| Revision as of 09:53, 14 August 2009 editChzz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users115,894 edits →Fuckin' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus: tpoy← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:54, 14 August 2009 edit undoChzz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users115,894 edits →Fuckin' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus: ceNext edit → | ||
| Line 212: | Line 212: | ||
| (outdent again) | (outdent again) | ||
| *The current hook is wrong in several ways. Mr. Blackwell is not an 'author', he is a singer. There is no factual basis for declaring that he 'swore in surprise' the cited fact |
*The current hook is wrong in several ways. Mr. Blackwell is not an 'author', he is a singer. There is no factual basis for declaring that he 'swore in surprise' the cited fact refers directly to a ''greeting'', there is no mention of any surprise. The article does not state that Mr. Blackwell wrote the song; it states that he sang it. Apart from all of those factual inaccuracies, it is grammatically clumsy. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">]]</span></small> 09:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == ParserFunctions suggestion == | == ParserFunctions suggestion == | ||
Revision as of 09:54, 14 August 2009
 | Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for specific template versions here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you. |
|
DYK queue status
Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Current time: 13:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 12 hours Last updated: 67 minutes ago( ) |
Template:Archive box collapsible
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed.
 To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2010-05-05
|
Rule against single sourcing
Right now our rules say that a single source is all that's required. Over the past few months, many reviewers have asked for more than one source in an article, and some nominators have resisted (often citing E3). I propose a new rule:
- The article should have more than one source.
Shubinator (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that people ask for more than one source in order to verify notability and hedge off any notability related AfDs. It is more procedure for new articles than for DYK. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Personally I think this is unneeded WP:CREEP that crosses into WP:FA and WP:GA territory. If the single source is reliable and verifiable, that should be all that is needed. Agne/ 16:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Every source, no matter how reliable, has its own biases. A single-sourced article will reflect the bias of its source. And there are notability issues. Shubinator (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Personally I think this is unneeded WP:CREEP that crosses into WP:FA and WP:GA territory. If the single source is reliable and verifiable, that should be all that is needed. Agne/ 16:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, your lordships, if you need a second source you'll have a second source. Got the point? Now, if you want a second source to back up DYK hook, word-by-word, be prepared for a thinner line of proposals. Perhaps what Shubinator really means is a basic yet thorough notability test, but it is up to human reviewers, auto checklist won't do. Bias issue is well above the capacity of DYK staff (blatant pov cases aside), and above any formal checklist. Besides, you really have to persuade the audience that, for example, Nonimaging optics is unacceptably biased (in what particular direction?) and needs support from, say, Introduction to Nonimaging Optics ... or Le Monde or Pravda. NVO (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- My point is that many nominators see E3 and assume that one reference is enough. In other words, they think if an article with only one reference appears, the "default" is to accept. However, this is not the case on the nominations page. The default for single-sourced articles is to reject. I agree assessing articles is subjective, but the rules currently give nominators the wrong impression. Shubinator (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- It still looks like another attempt to define reliable sources and is easily "gameable". Same problem, relying on a single definitive source in a FA, has been raised at Wikipedia_talk:Plagiarism/Archive_3#Plagiarism_or_excellent_article.3F and ... Rabindranath Tagore is still a FA. Of course it has other sources, but the core of the article follows a single source. If it is accepted in a FA, it shouldn't be ruled out in DYK. NVO (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not saying single sourced articles should never be accepted. I'm saying the default is rejecting a single-sourced article, and the rules should reflect our current procedures. I intentionally phrased the rule as "should" instead of "must".
- Also, Tagore does have inline citations to multiple sources. Shubinator (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- It still looks like another attempt to define reliable sources and is easily "gameable". Same problem, relying on a single definitive source in a FA, has been raised at Wikipedia_talk:Plagiarism/Archive_3#Plagiarism_or_excellent_article.3F and ... Rabindranath Tagore is still a FA. Of course it has other sources, but the core of the article follows a single source. If it is accepted in a FA, it shouldn't be ruled out in DYK. NVO (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
(out) Perhaps the better option, rather than adding a new rule, is to clarify that E3 and the other things like that don't necessarily mean that nominators are "entitled" to certain things (like a right to have their article featured when it only has one source), because they're not—like most things on WP, DYK noms are judged more or less on a case-by-case basis, and while there are certain precedents and standards, that never means you're guaranteed a spot.
As far as sourcing goes, when I used to review noms a lot I more or less ignored the specific DYK rules and went by a general mantra, "articles featured on DYK should not stink". That does not, of course, mean that they need to be mini-GAs. It does mean, though, that if the article has something that I perceive as a major problem—serious copyediting concerns, parroting a single source, or whatnot—I will usually raise a complaint about it. rʨanaɢ /contribs 17:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- D11 says articles may be rejected for something not explicitly in the rules (and, for that matter, approved "against" rules). Quite a few nominators have grumbled at being asked to provide more than one source though. At the least I think E3 should be removed. This won't affect how we review articles; for a while the informal consensus has been against articles with single sources. I'd appreciate reviewers' opinions on this. Shubinator (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Removing E3 sounds fine to me, although I think the best thing would be to tag the whole E section with some sort of comment stating something along the lines of "none of these things mean that your article won't be rejected for this, reviewers always reserve the right to evaluate articles on a case-by-case basis; even though E-whatever might be sometimes controversial, your article can still be failed for it." rʨanaɢ /contribs 18:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) I know in the past I've rejected articles with only one source mainly because of what Ottava said it shows notability and helps to verify info. I'll also add that it ensures that there probably isn't any copyvio's in it. Removing E3 isn't likely to make anyone scream bloody murder so go ahead.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Removing E3, thus turning it into an unwritten rule, would also make authors more likely to write articles based on one source, and then be disappointed to find out that isn't enough. In particular, "the article must not stink" won't mean to them what it means to you. The consensus has probably become stronger than the existing wording but that could be solved by stronger yet not absolute wording. For instance, "An article with only one source is more likely to be rejected." Or even "An article with only one source is likely to be rejected." Art LaPella (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Both of these work for me. Shubinator (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- As for the rest of WP:DYKAR#"Rules" sometimes invoked but lacking a consensus, I originally wrote it with the thought that it would embarrass the rest of you into clarifying those situations. "The article must not stink" is a great rule for reviewers, but it's a terrible rule for authors considering whether to attempt to comply. Art LaPella (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know. As NVO suggested, a rule like this would be highly gameable. If 99% of the article relies on a single source, and one statement in the article relies on a second source, does that make the article as a whole any less dependent on the first? Or are we going to apply a minimum percentage, and if so, who would like to try policing such a rule?
- I'm a little uncomfortable about articles dependent on a single source too, but I think, like Rjanag, I would prefer to retain a little flexibility. There are certain subjects, for example, that one wouldn't want to see dependent on a single source. I would also be more inclined to accept a single-sourced article that was short rather than long. But I'm not sure anything would be gained by making a second source a requirement. Gatoclass (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- I thought my wording accounted for that objection. Although I think "The article should have more than one source" could be interpreted as "The article must have more than one source", I thought I toned that down. Do you think "An article with only one source is likely to be rejected" means the same as "The article must have more than one source"? If not, I think I have already accommodated your objection. I didn't try to specify when one source is enough; I just warned authors that one source might be a problem. Eliminating the rule invites authors to write one-source articles and learn the hard way. Art LaPella (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think "An article with only one source is likely to be rejected" is the best solution. Although, as a corrolary to my "articles shouldn't stink" comment above, I should point out that there already is an "unwritten rule" saying that articles with outstanding major cleanup tags are likely to be rejected. Though it doesn't explicitly say so, that also means that an article that could be tagged at any moment should also be rejected. Since {{single source}} is a major cleanup tag, this rule should handle these articles (although, of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that nominators know about it or pay attention to it. rʨanaɢ /contribs 06:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- My concern is that if such wording is adopted, it will rapidly become the de facto response to challenge or disqualify every article that has only one source. Your comment about tagging the article just reinforces that perception. So it seems like a slippery slope to me. Gatoclass (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- It already is the de facto response. Current procedure is it takes an exceptional (whatever that means) source and a good article without copyvio or bias to get around it. I did know about the single sourcing tag, and if my proposal to remove E3 was shot down, I would have suggested changing the cleanup tag rule ... as is, the two rules conflict. Shubinator (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- As I said earlier Shubs, does an article become more credible, or notably less dependent on a single source, if the author adds a second reference to cite a single statement, leaving the other 99% of the article cited to the original source? Hardly. So what concrete gain is to be had from insisting on the second source? Little if any that I can see.
- I think we're better off just sticking to common sense. If the source is solid, and being used to source uncontroversial facts, I don't see much of a problem. If the source is iffy, and/or being used substantially to opinionate or interpret facts, or if the subject matter itself is controversial, that's when I think single-sourced articles start running into problems. Gatoclass (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agree totally with Gato. The de facto response to single source articles should not be rejection without taking the quality of the source into account. Frankly I'm shocked to hear that is the case. Again, what is up with the WP:CREEP into WP:GA & WP:FA territory? Of course we don't want utter crap on the main page but there is a lot of ground between crap and GA. We don't need to swing the pendulum far to one extreme in order to avoid the other. Agne/ 03:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- It already is the de facto response. Current procedure is it takes an exceptional (whatever that means) source and a good article without copyvio or bias to get around it. I did know about the single sourcing tag, and if my proposal to remove E3 was shot down, I would have suggested changing the cleanup tag rule ... as is, the two rules conflict. Shubinator (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- My concern is that if such wording is adopted, it will rapidly become the de facto response to challenge or disqualify every article that has only one source. Your comment about tagging the article just reinforces that perception. So it seems like a slippery slope to me. Gatoclass (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the cleanup tag rule covers single source article tags, and yes, nominators might not know that – I didn't know about single source article tags either. Art LaPella (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think "An article with only one source is likely to be rejected" is the best solution. Although, as a corrolary to my "articles shouldn't stink" comment above, I should point out that there already is an "unwritten rule" saying that articles with outstanding major cleanup tags are likely to be rejected. Though it doesn't explicitly say so, that also means that an article that could be tagged at any moment should also be rejected. Since {{single source}} is a major cleanup tag, this rule should handle these articles (although, of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that nominators know about it or pay attention to it. rʨanaɢ /contribs 06:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- I thought my wording accounted for that objection. Although I think "The article should have more than one source" could be interpreted as "The article must have more than one source", I thought I toned that down. Do you think "An article with only one source is likely to be rejected" means the same as "The article must have more than one source"? If not, I think I have already accommodated your objection. I didn't try to specify when one source is enough; I just warned authors that one source might be a problem. Eliminating the rule invites authors to write one-source articles and learn the hard way. Art LaPella (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- As for the rest of WP:DYKAR#"Rules" sometimes invoked but lacking a consensus, I originally wrote it with the thought that it would embarrass the rest of you into clarifying those situations. "The article must not stink" is a great rule for reviewers, but it's a terrible rule for authors considering whether to attempt to comply. Art LaPella (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Both of these work for me. Shubinator (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Removing E3, thus turning it into an unwritten rule, would also make authors more likely to write articles based on one source, and then be disappointed to find out that isn't enough. In particular, "the article must not stink" won't mean to them what it means to you. The consensus has probably become stronger than the existing wording but that could be solved by stronger yet not absolute wording. For instance, "An article with only one source is more likely to be rejected." Or even "An article with only one source is likely to be rejected." Art LaPella (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) I know in the past I've rejected articles with only one source mainly because of what Ottava said it shows notability and helps to verify info. I'll also add that it ensures that there probably isn't any copyvio's in it. Removing E3 isn't likely to make anyone scream bloody murder so go ahead.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Removing E3 sounds fine to me, although I think the best thing would be to tag the whole E section with some sort of comment stating something along the lines of "none of these things mean that your article won't be rejected for this, reviewers always reserve the right to evaluate articles on a case-by-case basis; even though E-whatever might be sometimes controversial, your article can still be failed for it." rʨanaɢ /contribs 18:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Easy enough to find two extremist cources, if that's what they want YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Quite a few people have completely missed the aim of this proposal. The rule change would not affect daily operations at DYK, but reflect our current procedure, and give editors a good idea of what to expect at DYK. Of course subjective reviewing doesn't go away, and I'm sure some single-sourced articles would be approved, as they are now. "Rejection without taking the quality of the source into account" has not been proposed anywhere in this dicussion.
The heart of this boils down to a simple question: Is a single-sourced article more likely to be accepted or rejected at DYK? Shubinator (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- The answer to your question should be "None of the above". The classification of "single sourced article" shouldn't even exist in the DYK vocabulary. There should only be consideration of "well sourced" vs "insufficiently sourced articles". The quality of the reference should be the only consideration, not the quantity. Any rejection based on the number of sources--which is EXACTLY what a blanket (or de facto) rejection of "single sourced articles" is--does poor service to DYK and certainly shouldn't be codify in the guidelines. Agne/ 17:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps you would like to change Misplaced Pages:Notability then? "Multiple sources are generally preferred." Shubinator (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Preferred does not mean required and it certainly doesn't mean that DYK should be counting the # of references as a de facto criteria. Quality and Quantity are not interlink. The former should be of paramount importance to the reviewer, the later is simply fruitless bean counting. Agne/ 03:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agne, you appear to be missing my point. Would you be satisfied if we adopted the same wording as Misplaced Pages:Notability? (To clear up any confusion at all, that's "Multiple sources are generally preferred"). Shubinator (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Preferred does not mean required and it certainly doesn't mean that DYK should be counting the # of references as a de facto criteria. Quality and Quantity are not interlink. The former should be of paramount importance to the reviewer, the later is simply fruitless bean counting. Agne/ 03:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps you would like to change Misplaced Pages:Notability then? "Multiple sources are generally preferred." Shubinator (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Any objections/comments on "Multiple sources are generally preferred"? Shubinator (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think that would be okay. Obviously they are preferred, but one source noms aren't always automatically rejected on that basis alone. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Based on the discussion here I have added "Multiple sources are generally preferred" to the additional rules. Shubinator (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
T:DYKT Page too big
Has anyone else found that it takes a really long time to load nowadays? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is a perennial issue and it's just because of the size of the page, I don't think there's much that can be done to change it (other than telling people not to nominate so many articles?). It takes maybe 5-10 seconds on my computer, and I don't have a fast internet connection (although when I tried accessing it from an internet connection in Argentina, it would freeze up the computer for several minutes). Overall, I don't think it's any slower than WP:FAC. rʨanaɢ /contribs 02:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Luckily for FAC/FAR they are transcluded, so I just get the list of articles and look at the ones I want indivudally...YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) For me it's probably 3-5 and a way to fix this is (just tossing out an idea don't necessarily support it but...) maybe creating separate subpages for the nominations that can be linked on the page (kind of like WP:AFD.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- This has been suggested before (can't find the link in the archives just now, I think it was by Backslash Forwardslash) and I believe got a lukewarm reception. It would create a lot of clutter (although I guess no more than AfDs) and most of the subpages would be pretty tiny, since typical DYK noms generate less discussion than typical AFDS. Having a large number of transcluded templates on the page would create its own loadtime problems and thus might not even improve the situation. And, probably most importantly, it would make it difficult for the people preparing updates at T:DYK/P, since it would become difficult to grab (by copy-pasting) multiple hooks in a single edit. rʨanaɢ /contribs 02:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- IMO, we already have too many pages at DYK. The slow load times are a nuisance, but I don't think there's much more we can practically do to speed the process up. The backlog is obviously a major contributing factor - there are currently about twice as many hooks at Suggestions now as there were only a month or so ago. Gatoclass (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- This has been suggested before (can't find the link in the archives just now, I think it was by Backslash Forwardslash) and I believe got a lukewarm reception. It would create a lot of clutter (although I guess no more than AfDs) and most of the subpages would be pretty tiny, since typical DYK noms generate less discussion than typical AFDS. Having a large number of transcluded templates on the page would create its own loadtime problems and thus might not even improve the situation. And, probably most importantly, it would make it difficult for the people preparing updates at T:DYK/P, since it would become difficult to grab (by copy-pasting) multiple hooks in a single edit. rʨanaɢ /contribs 02:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Here is a link to a previous discussion on a similar proposal proposed by myself, Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_44#T:TDYK and Loading Times. I am still very much in favour of such a system, and perhaps it is high time we do something to actually make DYK accessible for slow connections. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Another possible way to split the page would be to divide it into the first 5 days (where new articles would be added) and the rest kept in 2 different pages. But this would create a problem with moving hooks every day from one page to the other. Looks like introducing any kind of subpages would result in either a lot of work or a lot of clutter. Maybe a bot can help with moving hooks if we implement something like this, but that would still take time.
- If we are going to implement a new method here, we have to be prepared for some setbacks as well though. The introduction of the new new nomination template made the page larger and longer, but it also made it more neat and easier to find and review hooks. I don't think we can't expect a perfect solution for something like this so we'll just have to go for net positive. ≈ Chamal 10:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm opposed to splitting the Suggestions page. The delay is annoying, but it's not crippling. And I fail to see how splitting the page will make the process any faster overall. It will just mean that the time you used to spend waiting for the Suggestions page to open will be time you spend flipping from one page to another looking for a suitable hook. Gatoclass (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) For me it's probably 3-5 and a way to fix this is (just tossing out an idea don't necessarily support it but...) maybe creating separate subpages for the nominations that can be linked on the page (kind of like WP:AFD.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- How about we just split the days' pages to separate subpages, i.e. each days gets their own page but not each nom? Also, imho most of the current lag when loading does not come from the amount of nominations but from the huge backlog in reviewing them (there is a 5 to 7 days backlog usually). Regards SoWhy 13:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- @Gato: I felt that way before, but after my two weeks in Argentina earlier this summer I did get somewhat convinced that decreasing the loadtime would be nice...for most of us it's only a minor annoyance, as you say, but for people in other parts of the world it can basically make it impossible to participate in DYK at all (as it did for me on most of the computers I used there). Granted, I do not feel that splitting it into subpages is the best way to do that, and there may not be any other way anyway, so our hands might be tied. But if there are any alternatives (other than splitting) that will decrease loadtime, it would be worth exploring them. rʨanaɢ /contribs 16:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well it might preclude some people with slow net connections from participating in DYK maintenance tasks but I wouldn't have thought it would stop them from submitting articles, and if it did they would only have to ask someone else to submit it for them. I mean it's not as if we've had anyone actually complain about it. But if you can think of a possible way to speed up the page without splitting it, I'd certainly be happy to look at it. Gatoclass (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would like the idea of having the main 5 days listed and having a separate page for expiring noms. That way, we can keep track of people which are more in desperate need without interfering with people listing new ones. I have no real desire either way, and I'm just throwing this out there. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I know I'm a few days late in saying this but I have noticed this too even though I did not believe my connection was all that slow. It has discouraged me from trying to load the page and even then I am usually nominating several at once rather than individually as I used to. And the delay also discourages me from reviewing anything. So in a way I am not able to assist with the backlog as much as I was doing even a few weeks ago and am adding to it by nominating. It has almost become my least favourite page to visit now(!) (: I am one person but if there are several who have the same experience it probably doesn't help the overall situation. So I would definitely support any change that improves this and allows greater participation. --candle•wicke 22:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have had no problems loading the page at all. But maybe a wonderful internet loading god is watching over me. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've found the load time a lot better than it's been in the past (say, than nine months ago). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
South Ossetia article
The hook on Russia – South Ossetia relations was recently put into queue 2 despite a possible NPOV violation, no edits to the article to fix the issue, and no clear consensus about 1) if there is a bias, or 2) if it can be ignored if there is. The nom should be discussed further before being displayed on the Main Page.
So why do I think it's not neutral? In the 2008 war in South Ossetia section, the article essentially says that Georgia invaded South Ossetia, and then Russia sent troops in to protect its citizens. All of the facts are correct as stated, but the facts are not chosen in a neutral way.
For example, let's try this story on the latest Israel – Palestine incident: On January 3, 2009, thousands of Israeli troops marched into Gaza. During the invasion a UN compound in Gaza was shelled. The elected party of Gaza fired rockets into Israel in self-defense.
Most people would agree the paragraph above is biased. The Russia – South Ossetia relations article is similarly biased and shouldn't be displayed on the Main Page as-is. Shubinator (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know... while I see where you're coming from but I don't see it. The paragraph does seem to be Russia centered but not necessarily Russia biased. IMHO And since I was the one who moved it to the prep areas, I feel I should comment and my comment would be that, I promoted it mainly because of what Wehwalt and SusanLesch said which I agree with. DYK is not FAC or GAN and the main purpose is to have people edit the articles to improve them to GA or FA, thus I promoted it in the hopes someone will fix yours and others concerns.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- DYK doesn't have as high standards, true, but I see this as blatant bias. We have pulled articles in the past for bias, especially in politically charged conflicts like the Israel-Palestine one. Both Wehwalt and SusanLesch said they weren't familiar enough with the subject to comment on possible bias. I'm not an expert, but news last year couldn't decide who was "right" (like the Israel – Palestine incident in January). The article goes out of its way to quote a Russian leader as saying they went in to defend Russian citizens, yet depicts Georgia as an invader. Shubinator (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Like I said, is it Russia centered? Yes. Biased in my opinion? Not really. I'm sure there are (not my area of work so I won't but...) sources out there for Georgia's leader about it. And what would be nice would be to have a something like a Pre-war section talking about whatever led up to it. Because to me it's rather obvious Georgia did it for a reason (I'm not politically up to date so I have no idea) whether it be independence or Russia struck first.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I say again, let it go. I looked at it, even with my limited knowledge of the field, it didn't look totally out of whack. It's there, it's gone in six hours. It won't kill us. It isn't a TFA. Let it run.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- We don't have such a carefree attitude with the IP articles. I've notified the nominator of this discussion, since he/she hasn't replied since the article was nommed. I would like to see the article go through the natural DYK cycle - nom, issues brought up, issues fixed, verified, DYK - instead of being rushed through with issues not addressed. Shubinator (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I had a read through it and it seemed reasonably NPOV to me apart from the citizenship issue, which Russia controversially extended to South Ossetians after the '91 conflict, so I've made some edits that I hope have clarified that issue. I think the article probably meets NPOV now, but if you have any further concerns, let me know. Gatoclass (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Probably if this was the Russian Misplaced Pages, Shubinator, we would not take such a casual attitude towards Russian-Georgian relations, but I-P would probably get a shrug. Seriously, I don't think you can compare anything to I-P. But I do see your point, one in a thousand articles requires a little extra care. Lydda Death March was rather casually verified, and we all got a lot of drama when it turned out to be problem. I don't know how you allow for that one in a thousand article except taking a close look on sensitive subjects before they hit the queues.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Gato for helping out. Since the Russian POV is highlighted, I added some material from the other side. I'd also be fine with striking both POVs, and leaving it at dates of troop movements into South Ossetia. I had raised this issue before the nom was promoted to the queues, and hoped it wouldn't be promoted without the issue being addressed (and the nominator still hasn't commented, despite editing since I left the notice). Shubinator (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Probably if this was the Russian Misplaced Pages, Shubinator, we would not take such a casual attitude towards Russian-Georgian relations, but I-P would probably get a shrug. Seriously, I don't think you can compare anything to I-P. But I do see your point, one in a thousand articles requires a little extra care. Lydda Death March was rather casually verified, and we all got a lot of drama when it turned out to be problem. I don't know how you allow for that one in a thousand article except taking a close look on sensitive subjects before they hit the queues.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I had a read through it and it seemed reasonably NPOV to me apart from the citizenship issue, which Russia controversially extended to South Ossetians after the '91 conflict, so I've made some edits that I hope have clarified that issue. I think the article probably meets NPOV now, but if you have any further concerns, let me know. Gatoclass (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- We don't have such a carefree attitude with the IP articles. I've notified the nominator of this discussion, since he/she hasn't replied since the article was nommed. I would like to see the article go through the natural DYK cycle - nom, issues brought up, issues fixed, verified, DYK - instead of being rushed through with issues not addressed. Shubinator (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I say again, let it go. I looked at it, even with my limited knowledge of the field, it didn't look totally out of whack. It's there, it's gone in six hours. It won't kill us. It isn't a TFA. Let it run.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Like I said, is it Russia centered? Yes. Biased in my opinion? Not really. I'm sure there are (not my area of work so I won't but...) sources out there for Georgia's leader about it. And what would be nice would be to have a something like a Pre-war section talking about whatever led up to it. Because to me it's rather obvious Georgia did it for a reason (I'm not politically up to date so I have no idea) whether it be independence or Russia struck first.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- DYK doesn't have as high standards, true, but I see this as blatant bias. We have pulled articles in the past for bias, especially in politically charged conflicts like the Israel-Palestine one. Both Wehwalt and SusanLesch said they weren't familiar enough with the subject to comment on possible bias. I'm not an expert, but news last year couldn't decide who was "right" (like the Israel – Palestine incident in January). The article goes out of its way to quote a Russian leader as saying they went in to defend Russian citizens, yet depicts Georgia as an invader. Shubinator (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is not Israel-Palestine, but rather Russia-South Ossetia relations. Of course the article is going to be Russia or South Ossetia centric, as it is also not an article on the war, nor is it an article on the international recognition of A&SO. But rather, it is an article on the bilateral relationship between Russia and South Ossetia, so of course the bulk of the article is going to be on these two states. One can also see that I have also included some criticism of the relationship, as I always do when writing articles from an NPOV standpoint. Do we need after every treaty or agreement that is signed that Misha in Tbilisi condemns it? That would be pure overkill because we get it already, Georgia doesn't recognise South Ossetia as being independent. But again, this is Russia-South Ossetia relations. There has already been a somewhat disruptive attempt to expunge the article at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Russia – South Ossetia relations, but it was quite rightly speedily kept. As one of the editors mentioned, anything that needs to be discussed should be done on the article talk page, which after putting in all the time I have on this article, I see that not a single editor has yet to utilise Talk:Russia – South Ossetia relations for it's intended purpose. Having said that, I am not saying that the article is perfect, and as one can see I am still adding and tweaking information in order to make it flow better and be more informational. More information on the war, remembering of course this is not 2008 South Ossetia war, will also be added. --Russavia 18:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Additionally, to use the I-P analogy above. The key to presenting information on WP is to attribute it to the source. For example, in the R-SO article, it doesn't say "Russia intervened to protect its citizens", but rather it says, "Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, in noting the deaths of Russian peacekeepers and South Ossetian civilians, stated: "In accordance with the Constitution and the federal laws, as President of the Russian Federation it is my duty to protect the lives and dignity of Russian citizens wherever they may be."" There is a vast difference in presenting something the way in the I-P example, and the way that I have done so in this article - in this article, it is attributed to who wrote/spoke it. --Russavia 18:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for commenting here. The bulk of the article is fine, but it's the section about the war I'm concerned about, as it paints Georgia as the aggressor. Attribution is good, but if facts are picked selectively, they can give the reader a biased picture, even if all the facts are attributed. Do you mind if I change the wording a bit to address the bias?
- What makes the article talk page so sacred? The discussion began at DYK, so it makes sense to continue it here instead of spawning threads. This is still related to DYK since the article could be pulled if there were unexplained partial reverts of others' edits to give the article a more neutral tone. Shubinator (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
13 part nom
Just listed a 13 part nom. I made sure to squeeze it under 200 characters (194). There shouldn't be a problem. The individual pages are incomplete, but I was mostly going through sources of the series and dealing with each as they were. I made sure to make them all over 5k. Anyway, just a little heads up in case anyone was wondering. I need to take a nap now. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Going for the record? :) If I remember right, the current one is 12 articles. Anyone feel this should be included in WP:DYKSTATS? It's a considerable achievement, after all. ≈ Chamal ¤ 04:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- There's already a list somewhere of biggest hooks. And I think the highest is actually 25 or something (as disgusting as that sounds!). rʨanaɢ /contribs 04:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, found it. Much of this page is horribly out of date. Anyway, I was wrong, it looks like the current record stands at a paltry 19 hooks. (Now that I think about it, I think I was one of the party-poopers who argued for splitting up the abovementioned 25-article hook.) rʨanaɢ /contribs 04:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
That's big... Ottava seems to be one of the record holders anyway. ≈ Chamal ¤ 05:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wait, you mean 17 right? Or did someone pass me? Hey! I got that 17 character one within the 200. That should be something! (it took me 3 days to figure out how to do it haha). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I did a 25 one in 4 days once. I must have neglected to shout about it afterwards. :) --candle•wicke 02:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- 25 part DYK in one hook? Actually, that is incorrect. You were force to split it up because most of it did not fit together and was way too large (a ridiculous 733 characters). One of them was a 12 part DYK (274 characters). One a 7 part DYK (252 characters). Another 6 part DYK (262 characters). Ottava Rima (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, this started as you informing everyone that you had increased the backlog with a 13 part nomination, then there was speculation that this was a record nomination, then someone said 25 was the record submission, then I recalled once submitting a 25 part nomination. The question being asked was if 13 was a record nomination (since the 13 was just a nomination at the time and may very well still be now). So, by those calculations, 25 (and neither 13 nor 19) must be the minimum record nomination until someone says otherwise.
- Thank you very much for your little heads up which led to me being informed of this! ;) You have made my day Ottava, perhaps we can produce a 14 part nomination together on some occasion. :) --candle•wicke 22:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is acceptance, not submission, that counts. :P . Note, you are up there quite a bit too. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- But does it count towards anything in the end? :D It doesn't further the encyclopedia, does it Ottava, to compete for your place on a list of other users? --candle•wicke 23:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I only write the noms to promote literature. One article with a clever hook in my subject area might get 500-1000 hits on the main page. That is decent. However, people seeing large hooks on major authors that they remember from their school days would then have a greater appreciation of the individual and a greater appreciation of Misplaced Pages. I am full of pride every time I can get one of the top 20 English poets on that list. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- 'Tis decent indeed. But which are the top 20? :) --candle•wicke 02:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I only write the noms to promote literature. One article with a clever hook in my subject area might get 500-1000 hits on the main page. That is decent. However, people seeing large hooks on major authors that they remember from their school days would then have a greater appreciation of the individual and a greater appreciation of Misplaced Pages. I am full of pride every time I can get one of the top 20 English poets on that list. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- But does it count towards anything in the end? :D It doesn't further the encyclopedia, does it Ottava, to compete for your place on a list of other users? --candle•wicke 23:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is acceptance, not submission, that counts. :P . Note, you are up there quite a bit too. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- 25 part DYK in one hook? Actually, that is incorrect. You were force to split it up because most of it did not fit together and was way too large (a ridiculous 733 characters). One of them was a 12 part DYK (274 characters). One a 7 part DYK (252 characters). Another 6 part DYK (262 characters). Ottava Rima (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I did a 25 one in 4 days once. I must have neglected to shout about it afterwards. :) --candle•wicke 02:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikisource reliable?
Is Wikisource considered a reliable source for a fact that is used for a hook? Refer to . Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- If it's just a copy of something that otherwise is a reliable source, I don't see why not. We can probably AGF that the wikisource entry created is an accurate copy of the real source (ie, unless we have a good reason for doing so, we probably shouldn't assume that the wikisource editor made up things that aren't in the real source). If it's a problem, we can always just have the reference refer to the actual charter, rather than the Wikisource version, and comment out the Wikisource link. rʨanaɢ /contribs 04:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Fuckin' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus
It's that time again, and an editor has expressed concern over the hook for Fuckin' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus. Hook:
- ... that the singer of "Fuckin' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus" had never even met the cricketer, "let alone greeted him in such an overfamiliar way"?
Personally, I'm not too fussed over this one, but in the interests of having community opinion... \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say keep/allow. The article isn't that bad, and, it does meet WP:NOTCENSORED. We've had worse on the main page before. Cheers, I' 13:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- NOTCENSORED is not a blank check. It states: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Misplaced Pages readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." Not featuring this hook would not make Misplaced Pages less informative, relevant, or accurate, and there are certainly many more hooks available to feature. Anyhow, I thought it was important to at least raise the question, and I'm happy to go along with the community decision. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's fine. Articles rejected before have often been ones that are totally lewd or gross-out (c.f. Cunt (video game)), which this is not; it's just a swear word. Sure, there may be children reading and whatever, but keeping them from being exposed to swear words is their parents' responsibility, not ours. rʨanaɢ /contribs 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why would parents expect Misplaced Pages, which claims to be a valuable educational resource, to feature swear words on the main page? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Let it pass, I don't see what's wrong with this. It's not obscene or deliberately offensive (even if it was, remember that wikipedia isn't censored) and if people are offended by an exclamation of surprise, so what. People are allowed to be offended. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Remeber to read WP:NOTCENSORED before citing it in a discussion. I have discussed the problem with NOTCENSORED as it applies to this situation above. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's fine. Articles rejected before have often been ones that are totally lewd or gross-out (c.f. Cunt (video game)), which this is not; it's just a swear word. Sure, there may be children reading and whatever, but keeping them from being exposed to swear words is their parents' responsibility, not ours. rʨanaɢ /contribs 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- NOTCENSORED is not a blank check. It states: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Misplaced Pages readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." Not featuring this hook would not make Misplaced Pages less informative, relevant, or accurate, and there are certainly many more hooks available to feature. Anyhow, I thought it was important to at least raise the question, and I'm happy to go along with the community decision. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- If necessary, it could be changed to ... that the singer of a song about Fred Titmus had never even met the cricketer, "let alone greeted him in such an overfamiliar way"? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- If that is done, the "let alone greeted him in such an overfamiliar way" would have to be removed (since it no longer refers to anything). But I think it would make the hook not very interesting anymore. rʨanaɢ /contribs 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't really see "fuckin' 'ell" as that familiar. :) But yeah, I guess as is the quote would refer to the title. I was thinking the quote would refer to the content of the song. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I actually like OttavaRima's hook as he has set it out - the reference to "..such an overfamiliar way" would get readers to click on the link to see what the "overfamiliar way" was, and then be surprised by the title of the song. I prefer that hook to the original one which gives the title of the song - it might shock, but it would lose the element of surprise. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- "...that despite writing a song about swearing in surprise at meeting cricketer Fred Titmus, the author had never met him?" or something along those lines? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see no reason to delete the expletives, but it will be fine either way, I'm sure. If we can have Gropecunt Lane as TFA, we can have this. And that's not defining deviancy down.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- This version of the hook should not be used. Omitting the title of the song in question makes the hook less informative to readers for no reason other than censorship, and is thus contrary to both the spirit and the letter of WP:NOTCENSORED. Algebraist 21:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see no reason to delete the expletives, but it will be fine either way, I'm sure. If we can have Gropecunt Lane as TFA, we can have this. And that's not defining deviancy down.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- "...that despite writing a song about swearing in surprise at meeting cricketer Fred Titmus, the author had never met him?" or something along those lines? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I actually like OttavaRima's hook as he has set it out - the reference to "..such an overfamiliar way" would get readers to click on the link to see what the "overfamiliar way" was, and then be surprised by the title of the song. I prefer that hook to the original one which gives the title of the song - it might shock, but it would lose the element of surprise. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't really see "fuckin' 'ell" as that familiar. :) But yeah, I guess as is the quote would refer to the title. I was thinking the quote would refer to the content of the song. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- If that is done, the "let alone greeted him in such an overfamiliar way" would have to be removed (since it no longer refers to anything). But I think it would make the hook not very interesting anymore. rʨanaɢ /contribs 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)
I believe that Misplaced Pages is not censored?
I entered the following Did you know... suggestion;
- ... that the singer of "Fuckin' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus" had never even met the cricketer, "let alone greeted him in such an overfamiliar way"?
This has been amended to;
- ... that despite writing a song about swearing in surprise at meeting cricketer Fred Titmus, the author had never met him?
This is currently in Template:Did you know/Queue#Prep area 1
Policy states that: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Misplaced Pages readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."
The subject of the article is a song. Not having the title in the tag is a ridiculous form of censorship; against our policy. Of course the omission causes it to be less informative.
Despite the common sense prevailing above, we seem to have this "censorship by stealth".
Can this be changed back? Chzz ► 22:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree it should be but keep getting reverted because of the "Think of the Children!" argument. It's just six stupid hours. Who'll die if it goes up with "Fuck" being used in the hook?--Giants27 (c|s) 02:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, please! The issue is accessibility. Shutting off access to the Main Page for six hours at the start of a new school year is a deplorable thing to do to our users, both children and teachers. It's not an issue of exposing minors to foul language, but of denying them access to the Main Page because of school-implemented filters. No one will die, but causing fatalities is not the only concern we have on Misplaced Pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- If we hold it back until Queue 2, school will be out for the weekend all over the world when it appears on the main page. --Orlady (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I find the use of the word 'Fuck' on the mainpage to be lacking tact. Law type! snype? 03:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's not just tact, taste, or censorship. Deliberately taking an action that we know would deny access to a significant fraction of our users is discriminatory. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm still more stuck on the basic principle of taste. I know we technically can put it on the main page, but it reeks of the drunken sorority girl who insists on the incessant badgering of other party mates with orations about her current inebriation. It is attention-whoring at its finest. How's that for a visual? Law type! snype? 04:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- And to me, leaving it out reeks of pathetic Victorian prudery. How about we leave our respective personal feelings out of this discussion? Algebraist 04:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm still more stuck on the basic principle of taste. I know we technically can put it on the main page, but it reeks of the drunken sorority girl who insists on the incessant badgering of other party mates with orations about her current inebriation. It is attention-whoring at its finest. How's that for a visual? Law type! snype? 04:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- This sort of thing that is decided by the community via agreed policy. If you think that policy needs to change, then suggest changing it. In the meantime, please adhere to the policy. What the various filtering softwares decide is and is not permissible is nothing to do with us. We cannot, and must not, make any such judgment calls. Chzz ► 04:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Which policy deals with accessibility of the Main Page? We aren't discussing the article's informativeness, merely the hook that is designed to draw people to that article. We frequently and deliberately have used misleading text (especially on April 1st), so how is it such a problem to not use text that could block user access of the Main Page? --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- @Algebraist - If we left our personal feelings out of discussions these discussion pages would be empty. I'm not sure how you communicate, but throwing policy back and forth is useless when it comes to a judgment call. I would hope you realize that in order to erect our policies and guidelines, one would have to use personal feelings to form an opinion as to what policy should be and why. Victorian prudery is an argument I hear from others but generally regarding why they wear sweat pants to court. I mean, yeah, technically you may, but class doesn't go out of style, regardless of the associated period. Law type! snype? 05:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent again)
- The current hook is wrong in several ways. Mr. Blackwell is not an 'author', he is a singer. There is no factual basis for declaring that he 'swore in surprise' the cited fact refers directly to a greeting, there is no mention of any surprise. The article does not state that Mr. Blackwell wrote the song; it states that he sang it. Apart from all of those factual inaccuracies, it is grammatically clumsy. Chzz ► 09:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
ParserFunctions suggestion
I think that instead of having a bot update the DYK template manually, it might be easier to transclude the queues directly into the template, using ParserFunctions to select one of them based on the current time. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is a good idea. Some thoughts, though, about issues that might come up (not saying i oppose this, just things to consider).... we would lose the opportunity to have a permanent link or diff to a particular version of T:DYK to prove that something was on the main page at a certain time (I don't know how important this is). Also, there would have to be some way for the parser function to recognize if the next queue has content in it (specifically, hooks), and not transclude the next queue if it isn't prepared yet; as far as I know, that can't be done with parser functions (although we could add some sort of parameter to the queues themselves, like
|hooksready=, and have admins set that parameter to "yes" every time they load hooks into a queue; not sure exactly how we'd make that work, but something along those lines.) - Ok, I had some other thoughts but I don't remember. I'll try to add to this later. rʨanaɢ /contribs 23:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Sometimes we don't have a set ready though. There's a system so the bot won't update if a set isn't ready; could we do the same with ParserFunctions? Also, having separate queues helps for special events like April Fools'. In general I think there's more flexibility with the bot; for example, could we change the time between updates with ParserFunctions? Shubinator (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- You can always remove the ParserFunctions when necessary. For the U.S. presidential election, a datestamp ParserFunction was set up to display "Today's featured articles" (Obama and McCain) only on that day. If they can be added for a one-time deal, they can also be removed for the same purpose. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The main point Rjanag and I are trying to make is that there's nothing to prevent an empty queue from being transcluded. Shubinator (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- You can always remove the ParserFunctions when necessary. For the U.S. presidential election, a datestamp ParserFunction was set up to display "Today's featured articles" (Obama and McCain) only on that day. If they can be added for a one-time deal, they can also be removed for the same purpose. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Sometimes we don't have a set ready though. There's a system so the bot won't update if a set isn't ready; could we do the same with ParserFunctions? Also, having separate queues helps for special events like April Fools'. In general I think there's more flexibility with the bot; for example, could we change the time between updates with ParserFunctions? Shubinator (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Leo Mintz
Someone in this process has changed my hook from "...one of the first...", which is referenced, to "..the first...", which is supported by some but not other sources, but is debatable and potentially contentious (among the small circle of people who care about these things!). It may not be noticed or important, but I thought I should mention it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I changed it several hours ago -- and posted a message here to tell you I had done so, but apparently the message got lost in the ether. Anyway, it's done. --Orlady (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
T:DYK/Q7
I was a bit bold and created the page for Queue 7. It may not seem so now, but we have recently had all 6 queues plus two prep areas full, so this'll just allow extra space. What do you guys think? It is needed? The bot can cope with more queues, as was evident when Queue 6 was created. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Category: