Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:13, 4 November 2011 editSandyGeorgia (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,025 edits →Copyvio on main page even after previous notification: re← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:14, 4 November 2011 edit undoSandyGeorgia (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,025 edits →Copyvio on main page even after previous notification: expandNext edit →
Line 330:		Line 330:
	<br /><br />It's a relief to me that many of you find the wording taken from out-of-copyright sources to be acceptable. That was what I had found. ] (]) 15:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)		<br /><br />It's a relief to me that many of you find the wording taken from out-of-copyright sources to be acceptable. That was what I had found. ] (]) 15:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

	: I'm having a hard time parsing your post (perhaps it's sarcasm, unsure?) but many of us don't. One of the problems with so much cutting and pasting is that editors who do that to create hundreds of DYKs often forget or never learn how to actually write, so that copyvio or plagiarism grows under our eyes and goes undetected at DYK. The top DYKers list shows a high proportion of editors who cut-and-paste, violate copyright, and commit plagiarism. But the real problem is how long it goes undetected at DYK. This seems to come from several factors: 1) once an editor is established at DYK, their work receives scanty reviews; 2) some regulars at DYK support cut-and-paste from PD or don't understand copyvio; 3) too much volume goes through here; 4) once some editors get the endorphin high of getting quick cut-and-paste work featured on the mainpage, they seem to become addicted and their norms may slip, etc. <p>If folks can't rephrase from sources, and if DYK doesn't have enough resources to correctly review, they should at least not be having the content featured on the mainpage. History has shown that when the light stops shining on the problems, they resurface quickly. ] (]) 15:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)		: I'm having a hard time parsing your post (perhaps it's sarcasm, unsure?) but many of us don't. One of the problems with so much cutting and pasting is that editors who do that to create hundreds of DYKs often forget or never learn how to actually write, so that copyvio or plagiarism grows under our eyes and goes undetected at DYK. The top DYKers list shows a high proportion of editors who cut-and-paste, violate copyright, and commit plagiarism. But the real problem is how long it goes undetected at DYK. leading in many cases to hundreds of copyvio or plagiarized or poorly sourced stubs that will never be cleaned up (when in fact, DYK is the perfect place to catch these problems early and educate editors). This seems to come from several factors: 1) once an editor is established at DYK, their work receives scanty reviews; 2) some regulars at DYK support cut-and-paste from PD or don't understand copyvio; 3) too much volume goes through here; 4) once some editors get the endorphin high of getting quick cut-and-paste work featured on the mainpage, they seem to become addicted and their norms may slip, etc. <p>If folks can't rephrase from sources, and if DYK doesn't have enough resources to correctly review, they should at least not be having the content featured on the mainpage. History has shown that when the light stops shining on the problems, they resurface quickly. ] (]) 15:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

	== Strange-sounding hook ==		== Strange-sounding hook ==

Revision as of 15:14, 4 November 2011

Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}
v t e

Shortcut

WT:DYK

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

DYK queue status

There are currently 4 filled queues. Humans, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!

Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Current time: 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 12 hours

Last updated: 2 hours ago(

)

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. However, proposals for changing how Did You Know works are currently being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.

2011 DYK reform proposals

Numerous threads moved to the Misplaced Pages:Did you know/2011 reform proposals subpage:

N.B. This list and the subpage are currently incomplete and other threads have been archived by the bot to the main archives.

Request for expedited movement of hook

Hello everyone, TonyTheTiger has requested that the hook for his nomination The Litigators at Template:Did you know nominations/The Litigators be shown on the mainpage on 25 October. Could somebody give some feedback and if possible promote the hook? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've promoted this one to Prep 3. —Bruce1ee 12:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a request for Template:Did you know nominations/City Mall, Christchurch to appear on Saturday, 29 October. There's still some work that can be done on the article (as outlined on the article's talk page, which I will work on before Saturday), but it's certainly mainpage ready. Schwede66 17:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that Saturday isn't that far away, could somebody please help out with a review? Schwede66 04:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Reviewed, minor questions. Hint: there is an unreviewed Bach cantata which should appear even before that Saturday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Much appreciated. Have tried to clarify your query. I hope that somebody will get onto that piece of music soon. :) Schwede66 07:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Page view statistics

Is there something wrong with the page view numbers for DYK? I had a DYK on 25 October (Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.4), and when I checked it, it had eight views that day. The lead hook Patriot's Park had 11 views. It's a similar story on 24 October. Is there a technical glitch somewhere? Manxruler (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The service has been up and down for a while now. Sometimes it's the pageview stats tool (http://stats.grok.se), sometimes it's the data source (http://dammit.lt/wikistats/). See User talk:Henrik. —Bruce1ee 12:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Then I guess we shall never know the statistics for those days? Manxruler (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Often stats for missing days are recovered – keep checking every few days! —Bruce1ee 12:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not working at all for some articles. Unless you use this: from the History page. AlbertBowes (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you guys. I'll check the statistics once in a while, just to see if the numbers have been recovered. Manxruler (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been off for at least a week. My hook for Karet Bivak had 0 views on the main page, apparently. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's back up. All is well. And c. 4,200 views is better than eight. Manxruler (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And back down again. Does anyone know what the issue is? Would a monetary or hardware donation help stabilize the http://dammit.lt/wikistats/ service? Sean (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

For more information you would probably have to contact User:Henrik. Keep in mind that this is a "beta" service that basically two guys put together and maintain for free, volunteering their own spare time. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Missing DYK submissions

I've submitted 7 DYKs, each with a matching review, since mid-September and can't find any of them in the archives or any queue, even the ones from only a week ago. What's going on here? I can provide the names of the nominations if necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you created the nominations but did not add them to Template talk:Did you know, since your last edit to Template talk:Did you know was on 7 September. The individual nomination templates need to be transcluded to that page, under the date when the article was created or expanded. If you have some good noms, I think we should make an exception to the 5-day rule for transcluding them. --Orlady (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC – removed my duplicated info) See step III of Template talk:Did you know#How to post a new nomination. None of the following, starting from August 31, were ever reviewed, because no one knew they were there:

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! OK, I feel like an idiot for not fully reading the instructions because of the template creating the new page for the nom. Yes, all the noms were good. Just let me know when I should move them over if y'all need to do something special for the oldest noms to accommodate them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You might as well withdraw the ones before HMS Anne; they are too old for DYK now. As for the new ones, you should complete all steps of the nomination as soon as possible if you want them to be reviewed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? They met the criteria at the time that they were submitted, and the fact that they did can still be verified from their histories. I screwed up, I admit it. But that doesn't mean that they can't still be reviewed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The nomination isn't completed until all steps are completed (including posting the nomination at T:TDYK). Thus, these nominations were completed today, making many of them more than a month old at "the time they were submitted" (they were not properly submitted until today).

Let me explain my point of view a little more. One of the DYK criteria is that articles must be "new" (which means recently created or expanded). There is a reason for this: the view of the community currently is that DYK shouldn't be a random collection of facts, it should be a showcase for new content. It has a meaning to readers (on the main page it says, "From Misplaced Pages's newest content"). Any time someone asks for an exception for their article, asks to add a new category of non-new things to DYK, etc., that meaning is undermined--from the reader's point of view, DYK becomes less and less a showcase of new content and more and more a collection of random stuff. I don't think DYK should be forced to undermine its mission and modify its own criteria every time someone fails to read the rules. I also don't think it's fair to ask reviewers to bend over backwards to accommodate a nominator's mistake.

I'm sorry you didn't complete the nomination properly, but that's not really the fault of anyone at DYK. You obviously found the instructions (since you started the nomination, and the box you filled in to create those nomination pages is part of the instructions). It's not anyone else's fault that you didn't read them and complete your nominations. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh, can't say that I've ever implied that it was anyone's fault but my own, much less anyone here at DYK, so there's no need to be defensive about that. If y'all (as a collective) want to be as legalistic as Rjanag is above, that's certainly your right. I just think that it's pretty stupid to deny my noms because I made an innocent mistake, but that's just me (and I am certainly biased in my own favor). A triumph of pettifoggery if you will.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I would accept the noms going at least as far back as "Harvester." Plenty of other noms from the same time frame are still active on the noms page. DYK has lost far too many contributors lately due to various forms of mostly-petty nitpickery; we need to get back in the mode of being tolerant of one another. --Orlady (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Orlady, it was just a mistake, nothing that needs punishment, and the content of the articles should be made known, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Honest mistake. We need more ship DYKs anyway. Manxruler (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Gerda, I was never suggesting "punishment"; like I said at length, the articles don't meet the DYK criteria anymore because the nominator didn't bother to follow the clear instructions. I'm glad I took all that time to explain my point of view, just to have people ignore my explanation and accuse me of being a pettifogger or trying to "punish" nominators. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I picked the wrong word. Please find a more suitable term for the disappointment of someone who worked hard on good information and reviews but just missed a point in the instructions. This might have happened to me easily. - Rules are useful, but I think we might be open for an exception here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Since we seem to have made the jump from discussion to voting, I should point out that another user has expressed concern about passing these nominations. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Was the concerned user aware of the special circumstances at play here? Manxruler (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What special circumstances? A nominator neglected his responsibility to read the instructions; this is no different than when people nominate articles that are ineligible because they haven't been expanded or things like that (again, it's people not reading and following the instructions). rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that the user did the transclusion of a few nominations correctly, including one on September 7. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

So it's not a problem with the system...the system obviously isn't too complicated, if he was able to figure it out then. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Mandarax's example does change the question somewhat. Manxruler (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As a new process, it's easy to forget to make the transclusion after filling out the template, even if you've done it correctly at times. Until it becomes ingrained, that step is easy to overlook, even after following it a couple of times. Rlendog (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll note that I created the nom pages themselves within the specified time limits, but failed to transclude them in a timely manner. So, in at least one sense, I did indeed meet the time limits. Y'all will have to decide which is more important, the date of transclusion or of creation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of including them "in line" at their original dates and see if you find a reviewer for one or the other who makes the exception? (I would - if only I knew a little bit about ships.) - I made the same mistake myself, but noticed. And I noticed at least one other making the same mistake. The system is good, the instructions are good, but the mind is so happy having assembled the template that the transclusion is easily forgotten. Perhaps a reminder at the end of the template would be a good idea? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

They are ineligible, so there's no point "including them". As for "a reminder", there is already one; in addition to the instructions (which the nominator is responsible for reading), there is this big pink notice at the top of every nomination. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

As you say: at the top. Once you finish the nom, you forgot the top, oops, not you, but I did, and so I would have mercy with others who fail, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A case for WP:IAR. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Why? rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Support inclusion, noting a virtually identical case at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Nixon Foundation, from which further support can probably be inferred. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Support inclusion at least back to Harvester (per Orlady), as this is clearly an innocent mistake in applying the new nomination process. I;ve done that myself, although I caught my mistake in time. I'd go back to Harvester per D9 of the supplementary rules, which leave room for nominations of that vintage even if the delay was not due to a simple error like this. Rlendog (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- The nomination process is not "new", it's been around over 3 months, during which time the nominator has nominated multiple articles (several of them successfully). I never said the nominator's failure here wasn't an innocent mistake; it was clearly a mistake, but that doesn't mean the nominator should be exempt from the normal criteria because he wasn't able to follow simple instructions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

“Microalgae” (plural)

One item asks: “Did you know that microalgae is used widely in aquaculture and is now cultured itself in hatcheries?” The word “algae” is the plural form of the word “alga”, so the question should be “Did you know that micro algae are used widely in aquaculture and are now cultured themselves in hatcheries?”
—Wavelength (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The article uses "algae" as both a plural and a singular, in different places. While "algae" literally is a plural, in my experience it is often used as a singular too in everyday language (see, e.g., , ). Also, it seems to me that the hook (and most of the associated article) are referring to "microalgae" as a mass noun rather than as a collection of many individual alga, so I don't mind the way it's worded. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for speedy review

Could someone possibly review Jeruk Purut Cemetery in time for Halloween? Sorry for the rush; I just finished touching up the article yesterday. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Another speedy review request

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Morphsuits

Can anyone review the Morphsuits article? It's been unreviewed since I nominated it on October 21. They're oddball lycra costumes, one of the biggest selling costumes this Halloween season, apparently, having been popular for some time now, but now peaking into the mainstream in North America. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Another review request, for 2 Nov

I nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Valentina Babor as a homage to Liszt to appear close to his birthday, that is past. It occured to me that the hook might pay homage to the other composer mentioned, whose birthday is 2 November, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert Martensen (Prep 1)

The claim here is rather self-congratulatory, and is entirely based on the subject's own witness. No independent observers means only first-hand sources: not appropriate for a claim that promotes his professional cause. Kevin McE (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I've changed it to "... that Robert Martensen has received note for his criticism of end-of-life care in the United States?" and redirected discussion over here. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that the creator of the article is very active in this sort of subject, as evidenced by their userpage. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Why yes I am, thanks for noticing. I agree with the change though. Jesanj (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if this hook is better for All Souls' Day than for Halloween. --PFHLai (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree that it is better for All Souls' Day than for Halloween. With the approval of James Kidd (prospector) hook a suitable replacement is available so I have swapped the hooks. --Allen3 22:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

On that Kidd hook, "Ghost Trial of the Century" was a saying in th press, but not the title of a work, so it should be in inverted commas rather than italics. Kevin McE (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want Martensen to be on All Souls' Day, that is Wednesday, so it would have to be in Prep 1 or Prep 2, not Prep 3, which is scheduled for Tuesday morning. Kevin McE (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just moved it back to P1. --PFHLai (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Halloween

Hey! Sorry if I'm being a little dense here, but are we using 2 Queues for Halloween or 3? I notice that it's Halloween in 3 queues in different countries but I don't know if we are. I'm sure there are some other articles we could add to a third queue (I've got a few up my sleeve and I'm sure others do too). Panyd 18:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I was looking to do 2 updates for the following reasons:

DYK has been running at 2 updates/day for the last few weeks. While it is not a difficult task to change the update frequency, it is generally best if the change is made only if there is need and reason.
Misplaced Pages utilizes Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). While it is true that there will be 3 updates where a part of the world will be entirely in October 31, and 2 others with fractional coverage of the date, only 2 updates will align with the time zone used by the project.
Despite Halloween hooks being collected in the special occasions holding area for close to two months, it required a search through the nominations page to find enough approved hooks to build the current 2 sets. Even if we assume availability of knowledgeable admins to move an additional set to the queues and to adjust the update frequency there is still just a little over 24 hours to create seven new articles, find reviewers to verify the hooks, and build another set. This seems to be a very optimistic schedule given DYK's current staffing levels.

If you have a couple of macabre hooks that would work for All Saint's Day, that would be an entirely different discussion. --Allen3 20:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth would we have a complete set of Hallowe'en themed hooks? Did we do that for Christmas? Easter? America Independence? Diwali? Eid? Why does anyone feel the need to promote this "festival" to such an extent? Kevin McE (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey! I like Halloween! So shoot me :P

Sound reasoning Allen3. Will just keep plugging away over at the paranormal corner of WP and will submit when I've got something nice. No need to rush. Panyd 20:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What Panyd neglected to mention is that she has an already-approved hook which would be appropriate: James Kidd (prospector). I would support adding this to one of the Halloween sets (we've had plenty of eight-hooks sets before) or replacing the Robert Martensen hook in Prep 1, which doesn't seem Halloween-y to me at all. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(Psst... Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Morphsuits still needs review for DYK. Pretty please? -- Zanimum (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

History: last year we had five sets of only Halloween hooks, four on one calendar day, the last one following, with one Bach cantata in between, and I was asked if I was aware of that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I wasn't aware of that either. Panyd 23:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Grounds for Divorce (united states law)

I just wanted to let you know that all corrections were made on grounds for divorce (united states law)page. The citation box was removed.--Nas132 (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Accountability

Kudos to Found5dollar for recognizing and attempting to fix the main page error in DYK (it looks like a good faith mistake that we shouldn't expect to be picked up by DYK review ), but in looking further into this:

The documentation of the nompage parameter (name of the file) at {{DYK talk}} is incorrect (meaning it took me a long time to find the actual DYK subpage, via the usual tedious history search of the DYK nominations talk page).
Why was the nompage parameter dropped from the bot's talk page update? The idea was for anyone to be able to locate and review the nomination page without having to decipher the mess of pages at DYK.

Are we already moving backwards on the accountability improvements that were instituted recently? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

99% of the time the link to the nomination page shows up fine; the |nompage= parameter is only needed when the title of the nomination page is different from the title of the article itself (usually because someone misspelled the article name during nomination or moved the article after it was nominated—the former is what happened here). I don't know enough about bot coding to make sure the DYK bot carries over the |nompage= from the nomination page itself to {{DYK talk}}, and Shubinator has been very busy lately so I guess he hasn't gotten a chance to make it work yet.

In any case, this is not an intentional attempt to "hide" anything, as you suggested. It's very rude to make accusations like that, especially when you know nothing about how the bots and templates work. I would appreciate it if you stopped doing that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't know what you mean by "the documentation is incorrect". Are you referring to the description at Template:DYK talk/doc? rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer (trying to sort that one without speaking bot coding was impossible). By documentation incorrect, I meant that the file name for the DYK nomination subpage that I eventually found was not the same as the file name mentioned in the template documentation. BTW, a question is not an accusation: relax. Do you want me to continue to ask nice questions, or are you after a self-fulfilling prophecy (if we beat up enough on anyone who asks a question, we can guarantee rudeness will prevail here?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You can split hairs all you want about whether it was a "question" or "accusation"; you know as well as I it was a snarky comment with no justification. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must take at least partial blame for the link not appearing on the talk page. The subpage had the wrong case, which I corrected in three places, but I neglected to add the subpage parameter to {{DYKmake}}. I apologize for my oversight. I also reviewed the article. Thank you, Sandy, for pointing out that a reviewer shouldn't be expected to find such problems. As a matter of fact, I had added an existing source as inline refs immediately following the DYK facts. That source, from the highly respected William Safire, columnist for The New York Times and a witness to the events depicted, certainly seemed an extremely reliable source. I haven't seen the new source, but if it contradicts other sources, I'm not sure which should be believed. Whether Henry Wilson actually used the desk or not, the hook could be changed to:

... that Richard Nixon chose the Wilson desk as his Oval Office desk because he believed it was used by Woodrow Wilson, but he was later told that it was used by Henry Wilson, Vice President under Ulysses S. Grant?

Or it could be further altered to question the factuality of what Nixon was told. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so here is what happened. A user with out a username (it was 209.137.134.61) pointed out on the talk page of Wilson desk that the dates of when the desk was in use do not include the time that Henry Wilson was Vice President. Now every reliable source I could find stated that the desk was used by Henry Wilson and Nixon mistakenly thought it was used by Woodrow Wilson. After more investigating I found here , on the US Senate's website, information that the desk used in the Vice President's Senate office, therefore the Wilson desk, was purchased by Garret Augustus Hobart, who was a Vice President after Henry Wilson died in office. This makes it impossible for Wilson to have used the desk. The alt suggested above by Mandarax works, but it will take me a long time to rework the article with the now corrected facts in place, and I have to head back to work. I am fine with whatever consensus is reached.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Good effort, a good faith mistake that is being addressed as quickly as feasible (which should be the, ahem, norm), and thanks for the explanation of why the nom wasn't linked-- makes sense! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

Is it allowed to have more than two DYKs nominated at a time? HurricaneFan 25 17:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If it weren't, I'd be hung up by my thumbs (I count 10 or so on T:TDYK right now). Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think there are four to six I've written that have been nominated on the page. :/ Not sure on their status. :( --LauraHale (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean, not sure about their status. I guess you have the templates on your watchlist and would see any change. Unfortunately, there is not much change, I also have several unreviewed noms, including one which I had hoped to see today. (Hint for prep builders: this week's Bach cantata BWV 5 IS approved.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I nominated one article that was reviewed on 27 October, and another that was reviewed on 1 November, but they have not moved on. So it is not just a matter of reviews. Another nominated on 27 October has yet to be reviewed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:DYK#How a DYK suggestion makes its way to the main page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

New nomination system leads to errors

I was poking about on the list looking for articles to review when I noticed that several that I had added to the queue were missing. This was for the same reason as the thread above. I'm not sure, but I believe this might have happened with Course Setting Bomb Sight, which would be sad given both the work that I put into it, and that it was "the most important bombsight of the war".

Having gone through the process now, I have to say that I find it to be onerous. You have to flip through several pages and make your edits in the right order or it just fails, falling into a blackhole. Is there any reason this could not be further automated. When you use the nominations box, it appears everything is being automated, which is why I failed to follow through.

It's not automated, but why not? Would it not be possible to add all new noms automatically to a holding list at the bottom of the page? This would at least ensure they wouldn't simply disappear.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The instructions are written very clearly, in multiple places, even in a big pink box that you can't miss (which appears every time you nominate an article). People have managed to nominate articles successfully hundreds of times. This system is, to the best of my knowledge, almost exactly the same as the AFD system which has been in place by years and used by thousands of editors.

The process is quite simple and, to be frank, it is you nominators' responsibility to read and follow the instructions. You shouldn't think you're "entitled" to a DYK even if you can't be bothered to follow the instructions; if you want your work to be on DYK, take a moment to read the instructions like everyone else. I'm sick of seeing the system get blamed for peoples' own laziness. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, see User talk:DumbBOT#Using DumbBOT for DYK? and User talk:Shubinator#Another thing.... regarding automatic transclusions. It is possible to do with a bot, although someone will have to make (or edit) a bot to do it and that takes time. In the meantime, I really don't think "read the instructions" is too much to ask; nominations are not complicated. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps I don't understand the question. The transclusion of a template to the nominations can't be automatic because the day of creation is considered crucial to decide if a nom was made in time. What do you mean by "disappear". Was it there and is no longer? Which thread above do you mean? The one directly above mentions noms which are there, but unreviewed, no talk about "disappearing", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Gerda, by "disappearing" I mean that if one does not navigate back to the main page and manually edit it correctly, the new nomination does not appear anywhere that reviewers will see it. If you scroll up on this page you will note that a user has managed to miss a number of DYK's because of this, and I have too. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the instructions are big and pink - and also on the wrong page. As soon as one uses the tool to make the new nomination, the instructions disappear from the screen. So that's one problem we can easily fix, I suspect.

My suggestion is to also automatically create a placeholder template on the main nominations page. This could be in well-known location, say the "Automatically created links" section, or some such. Doing so would ensure that this vital step is not missed. A 'bot could then look for any entry in this section that was posted more than xxx days ago (say two) and post a message on the nom's talk page indicating that they have forgotten to complete the process.

For all the invective about "is that too much to ask", I would simply ask the same question... is it too much to ask that an automated tool be provide to make sure the nom process is properly followed? Clearly this is a problem that people are having, so why not fix it, especially if the fix appears so simple? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Maury, the instructions do not disappear. When you use the tool to make the nomination, this is the first thing you see.

As for your suggestion, I'm not really sure what you're asking for. I don't know what you mean by "automatically created links" or "a placeholder template". As for having a bot patrol for un-transcluded nominations, see the links I provided above. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Those links point to exactly what I'm talking about… but they're a portion of a year old. Has anything happened? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What the heck is "a portion of a year old"? They're from a couple months ago. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I just tried it several times, and I do not see the message you link to. That's because, as is often the case these days, there's so much verbiage between the top of the page and the editor box that when the cursor appears in the editor the top of the screen is scrolled right off the screen. That's doubly surprising considering I'm on a very very large monitor. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

When you create a new page using the form, Template:T:TDYK/editintro is always shown. If you're not seeing that message, then you are not using the box. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Maury isn't lying. I just tested the nomination template, and that pink box has scrolled FAR above the top of my screen by the time I get down to the nomination form. I suppose if a person is editing with an iPad or some other vertical-format screen, the pink box might still be visible, but most of still use horizontal-format devices.
It is not sufficient by itself to resolve the problem, but my less-vertical-real-estate version of the review instructions is still available at User:Orlady/DYK review criteria for use in the nomination template. --Orlady (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why it matters that the pink box is not visible "by the time I get to the nomination form". The point is, you see it before you get there. You do see it, don't you? rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I just updated the editnotice so the review criteria don't show up when posting a new nomination. Now you can see the pink warning and the edit window in the same screen. Please note that this in no way changes the fact that nominators are responsible for reading the instructions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Now it's worse. Stop and think about the process for a second… from the main nom page the user enters their new page name and hits a button. On the screen that appears they have to enter some data, and save the page. Then they have to navigate back to the nom page and enter additional data. Right? Have I misunderstood the process?

So right now the message containing the data that I need to complete the process appears before I start the process, and then again before I hit save on the new nomination. But it would seem the only logical place for the information to appear is on the screen that appears after you save the new nom. Is that possible? And how about a "click here" button that takes them into the right page in edit mode? After all, I suspect that most users will want to cut-n-paste the lengthy and complex string instead of typing it by hand, so presenting it right at the point where they are actually going to carry out the action seems like the right thing to do. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I seem not to understand. The process is clear. To transclude your nomination you only need its name - which you will find on your watchlist, in case you forgot to copy it. I don't see the problem, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Maury, you can copy the string that you need to paste before you save the nomination; you can even open T:TDYK in a separate window and paste the stuff before you save the edit (as explained at User:Rjanag/Quick DYK 2). This is not complicated, hundreds of nominators have done it here and thousands have done the same thing at AFD.

Anyway, I don't understand how the change I made yesterday makes it "worse". The change I made did not in any way affect the stuff you're complaining about.

What you are asking for (having a special message appear after you save the edit) is not possible without greatly complicating the process. I have a better suggestion: just read the instructions. I have already spent a lot of time and effort making the process as simple and clear as possible, and it's not my responsibility to make your DYK nominate itself for you. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We had some evidence after the new process was instituted that some people, especially newbies, were having difficulty remembering to transclude their nominations. Rjanag, I saw you leaving such people notes that they hadn't completed the process, so you were evidently patrolling to check. That was very nice of you; maybe some of us should start adding that to our patrolling activities. I will if I can figure out how :-) Also remembering to transclude has clearly been tripping up some experienced people; and despite a warning box there, it trips people up at AfD, too. My only suggestion would be to add to the pink box, "You might want to copy this string now ready to paste it in in the last step." Because that's what the rest of us are usually doing. Unless anyone thinks that would be considered condescending. It's true that it's not very much more complicated than the old process, but it's also true that people are forgetting to transclude - and that DYK needs submissions, of all kinds. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The way I patrolled was by individually checking every new nom; that was just for the first day or so after instituting the new system. It would not be feasible to do that for the long term. The only feasible way to do this sort of "patrolling" is with a bot; I already left links to those discussions above, no one is stopping any of you from pinging either of those editors and seeing if they can work on that task. But that still doesn't change the fact that nominators are responsible for reading the instructions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Long bold - now in prep1

"... that the music a person hears in childhood may affect that person's musical cognition as an adult?" Almost all is bold in that hook, I think it's misleading and doesn't give me as a reader a clue what the article is about, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

How's this? rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Better, but I still don't see what "affect that person's musical cognition as an adult" has to do with culture in music cognition? I personally think that article title is not clear to start with, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Walt Greenwood (Q6)

One does not "lead in losses". He may have had more losses than any other pitcher: that is not holding a lead. Kevin McE (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Old nominations awaiting review

There are a number of nominations from 2+ weeks ago that have not received any attention whatsoever. This is no doubt down to many reviewers' tendencies to review the more recent noms rather than searching through to find the oldest unreviewed one. Is there anything that can be done to resolve this?

A bot would be the most obvious solution, but perhaps we could write a template that highlights a nomination that is 7+ days old and does not yet have a review. Not easy though. violet/riga 18:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a need for a bot or template. This is a problem with reviewers' behavior, not a problem with the system. If the problem is reviewers ignoring older noms, they should be asked not to do so. Admittedly, this problem has been around for a while so just asking might not work, but I don't see how a bot would help--all that can do is somehow put unreviewed articles more in-people's-face (e.g., by compiling a list of unreviewed noms and putting it at the top of the page), and we can do the same thing by making the reviewing instructions clearer. (A template is out of the question; there's no way to do it unless some more code were added to the nomination page and reviewers forced to mark it off, and I already get more than enough complaints about stuff being too complicated).

Or, as has been discussed a little bit several times before, maybe noms that don't get any attention should just be failed after some time--maybe they're not getting attention because they're not interesting. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The template could work but I accept your point about complication. This was inspired by my own nomination not having receiving a review in 2+ weeks, so I can't fully agree with the idea of dropping them - in this case it's more likely because five articles need reviewing and nobody wants to do such work. In other cases maybe you have a point. violet/riga 19:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think they should be dropped. We're all volunteers, and I for one find evaluating nominations a lengthy and challenging task that's not entirely about interest. I note also that what I see on the nominations page right now is hefty discussion about several older hooks, including the ones that were mistakenly not transcluded until recently, and a certain number of nominations that someone has started responding to but not finished: Orlady mentioned in a section above that she has an attack of off-wiki business and asked for others to finish evaluating nominations she had begun, and I addressed an issue someone had raised with Template:Did you know nominations/Brazil 76-0 Timor-Leste (futsal) but I don't feel competent to review the nomination and the other editor hasn't returned to review it, either. I believe this page is the proper place to periodically note that the "tail" of older noms is getting out of hand or to remind reviewers that they can step in and finish a review, or re-review, and it would generally be good if they did so. As, for example, someone else stepped in at Template:Did you know nominations/Manitoba Hydro Place when I didn't have time to complete the review that day. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We could always manually update it, but that's extra work... violet/riga 19:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Manually update what? rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A listing of old nominations that need a review. violet/riga 21:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That's far too labor-intensive. If you want to do it you're welcome to, but it's not feasible as a long-term solution, and for the reasons I gave above I don't think it's even needed (I'm still not convinced there's any problem that needs solved). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Listing

The following nominations are two weeks old and have not yet been reviewed:

~~Template:Did you know nominations/Keith Chatto~~

~~Template:Did you know nominations/Tank Collins~~

violet/riga 21:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK hook citation question

The hook for DYK for an article has to be cited in the article, not only on the page, I think? I had a DYK using a hook that was not mentioned/explained in the article, but later removed it. I'm wondering if it would be allowable to submit an article for DYK with a hook that is cited on the DYK nom page but not in the article? Thanks. (BTW, the hook has been changed at Template:Did you know nominations/Hurricane Cindy (1959) to be supported by a ref in an article.) Thanks! HurricaneFan25 | talk 21:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

See the DYK rules. The hook has to be cited in the article, of course. Putting citations on the nom page is pointless, because readers read the article, not the nom page. Articles are the point of the encyclopedia. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Prep 2, copyvio on deck

Folks here have asked me to notify in advance, so I hope this one won't hit the mainpage. Church of St Michael, Alnham is in prep area 2, has copyvio issues, also has noticeable copyedit needs, received what looks like scanty review, and the principal author has numerous DYKs indicated on talk, so all may need a closer look. (Yes, I'm aware many of the sources used are public domain-- I checked the others.) I suggest that with a large number of fast DYKs, the author's other DYKs should be reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Ronnie Robinson (roller derby) reliability of sources and failed verification (if sources are not reliable, how is expansion criteria met?) Scanty review, author's talk page indicates at least 50 DYKs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you indicate what the copyvio issues are, so people know what to look at? Regarding whether or not the sources are public domain, that doesn't matter, PD sources can still be plagiarized. Regarding copyedit issues, that also doesn't matter, as "brilliant prose" is not a DYK criterion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that you've taken the time to look at my talk page, but didn't actually contact me about your concerns. I have no idea what you mean by "failed verification (if sources are not reliable, how is expansion criteria met?)". What "failed verification"? What "expansion criteria", beyond the obvious fact that the article is of the correct length? With regard to the website you flag as a potentially unreliable source, clearly there's a discussion to be had as to whether it meets criteria (text by someone very active online in writing about roller derby but unpublished, website edited by another author occasionally quoted in press but again unpublished). I certainly wouldn't rely on it for anything controversial, but none of the material it is used to cite is in any way controversial. I have no control over the type of review given; if you have different views on the type of reviews which should be given, I suggest you get involved somewhat earlier in the process. Warofdreams talk 03:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"Failed verification" means the fact being claimed in the article doesn't actually appear in the source. I haven't looked at the article so I don't have any comment as to whether or not this is the case. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh gosh, I hate to say this, but the Church of St Michael, Alnham article is full of very close paraphrasing (and had footnote numbers still in there from copying; I just removed those). For example from this page of the cited source, the source wording is:
... are several quaint tablets and moss-grown gravestones, denoting the burial places of those who, during the last two centuries, were the "indwellers" of this remote hill parish.
compared to the article text:
there are several tablets and moss-grown gravestones, denoting the burial places of past generations of those who, during the 16th and 17th centuries, were the residents of this remote hill parish.

That's from an 1870 book, but it still seems to be terribly close to the original wording not to be presented as a quotation. Also I cannot find the source of the following: "The church restorers of the 1700s inserted a few sash windows, and in some minor matters otherwise impaired its integrity. Elements from 16th-17th century work include a porch and doorway. A strong roof was added circa 1840." I was wondering about the integrity passage, which I reworded for sense, and I am just not sure where that material is taken from in the cited source. I'll drop the creator a line, but I do think the issue needs resolving of whether we can slightly reword public domain sources this way. And I think the article needs page references; it's drawing in multiple pages of some of these books. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hold your horses. We may copy/paste a text from a PD source without quotes provided the source is clearly mentioned. There is no need for rephrasing (though old texts often need rephrasing because of the style). We may also copy/paste a copyrighted text, if referenced, but then indeed we need quote marks, and the quote should not be excessively long. Materialscientist (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Said before: sometimes the way a source says something is the best way, and the closer you stay to that, the closer you are to being right (to avoid the word truth). The above is an example, imho, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

MS, where does this rule come from? If it is Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing, well, that's only an essay. We may legally quote from PD sources without double quotes, but it is certainly not ethically right to do so without the proper attribution. Proper attribution in this case would be a notice like "this article incorporates text from ABC which is in the Public Domain." Without this notice, the article is IMHO not good enough to appear on the main page. --Pgallert (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It is unfair to require from DYK contributors to follow one's personal ethical norms. I do not know a guideline or policy which requires a notice you mention. It is also not very obvious how to add such note for a short article, which uses text from 5 PD sources (and their number might change I guess), without confusion - "this article incorporates text from several sources which are in the Public Domain"? - no, it is probably copyedited beyond recognition by the time you read it. I can only think of something like "version xxx of this article incorporates text from several Public Domain sources". Materialscientist (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio on main page even after previous notification

Not a public domain source, and it's not a matter of "personal ethical norms"-- it's an example of yet another leading DYKer cutting-and-pasting to create hundreds of DYKs, which then receive scanty review because the editor is known at DYK (and that's how DYK let other editors slip through the cracks until it was discovered they had created hundreds). Reviewers should locate these here, because for me to retype the text from Google books is tedious, and they're right there. I indicated when I made the post that I had looked at articles other than PD. I've typed a couple samples-- there are others. It should also be noted that a violation of copyright is not "just plagiarism" or "just a matter of ethics"-- it's both plagiarism and copyright violation.

Article: Church of St Michael, Alnham
Source Pevsner, Nikolaus; Grundy, John; McCombie, Grace; Peter Ryder, Humphrey Welfare (11 March 1992). Northumberland. Yale University Press. pp. 128, 129–. ISBN 978-0-300-09638-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=kClO7NOfvsIC&pg=PA128#v=onepage&q&f=false

Article: The font, dated 1664, is a small bowl, octagonal in shape with a moulded profile in the Gothic tradition,
Source: Dated 1664, octagonal, small bowl with a moulded profile, still meant to be in the Gothic tradition

Structure copied, a few words varied here and there:

Article: Building features include a Bell-Cot, a lower chancel with a porch on the south side, and a 3-bay arcade on the north side.
Source: Nave with Bell-cot, lower chancel, transepts, and S porch. A N aisle was pulled down, but the three-bay arcade can still be seen on the north side.

On the reliable sources issue, DYK required a minimum number of characters or expansion-- expanding articles from non-reliable sources shouldn't count, and questions of dubious reliability should be brought to WP:RSN (this one hasn't, and hobby or fansites are rarely reliable).

That one of these articles is over-quoted and has noticeable prose and grammar issues, and the other uses non-reliable sources and has text that fails verification, indicates that even in spite of lower volume here, reviews are still not being conducted and scantily reviewed text is being featured on the main page.

Who plans to remove these from the mainpage? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a relief to me that many of you find the wording taken from out-of-copyright sources to be acceptable. That was what I had found. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time parsing your post (perhaps it's sarcasm, unsure?) but many of us don't. One of the problems with so much cutting and pasting is that editors who do that to create hundreds of DYKs often forget or never learn how to actually write, so that copyvio or plagiarism grows under our eyes and goes undetected at DYK. The top DYKers list shows a high proportion of editors who cut-and-paste, violate copyright, and commit plagiarism. But the real problem is how long it goes undetected at DYK. leading in many cases to hundreds of copyvio or plagiarized or poorly sourced stubs that will never be cleaned up (when in fact, DYK is the perfect place to catch these problems early and educate editors). This seems to come from several factors: 1) once an editor is established at DYK, their work receives scanty reviews; 2) some regulars at DYK support cut-and-paste from PD or don't understand copyvio; 3) too much volume goes through here; 4) once some editors get the endorphin high of getting quick cut-and-paste work featured on the mainpage, they seem to become addicted and their norms may slip, etc.

If folks can't rephrase from sources, and if DYK doesn't have enough resources to correctly review, they should at least not be having the content featured on the mainpage. History has shown that when the light stops shining on the problems, they resurface quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Strange-sounding hook

The lead hook in DYK sounds a bit strange. Shouldn't there be a "which"?

"... that Scandinavian influence in Scotland, still evident today (pictured), was probably at its height during the time of Thorfinn the Mighty?"

"... that Scandinavian influence in Scotland, which is still evident today (pictured), was probably at its height during the time of Thorfinn the Mighty?"

In addition, I didn't understand the picture's relevance immediately; that might have to be elaborated a bit.

HurricaneFan 25 14:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This should probably go to Talk:Main page as it is on the main page now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)