This is an old revision of this page, as edited by George Ho (talk | contribs) at 01:52, 12 December 2013 (→One overdue queue: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:52, 12 December 2013 by George Ho (talk | contribs) (→One overdue queue: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) SKIP TO THE BOTTOM
 | Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you. |
 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
Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Current time: 12:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 12 hours Last updated: 42 minutes ago( ) |
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. Proposals for changing how Did You Know works were being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.
New rule proposal
It seems that there should be some sort of rule regarding commercial subjects. I have nominated books on their release dates, tv shows for their premier dates, movies for their premier dates and albums on their release dates at DYK. Each time there has been all kinds of confusion on what is appropriate. In most cases after timeconsuming debate, I have been able to convince people that if the hook is not promotional of the subject it is appropriate. Most recently, the hook did not run on the desired date due to this concern. Can I or someone else write a rule so that we can refer to it in the future?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Since the special occasion holding area is one of three Nominations subsections, I added a special occasion subsection to Misplaced Pages:Did you know. The top of that page notes: "The DYK section publicizes new or expanded articles after an informal review. This publicity rewards editors for their contributions." The factors I listed in the special occasion subsection generally are based on that. The one reading "bringing additional publicity to the new or expanded article is more important than the additional publicity brought to the article subject" is meant to address your concern above. Obviously, the text can be modified. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- That rule does not really address the issue that has concerned reviewers and will not lessen the time wasted arguing about timely non-promotional hooks on commercial subjects. The guidance that is needed is something about how timeliness of the date request is an important element of the date request section and in cases where the subject is commercial in nature the reviewer is suppose to guide against hooks that are promotional, but not just commercial hooks that are timely. The confusion that I repeatedly have to expend energy explaining to reviewers is that reviewers think a timely commercial hook is prima facia promotional even if it does not present content that promotes the commercial content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger - It may be that reviewers in the past focused on the hook itself since there were rules for promotional hooks but no rules by which to additionally deal with the special occasion date request. Now that there is something on the Misplaced Pages:Did you know page that addresses special occasion date requests, nominators should be able focus more on whether an admin should list an approved hook on the date requested rather than mixing that with the separate hook review performed under Misplaced Pages:Did you know#The hook. I added to the section to address your concerns. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Both items 2 and 3 in this section are now more a point of confusion than anything else. WTF does "whether the editor's contribution merits additional reward" (item 2) have to do with evaluating a hook. What is the additional reward that is being considered. Is having a DYK on the main page considered a reward and having it on a special day an extra reward. I have never even heard this logic in a DYK review and I have been involved in over 1000 of them. Reward? That word needs to be struck from the rule. We don't promote hooks as a reward as far as I know. Item 3 is stated in a way that is likely to lead to more time consuming debate rather than give timesaving guidance. The whole addition is written as if to preserve the right to have muddling timewasting debate on the same issues over and over. What we need is a statement that we evaluate whether the hook is promotional of the subject. That is always what the debate is about.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Evaluating whether the hook is promotional of the subject is covered by "The hook should be neutral" listed under Misplaced Pages:Did you know#The hook. Whether an admin should list the neutral/non-promotional hook on the date requested is what the special occasion section addresses. If a business etc. is running an advertising campaign to coincide with their special event, it is in Misplaced Pages's interest to not have its Main Page be made part of that external advertising campaign through a timed non-promotional hook posting on the Main Page. I revised old factor two to read "whether the editor's contribution merits listing the hook on the special occasion date" and then removed it. The present factor two is for editors like yourself so that your special date request should ordinarily be granted. That editor's 'contribution merits additional reward' information was there as of your 19:38, 15 November 2013 post above, so what's with the above WTF comment four days later? -- Jreferee (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- You speak as if you feel that being neutral and non-promotional are the same thing. The problem is that inexperienced reviewers feel that if a hook mentions a commercial item it is promotional. Let's take as an example a very simple statement about a commercial item. Let's suppose a fictional song is going to be released commercially and the commercial version of the song is twelve minutes long. This is an extremely long single and a hook could say something like. "...that "song X" has a listed running time of 12 minutes and 22 seconds, making it the longest single Famous Records (or Famous Band) has ever distributed for airplay." That is an NPOV hook. It is an objective statement of fact. It does not even mention the fact that there is an impending release date for the single or a current ad campaign for its release. However, since the subject is a commercial product many reviewers would say this is promotional. Since it is not publicizing the impending release or current ad campaign it is not promotional (or at least the majority of my DYK reviewers have agreed on this type of subject that it is merely an intriguing fact about a record). Your statement above "If a business etc. is running an advertising campaign to coincide with their special event, it is in Misplaced Pages's interest to not have its Main Page be made part of that external advertising campaign through a timed non-promotional hook posting on the Main Page." is true but the majority of DYK reviewers in my experience have felt a hook like the one above is not making the main page "part of that external advertising campaign", which is where the rub is here. It took you four days to respond to this discussion, what is wrong with me taking four days to correct you?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- T - I'm sorry it took me four days to respond to the discussion. (Feel free to ping me in the future.) Listing on the special occasion date is a way to get additional click throughs from the Main Page to the article so that more people read the article (and people reading what Misplaced Pages publishes is the point of writing an encyclopedia). Editors such as yourself should not be having the problems you mentioned getting your special occasion hook on the Main Page since your goal is to get more people to read the nominated article. I thought reviewing "whether the editor's contribution merits listing the hook on the special occasion date" would be able to help you out, but realized it does not address the promotional issue directly. Writing rule language to cover all situation is not easy and will improve over time as DYK reviewers address future special occasion request. I feel that a hook being neutral and non-promotional essentially are the same thing. Since new-reviewers are not treating it as the same, I added language in the special occasion section to address it. If the special occasion section needs additional/different language, please let me know. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Jreferee, the phrase "mentioning the commercial item or business on the Main Page through the hook is not promotional of that item or business" is moving in the right direction. I would add the phrase "in and of itself", "prima facia", or "per se". Furthermore, I would encourage you to remove discussion about rewarding WP with date requests. Timely hooks are a service to WP and not the editors. They make WP look good not the editors.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger - Revised and trimmed some more. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Jreferee, I would change "in and of itself is not promotional of that item or business" to "is not promotional in and of itself", but that is really still going to be confusing. First this should be in a section called date requests rather than special occasion because not all date requests are for special occasions. Also, reviewers like to say, I am failing this for WP:DYK 3b or WP:DYKSG D4. Having this extra prose off in the corner somewhere is not really going to be helpful. What would be most help for us to have a set of itemized items of consideration for date requests formatted in a sort of bullet listed format like most of the other rules that are easy for reviewers to cite.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger - I made some changes. That phrase may read better as "is not, by itself, promotional of that item or business." The items can be cited as WP:DYK DR1, WP:DYK DR2, etc. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Jreferee I don't understand 2. 3 & 4 seem redundant.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger - I made some changes. That phrase may read better as "is not, by itself, promotional of that item or business." The items can be cited as WP:DYK DR1, WP:DYK DR2, etc. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Jreferee, I would change "in and of itself is not promotional of that item or business" to "is not promotional in and of itself", but that is really still going to be confusing. First this should be in a section called date requests rather than special occasion because not all date requests are for special occasions. Also, reviewers like to say, I am failing this for WP:DYK 3b or WP:DYKSG D4. Having this extra prose off in the corner somewhere is not really going to be helpful. What would be most help for us to have a set of itemized items of consideration for date requests formatted in a sort of bullet listed format like most of the other rules that are easy for reviewers to cite.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger - Revised and trimmed some more. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Jreferee, the phrase "mentioning the commercial item or business on the Main Page through the hook is not promotional of that item or business" is moving in the right direction. I would add the phrase "in and of itself", "prima facia", or "per se". Furthermore, I would encourage you to remove discussion about rewarding WP with date requests. Timely hooks are a service to WP and not the editors. They make WP look good not the editors.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- T - I'm sorry it took me four days to respond to the discussion. (Feel free to ping me in the future.) Listing on the special occasion date is a way to get additional click throughs from the Main Page to the article so that more people read the article (and people reading what Misplaced Pages publishes is the point of writing an encyclopedia). Editors such as yourself should not be having the problems you mentioned getting your special occasion hook on the Main Page since your goal is to get more people to read the nominated article. I thought reviewing "whether the editor's contribution merits listing the hook on the special occasion date" would be able to help you out, but realized it does not address the promotional issue directly. Writing rule language to cover all situation is not easy and will improve over time as DYK reviewers address future special occasion request. I feel that a hook being neutral and non-promotional essentially are the same thing. Since new-reviewers are not treating it as the same, I added language in the special occasion section to address it. If the special occasion section needs additional/different language, please let me know. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- You speak as if you feel that being neutral and non-promotional are the same thing. The problem is that inexperienced reviewers feel that if a hook mentions a commercial item it is promotional. Let's take as an example a very simple statement about a commercial item. Let's suppose a fictional song is going to be released commercially and the commercial version of the song is twelve minutes long. This is an extremely long single and a hook could say something like. "...that "song X" has a listed running time of 12 minutes and 22 seconds, making it the longest single Famous Records (or Famous Band) has ever distributed for airplay." That is an NPOV hook. It is an objective statement of fact. It does not even mention the fact that there is an impending release date for the single or a current ad campaign for its release. However, since the subject is a commercial product many reviewers would say this is promotional. Since it is not publicizing the impending release or current ad campaign it is not promotional (or at least the majority of my DYK reviewers have agreed on this type of subject that it is merely an intriguing fact about a record). Your statement above "If a business etc. is running an advertising campaign to coincide with their special event, it is in Misplaced Pages's interest to not have its Main Page be made part of that external advertising campaign through a timed non-promotional hook posting on the Main Page." is true but the majority of DYK reviewers in my experience have felt a hook like the one above is not making the main page "part of that external advertising campaign", which is where the rub is here. It took you four days to respond to this discussion, what is wrong with me taking four days to correct you?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Evaluating whether the hook is promotional of the subject is covered by "The hook should be neutral" listed under Misplaced Pages:Did you know#The hook. Whether an admin should list the neutral/non-promotional hook on the date requested is what the special occasion section addresses. If a business etc. is running an advertising campaign to coincide with their special event, it is in Misplaced Pages's interest to not have its Main Page be made part of that external advertising campaign through a timed non-promotional hook posting on the Main Page. I revised old factor two to read "whether the editor's contribution merits listing the hook on the special occasion date" and then removed it. The present factor two is for editors like yourself so that your special date request should ordinarily be granted. That editor's 'contribution merits additional reward' information was there as of your 19:38, 15 November 2013 post above, so what's with the above WTF comment four days later? -- Jreferee (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Both items 2 and 3 in this section are now more a point of confusion than anything else. WTF does "whether the editor's contribution merits additional reward" (item 2) have to do with evaluating a hook. What is the additional reward that is being considered. Is having a DYK on the main page considered a reward and having it on a special day an extra reward. I have never even heard this logic in a DYK review and I have been involved in over 1000 of them. Reward? That word needs to be struck from the rule. We don't promote hooks as a reward as far as I know. Item 3 is stated in a way that is likely to lead to more time consuming debate rather than give timesaving guidance. The whole addition is written as if to preserve the right to have muddling timewasting debate on the same issues over and over. What we need is a statement that we evaluate whether the hook is promotional of the subject. That is always what the debate is about.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger - It may be that reviewers in the past focused on the hook itself since there were rules for promotional hooks but no rules by which to additionally deal with the special occasion date request. Now that there is something on the Misplaced Pages:Did you know page that addresses special occasion date requests, nominators should be able focus more on whether an admin should list an approved hook on the date requested rather than mixing that with the separate hook review performed under Misplaced Pages:Did you know#The hook. I added to the section to address your concerns. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- That rule does not really address the issue that has concerned reviewers and will not lessen the time wasted arguing about timely non-promotional hooks on commercial subjects. The guidance that is needed is something about how timeliness of the date request is an important element of the date request section and in cases where the subject is commercial in nature the reviewer is suppose to guide against hooks that are promotional, but not just commercial hooks that are timely. The confusion that I repeatedly have to expend energy explaining to reviewers is that reviewers think a timely commercial hook is prima facia promotional even if it does not present content that promotes the commercial content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger - I revised 2. 4. only covers commercial items or business subjects + promotional. 3. is a more general statement for all subjects + non-neutral. -- Jreferee (talk) 08:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Jreferee Since I don't understand rule 2 please provide a sample fictional hook that would violate 2. Also, provide an example that would violate 3 that is not already covered by the standard NPOV rule WP:DYK EC4.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger - Rule 3 and 4 are not so much for reviewers to cite, but a way to lessen confusion on what is and is not appropriate to help focus the discussion on whether an admin should list a hook on the date requested. Rule 3 is more of a catch all. Rule 2 is a measure by which reviewers can indicted whether an admin should list a hook on the date requested. Without rule 2, that would leave a situation where an admin should list a hook on the date requested if the hook is not promotional of the subject. That would not allow reviewers to take into account the effect of listing a hook on the Main Page on the date requested. If you have an alternate wording to Rule 2, please post. I think the Date requests section is a reasonable framework that reviewers can apply. In applying it, it will be improved like all the other sections. There has been no input to this change to Misplaced Pages:Did you know other than you and myself. It may be worth it to open a new thread at the bottom of this page to receive additional input. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Jreferee, I now see what 2 is saying. It is saying we hope to expose Subject X rather than promote Subject X. The tone of the listed items differs greatly from the rest of the page. Let's try this. 1. Change "The editor's contribution" to "article". Reconsider my fictional hook above "...that "song X" has a listed running time of 12 minutes and 22 seconds, making it the longest single Famous Records (or Famous Band) has ever distributed for airplay." Then reexamine rule 2. I don't see how rule 2 will help to avert lots of timewasting back and forth on hooks like this. The may even preserve the right to argue about hooks like this. You still have not explained item 3 in any way that helps me understand an example of how it would apply. Please show me an example of how it would apply. Rule 4 "For hooks that mention a commercial item or a business where the nominator requests that the hook be listed to coincide with a requested date, mentioning the commercial item or business on the Main Page through the hook is not promotional in and of itself of that item or business." is way to long. Try "For hooks that mention a commercial item or a business
where the nominator requests that the hook be listed to coincide with a requested date, mentioning the commercial item or business on the Main Page throughthe hook is not promotional in and of itself of that item or business."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)- TonyTheTiger I made more revisions. For Rule 2, is the hook reviewer aware of something outside of Misplaced Pages to promote the subject on the requested date? In addition to that, there may be a variety of other circumstances that the reviewer needs to consider when indicating whether an admin should list the hook on the date requested. Some people maintain the position that paid editing is OK. Most do not. What standard is the hook reviewer to apply in that situation? There likely is a variety of other situation. Even if the hook is neutral and non-promotional, does listing the hook on the date requested primarily bring attention to the article. Even if listing the hook on the date requested brings attention to the article subject, that is fine as long as listing the hook on the date requested primarily bring attention to the article and secondarily brings attention to the article subject. If listing the hook on the date requested primarily bring attention to the article subject and secondarily brings attention to the article itself, then it should not be listed on the requested date, but can be listed outside of that date if the hook meets the general hook requirements. WP:COI provides a similar balance consideration is "advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages." As for examples, please provide a link to the discussion where the hook did not run on the desired date due and other hook requested dates you know of and we can run through each of the rules to see how they apply to those past situations and revise accordingly. -- Jreferee (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Jreferee Why is this written as if only admins move hooks to the prep areas? You should probably remove admin references. example 1 is the last controversial date request. This one was passively denied. Do you need me to provide a bunch of other examples?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger I made the revision. Yes, the example helps a lot, please provide a bunch of other examples, particularly the ones with detailed discussion on a date request (whether approved or not approved). The concern in example 1 above was the giving the appearance that someone is using Misplaced Pages's MainPage for "frontpage advertising" to promote commercial products, esp. on the first day the product is available for purchase. There probably is no way to overcome that since the person reading the main page likely won't be aware of how DYK operates. However, if an editor not connected with DYK would read the front page and then come to DYK and make such a complaint, the reply to such a complaint is to link to the nomination discussion and let them see for themselves that the issue was already considered now that the rules list a date request consideration separate from the hook consideration. Also, the new requested date section should help with deciding to move such hooks to the main page on the date requested. It's obvious that the main purpose of saving the hook for the November 5 (album release date) was to bring attention to the new or expanded article rather than the article subject. Muboshgu agreed with you. There was a discussion (so no need for a discussion on WT:DYK as requested on the bottom of Template:Did you know nominations/The Marshall Mathers LP 2). The date requested discussion did not stand out on the nomination page because it was not separately considered. I revised Rule 2 some what. -- Jreferee (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Jreferee Why is this written as if only admins move hooks to the prep areas? You should probably remove admin references. example 1 is the last controversial date request. This one was passively denied. Do you need me to provide a bunch of other examples?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger I made more revisions. For Rule 2, is the hook reviewer aware of something outside of Misplaced Pages to promote the subject on the requested date? In addition to that, there may be a variety of other circumstances that the reviewer needs to consider when indicating whether an admin should list the hook on the date requested. Some people maintain the position that paid editing is OK. Most do not. What standard is the hook reviewer to apply in that situation? There likely is a variety of other situation. Even if the hook is neutral and non-promotional, does listing the hook on the date requested primarily bring attention to the article. Even if listing the hook on the date requested brings attention to the article subject, that is fine as long as listing the hook on the date requested primarily bring attention to the article and secondarily brings attention to the article subject. If listing the hook on the date requested primarily bring attention to the article subject and secondarily brings attention to the article itself, then it should not be listed on the requested date, but can be listed outside of that date if the hook meets the general hook requirements. WP:COI provides a similar balance consideration is "advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages." As for examples, please provide a link to the discussion where the hook did not run on the desired date due and other hook requested dates you know of and we can run through each of the rules to see how they apply to those past situations and revise accordingly. -- Jreferee (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Jreferee, I now see what 2 is saying. It is saying we hope to expose Subject X rather than promote Subject X. The tone of the listed items differs greatly from the rest of the page. Let's try this. 1. Change "The editor's contribution" to "article". Reconsider my fictional hook above "...that "song X" has a listed running time of 12 minutes and 22 seconds, making it the longest single Famous Records (or Famous Band) has ever distributed for airplay." Then reexamine rule 2. I don't see how rule 2 will help to avert lots of timewasting back and forth on hooks like this. The may even preserve the right to argue about hooks like this. You still have not explained item 3 in any way that helps me understand an example of how it would apply. Please show me an example of how it would apply. Rule 4 "For hooks that mention a commercial item or a business where the nominator requests that the hook be listed to coincide with a requested date, mentioning the commercial item or business on the Main Page through the hook is not promotional in and of itself of that item or business." is way to long. Try "For hooks that mention a commercial item or a business
- TonyTheTiger - Rule 3 and 4 are not so much for reviewers to cite, but a way to lessen confusion on what is and is not appropriate to help focus the discussion on whether an admin should list a hook on the date requested. Rule 3 is more of a catch all. Rule 2 is a measure by which reviewers can indicted whether an admin should list a hook on the date requested. Without rule 2, that would leave a situation where an admin should list a hook on the date requested if the hook is not promotional of the subject. That would not allow reviewers to take into account the effect of listing a hook on the Main Page on the date requested. If you have an alternate wording to Rule 2, please post. I think the Date requests section is a reasonable framework that reviewers can apply. In applying it, it will be improved like all the other sections. There has been no input to this change to Misplaced Pages:Did you know other than you and myself. It may be worth it to open a new thread at the bottom of this page to receive additional input. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Jreferee Since I don't understand rule 2 please provide a sample fictional hook that would violate 2. Also, provide an example that would violate 3 that is not already covered by the standard NPOV rule WP:DYK EC4.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure how easy it is going to be to dig these up. Here is one about a movie on its release date: Template:Did you know nominations/In a World.... More to come.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Here is one about a book on its release date: Template:Did you know nominations/The Litigators.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- IIRC, I tried to make a late date request for the debut of this documentary on the talk page and it got ignored. Template:Did you know nominations/Benji (2012 film).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Jreferee, I have dug from my 500th DYK about 2 years ago to present. Will it really benefit us if I keep digging?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think in some cases the date request element of the discussion occurred on the article talk or at DYK talk (like the first example above). I don't think I will find them all looking through the DYK discussion pages. I think there was one regarding my Tony nominees last summer on the DYK talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- That looks to be enough examples. From Template:Did you know nominations/In a World...: "timing articles to coincide with commercial releases of movies, recordings, books, etc.: it feels too much like advertising, I'd let this one run whenever it gets picked", see F10 (linking to WP:NOTADVERTISING, "run several days after the premiere or before then, otherwise it would be too easy to level claims of advertising at DYK," "consensus seems to be that having something on the main page when it is in the news (even when it is about a popular culture topic) is not advertising in and of itself." From Template:Did you know nominations/The Litigators: "will look like an advertisement if it gets featured on the front page" (Original hook read "that The Litigators is the upcoming John Grisham novel ...), "As long as there isn't much emphasis on the newness, it seems okay to me" (hook then was changed), "Getting there, but too much emphasis on the date" (All timing references were removed from hook and Alt5 approved). -- Jreferee (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger - I made more revisions. From the above, it looks like the main concern is the appearance or giving perception of using the Main Page for advertising, especially on the first day the item is available for purchase, which we discussed above. There are 12,000,000 daily Main Page views, and you can't make everyone happy. However, consensus is that having something on the main page when it is in the news (even when it is about a popular culture topic) is not promotion of the item in and of itself. The hook probably should not include language that increases a likelihood of a Main Page reader's perception of the hook being promotional. For example, if the article is about a something new that is going to be introduced to people on a particular date, then having a timing reference in the hook (such as "upcoming", "released on October 25") relative to that introduction date may raise reviewer concern that Main Page readers might perceive the hook is on the Main Page to bring attention to the article subject and level claims of advertising at DYK. I changed rule DR2 to read "The hook should not put emphasis on a commercial release date of the article subject." -- Jreferee (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- That looks to be enough examples. From Template:Did you know nominations/In a World...: "timing articles to coincide with commercial releases of movies, recordings, books, etc.: it feels too much like advertising, I'd let this one run whenever it gets picked", see F10 (linking to WP:NOTADVERTISING, "run several days after the premiere or before then, otherwise it would be too easy to level claims of advertising at DYK," "consensus seems to be that having something on the main page when it is in the news (even when it is about a popular culture topic) is not advertising in and of itself." From Template:Did you know nominations/The Litigators: "will look like an advertisement if it gets featured on the front page" (Original hook read "that The Litigators is the upcoming John Grisham novel ...), "As long as there isn't much emphasis on the newness, it seems okay to me" (hook then was changed), "Getting there, but too much emphasis on the date" (All timing references were removed from hook and Alt5 approved). -- Jreferee (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think in some cases the date request element of the discussion occurred on the article talk or at DYK talk (like the first example above). I don't think I will find them all looking through the DYK discussion pages. I think there was one regarding my Tony nominees last summer on the DYK talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Jreferee, I have dug from my 500th DYK about 2 years ago to present. Will it really benefit us if I keep digging?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- IIRC, I tried to make a late date request for the debut of this documentary on the talk page and it got ignored. Template:Did you know nominations/Benji (2012 film).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I am going to have to dig for the stuff about the Tony Awards from last summer. I wanted hooks about best play/musical and best actor/actress nominees to run at the time the Tony Awards was being broadcast nationally. I will dig through the DYK talk pages and find those threads. There were two or three, IIRC. I'll get back to you later.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Having reviewed Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_93, I see that I misremembered the issues on that date.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, going from memory, there was a discussion about whether the now-deleted former main image of Lucky Guy (play) (of Tom Hanks) should be used on the main page at the time the 67th Tony Awards were being broadcast. I can't find that discussion right now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Jreferee although I can't find the discussion, can you comment on whether using an image of Tom Hanks as the lead image would count as promoting a television show.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger - I was away out of town. I found Lucky Guy DYK nom, DYK 67th Tony Awards date request 5 May 2013 , DYK 67th Tony Awards date request 6 May 2013, DYK Notice and File:Tom Hanks 2012.jpg. I did not see anything in those discussions about concern over using the image on the Main page. From the other date requested discussions, the main DYK concern with a requested date seems to be a likelihood that an editor may level claims of advertising at DYK. Pieces of a hook by themselves may not increase that likelihood but the collective of the hook might. Whether an image of Tom Hanks as the lead image would count as promoting a television show over promoting the Misplaced Pages article would depend on context. However, the main issue seems to be the likelihood that an editor may level claims of advertising/promoting the television show at DYK for using an image of Tom Hanks as the lead image. That also depends on context. -- Jreferee (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Since you are an admin, can you temporarily undelete the Hanks file at issue and look for discussions referencing it?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- File:Tom Hanks 2012.jpg was a commons file that was deleted at commons per "Removal of files added by User:Tom Sorensen: Impersonator account operated by Category:Sockpuppets of Chace Watson." and then F2 Misplaced Pages deleted three days later. The Misplaced Pages What links here shows discussions referencing it. The deleted page only contained {{db-noimage}} {{DYKfile|10 June|2013|type=image}}. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Since you are an admin, can you temporarily undelete the Hanks file at issue and look for discussions referencing it?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger - I was away out of town. I found Lucky Guy DYK nom, DYK 67th Tony Awards date request 5 May 2013 , DYK 67th Tony Awards date request 6 May 2013, DYK Notice and File:Tom Hanks 2012.jpg. I did not see anything in those discussions about concern over using the image on the Main page. From the other date requested discussions, the main DYK concern with a requested date seems to be a likelihood that an editor may level claims of advertising at DYK. Pieces of a hook by themselves may not increase that likelihood but the collective of the hook might. Whether an image of Tom Hanks as the lead image would count as promoting a television show over promoting the Misplaced Pages article would depend on context. However, the main issue seems to be the likelihood that an editor may level claims of advertising/promoting the television show at DYK for using an image of Tom Hanks as the lead image. That also depends on context. -- Jreferee (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Jreferee although I can't find the discussion, can you comment on whether using an image of Tom Hanks as the lead image would count as promoting a television show.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, going from memory, there was a discussion about whether the now-deleted former main image of Lucky Guy (play) (of Tom Hanks) should be used on the main page at the time the 67th Tony Awards were being broadcast. I can't find that discussion right now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Jreferee, At some point we need to call for other eyes on the changes that we have made.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
About "old" articles and expansions
I have been working with an old GA that was aprox. 30,000b (with adequate reference formatting) and now sits at 90,000b. All of the added content is "new" to the article and taken from several new books (it is now sourced by twice as many books as it did before the overhaul), none of it was taken from other Misplaced Pages articles. Could this be considered as an exception to the rule based on the 3x expansion? - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- From what I know, we usually wouldn't apply IAR to any expansion less than 4×. And the GA→DYK rule works only for new GA within 5 days of promotion. However, given the impressively comprehensive expansion you made, you could try getting it to Featured Article status, then TFA it so that it'll still be featured on the Main Page. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Carribbean H.Q., what you have done is admirable. Nice article. Just to clarify, DYK counts readable prose, and does not count the size of images, quotes, the infobox, bibliography, further reading or other lists. This is how DYK counts your recent edits that you began Nov 5, 2013:
- Pre-expansion size, October 18, 2013 was 21625 characters of readable prose
- Current size, 64089 characters of readable prose
- It's about 3X expansion right now. — Maile (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Carribbean H.Q., what you have done is admirable. Nice article. Just to clarify, DYK counts readable prose, and does not count the size of images, quotes, the infobox, bibliography, further reading or other lists. This is how DYK counts your recent edits that you began Nov 5, 2013:
- Thanks for your replies. The reason that A/FA has not been pursued is because we are still trying to find a copy of an out-of-print book that would likely push the overall content to around 120,000b. I believe that we need to expand the "historical" part before advancing. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Laura Hale revisited
Slightly over a year ago, I proposed to ban User:LauraHale from DYK because of a string of low-quality or incorrect nominations. The proposal was not accepted, but the closer stated "FYI, I have closed the discussion there as "no topic ban", but suggested that LauraHale might want to read and reflect upon the comments made (particularly by those who opposed a topic ban but could see problems with her articles); I also anticipated that DYK reviewers would in the meantime be extra-careful when looking at any nominated article of hers, in light of the issues raised. BencherliteTalk 22:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)" (Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 87#Banning Laura Hale from DYK?
Seeing a DYK of her, I became curious at the current state of affairs. I'm sad to say that I was too late to prevent it from being on the main page. This was yesterday posted on the main page, for hundreds of thousands of people to see:
- "... that 2006 Spanish Paralympic alpine skier Daniel Caverzaschi was ranked 20th in the world in wheelchair tennis in October 2013?"
The problem is that Daniel Caverzaschi never was a Spanish Paralympic alpine skier, not in 2006 and not in any other year. The fact that he was only twelve years old at the time of the 2006 Paralympics might have been a clue to this. The source for this claim, , doesn't make this claim, it discussed (Google translate) "Ramón Homs, Turin 2006 Paralympic and Caverzachi Daniel, one of the young Spanish securities in this sport and in tennis wheelchair." Homs participated in 2006, Caverzachi is a young talent... This isn't hard to find, but one needs to take some care in writing and researching articles of course. I don't get why User:Seattle didn't see this in the review either...
I hope that further review of other Laura Hale DYKs won't show the same problems, but it is disheartening to see that a ban proposal and one year haven't made any difference apparently, and that DYK is still not functioning as it should. Fram (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I admit that I made a mistake because of a bad Google translation. I have tried to be as diligent as possible to insure I make very few mistakes of this kind. Problems of potentially misunderstanding a source is why we have a review process though, to try to correct any unintentional insertions of non-factual information. It's also why DYK requires articles to be fully sourced. --LauraHale (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm surprised that his age didn't alert you to a need to check up on your translation, particularly as (e.g.) the long interview (in English) didn't mention his double claim to fame, which would be a point of interest for an interviewer. The Paralympic results page is another handy way of checking such things. The primary failure here is by you, not the reviewer. You must be more careful when using sources in a language that you do not understand. Bencherlite 14:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- older and wiser, i hope. google translate botches translations and it's unwise to use it .especially if it's for translatin more than single words, and don't use it all if ye r life depends on it. -- Ohc 14:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've seen some real horrors with Google translate. European Championships was chronically translated as UEFA. Archer was frequently translated as goalkeeper. My Spanish is good enough that I can pick up most facts, and know where there are issues. (Tios can mean aunt and uncle, or uncles. Hence, relative because source did not specify which one it was.) I also hangout in #wikimedia-es and #wikinews-es a lot asking for clarification on Spanish I do not understand. I also have access to native speakers that assist me when I ask. Plus, learning Spanish. Just sometimes things slip through and yeah, continual effort to improve. (Luckily, Misplaced Pages is a wiki anyone can edit and perfection is not required...) --LauraHale (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Unluckily, once a DYK has appeared on the front page it is too late to change any reputational or other damage that might have been done. Is it really a good idea for User:LauraHale to be writing so many articles where the only sources are in Spanish, if her Spanish language skills are not up to the task? Personally, I would not even review an article unless I was fairly fluent in all of the languages involved. Edwardx (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- @LH: U seem to have some safeguards, but the error in this case was as serious as it was elementary. You wer already aware that gtran botches yet still use it. it's not just wrong words, but wrong word order n other stuff. a lot can go wrong with machine translations, any of which can fundamentally alter the meaning. i often wonder at the output; sometimes get good chuckle from it. you need to revise the way u work. googletrans gives u a false sense of security so needs 2 b cut altogether. best alos not to use sources you can only half understand. -- Ohc 00:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well shit on my part. Gotta be pissed at myself for letting such a factual error on the WP mainpage. Fuck it. Seattle (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- This is yet another serious glitch in a long list by this user. I believe a temporary topic ban is in order. And why aren't DYK admins doing even basic fact-checking when the signals are there? Tony (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- A very long list, indeed. This isn't the first time, either: she's previously written about a visually impaired Paralympian driving to see her family, based on Google Translate. Graham87 02:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- But why is "visually impaired Paralympian driving to see her family" "unencyclopedic "? Visually impaired people who are responsible don't do much driving. ;-) -- Ohc 03:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- LOL. I should have used a more explicit edit summary there ... like "rm obvious falsehood". Graham87 05:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- But why is "visually impaired Paralympian driving to see her family" "unencyclopedic "? Visually impaired people who are responsible don't do much driving. ;-) -- Ohc 03:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- A very long list, indeed. This isn't the first time, either: she's previously written about a visually impaired Paralympian driving to see her family, based on Google Translate. Graham87 02:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- In my experience, inept translations are a perennial problem for DYK. In some respects, I think this is something that "comes with the territory" for a feature that is intended to promote the creation of new content. I've reviewed a lot of DYK noms that were written by users who obviously had limited command of English and that relied primarily or completely on non-English sources. In my experience, that situation is more common than the situation of a native speaker of English (such as Laura Hale) writing articles based on non-English sources. There also have been some instances of articles written by a user who apparently wasn't conversant in either English or the language of the sources they used.
- IMO, DYKers should not leave noms with foreign-language sources waiting around for a reviewer who can do an authoritative translation, as that seldom happens (and, all too often, those noms get "approved" by DYK neophytes who assume good faith). Do your best to try to understand the article and the sources, and ask the article creator to explain content that doesn't make sense to you or that appears to contradict your understanding of the sources. --Orlady (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that one certainly counts as an inept translation, that created a material logical error that went undetected until well after the damage had been done. How this problem may arise might "come with the territory", but assuming that we all agree this is not acceptable, it still requires a community consensus on how to prevent recurrence. -- Ohc 04:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- My point is that (2) this is not a unique or isolated situation and (2) people should roll up their sleeves and attempt to provide thorough reviews of noms for articles that rely on foreign sources or that appear to be badly translated. All too often, when I've challenged DYK-nominated content because it didn't make sense and/or contradicted my inadequate translation of cited sources, I've discovered that the article creator had no more general background on the article subject than I did (sometimes less) and couldn't read the sources in the original language. --Orlady (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Or you could slow down the waterfall, check 'em better, and give the hooks more time to air—or may I say accept a certain proportion of new GAs. Tony (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- DYK is already doing the latter, I thought? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's also been noted before that the standard of DYK reviews can also vary greatly, and this QPQ requirement doesn't help. Even if we accept that the mutual backscratching isn't a problem in itself, we're forcing potentially newbie contributors to be fast-tracked reviewers, and that it's a recipe for disaster when it comes to the Main Page. -- Ohc 06:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that it's not just LH who screws up indicates that this may be systemic within DYK. Should we have a mandatory "Foreign Languages Task Force" to review such material? OTOH, in this case, it didn't require a linguist to spot the error but someone with an enquiring mind who saw a logical flaw. So the FLTF would be unnecessary bureaucracy. -- Ohc 06:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- However, Laura Hale is a serial offender, and her nominations need particular attention. I've noticed a pattern of article creation as an end rather than a means to an end: create and drop like a hot potato, let others clean up after you—that seems to have been the go in hundreds of articles. Tony (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. A while ago I undertook a project to clean up all articles about Australian Paralympic medallists (most of which were created by Laura), along with the Australian Paralympians at the last games (ditto). However, I had to give up half-way (having checked more than 300 articles) due to the workload and stress involved. I've previously discussed some examples, including "In July 2012, she was involved in a three-automobile accident that left her uninjured but carless". However, nothing's really changed, as shown by earlier text like "he became a right leg below the knee amputee after a lawn aerating machine accident" and "The first paratriathlon competition she competed in was in 2009, when she competed in the 2009 ITU Triathlon World Championships". Graham87 12:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's another indication that LauraHale shouldn't be writing DYKs, but it's still and again another failure of the DYK process to institute basic controls and checks. I have repeatedly offered to review any Spanish-language DYK that I am asked to review (I speak fluent Spanish). But quid-pro-quo reviewing, and no admin accountability, means that there is no one "in charge" to come over to my talk page and ask me to review them. Same for medical articles. It is concerning that DYK so often has repeat offenders, and nothing is done about them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- FYI, if the issue is something as simple as lousy Google translations, I could easily verify if the Spanish sources actually say what the hooks are implying. As long as I am notified before the hook is nominated. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- ↑ Naturally, that would only apply for the DYK hook nominations. I don't want to get involved in any Mr. Magoo-esque shenanigans (meaning that other parts of the article may still be inaccurate). - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you; so is there a DYK sub-page with a list of editors who are willing to review translations? Tony (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- That's an excellent idea, Tony. With, perhaps, a link within the review template itself to make it simple to access. — Maile (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- How about a link to the subpage in the "Cited hook" entry of "Eligibility criteria"? Something like "if your hook is sourced by a foreign source, please contact the users that are accustomed to that language at ". - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- That's an excellent idea, Tony. With, perhaps, a link within the review template itself to make it simple to access. — Maile (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you; so is there a DYK sub-page with a list of editors who are willing to review translations? Tony (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- ↑ Naturally, that would only apply for the DYK hook nominations. I don't want to get involved in any Mr. Magoo-esque shenanigans (meaning that other parts of the article may still be inaccurate). - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Translations redux
Over the years there have been several discussions about the actions of editors auto-translating articles from other wikis and using them to seek "credit" for their contributions. Search the talk page archives for "translation" for these discussions. A useful discussion on translated feautred article candidates is at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive33#Reliable_sourcing_from_different_languages. But one thing is clear-- it is the author's responsiblity to get it right. If the author is not fluent, she or he has no business translating, with or without machine translation. Kablammo (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Queue 6 issues
There are a number of issues with the hooks in Queue 6 that an admin will need to take care of:
- There are two Andy Warhol hooks in this set, which is one too many. One of these needs to be moved to a different queue or prep.
- The third hook should either have its date range formatted as "(1960–96)" per MOS:DATE, or the hook might be more effective if the date range was removed entirely.
- The fourth hook could use a comma after "1718" at the least. I do wonder about reusing FN2's "one of the greatest catastrophes" in the hook and article without quoting, and I've asked Nikkimaria to take a look.
- The fifth hook has an added comma after the first "that" that makes "in their nests" less integral than it was originally; perhaps "in their nests" could be displaced to after "outnumbered"?
Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've switched one Andy Warhol hook with Q5 and done the copyedits requested, but I've not done anything about "one of the greatest catastrophes". Let me know if there are anything else that needs to be fixed, and please let me know if I did anything wrong - after all that was my first edits to the edit-protected queues. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Issues with another Queue 6 hook
The Stekenjokk hook gives the "windspeed" as "47 m/s (170 km/h)".
- First, I don't think "windspeed" is a word, and even if it is, it wouldn't hurt to change this to ""wind speed".
- Also, I've never seen a DYK with an SI-SI conversion. I think it would be much more useful as "
{{convert|170|km/h|abbr=on}}" or its output "170 km/h (110 mph)". - Finally, I would unlink Swedish, but some people don't seem to mind overlinking, so whatever. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- The overlinking has been taken care, but that was the least important issue. The misspelled word and the not-very-helpful conversion remain. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Done. Thanks to Mentoz86 for fixing the remaining issues. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Question
Hi, given that there is currently some stuff going on with foreign language refs, would a Chinese speaker be able to check out the sources here please? Thanks, Matty.007 21:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Poor quality slipping into the prep areas
Colleagues, by the time a hook and article get to a prep area, are they not supposed to have been checked out?
Prep areas 3 and 4:
- ... that Tudor Johnny was one of the two men who designed the buildings (one example pictured), which formed the heart of The Granite City?
This is very clunky. What is the comma doing there, and can't the ref to the pic be at the end?
- Why is "Mexico", a commonly known country name, linked? I've unlinked it.
- ... that the upper reaches of the Pennsylvania stream South Branch Roaring Creek has been described as "the best natural habitat in the county"? – First, there's a grammatical blooper. Second, can't we get around the square brackets in a hook? the county sounds very unnatural, another reason to recast ... does it need to be a direct quote, because if not, it can be fixed up in both respects.
- ... that Sir William Lok brought French translations of the Gospels and Epistles from the continent for Anne Boleyn? – Hall of Lame prize for that.
- ... that Cluny Castle, Aberdeenshire, was once owned by the "richest commoner in the northern part of the kingdom"? – again, are the quotes necessary? The hook doesn't even say who wrote or said it.
- ... that each female Acropyga epedana ant carries a mealybug on her nuptial flight? – great hook, but who wants readers to divert to mealybug or nuptial flight before they get to the DYK article?
- ... that Ada Jafri (pictured) is the first Urdu poetess? – Are you sure that claim holds up? The ref looks impenetrable and of uncertain reliability. Surely women have written poetry – whether published or not – in Urdu in all of these centuries? I find the bunched links at the end unforunate. Why not combine into one, piped "Urdu poetess"?
- ... that Hugh Mosman, whose servant found gold at Charters Towers, lost his left forearm from a dynamite explosion? – possibly better "in a"? But I find the collision of ideas in this hook weird. Where's the connection?
- ... that early in the history of veterinary medicine in the Philippines, a cattle plague began in 1888 and killed 600,000 animals from 1901 to 1902 alone? – too many years, and early in the history in 1888 doesn't work. Why not remove "began in 1888 and"?
Let's click on one of the articles – Veneration of Judas Thaddaeus (San Judas Tadeo) in Mexico:
- what makes this a reliable source?
- I don't know what the original Spanish was like, but the article needs serious copy-editing. "The center for this veneration is at the San Hipolito Church in the city center, for centuries the only church with any space devoted to this saint." Nice. Hyphen missing in the opening sentence, and "century" repeated within three seconds.
- "He is considered ... He is considered". And by whom?
- Second para (a whole section) ... every sentence is reffed to . Not only is this tedious to read, I wonder what makes it a reliable source.
- "The church is one of few which allows" – it all needs work.
- Not really an encyclopedic tone in places.
- Date formats wrong (th).
Tony (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Tony1, I'm afraid I'm responsible for nominating two of those: Tudor Johnny and Cluny Castle
- I wasn't sure if the (one example pictured) could be placed at the end of the hook in case someone then felt it was one example of The Granite City? Maybe it should read (example building pictured)? I included quote marks around the "richest commoner in the northern part of the kingdom" to be on the safe side as it is a quote - but it appeared in a number of his obituaries and elsewhere. He was also referred to as "without doubt the richest commoner in Scotland" in a Times article. While I've been typing this it looks as if someone has just removed one of them from the prep area anyway! SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your constructive criticism Tony, I've done some copyedits and moved history of veterinary medicine in the Philippines to prep1, to have more time to improve the article or pull the hook from the prep-area. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, Tony1... Yes, The proposition that she is the first woman to compose poetry in Urdu seems quite plausible. In the conservative society of the Mughal era and of the Imperial subcontinent, there were only men composing poetry... Never ever heard of any Urdu poetess prior to Ada Jafarey. And there are so many refs supporting the claim... She has received a good deal of awards (as the sources say) I was quite surprised when I found that she had no article on herself. We were taught in our textbooks that she was the the “First Lady of Urdu Poetry”. Satisfied? Regarding the bunch of links, I had made just one link, but VC said at the nominations page that it would be better to have two separate links. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 19:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- What's the general opinion about using quotations in hooks where they could be paraphrased? If there isn't a party line, I'm inclined to think that it should be minimised. Urdu poetess: we can only know of the published ones; and widely published at that. I find it hard to believe that no woman ever wrote poetry in the history of the language—even at a local or village level. Tony (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- In those 500+ years in the history of Urdu, poets associated themselves with the Durbars of Mughal Emperors, Nawabs, and Nizams. And all of these have been men. In the first place, women were mostly uneducated. And no folk poet (at least of those I know) has been a woman. But there is the possibility of women composing lullabies for her children... But that doesn't count. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 06:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Or publishing under her husband's or brother's name. But that doesn't count, I suppose. Tony (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- In those 500+ years in the history of Urdu, poets associated themselves with the Durbars of Mughal Emperors, Nawabs, and Nizams. And all of these have been men. In the first place, women were mostly uneducated. And no folk poet (at least of those I know) has been a woman. But there is the possibility of women composing lullabies for her children... But that doesn't count. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 06:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- What's the general opinion about using quotations in hooks where they could be paraphrased? If there isn't a party line, I'm inclined to think that it should be minimised. Urdu poetess: we can only know of the published ones; and widely published at that. I find it hard to believe that no woman ever wrote poetry in the history of the language—even at a local or village level. Tony (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, Tony1... Yes, The proposition that she is the first woman to compose poetry in Urdu seems quite plausible. In the conservative society of the Mughal era and of the Imperial subcontinent, there were only men composing poetry... Never ever heard of any Urdu poetess prior to Ada Jafarey. And there are so many refs supporting the claim... She has received a good deal of awards (as the sources say) I was quite surprised when I found that she had no article on herself. We were taught in our textbooks that she was the the “First Lady of Urdu Poetry”. Satisfied? Regarding the bunch of links, I had made just one link, but VC said at the nominations page that it would be better to have two separate links. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 19:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Ada Jafri
Can Ada Jafri's DYK be moved it to prep3, because prep4 will be on the main page from 3 am to 9 am in Pakistan... —ШαмıQ✍ @ 12:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes it can, but instead of moving your own hook 15 minutes after asking here, you should wait for an uninvolved editor to do it. We don't want editors to move their own hooks around in the prep-area. Btw - the prep3 will be on the main page between 21:00 and 05:00 (assuming that Pakistan is using GMT+5), while the prep4 will be on the main page between 05:00 and 13:00, are you still certain that the prep3 is the best option? Mentoz86 (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- The hook that was swapped from Prep 3 into Prep 4 is about a Scottish architect, so the move means that will appear from midnight until 8am in the UK, so by moving their own hook, they have put the UK hook up throughout the night instead? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I'm sorry for that, I thought some administrator might move prep3 into the queue1 and I won't be able to change it then. And wasn't it for 6 hours? 2100 to 0300? And even if it is for more than that, I'm not sure if more people would see her in the morning... Tomorrow is Friday and most people will be out at work (and surely not using Misplaced Pages). In prep3, I can be sure she is there on the main page from 2100-0000 when most people can see her article. Well, if that is the case, Ada Jafri's article can be put into tomorrow's queue. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 13:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- How about moving this to prep1, where the hook will be on the main page from 1300 to 2100, instead of 0500 to 1300 in Pakistan. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 19:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Special occasion requests scheduled for December 6 have also been shuffled to accommodate this change but will still appear on their requested date. --Allen3 21:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- How about moving this to prep1, where the hook will be on the main page from 1300 to 2100, instead of 0500 to 1300 in Pakistan. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 19:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
DYK is almost overdue
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
- Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
- Once completed edit queue #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
- Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Requested deletion
Can I get an admin to delete Template:Did you know nominations/Russian monitor Smerch as I didn't realize that it had a DYK three years ago before nominating it again? I've blanked in the meantime to hopefully prevent any problems with bots and the like. Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Kaput. Done. Harrias 18:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Dablinks
Is anyone else having problems with the dablinks tool? It insists that the article I'm reviewing does not exist. Gamaliel (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think I might have had this issue a few days ago. Matty.007 20:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would guess that it's another issue related to Toolserver shutting down in favor of Labs, and this will be nonfunctional until there's a dab tool on Labs. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
DYK is almost overdue
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
- Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
- Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
- Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
DYK is almost overdue
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
- Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
- Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
- Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- DYK is now overdue, but a prep set is ready for promotion. Calling any admin! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Crisco 1492. A new set is on the main page; we're all set for another several hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
DYK is almost overdue
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
- Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
- Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
- Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Recent additions format
The time and date in bold above each set - is that what time it was brought on or removed? It's not clear. Rcsprinter (barney) @ 09:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's "removed" (archived), therefore often a different day from "appeared", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if that answers my question.. What are those times and dates showing? Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 09:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Time of archiving, as far as I know, but this is a different question, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if that answers my question.. What are those times and dates showing? Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 09:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
12 hour cycle
IMO time to go to a 12-hour cycle for a while - the queue/prep area is totally empty and there are only 23 approved hooks listed at T:TDYK. Gatoclass (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have reset to a 12-hour cycle as there are very few approved hooks left at T:TDYK. It can be left at 12 hours for a few updates until the number of approved hooks increases. Gatoclass (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why was the settings reverted to 8-hour cycle? --George Ho (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Page views would be interesting for 12-hour cycles. Tony (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why was the settings reverted to 8-hour cycle? --George Ho (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Admin help on moving an image file
Please see Noodles Hahn. All I know for sure, is two different images have the exact name. One is only on Misplaced Pages, and the other is only on Commons. The nominator wants to use the one on Commons but cannot add it to the article because of the name. I do not have file mover rights. Perhaps someone here can assist with this. — Maile (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
8 hooks?
Prep 3 has 8 hooks, intentionally so? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- they are now in Queue 2 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Moved one back. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:DYKSG#D9
I just realized I forgot to nominate Olivia Pope, which was expanded on November 9 because another editor got involved in expanding this article before I was really ready to do so. Thus today (December 8), I created Template:Did you know nominations/Olivia Pope and applied for WP:DYKSG#D9-eligibility.
BlueMoonset has decided to my request for three reasons totally unrelated to the common method used to determine DYKSG#D9 eligibility:
- Tony, this is over four weeks old, well beyond the point that it might be eligible for an exception.
- We have 178 nominated hooks, so there is no shortage of available material; the problem is the lack of approved hooks.
- Worse, this is an article with a citations tag, with nothing to support the fictional biography—it's only plot sections that get a pass in articles like this—and the article still has major holes in it, including a completely blank second season section.
- With regard to reason 1: Note that DYKSG#D9 says: "Five days old" limit should be strictly enforced only if there is a large backlog of hooks. Otherwise nominated article may still be approved if it were created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations." The date eligibility for this rule is created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations (Currently September 29). Rather than use the date eligibility stated in the rule, BlueMoonset has reinterpreted the rule saying that "four weeks is excessive" when DYKSG#D9 clearly states otherwise. DYKSG clearly states that my article is date eligible with 41 days to spare.
- With regard to reason 2: In my experience, I have forgotten to nominate an article within 5 days probably about a dozen times. In all cases WP:DYKSG#D9 has been applied based on approved hooks although a strict reading of this rule does not say whether it is suppose to be based on approved hooks or nominated hooks. My request to employ DYKSG#D9 has never been denied when there was a shortage of approved hooks. Currently, there is a shortage of approved hooks leading us to employ 12-hour runs rather than the more standard 8-hour runs. I don't understand why BlueMoonset would employ the extremely unusual method of counting nominated hooks when what matters to keeping things going is approved hooks. DYKSG#D9 would never be possible if we ever counted nominated hooks because there are always a lot (over 100 or so) of nominated hooks.
- With regard to reason 3: The article is not in the best shape. DYKs nomination page is for guiding people to improve articles. If we only approved articles that were perfect prior to nomination, we would have no hooks to use. I requested that he give me 48 hours to clean up the article and he summarily closed the nomination as if there is some rush to close the nomination before it is two hours old. If you want to motive me to clean up this article make it DYK eligible now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I would be very interested indeed if someone could point out a previous article that was accepted over four weeks after expansion, and from an experienced DYK nominator at that. We typically allow minor exceptions: a few days late, rarely as much as a week: this nomination was 24 days late. That's frankly beyond excessive. Since Tony is doing extensive quoting of D9, let me highlight a part that he hasn't: "Otherwise nominated article may still be approved"—that's "may", not "must" or even "should be". It's left at the reviewer's discretion. We have 178 nominations, which is a high level looking back over the past couple of years, when we regularly aimed for under 150. Finally, Tony claims that "In all cases WP:DYKSG#D9 has been applied based on approved hooks" which is simply untrue: in fact, I've never applied it that way nor can I recall any reviewer applying it that way, it's the total hooks that's mattered. D9 says "large backlog of hooks" without any qualifier like "approved": submitted hooks can always be reviewed, but if there aren't submissions, there's nothing available to approve, which is why you might want to get more hooks even if they were a bit long in the tooth. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- 24 days late, but 41 days early according to DYKSG#D9. That rule says nothing about days late. Blue, I estimate my DYKSG#D9 approval history is approximately 11 approved and 1 denied prior to today based on DYKSG#D9. IIRC, all approvals were based on approved hook counts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Tony, I fail to see how a D9 exception would apply here. This was not expanded within five days of the nomination being transcluded, and thus there is no DYK credit in it unless you can expand further. Being a month late is well past the "9 days" when D9 was jokingly referred to as the Swahili rule. That article shall not pass. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- What are you talking about where does 9 days come into play?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- What date are you referring to of the nomination being transcluded?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why doesn't D9 apply. It is the exception rule for 5days.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Tony, I fail to see how a D9 exception would apply here. This was not expanded within five days of the nomination being transcluded, and thus there is no DYK credit in it unless you can expand further. Being a month late is well past the "9 days" when D9 was jokingly referred to as the Swahili rule. That article shall not pass. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's 5 days, Tony. If it's more than 5 days, you're asking for a favour and hope someone bends the rules for you. 24 days? I don't see any reason to bend the rules so far. There is the GA option now. BTW, the article, with an {Unreferenced section} tag and an empty subsection, cannot be used on MainPage till these deficiencies are addressed, anyway. Please re-nominate within 5 days after the successful GA review. Good luck. --PFHLai (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- This is my first DYKSG#D9 application in the GA-DYK era. It now seems like a big deal to ask for this exception because of the GA option. I have never gotten this much static for a DYKSG#D9 nomination before. I understand that the GA option is available now, so things are different. I'll let this one go.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- I still don't understand WTF Crisco 1492 was talking about.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#D9 and swahili meaning Harrias 12:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- It seems like at the time Art LaPella was saying that unless there is a strong reason not to we should grant this type of exception and that it is incorrect to judge whether an article barely missed the cutoff or missed it by a lot. However these rules were written when it was rare to have a 10 week backlog and in the absence of the GA option.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#D9 and swahili meaning Harrias 12:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
DYK is almost overdue
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
- Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
- Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
- Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've finished Prep 4, and it is now ready to be promoted to the queue, though I don't want to promote it myself in case I've missed anything. There are currently 39 accepted nominations, that should be enough hooks to build four new sets, though we need someone to have a look at these at these noms and promote them into the prep-area. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
DYK is almost overdue
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
- Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
- Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
- Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
DYK is almost overdue
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
- Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
- Once completed edit queue #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
- Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Still need an admin to promote Prep 4 to Queue 1; we're overdue for a front page change now. Thanks if you can help! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Done. It's been quite a while since I've promoted a set, but looks like it did the trick. Shubinator (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
One overdue queue
We need a new set now. One of queues is filled; why is Main Page not changed? --George Ho (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Category: