskirche (pictured), using a trumpet in Part I to tell God's glory, but oboe d'amore and viola da gamba in Part II? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for finally taking it as it is. I promise to be shorter and started, with a complete translation of the German title, as demanded by my reviewer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Today's Document challenge hook

Could someone look over Template_talk:Did_you_know#Opposition_to_the_overthrow_of_the_Hawaiian_Kingdom, approve it, and put it in a queue for tomorrow (July 7, preferably during the daytime for EST/UTC-4) for Today's Document challenge? This is time-sensitive and would really get some exposure this way. Thanks in advance, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance in split articles and Hawaiian history. Shouldn't Opposition to the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom including some brief introduction what is this article about (timing, etc)? Materialscientist (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a background section, but it's a rather broad topic—various forms of opposition were recorded throughout the 1890s. I have added the date of the revolution itself in the lede, if there's anything else that could use some additional context, please tell me. I'm about to go to sleep, but if the hook can get approved asap for tomorrow, then I'll still have a little time to clarify what needs clarifying. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The time-sensitiveness doesn't have anything to do with the article content; rather, the "Today's Document challenge" group wants the article to appear on that date to coincide with when the US National Archives features a document relating to that topic. Personally, I think this is a lot to ask the DYK people. When the "special occasion holding area" was originally set up it was pretty much limited to major holidays. Putting a well-balanced update together is already difficult, without having so many extra special date requests put on the people assembling the update. That being said, it seems that the special occasion holding area is being used for any old thing more and more (and I must admit even myself have requested holds for something other than a major holiday), so I guess there is precedent. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, the date is relevant to the article's content, though it is true that it is not associated with a holiday. The documents chosen each day are related in some way to the day's date; that's the whole premise of the activity. In this case, the Hawaiian Islands were annexed to the United States on July 7, 1898, and that is the anniversary being observed.

Regarding the special holding area more generally, I want to stress that it was not anyone's intention to try to invent a special process specifically for this challenge. I solicited opinions on this page back when I first proposed the page (indeed, it's still marked a proposal), but I didn't get much. You'll even see at the bottom one of my main concerns was whether it's okay to use the holding area for our challenge. I would welcome comments from experienced DYKers on that and the rest of the process. In fact, feel free to make changes; the National Archives is providing high-quality images and spotlighting Wikipedia content on its site, but as long as quality content is being created, it is not important exactly how. Dominic·t 13:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It it scheduled for Q4, is the timing Ok? Materialscientist (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Q3 would be preferred if at all possible, so that it will actually run during the day for most of the United States. Dominic·t 13:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• As an aside, past discussion has established that hooks intended for a specific date should be nominated normally (in the appropriate section by date of creation or expansion), with the nominator requesting the appearance date as a comment, and only moved to the holding area after approval. Also that such requests should be made at least 5 days and no more than 6 weeks in advance. Here's the discussion, and these instructions appear at the top of Template talk:Did you know#Special occasion holding area. cmadler (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Those guidelines were explicitly incorporated in the challenge's outline (actually, it says "between one and six weeks before," rather than 5 days). In this case, it was nominated 8 days prior, however that seems to be no guarantee that a review will be completed in time for the hook to make it into a regular update without urgent pleas. Dominic·t 13:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I just wanted to emphasize this portion of Cmadler's comment: "...hooks intended for a specific date should be nominated normally (in the appropriate section by date of creation or expansion), with the nominator requesting the appearance date as a comment, and only moved to the holding area after approval." I suspect the delay in getting a review was partly due to the fact that fewer people check the special occasion holding area because nominations are only moved there after a reviewer has approved the nomination. OCNative (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
      • While it's true that people make mistakes, that doesn't seem to have been a major issue here. I pointed that out to the nominator at the time, but the first review came within 24 hours of the nomination. In any case, perhaps we should be more proactive about moving things to the right place when we see them misplaced, as it does not appear to be an uncommon mistake. Dominic·t 16:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Manda Best ... Did I do wrong, and if so can we help the nominator?

On June 17, I questioned this article at DYK [2] because it was not new or 5x expanded as per the DYK tool, and a look at the history confirmed that. Also the nominator Mayhem Mario stated "I expanded it from 7,000 to 15,000".[3]

But now the author has asked me to reconsider it as an expansion from 160 bytes, not 7,000 bytes.[4] Looking again at the article history, I see a 160b bottleneck when it went to a redirect on March 21. The article was greatly expanded in MayhemMario's sandbox, which our rules permit, and moved to mainspace on June 14. Looking at the article before it was smooshed to a redirect on March 21, it is very different from what was submitted to DYK. Is it too late to resubmit to DYK if I was in error, and was I in error when I told him no? Sharktopus ^talk 20:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If expansion is calculated from the pre-redirect version, it doesn't qualify; expansion is counted based on character count, regardless of the quality of the content or how much the content differs from the current content.

If expansion is calculated from the redirect, which was in place for about 4 months, then it would qualify. I don't recall what the current consensus is about how long an article has to stay in redirect/stub form for it to be counted like this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

But anyway, regardless of how expansion gets counted, the new version is almost a month old by now. I think it's just too late to reconsider. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I really really want this DYK out there, but due to a silly mistake of em being stupid it cant now! MayhemMario 07:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

So I cant use this DYK anymore? MayhemMario 15:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Image alts

I've been noticing lately that the image alts for TFA, ITN, OTD, and TFP have consistently been short, caption-like statements while the image alts for DYK have been lengthy descriptions of the visual elements of each image for the purpose of users who are unable to view images. Is there any reason that DYK varies from the standard? If not, I would recommend that the image alts for DYK become shorter and more caption-like. Neelix (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll raise my hand as somebody who was making them long and descriptive, thinking that was a good thing for accessibility. But now I notice we have a policy at WP:ALT that suggests keeping them short. Thanks for the heads up, Neelix. Sharktopus ^talk 18:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:ALT, alt-text shouldn't be overly long or describe irrelevant details of the photo, but it also shouldn't be like a caption.

Neelix, are you're sure you're talking about alt-text and not captions? As far as I can tell, all the recent TFAs (the past few days of July, which are all I checked just now) don't have alt-text at all—which is a problem and is surprising given the number of people in the FA project who are familiar with WP:ACCESS. Unless there's some thing I'm missing, the wikitext for those TFAs doesn't include any |alt=, meaning those images only have tooltips (the text that appears when you let your mouse sit over the image for a moment) and not alt-text. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I just read WP:ALT and Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax#Alt_text_and_caption a little more closely, and I think maybe I have a handle on this. If |alt= is not specified in an image, alt-text is still created, it's just created based on the caption text (which creates the caption in the case of thumbnail images, or the tooltip in the case of non-thumbnail images like DYK and TFA images) instead of based on the |alt= text. Per WP:ALT#Captions and nearby text, it is sometimes acceptable for the caption and the alt-text to be identical; this is probably the case for both DYK and TFA images. (A case where it would not be acceptable would be, for instance, when the caption doesn't specifically describe the image but uses it to make some other commentary; for instance, a picture of a US flag with a caption saying "some congressmen attempted to make burning the US flag illegal" would need separate alt-text—e.g., the images here, which don't have alt-text but should.) Therefore, I think I should probably update {{NewDYKnom}} so it only requests the caption ("rollover") text, rather than both caption and alt-text; I can also update the instructions accordingly to describe what that text should consist of. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Thanks for doing such a thorough check into this issue, Rjanag! I'm glad you found my observations useful, Sharktopus! Neelix (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ready to start nomination subpages?

Discussion at #New nomination setup and related sections seems to have slowed down. Is there any reason not to just jump in and start the new system going right now? Are their any outstanding issues that have yet to be worked out?

As far as I can tell, no special "transition" work is going to be needed; I'll just replace the instructions with those at User:Rjanag/T:TDYK, people will start nominating that way instead of the current way, and while that is happening the current nominations can still be dealt with the old way until they're all done. So there might up to 2 weeks of slight confusion because of having two types of nominations on teh page (some subpage and some non-subpage noms), but I don't imagine that being a huge problem, and I think it's unavoidable anyway. To make sure people notice the change and start updating the new way, we can temporarily put a big colorful editnotice on DYK; I've prepared a sample here.

When the transition is made, Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count will stop working for a few days (Shubinator will need to update the bot, see the bottom of User talk:Shubinator#DYK thoughts), although I'm sure we can get along fine without it in the short-term. If people want, I can add categories to the DYK subpage template that will approximate that count (they wouldn't be able to tell how many noms have been "ticked", but they would give a count of how many noms for a given day have not yet been rejected or promoted). rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we can go with it. I'd still like to see either a notice (with a permanent link to the discussion) or even transclusion of the DYK discussion on each article talk page, and was hoping that could happen simultaneous with this change. Perhaps we can do that next? cmadler (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think those should all be pretty easy to do. It should be easy to add links to the DYK subpage discussion in the talkpage notices (either {{dyktalk}} or, for GA/FAs, {{ArticleHistory}}), although I haven't looked into it yet. For transclusion at the article talk page, the way I have things set up now, transcluding the DYK page on the article talkpage like so:

== DYK nomination ==

{{Template talk:Did you know/SOME ARTICLE}}

will, while the discussion is ongoing, cause the discussion to be transcluded (with an "edit" link that goes straight to the subpage); after the nom is promoted or rejected and therefore is no longer active, it will instead turn into a static link to the discussion (see, e.g. User:Rjanag/T:TDYK#Tyrannosaurus rex). rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

While we're making the changes, can we add to instructions to add the above code (for transclusion) to the talk page(s) of the relevant article(s)? cmadler (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I think we could even make a template similar to yours, which just adds that (using {{BASEPAGENAME}}). rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, it's probably better to make the user enter the subpage name itself, rather than having it generated from BASEPAGENAME. For multi-noms, or noms where the subpage name isn't exactly the same as the article name (maybe because the user made a typo or a capitalization error when nominating, or maybe because the article got moved after it was nominated), BASEPAGENAME won't match the nomination subpage's name. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I think we may be ready. If possible we should make the transition just after a DYK update so that if there are any problems they can be fixed in time for the next update. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the transition will affect updates at all, since the updates will be based on old noms already in the queue and the transition will only mess with new noms. I guess we could play it safe by making sure to fill up the queues beforehand. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• • BTW: I have changed the categories on the passed test nominations from Category:Passed DYK nominations to Category:Passed test DYK nominations. I think Category:Passed DYK nominations should just be a holding category, with the articles themselves in categories like Category:Passed DYK nominations from July 2011, Category:Passed DYK nominations from August 2011 etc. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
    • That's a good idea. It should be pretty easy to make happen; the onlI was also thinking updating the nomination template so instead of putting pending noms into CAT:Pending DYK nominations or whatever, it would put them into CAT:Pending DYK nominations for 8 July 2011, etc. But this would cause extra work on the nominator's part (we can't just use {CURRENTDAY} and stuff like that, because something might be nominated for a date several days before the current date; therefore, the nominator would have to manually enter the desired date) and once DYKHousekeepingBot is again able to do the hook count then these categories would be largely redundant and unnecessary. So overall I don't think it would be worth it to do this for pending noms.
    • For passed (and perhaps failed) noms, though, I agree it would be nice. One question, though: suppose an article is nominated on 29 July and passed on 5 August. Should it be categorized as a "passed DYK nomination from July 2011"? If so, the editor promoting an article will have to manually specify that when promoting. If it can be just categorized as an "August" nom, then this can be done automatically through {subst:CURRENTMONTH}. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Hmm... I think we should probably treat failed and passed noms the same, which would mean to classify them from their date of nomination. That would mean more work, but better standardization. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Sounds good. I made it happen. See Template talk:Did you know/Test for an example. The promoter/rejecter now has to fill in the month and year, as well as |passed=yes/no, but that's probably not a whole lot of work. If nothing gets filled in, the nom just gets placed in Category:Passed DYK nominations or the the corresponding failed one, and someone could periodically check that category to re-categorize ones that won't belong there (by adding the date in the wikitext). Feel free to try nominating and promoting/rejecting a fake article to see how it works. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't participated in this discussion at all, for a variety of reasons, but now that this new system is apparently imminent, I feel obliged to belately raise a couple of issues.

First of all, what happened to the quid pro quo requirement? Rjanag's new instructions don't mention it, they only suggest that a user might like to review someone else's submission. Was there a discussion about this that I missed? If not, I think we will need a discussion about that.

Secondly, since we're apparently going to separate transcluded pages, wouldn't it also be useful to have the pages transcluded onto the article talk page, in the same way as a GA review? This should facilitate discussion of the submission, as well as alerting contributors to the fact that a page has been nominated for DYK, which has previously been suggested by some users. Gatoclass (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Gato. Regarding the quid pro quo thing, I basically just copied the instructions that were on T:TDYK (but then trimmed them ruthlessly); I didn't notice any explicit instructions about quid pro quo at T:TDYK, so I didn't add them in my instructions either. I assumed the instructions regarding that are on WP:DYK or somewhere else, but I didn't look. Mainly I was trying to shorten the instructions as much as possible, to the bare minimum necessary to get the nomination to actually work, to avoid making it look like the new system was really complicated. If people think the quid pro quo issue should be explicitly stated in the new instructions, though, it can very easily be added.

Regarding transcluding pages at the article talk page, that is indeed possible; Cmadler and I discussed it a bit above. The way I have the instructions written now it's not a mandatory step (again, I wanted to keep the nomination process as simple as possible, with as few steps as possible), but it's explicitly recommended in step 3 (similar to how, in AfD nominations, notifying the creator with {{adw}} is not a mandatory step but is recommended in the instructions). rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

For qpq, it would be sufficient to state that it is still in place (for those who know) and a link to where it is explained (for the few who don't), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rjanag. Apologies for missing a couple of those details, there's rather a lot of discussion to catch up on. Regarding the article talk page transclusion, couldn't that be done by a bot? AFAIK that's how it works at GAN, and it seems to work smoothly enough. Gatoclass (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it could be bot-ified, although I wouldn't be the one to do it (I don't know how to write that kind of bot). I figured since it's not a necessary part of the process but rather a nice extra, there was no reason not to just jump in and do it, and add the bot later when some brave soul decides to put it together... rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm out of the country right now and have limited Internet access. I'll be back in commission on July 22nd. If there are no further concerns, let's go ahead and make the switch then. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hooky or misleading? A disagreement at T:TDYK#Shammi_Narang

Could I ask for advice on a dispute about a hook, to which I am myself a late arrival. The relevant rule seems to be: "When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. An interesting hook is more likely to draw in a variety of readers. Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones, as long as they don't misstate the article content." Sharktopus ^talk 15:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much to all who commented — we now have consensus and an approved hook for an interesting article. Sharktopus ^talk 18:25, 8 July 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 #1 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) 22:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there -- I am going through T:TDYK learning how to make Prep, which I have not done before. I am noticing older backlogged articles, many of them approved, that prolific critics questioned for "hookiness" or whatever after they were approved, and now these DYKs sit in limbo, approved but questioned. So if anybody wants to muscle through and clear some of those, either re-approve or improve hooks or whatever, that would be great. Sharktopus ^talk 23:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If any experienced Prep maker would check out Prep 2 — it looks to me as if, at least, nothing is broken. Sharktopus ^talk 00:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks okay, but at least four of those hooks could probably have been used as quirkies (ie last slot hooks). Be careful when you are building an update that you don't take all the best hooks and stick them in one update, or it generally leaves a poor selection of hooks for the next few updates. Gatoclass (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Gatoclass, for taking the time to look and for this really helpful feedback. Sharktopus ^talk 11:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for stepping up to help out :) Gatoclass (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Update

Done a bit of loading. If folks can load up another prep area or two that'd be great. I can move to queues a bit later today Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

July 14 is Bastille Day, could we have some DYKs related to France?

If anybody notices any France-related DYK articles or feels like writing some, July 14 would be a good day for a themed set. There are a bunch of WikiProject France stubs, etc. listed here. Sharktopus ^talk 10:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Poker - All in

What's the deal with all the poker stuff in DYK? DYKs are supposed to be "interesting to a wide audience". These things could only possibly be of interest to other poker players. 159.83.4.148 (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Some people are interested in poker. Others like Bach cantatas, others like the "organ music" of Micronecta scholtzi. One way to interest a wide audience is to show items for a wide range of audiences. Sharktopus ^talk 21:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

And others like obscure (to a Western audience) Indonesian pop and rock music. All editors at DYK work on things that interest them, which can sometimes be rather uninteresting to a wide audience. That is why the hook is also important. We may not care who Jan Claudius de Cock is, but say that a de Cock decorated a ceiling in a palace and we may draw readers. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hook languishing in special occasion holding area

Terry Fullerton is still sitting in the special occasion holding area for July 10, so could an admin move it to Queue 6? It's been approved since 4 July. OCNative (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What's a 5k expansion

I read some of the articles in Did You Know just now. Then I clicked on the "newest articles" link on the main page out of curiosity and found out 5 times expanded articles are eligible too. I've been adding to Table Mountain Wilderness, but I'm not sure if it's eligible or not. How is this expanded article eligibility determined? Is this article eligible or do I have to add more to it? Thank you. PumpkinSky (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• 5x expansion means that the prose portion of the article has been expanded fivefold. Table Mountain Wilderness was 332 characters before your expansion, so a 5x expansion would be 1660 characters. Your expansion began on July 9 and has now reached 1869 characters, so Table Mountain Wilderness is eligible for DYK.
  For your reference, the exact wording in the DYK rules is: "Former redirects, stubs, and other articles in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold or more within the past 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. The length of both the old and new versions of the article is calculated based on prose character count, not word count." Welcome to DYK! OCNative (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Interesting. Thanks. I rather doubt people count the prose by hand. Do you paste the prose in Word and use that word count or is there somewhere to click to do that?PumpkinSky (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

AHA. Found it. I see people on the nominations page refer to "DYKCheck". I did a search for it and found nothing. But a search for "WP:DYKcheck" found it and I set it up on my page. Neat tool!PumpkinSky (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Occasionally, you may want to double check your character counts with Microsoft Word because there's been a few times where DYKCheck has miscalculated. OCNative (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, but shouldn't a sub-stub two sentences long (such as the article referred to here) should be considered as "new"? In any case there's really no material difference between expansion and being new as the length should be around the same. –HTD 17:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a sub-stub two sentences long can qualify as "new" if created within the past five days. However, "newness" is not the only criterion for DYK; it must also be long enough. So while a sub-stub is "new", it's not eligible for DYK. DYK eligibility requires meeting all the criteria, not just one of them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What if the sub-stub was created a year ago and had 200 characters; if you'd expand that 5x that'll only be 1,000 characters, still less than 1.5k. That's why I'm looking for an exemption for really short stubs to classify them as "new" regardless when they were created as sometimes expansion won't cut it. An example would be René Lavocat that has 283 characters. –HTD 17:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No "exemption" is necessary. The expansion requirement is not exactly 5x, but at least 5x and at least 1500 prose characters. So, while expanding a year-old 200-character stub to 1500 or more would not qualify as a new article, it would be perfectly fine as an expansion. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

5 DYK credits rule

What is the current position with regard to DYK "self-nominators" with 5 or more DYK credits? Is it still a requirement that they review another DYK nomination? If so, where is this now made clear? IIRC, there used to be a large Yellow panel on top of the nominations page. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It is still in effect, but isn't "large yellow" anymore, because most contributors know. It must be somewhere, but I never looked. Reviewers are encouraged to gently remind if a reference to such a "qui pro quo" review is missing in a nom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Where's my DYK? (Majority Judgment)

I was notified that my DYK for Majority Judgment made it to the main page on July 11. That's today, but I don't see it there. I'm expect that I don't understand the process right - can someone explain to me what's going on? Homunq (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I figured it out: according to Wikipedia:Recent_additions, it only lasted for 8 hours. Homunq (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Be happy, until recently it would have been only 6 hours. (I remember the feeling at my first DYK.) If you watch the queue before it appears, you can see in advance when it is scheduled to appear your area of the world (and I have successfully interfered if that was in the middle of the night there). Welcome here! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

T:TDYK#District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act

Any chance this could be stuck in a queue for later today (July 12)? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In Q5. Materialscientist (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Move Special Occasion Hook to Q6

Hi, Leroy Petry was sitting in the Special Occasion Holding Area, approved for July 12 (in the U.S.) until this move three hours ago, so could an admin move the hook to Queue 6? (The hook is "... that Leroy Petry (pictured) is receiving the U.S. Medal of Honor today, marking only the second time that the award has been bestowed upon a living soldier for actions after the end of the Vietnam War?") OCNative (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks! OCNative (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

May I?

I expanded this article Techno Cumbia today (and yesterday, hours apart though) and was wondering can I nominate it? Not sure if its 5x expanded. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK check says expansion is enough, stub classification. That should go. I didn't dig deeper, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I was told that I shouldn't assess any article that I had expanded to any class, that it should be done by someone uninvolved with the article. So that's why I didn't move it up to "B-Class". So should I? lolz, cause you didn't "dig deeper". Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just leave "class=" blank, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. AJona1992 (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing and moving to prep/queue for July 14 of France-related articles

Tomorrow is France's Fête Nationale, and we have a special category for July 14. Could I solicit some reviewers to take a look at relevant articles not yet confirmed at T:TDYK? Searching the page for France/French, I came up with ...

• Palace of Versailles Research Centre
• Musée d'Ethnographie du Trocadéro

(I didn't have to look very hard to find those, since I just did clean-up on one and nominated the other. What I mean is, I could not find any more besides those.) Anybody else with some great ideas, a French-twist to put on an article already up for DYK, or the savvy to nominate somebody else's new France-related article, it is not too late yet! Sharktopus ^talk 13:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks to Gerda for reviewing these! Could somebody more uninvolved (and more competent) than Sharktopus move them to Prep for Main Paging tomorrow? Sharktopus ^talk 18:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

:And another possible with mentionable Paris ... Sharktopus ^talk 20:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Object (Le Déjeuner en fourrure)

Church Cottage, Tutshill

Just drawing attention to my self-nomination of that article, started yesterday, about J. K. Rowling's childhood home. The new (final) Harry Potter movie is in theatres tomorrow, hint hint. I will find something to review. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've verified this nomination, if someone could please move it to Prep 4 to feature on the Main page tommorow. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Moved. Materialscientist (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wording of hook for Harley-Davidson XR-750

Hi everyone, I was wondering if anyone is interested on weighing in on the wording of the hook for Harley-Davidson XR-750, located at Template talk:Did you know#Harley-Davidson XR-750. I am looking for a second opinion. Thank you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

All the queues are empty. All the preps are full.

Also, please try to have France-themed articles show up on the front page during a part of July 14 when France is awake, not asleep. Thanks! Sharktopus ^talk 01:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have filled out one and a bit prep areas. If someone could continue loading prep areas, that'd be great. I can upload to queue later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done four more, and Crisco 1492 has done another. The biggest problem I see is that most of the many nominations from before 9 July had not been reviewed at all. I've spent several hours today wading through a lot of these, and have posted initial evaluations. Most of those that checked out have already been moved to a prep area. As for the others, I've marked some as having unusable hooks, or as needing copy editing of the article itself. However, there are still many nominations in need of checking, even if it's just a preliminary check. Most of these are biographies or buildings.

Prep areas 1, 3, and 4 currently contain nominations I've selected, so someone else should double-check and set those into a queue (when space allows). A few of those nominations were older, unreviewed noms that I reviewed and moved in one fell swoop, so a double check of my work is in order. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement that I would like others to look at

One of our waiting-a-while hooks connects 4 articles -- a nonfiction book and three people who were the subject of the book. To my regret, I think the articles overlap so much that a reader clicking through from this hook on the main page would not discover 4 articles "worth" of new content. The creator disagrees. Could others check out the issues described in this thread? [5] Thanks for taking a look. Sharktopus ^talk 03:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Needs new text, not re-use of text that's already in other articles. That's already in the DYK rules. Simple as that. Re-use of text is not eligible. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I requested a citation for your "simple as that" claim already. You didn't provide it there, do you care to do so here? The four articles were created in main space more or less simultaneously; it seems obvious that since the four are connected there would be re-used text...simple as that, to borrow a phrase. If the rules really state that "re-use of text is not eligible", I'll withdraw the nomination. I've gone back (again) and read both Wikipedia:DYK and Wikipedia:DYKAR, and I just don't see it. The fact that these four articles were added simultaneously precludes use of WP:DYKAR#A5, since none of these articles is being nominated on the basis of expansion but rather as newly-created articles. Invoke WP:IAR, call WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or something else...but without a citation for "not eligible", you'll have to send this to /dev/null without my approval.  Frank  |  talk  03:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

General reply. Reuse of one's own new content is well allowed, unless it is misused (willingly or not) for reaching the 1500 char (or 5x expansion) limit in the individual articles, or is simply unreasonable. Whether or not this is the case depends on a personal view on what information should be in what article. My personal view is that the current overlap is such that Zoya Fyodorova, Victoria Fyodorova and The Admiral's Daughter articles could well be merged into one article. They could also stand on their own, provided they are expanded individually and the overlap is reduced. Materialscientist (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Practically speaking this seems to be just a disagreement over semantics. There is at least one DYK article in there, right? So pick one article, feature it, with that particular article's title bolded, de-emphasize the rest in the hook (though of course retain the wlinks) and we're good to go. The only way I can see this mattering is if somebody's bean-counting their DYKs and wants to have "credit" (whatever that really is) for 4 DYKs rather than 1. But I'm not sure that should really be a consideration.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for very helpful replies, and to Volunteer Marek for a practical suggestion on resolving the disagreement. I have suggested a couple of alt hooks that would point to two out of these four articles. I feel that having a DYK hook pointing from our Main Page to 4 articles that all tell essentially the same story is not appropriate. If somebody else could review the nomination so we can move it up to Prep, that would be good. Sharktopus ^talk 14:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Main page features

A RFC is underway to discuss what features the community desires to see on the main page. Please participate! Thanks. AD 19:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Still looking for participants. 110.136.175.79 (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Verifying science articles

I've seen a fair number of science articles get posted to DYK lately that have absurd claims or outright misinformation in them. I'm not talking about scientific controversies, just basic facts that are wrong or extremely outdated. Can reviewers PLEASE post requests to review scientific or technical articles to the relevant WikiProjects BEFORE the DYK goes live? Otherwise our DYK section is going to erode Wikipedia's reputation for accuracy. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There is already a lot of work going on just to keep up with DYK without requiring the volunteeers to post an additional set of notices. If the relevant projects wish to check in and review nominated articles, they can always do that, and it will help the overtaxed DYK project when they do. Any nominated article can be checked, often a week or more before selected for the Main Page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You mention "a fair number" of articles "lately" with "absurd claims"; please do give a few recent examples so we can see where we went wrong. We haven't had many chemistry or physics articles, but we do have a lot of articles about animal and plant species. As a member of WikiProject Life, I posted an invitation over there,[6] more eyes are always welcome. Sharktopus ^talk 21:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

We could try including the specific source, page, link, etc. in the comments for all science articles? The main problem with them is that their 'facts' are often not as clear cut and easy to find as normal news, website, or book-cited articles By providing source info, we save the reviewer the hassle of searching for them inside journals.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, these should be raised at the time and on an individual basis. Even retrospectively is helpful so we can review process. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that no matter how well DYK volunteers review the articles and check the sources, if the article is on an obscure topic, only people from the respective WikiProjects are going to be able to tell if the articles are actually accurate or not. In the case of science articles especially, we have a problem with people using outdated sources, since those are generally the ones most likely to be accessible online (ironically). Then there is also the problem of people simply not understanding the subject they are writing about. I think if no one is available to review a technical or scientific article for accuracy, it shouldn't be approved for DYK, no matter how many citations it has. Otherwise, we are just spreading misinformation. Kaldari (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• The rule change you propose would be a substantial one. Could you give examples of a few recent science DYKs showing a problem with "spreading misinformation" and/or "absurd claims"? Sharktopus ^talk 12:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd rather not embarrass the authors as I'm sure they were written with the best of intentions. Perhaps I should amend my proposal to say articles on obscure topics, as this doesn't seem to be much of a problem with run-of-the-mill science articles (where the reviewer would probably have a basic knowledge). And I'm sure the same problem could happen with an article on 17th century Russian literature or any other obscure topic. Basically, I would suggest that if the reviewer has no knowledge of an article's subject whatsoever, they request the nominator to get someone from a relevant WikiProject to vouch for the article. And they don't have to vouch for every detail, just vouch for the fact that the article wouldn't sound absurd to someone familiar with the field. Kaldari (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, there's not much the project can do for you if you want to come here insisting on horrible problems that are occuring but refuse to point out any of them specifically. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, I don't know if you're referring to any of the DYKs I have written, but if you are, please tell me, so I can fix them and avoid similar problems in the future. Ucucha 12:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Do quotes count as main prose for fivefold expansion?

Hi all. I've been working on expanding Star of Love (Crystal Fighters album). It's gone from 10,177 bytes to 29,730 bytes in total... My question is: given that the article constituted of a full third of quotes beforehand, is that counted when ascertaining the prose length to determine fivefold expansion? Also, is there an easy way to see the prose-only byte count? Thanks =) Nikthestoned 18:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Bytes are not what you count, see the rules, but re quotes this is a good borderline example. I would say that quotes that ought to have been taken out of running prose per MOS principles should be excluded from before & after counts, but that leaves a fair amount of room for personal taste. I noticed recently that the rules re expansions do not specifically mention quotes. Full declaration: when I did the nom for Tipu's Tiger (July 18) my "before" count excluded a huge 868 char quote that was then in running prose but in the "after" version was separated as a quote, as it clearly should be. I think this was right - at that point it made a difference to the 5x but now it doesn't as the article has grown. It would be silly to include it before and exclude it after. Johnbod (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Expansion is counted based on the size of the previous article, no matter what shape it was in; this is stated clearly in the rules. A character of prose in the pre-existing version is counted as a character of prose, even if it happens to be in quotes. So your article is not 5x expanded.

If an article was already 10,000+ characters before you started expanding it, you should consider WP:GAN rather than WP:DYK. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No bytes dude. The previous version contained little prose, but lists, refs, templates etc etc. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As for your second question, you can calculate prose size using User:Dr pda/prosesize.js, User:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js, or WP:DYKCHECK. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Previous version is 2854 characters, current version is 7568. Less than 3x expansion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct - though given that block-quotes are discounted by the script and the former has 2 massive inline quotes, the original should only be 1982 chars and as such the goal is far more attainable! Either way, thanks for all your help =) Nikthestoned 07:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement over a hook

Would be great if this disagreement receives some third opinion. _morelMW^illiam 08:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I commented in the thread, although I was pre-empted by another comment from Binksternet. Gatoclass (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion/question

Reading the commentary above I very much agree with Gatoclass that there is a need to reduce the number of DYK submissions and in order for us to do that DYK nomination standards have to be raised (basically we need to make it harder to write DYK-worthy article - I'd start with a simple no brainer of raising min character count to 2500 characters). But the other side of the problem is potentially sloppy reviewing. I was wondering then if it would be possible to somehow change how reviewers mark articles they've checked.

Right now, if I go to review an article I'm told where to put my comment and given the list of 'ticks': · · · · . But there's nothing on the page which will tell or remind me what the actual rules for DYK are. Back in the day when doing reviews I often had to go back and look up the Rules (particularly since I kept thinking articles had to be 2500 characters) each time just to make sure.

What I think would better is if there was a built in template that pops up new nominations when you open the edit window to give your review of the article. It shouldn't be a all or nothing one either (though to get it passed all aspect would have to be approved) but should specifically list the things that need to be checked, as a reminder to reviewers. I would include in the template something like

{{hook length=|hook source=|adequate sourcing=|article length=|vintage=|close paraphrasing=|sources accessible=|comment=}}

which would be very much like the template for DYK nominations themselves (and you can stick the cute little 'ticks' in there). Of source these sections of the review template can be named whatever but basically such a template should remind reviewers that they need to check all of these things (the last one "sources accessible" would just indicate whether they sources are available easily (which basically means online and in English), with "agf" an option).

While this would probably not deter any kind of unscrupulous reviewers, it would make it immediately explicit to everyone what is expected of them in the review process.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a very clever and interesting idea, VM. Right now, a potential reviewer who clicks "Edit" on an article entry at T:TDYK sees a Page notice with templates designed to help people nominating articles, not people reviewing them. Reviewers don't need that information but they could use different information, and a different template. Does one of our resident ninjas know how to implement this? Sharktopus ^talk 13:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's one possibility I guess, although it would make for a more cluttered page. I think the main problem is that DYK admins tend to get a little slack from time to time. Perhaps we just need to more strongly emphasize the need for admins to check hooks thoroughly for problems before loading them into the queue. It's what is supposed to happen, but overworked admins sometimes resort to cutting corners. Gatoclass (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes but this is exactly part of "more strongly emphasize". How else would you do it? Tsk tsk people after the fact?Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I really like this proposal to improve the supporting structure. It is simple, it is targeted, and it is quantized (easy to tell whether it has been implemented or not). Sharktopus ^talk 15:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It could work provided it doesn't take up too much space. I guess it could be implemented something like article rating templates - you have a series of questions to which you respond "y" or "n", and based on your input, the template outputs the appropriate icon. Gatoclass (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that some version of this seems worth trying. -- Khazar (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

you have a series of questions to which you respond "y" or "n", and based on your input, the template outputs the appropriate icon - yes, that's exactly the idea I had in mind. The only wrinkle would be that the "checked sources" entry would have an "AGF" option for sources that are not available online or are not in English.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:43, 22 July 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 #3 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) 14:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I've dropped a couple of new updates into the queue. Gatoclass (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

...and I've now moved 2 more preps into the queue, and have populated 3 prep areas for double checking by someone else. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Up or out: "From Wikipedia's newest content"

When I was making up Prep last night, I wanted to clear some of the backlog of older articles but most of them didn't have the magic checkmark. Three items created July 2 do not have even one review. I suggest we review articles from the backlog, NOT articles recently added, until the backlog is cleared. Sharktopus ^talk 11:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As I say above, I noticed this problem as well. I've reviewed and moved quite a few of these, and have noted problems with a few more.

Current statistic: about 25 nominations in 2-6 July, but only 3 of those cleared for use.

However, I've now been at DYK for nearly four five hours straight and will need a break to do other things now :P --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, EncycloPetey, your work is appreciated! Sharktopus ^talk 23:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

A good few more have been reviewed. Hopefully the backlog is more manageable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

User:EncycloPetey

I would like to complain how User:EncycloPetey reviewed the article First Lady of the World. I have withdrawn it because he distrusts a Wikipedian like me. Wikipedia belongs to everyone. What he did is against the Wikipedia way of openness and collaboration. He must be removed as an administrator because of this. - AnakngAraw (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

He won't be. The diff is here. The nom dates back to July 4, so it's a pity the issues weren't addressed earlier. Including the name of the main character in a plagiarism comparison is a bit, er, harsh, but otherwise his removal seems reasonable. Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it a striking feature of the plot or public perception of the novel, that the main character worships Hindu gods at an altar in the United Nations building? If so, how else would one word a quick summary of that fact? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

AnakngAraw, having articles featured on DYK is a privilege, not a right, and the project doesn't need people calling for desysopping/banning every DYK editor who doesn't agree with them. If you can't work with DYK reviewers civilly, then maybe your privilege of nominating DYK articles should be removed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a "privilege of nominating DYK articles" that could be removed, other than by a block etc. Where does this strange idea come from? Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

People can be topic-banned from any project. Likewise, DYK reviewers can simply refuse to review anything edited by that editor. If someone is going to make threats against every DYK editor who criticizes their nomination, that person clearly is not ready to be a constructive member of the project, and the people who volunteer their time to run DYK shouldn't have to worry about getting this kind of crap for their reviews. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't amount to what you said. Frankly here your language here is inappropriate. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Topic banning is removing an editing privilege. How is that different? AnakngAraw's complaint above was the only inappropriate thing in this thread and I will not apologize for calling it inappropriate. Do you have something to contribute to this discussion (which seems to be stale anyway, as the OP hasn't commented in days), or are you just looking for a fight? rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" (until blocked or banned). Talking about "privileges" is bullshit and fundamentally wrong, re DYK or any other normal editing function. I've made my point. Johnbod (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So you don't disagree with the point I was making in any way, you just felt like going off on a tangent to complain about my word choice. I'm glad that is cleared up. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(And by the way, longstanding consensus is that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC))

Two fold expansion

Would I get a two-fold expansion DYK credit if a 650-character article has one ref in the text but no refs needed BLP tags?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The two-fold expansion rule is for unreferenced BLPs. If it has one reference already, it does not quality. cmadler (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Prep areas need filling

I have nearly finished prep area 4 but really need to do stuff elsewhere. So folks, fill away...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks folks. Now to get an admin on commons to protect the prep images. Will ask posthaste. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Just asked now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nom deleted without discussion?

I assume this was an accident, but my nom, Wittorf affair under July 19 was deleted today (see diff) without any discussion. The edit summary says "need source" and although the edit summary says "Wittorf affair, the comment is made for the nom following it, Dorothy Reitman and Wittorf affair is simply deleted, section header and all. It being DYK, I would rather not just restore it myself and am not sure if that would be appropriate anyway. I would appreciate someone restoring the nom. Thanks in advance. Marrante (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess that was an accident and tried to restore it, please check, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Freddie Mitchell in queue 4

I'd like a second opinion on the Freddie Mitchell hook in queue 4. It asserts that Mitchell "received racially threatening hate mail in 2003, apparently due to his appearance on a reality television show, A Dating Story?" This doesn't sound correct linguistically. While the hate mail appears to have been "racially motivated," I don't think it's correct to call it "racially threatening." I think the word "racially" should be stricken, or changed to "racially motivated hate mail." Cbl62 (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

How about just "hate mail"? I don't really like these tabloid headline hooks, I have to say. There was another one at T:TDYK about some recent guy getting enslaved and beheaded. DYK is to motivate people to create new content for encyclopedia articles, and I'm not sure we achieve that by front-paging ugly trivia. Just off the top of my head here, but what do others think? Sharktopus ^talk 00:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd use a different hook altogether. It's a minor point in the article, and using it as a hook is not very sensitive to potential BLP concerns. --JN466 04:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Lost picture for promoted hook

So the picture associated with my hook got lost in the move from the suggestions page to the prep area. I know that there are more picture hooks nominated than there are spots, but I don't often nominate hooks with pictures (this would be my second with a picture) and was looking forward to this one, and I'd like to draw attention to the nanotechnology/history of science areas which (I think) are not usually as well represented on DYK. I don't know what the etiquette is surrounding this and I don't want to unilaterally promote my own article; would it be permissible to return the hook to the suggestions page, or even move the hook to an empty prep area with the picture? On the other hand, if there was some problem with the picture making it less suitable please let me know. The hook in question is this one. Thanks. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It's basically up to the person putting together sets to choose from what's available and as you say there are too many images to actually use, so a lot of images don't make it. Unless there's an issue with the image that has been chosen there's no reason to change things - sorry, it's always disappointing when you feel that you've come up with a neat picture to accompany your hook, I've never got more than about half of mine through and I suspect that I'm not alone. Mikenorton (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

in queue needs fixing

Can an admin pls fix the in-queue protected page? It was "fixed" by someone, resulting in mis-matched tenses.

Should read .... "... that American NFL quarterback Robert Halperin was awarded the Navy Cross, won an Olympic bronze medal and a Pan American Games gold medal in sailing, and co-founded the Lands' End clothing retailer?"

New material in bold.

(now reads "was co-founder of ").--Epeefleche (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination subpages

It's done [7]. For anyone who's confused about what this is, previous discussion about this stuff is at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_68#New_nomination_setup, Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_68#Ready to start nomination subpages?, and links therein.

I will stay near the computer for the next several hours to see what happens. If things start going crazy I can put it back the way it was before. I don't think anything will go crazy though. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The new setup includes instructions for setting up AfD-like daily archives of nomination discussions (T:TDYK#How to archive a day's nominations). I just realized this might be somewhat confusing in light of WP:Recent additions, which is also an "archive", although it's an archive of promoted hooks only (basically, an archive of every edition of T:DYK). Perhaps we should think of renaming both archives to make things clearer (for instance, naming WP:Recent additions something like "DYK hook archive" and naming the other thing something like "DYK nomination archive"). rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the look of most of this, but like you am a little apprehensive about the archiving format. Is it really going to make it easier to find an old archive page from a bunch of daily archives? I guess it would work if a link to the DYK discussion was included in the DYKbot notifications, has any provision been made to do that? Gatoclass (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The archiving was something someone else suggested I think; personally I don't know how necessary it is. (It should be possible to find most old DYK nominations just by typing in the name, e.g. Template talk:Did you know/Some article; likewise, it sounds like lots of people want to also transclude the nom at the article talk page, like a GAN, which will provide another way to find it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Right now the shortcuts to the approval and refusal signs are not in the edit notice. It is a little hard to review if I cannot copy and paste the subst: templates. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I put it back on T:TDYK. Once all noms are on subpages it will no longer be needed there; I'll try to figure out how to get the {{DYKSymbols}} automatically into the edit notice of every subpage of Template talk:Did you know/ (which is the only way to ensure that those shortcuts are available for all reviewing). rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Could we theoretically use Template:Editnotice load? I am not sure how that works, but it seems that we could have it cascade down from T:TDYK to all of the subpages. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I just accomplished the same thing using Template:Editnotices/Group/Template talk:Did you know. Easier than I expected! rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it. I used the Nominate a New Article button (without saving) and your fixes showed up as an edit notice. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(In time,) amendments should be made to {{dyktalk}} and {{ArticleHistory}} to link to subpage noms. Naturally these amendments should be optional parameters to respect articles that went through under the old (one page) system. —Andrew_stalk 10:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I just nominated something using the new system, and I have no problems with it. Good job! Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I would still like to see some sort of article talk-page notification of a DYK nomination, either with a link to the discussion or even a transclusion of the discussion subpage. I can't count the times an article I've watchlisted and had material and sources that I hadn't gotten around to adding went through DYK and I only found out after it was already on the main page (because that's currently the only notification to the article talk page). If I'd known they were heading for the Main Page, I might have made those improvements a higher priority in my editing. cmadler (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't automatic (although some people have suggested making a bot to do it), but the instructions do urge editors to also post the nom at the article's talk page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

My argument is that it should either be a required part of the nomination process, or it should be automated by a bot (which is beyond my ability to create). cmadler (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Rjanag, but for those (like me :) who have always found DYK too arcane to follow, can you answer some Dummy 101 stuff for me?

1. Are all noms archived somewhere (that is, both successful and unsuccessful)? Are there separate archives for successful and unsuccessful, similar to FAC?
2. Are reviewers indicated in archive?
3. Will the archive indicate exactly who placed a hook on the mainpage? That is the bottom line accountability that is now missing; that is one piece of crucial info that we need if DYK is ever to become accountable for putting policy violations on the mainpage. There is no reason for admins who are putting policy violations on the mainpage to not be glancing at the garbage they're placing there.
4. I presume this is done now in such a way that they can be incorporated into articlehistory-- is that correct?

I hope I'm proven wrong, and we're not still, yet, and again revisiting these same problems a year from now with a new crop of plagiarizers and denialists, but if we are, archives will be helpful in gathering data for identifying the scope of the problem. Without accountability and records, there has been no way to get this problem under control. Thanks for doing this, regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a new system, and as you can see, the details are still being ironed out. The quick answers are that in the past, nominations were only "archived" in the history of T:TDYK, but under the new system, each nomination gets a permanent subpage. Since they're subpages, they can be sorted in any fashion any editor wants, either through link or through transclusion. I'm not sure if the project has decided what form the "official" archive sorting will take, but of course, any editor can implement any sort method they'd like (within their userspace, or if enough people find it valuable, in projectspace). Reviewers are indicated in the archive, as they always have been on T:TDYK, the difference being that it will no longer be necessary to search the history of a large frequently-edited page to find. The initial promoter (from approved nomination to prep area) will probably need to leave some indication that a hook has been promoted, so that will be reflected in the archive. It will take a little more work to track the next step (promotion from Prep Area to Queue, which can only be done by an admin), but I agree that it would be valuable to have that also listed in the archive, as that is often the final check before the Main Page. (Items in the Queue should be Main Page-ready, as the advancement from Queue to T:DYK -- the actual page transcluded to the Main Page -- is usually done by bot.) This can and should be incorporated into {{ArticleHistory}}, though someone comfortable with template syntax will need to do some editing there. (While they're at it, they should probably remove the "dykdate2" parameter, which is for an article's second DYK appearance.) Again, the use of transcluded subpages is totally new for DYK, and we're still figuring it out. If you have any suggestions about how to implement further improvements in this system, I'd love to see them. cmadler (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Cmadler has answered your questions pretty fully; I'll just add a few more thoughts I had.

1. As for archiving, so far no really organized system for archiving has been set up, although the template is already set up so that when a nom is promoted or failed it gets placed into a category (e.g. "promoted DYK nminations from August 2011" or "rejected DYK nominations from November 2011", etc.). That is probably not the most ideal or well-organized system, but I would be happy to hear proposals from someone else as to how to organize them. The new instructions for promoting/rejecting at T:TDYK include some tentative instructions about putting pages into a simple archive (like what we have at AFD), although I'm not sure how useful such an archive would actually be.
2. Currently, reviewers are indicated in the subpage itself, not in the archive. Once a page is passed, it actually becomes pretty much invisible from outside (see User:Rjanag/T:TDYK for an example): while the page itself still exists, when transcluded into another page it simply displays as "passed: Template talk:Did you know/Some article" or "failed: Template talk:Did you know/Some article]]". It would be fairly easy to update that so the visible text also shows the name of the editor who promoted/failed it (e.g., "passed by User:Some reviewer: Template talk:Did you know/Some article", although it would be harder to get it to show every editor who participated in the review. (Of course, both those types of information are still easily available if you just open the subpage itself, rather than viewing its transclusion from T:TDYK.)
3. Like Cmadler said, the new system doesn't include any automatic way to indicate who put the hook on the main page, and in fact I think that would be very difficult to automate without a bot. In the meantime, one idea might be to add something to the bottom of the nomination subpage itself (e.g., after the review and everything, some line saying "Promoted to the queue by: _____", and then whatever admin moves that set of hooks from the prep to the queue must manually go in and sign each of those noms. That sounds tedious (and it could probably be bot-ified in the future), but that might actually be what you and Tony are looking for--an extra step to force admins to personally review what they are putting into the queue that goes to the main page. Additionally, this would make it much easier to go back later and find who did it (currently, the only way would be to see the date on which the nom was moved into the prep, and then search the history of that prep around that date to see when that prep got moved to queue). This would also create a field for GimmeBot to harvest when updating ArticleHistory.
4. I don't think there would be any problem with incorporating this into ArticleHistory. I personally know very little about how GimmeBot works to update that template, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be able to provide, e.g., a date the article was on DYK and a link to the nomination subpage. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

DYKHousekeepingBot stopped. With the transclusion system phasing in the bot's stats would be inaccurate. I'll try to find some time in the next few weeks to rewrite parts of the bot to handle the new system. Shubinator (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• The comment after the date section headings should be changed. It currently says:

  <!-- Please add your suggestion to the TOP of this section (after this comment) using either the template provided or a level 4 header with the name of the new/expanded article. -->

  Maybe something like:

  <!-- After you have created your nomination page, please add {{Template talk:Did you know/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}} to the TOP of this section (after this comment). -->

  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Baltimore Rock Opera Society

Surprised my Baltimore Rock Opera Society DYK is not in the lead spot, especially given the sweet image [File:Grundle Monster in the BROS production "Gründlehämmer".jpg] that goes along with it. Anyway I can get the admins to reconsider? Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. See #Lost picture for promoted hook. Shubinator (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sweet picture at 200px, but confusing at 100px. That is why I decided to go with something simpler when moving the hooks to prep. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I appreciate the explanation. I just feel bad getting beat out by some boring Swedish guy. Totally not epic. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK and the weather, and Twain or Warner

All these threads about improving DYK remind of the that famous saying about the weather, here it is but with a DYK twist: Everyone complains about DYK but people can't agree on what to do about it. (orig saying from Mark Twain or Charles Dudley Warner, depending on which source you consider more reliable. PumpkinSky talk 20:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

St Mary and All Saints' Church, Great Budworth

In Template:Did you know/Queue/2, the first hook, ... that St Mary and All Saints Church (pictured) in Great Budworth is considered... could an admin change the link "St Mary and All Saints Church" to "St Mary and All Saints' Church, Great Budworth", and add an apostrophe to "Saints"? Albacore (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nominated my first subpage

Forgive me if I didn't read all the above, it's overwhelming. I just nominated my first subpage, successfully so, I hope. My observations: I had no problems to get to the template and fill it. I failed to see that I better copy the string to include it to the suggestions right there, and missed that option when I actually wanted to include. Next time I will know. I liked the different look of ALL CAPITAL in that template string and suggest to do it the same in the nomination template, for consistency. - I looked what a reviewer (highlighted box "nominator - reviewer") had to do differently after 14 July and found nothing, only differences for promoters and rejecters, perhaps that could be phrased more clearly? - For more comfort: could the template result in "expanded by ..." first and then "comment", then the comment could be continued more easily. - Sorry if some of this was said before, see above. I will return to creating content, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Little thing: I wonder why there are four dots in the template in the hook before the question mark?

Big thing:

Thank you, great praise to you who made a smooth transition to a more transparent and safe system possible! (I can see fewer accidents, like inadvertently changing someone's nom.) What do you think of taking a link to the subpage to prep, so that reviewers who want to check prep had easy access to the review history? (Probably that was suggested before but s.a.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

About replacing the things that need to be filled in with capital letters in the Template:T:TDYK/preload...I considered that too, but I think it looks kind of shout-y (e.g. | article = ARTICLE TITLE IN PLAIN TEXT; [[ ]]), not sure if that bugs people.

As for the four dots in the template, I don't know, I just made it that way years ago; I don't think it matters because if the template is properly filled out those dots will never appear anywhere, they're supposed to be replaced by the hook.

As for putting the "created/expanded by X" message immediately after the hook (before the Comments: and Reviewed:) I originally did that to separate the nominator's comment at the time of nomination from other editors' comments will come later. I don't know if anyone thinks that matters or not. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree now with your view of the CAP shouting. - I know one contributor who routinely changes "wrong" dots for ellipses, so I think to "teach" three might be a small good idea. - I typically need to change my own (nominator's) comment afterwards, should I do that above or under the "created/expanded", or doesn't matter? As the "created/expanded" comes with a date, I would think under, - that's why I asked. - I hope you also got the praise, not only the quibble? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Queue 3

Two of the model football players in the Score the Goals hook have gone missing. There are eight instead of ten in the hook. Also, none of the cited sources claim they are "models"; they are UN Goodwill Ambassadors. Now, perhaps that should carry some responsibility to be a role model, but I think the UN have wisely not mentioned that facet of the job. Yomangani^talk 14:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And there's an unnecessary comma in the David Olère hook. Yomangani^talk 14:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And I'm sure the ticketing system isn't making an effort to go green (unless it is part of an environmentally aware Skynet) Yomangani^talk 14:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And in Queue 6: RNA structures aren't "solved"; "determined" (as in the article) would be a better word choice. Yomangani^talk 14:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Solving a structure" is a standard phrase in science; changing it to "determined" is Ok, but this wasn't an error. Materialscientist (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't pander to scientists. Yomangani^talk 00:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I just made these changes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Updating the queues

How the heck do I go about doing that? There are three that are empty. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I am an idiot. Time to update stuff! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding the co-noms to Tipu's Tiger

I suspect I haven't done this correctly at Prep area 1. Could someone kindly check it? Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks right to me, if they're the co-creaters/expanders. cmadler (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Prep 4 hook minor change request

In the hook about religion in Malaysia the phrase "that due to rules regarding religion in Malaysia..." should probably change "rules" to "laws". I edited this when it was at the nomination page, but for some reason it changed back when transferred. Thanks, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Changed. (You could have done it yourself, only the queues are protected). Yomangani^talk 16:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Review checklist placement?

At this revision at July 13 the review checklist seems to start on the same line as the suggestion signature, instead of the next line - a bit messy. Is this fixable so that it looks right, as it does for the July 18 entries? (I added a <br/> after my signature to force a line break - seems like the template should include the same.) --Lexein (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Queue 3 missing a lead hook

Queue 3's lead hook was removed here because of unresolved concerns. The picture still needs to be removed and a new lead hook added. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Returned the lead to T:TDYK (removed by Nikkimaria) and added a new one. Materialscientist (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Messiah Part II

From discussion to work: I have an admittedly unusual nomination running for Messiah Part II which might profit from more eyes. I will be off for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

As the first reviewer of this article, I would like to second the request for more eyes and opinions. Thank you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved, thank you, Crisco. Messiah (Handel) will go up to FA nom, perfect timing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck with the FA nom. I'll drop in later. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward

It would be typical to ask an uninvolved admin to close and interpret the RfCs, and I leave it open for that to happen at a later stage. But given the stark numbers in most of the RfCs and surveys we've had—all of them still live—and the urgent need to establish a clear way ahead for DYK, I'd like to be bold and present the results as they now appear. For this purpose, I've putting on as neutral a hat as I can, and will suggest ways forward based on the data.

Checklist

First, the RfC proposal: a proper reviewing checklist, launched little more than two days ago, has overwhelmingly endorsed the following proposal:

“ No DYK article should receive main-page exposure unless the article has been checked and explicitly passed for:

1. adequate sourcing, including verifiability, reliability of sources and BLP policy;
2. neutral point of view;
3. plagiarism and close paraphrasing;
4. other copyright violations, in files and text; and
5. obvious faults in prose, structure, and formatting."

These checks are in addition to the existing requirements concerning hook length, hook source, article length, and time since article creation/expansion.

”

I've counted the !votes and, as usual in RfCs, had to interpret the "qualified" ones. I've done so as fairly as I can: for example, Sandstein's "I support the principle, but oppose in this form" I counted as a qualified oppose. I also categorised as qualified oppose Crisco's Qualified oppose, even though his quibble is only when in the process the checklist should be applied; and cmadler's "in principle" support, but "weak oppose" over bullet 5. By the same token, I classified Ohconfucius's "weak support" as "support", since his quibble is that "a more radical change is necessary". I disregarded complaints above that RfCs should not have been conducted on the DYK talk page because it is dominated by DYK regulars, and conversely the absence of !votes from one or two DYK regulars who would probably oppose.

Of 37 !votes, the count is:

• Support: 28 (76%)
• Support (qualified): 2
• Oppose (qualified): 3
• Oppose: 4

Against this overwhelming support, there are concerns by several participants over the implications of bullet 5 ("Obvious faults in prose, structure, and formatting", with the potential to offend nominators), that reviews might be too long or exacting for the current DYK model, and that there may not be sufficient reviewers to satisfy the current flow of DYKs. However, I believe consensus is manifestly clear and unlikely to change significantly in the coming days. After a discussion on my talk page earlier today, User:Carcharoth created a template to use on nomination subpages to implement the results of the RfC (Template:DYKrev, implemented by typing {{DYKrev}}). I thank Carcharoth for creating this template, and it was his action that prompted me to write this thread. I believe it's appropriate to use for all noms from now on, although:

1. someone may be able to streamline the template in the future so it appears automatically;
2. a convenient system of coloured icons (yes/no/query) has been suggested for use with the checklist, but remains to be developed; and
3. nothing is set in cement, so naturally the checklist is subject to feedback.

Seven-day archiving

At the same time, a complementary RfC was launched that seeks to provide for the proper management of the nominations page: RfC proposal: archive unsuccessful nominations after seven days. This proposal has also been overwhelmingly endorsed:

“ A nomination that has not met the requirements seven days after it is first edited by a reviewer¹ should be declined and archived, unless an administrator involved in DYK queuing grants an application for an extension of a specified number of days. Time limits include time spent in a preparation area.

¹Or a similar arrangement decided on by editors at DYK, such as a template expiry date.

”

Of 26 !votes, the count is:

• Support: 21 (81%)
• Support (qualified): 2
• Oppose (qualified): 1
• Oppose: 2

I ask the community to consider implementing this arrangement as soon as possible.

Other data and open questions

A proposal launched eight days ago to conduct a trial that would see GAs included in DYK process—Good articles redux—sought consensus for the following (slight tweaks here for the sake of context):

“

• Recently listed Good articles eligible – i.e. within five days of listing.
• A limit of 1 (or 2) GAs per set of hooks.
• Change the main page from "newest articles" (in which 5x expansions aren't [necessary] anyway) to "newest and newly improved articles"
• Review after a month and see how folks feel about it.

”

Of 36 !votes, the count is currently:

• Support: 21 (58%)
• Oppose: 15 (42%)

This leaves a question-mark hanging over the proposal to introduce one or two GAs per shift into DYK.

A subsequent RfC to replace the current DYK arrangements completely with new Good article DYKs and demote the current system to a sub page appears unlikely to gain consensus.

The same is true of a proposal to simply remove DYK from the mainpage.

There remains an unresolved question I urge the community to focus on: Do the new reviewing and archiving arrangements now require the election/appointment of a directorate, or can we trust the experienced queuing admins to integrate them into their current role and manage them responsibly and fairly in their current role.

Comments by editors on these interpretations are welcome. Tony (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, just to summarize my own views on these various proposals: firstly, I think the quality control checklist and the "directorate" proposals have some merit but are unworkable as originally proposed; I have proposed some refinements of these ideas in the section below. In regards to the seven-day archiving, it's poorly thought out and won't achieve anything but conflict in my view. In regards to the GA proposal, adding GA to DYK will just create more work for everyone, not less, so it's counterproductive; on top of which, many DYKs go straight onto GAN anyway, so there is nothing to stop eligible articles being promoted at DYK already. My final point is that all of these proposals were rushed forward to !votes with next to no prior discussion, so their results are unreliable. Gatoclass (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I do think some sort of last-line quality control is a good idea, though perhaps we could first try making it clearer to the admins who put the queues together that they are responsible for any issues in the hooks they use. Putting the responsibility in the hands that are on the levers makes sense. Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, we'd better bring them into the conversations: Materialscientist, Bruce, Cas, et al. Gato, the reality is that the RfC on the explicit checklist and the seven-day archiving both gained strong consensus. In effect, they have to be implemented, as far as I understand it. Tony (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I think your understanding is deficient. Your polls are all plain violations of WP:POLL in just about every way imaginable. Apart from which, it's quite clear that many users who voted yes on the checklist - myself included - did so only with regard to the general principle and not for a specific format. As for the seven day window, it's plainly unfair, and in my view is just going to create misunderstandings and ill feeling as well as extra work for admins - not to mention the prospect of factions gaming it to get unwanted articles disqualified. It's ill-conceived and I think there are better alternatives. Gatoclass (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been unable to keep up here, but without a directorate, some accountability, or some means of identifying the problems at the prep or queue level, we will be right back here a few months from now, new crop of offending editors, new crop of DYKers shooting the messenger without knowing the history, and no change in content that seriously breaches Wikipedia policies running on the mainpage, with more editors creating hundreds of deficient articles. Unless QPQ reviewing is eliminated and some experienced editors are responsible for what goes on the mainpage, and records are kept, DYK will continue to enable editors who are capable of no more than creating hundreds of stubs that need to be cleaned up, and never will be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Sandy, I agree totally. Namby-pamby newbies who need help with things like this ought to be run off the Wikipedia on a hot rail. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sumbuddy's not paying attention. "Namby-pamby newbies" don't create hundreds to thousands (yes, you have one of those, too) of copyvios and poorly sourced articles over two to four years, enabled by DYK, without any DYKers noticing them. Please try to focus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please name the specific article, in any forum you wish: here, my talk page, or an email, and I'd be happy to take a look and fix it. I'd like to think I'm perfect, as it seems we all do, but at least I accept that I'm not. (And, as you would learn by doing newpage patrol, there are indeed plenty of newbies who cut and paste.

BTW, it might help if you stop using cutesy language. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Sandy meant "DYK has" an editor who has created thousands of copyvios and poorly sourced articles, not that you have such an article. A lot of heat on both sides here I think. Yomangani^talk 19:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)