Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

Error reports

Please do not post error reports for specific template versions here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you.

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed.

Did you know talk archives
Archive 1 · Archive 2 · Archive 3 · Archive 4
Archive 5 · Archive 6 · Archive 7 · Archive 8
Archive 9 · Archive 10 · Archive 11 · Archive 12
Archive 13 · Archive 14 · Archive 15 · Archive 16
Archive 17 · Archive 18 · Archive 19 · Archive 20
Archive 21 · Archive 22 · Archive 23 · Archive 24
Archive 25 · Archive 26 · Archive 27 · Archive 28
Archive 29 · Archive 30 · Archive 31 · Archive 32

Lost hook

I had a hook on the Pine Creek Trail that was checked and approved but seems to have been accidentally removed without being added to the update or put back in the Suggestions here. I did not want to add it back to Suggestions without checking here, but I do not see it in the archives as having been on the Main Page and do not think it was (I also did not get a noitice if it was). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Bedford, who removed another hook along with it and placed it on the template here, also deleted yours by mistake - an easy thing to happen on the crowded suggestions page. I will reinstate your hook now. Thanks for bringing this up and making the effort to avoid any appearacne of a COI. Olaf Davis | Talk 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much - I used to help here some and also know how easy it is to copy more than intended. No problem and thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's always a good idea to add line spacing between hooks. Sigh.--Bedford ^Pray 21:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, thanks (although mine was below the other, so I did not omit the space ;-) ). In any case, the article made DYK and was in the lead spot, so it all worked out pretty well. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be worse. We had some admin who had no idea what he was doing delete EVERY expiring one, and then made one day's set that wasn't expiring into expiring. They were gone for over eight hours until I restored them.--Bedford ^Pray 13:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A New quote

it is not the world that isn't perfect, but it is the People inside of the world that really make the differance. - Sandy Dorla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.21.71 (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough - proposal to increase eligibility period...

...to at least 7 days. Suggestions on just how many days would be great, but 5 as is currently stated is simply wrong judging by selection trends. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why? I don't know what current trends you're referring to. And remember, five days is an arbitrary guideline, that is designed to keep us moving. It is our goal, but if we sometimes fall behind it's no big deal. Also, it's important to approach this from a mathematical standpoint. If the issue is we're getting behind: if we have 24 valid articles nominated each day, and 20 articles get selected for updates, it doesn't matter how many days are inbetween. Moving from 5 days to 7 days doesn't solve the problem of more valid articles than slots in the update. --JayHenry (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7 days might work nicely for people who'd like to do DYK nominations at the same time each week, who could shepherd their prior week nominations as they put in new ones. doncram (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think JayHenry has a point. If we're dealing with a surplus of hooks with a 5 day period, bumping up to 7 days doesn't help anything. If we ever get to the point that we have a drought of hooks then we shouldn't revisit loosening up the eligibility criteria. But till then, the 5 day period is working well enough. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 18:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, JayHenry, but my reason for proposal is simply because 5 days is totally inaccurate. We should aim for 7 or something, because articles much older than 5 days are being added at DYK. It's simply inaccurate. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part it seems to be working. While articles are regularly promoted after 5 days, you don't really see articles added to the suggestion page after the 5 day mark. In practice it seems like the "Expiring Hooks" section serves as a cut off point where no new hooks are added once the date falls below that line. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 15:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This last comment by Agne27 (talk · contribs) makes a lot of sense. Cirt (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic bias

I have removed

"NOTE: Since on average about 50% of hooks on the suggestions page are U.S. related, it is usually appropriate to have roughly half the hooks in any given update on U.S. topics. Thanks."

from Template:Did you know/Next update. This is basically surrendering to countering systematic bias. The U.S. does not take up half the world, therefore it should not occupy half of DYK, even though it usuall does anyway. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 02:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if you don't have it, then you'll have a bad backlog of US articles, which may force us to do all US-updates. That's worse.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 02:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's bad is systematic bias. Perhaps we should lower this number to, say, 25%? Same goes with UK and Australia. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 02:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Editorofthewiki, I moved your recent hook off the T:DYK/N template. It's important for our system that hooks are approved by someone other than the author, and so we usually request that editors not add their own hooks to T:DYK/N. That hook had not been okayed by an uninvolved editor, and we're still trying to work through a backlog from August 4 and 5th. The hook will get selected once it's time has come. Please don't add your own hooks, especially when they've not been checked. I moved it back to T:TDYK for now. --JayHenry (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me. I did not know that. I will never do it again. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 02:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all :) It looks like a really great article! --JayHenry (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the discussion, so my apologies if my revert seemed rude. However, the majority of DYK articles that come through are US-related, so are often missed for reasons of diversity. So when the hooks go down to the "expiring noms" section, the rest of the articles would've been taken out, leaving the US ones in. That has been my experience, and I'm sure the experience of other DYK updaters and admins (hence the note, I presume). PeterSymonds (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then we can shuffle the US articles quicker and the others later. That's another thing that needs to be done-shuffling the hooks faster. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 02:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to listen to me. I'm just making suggestions. I just think that DYK should strive to cover less-covered areas of the wold as much as better-covered areas of the world, unlike the res of Wikipedia. Perhaps I'm wrong and we should ask people if they knew about the latest video games. :) But seriously, people are less likely to know about Africa Asia etc., making it more interesting. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 02:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's equal. Half the DYK suggestions are U.S. (I just counted 12 out of 25), so there are 2 choices: accept that an average of half the DYK hooks on the Main Page are U.S., or throw away/censor a lot of U.S. hooks. Adjusting the schedule doesn't change the math that total input=total output. So the real options are eliminate U.S. hooks, or give them half the Main Page. Art LaPella (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or switch the U.S. hooks faster than the others. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 14:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that US hooks remain on the main page for less than six hours? If not please correct me, but if so I think that's a bad idea for several reasons. It will complicate the update process, leading to a bigger demand on the admins doing it and more mistakes; it will give some perfectly interesting hooks less time that boring ones which happen to be about Togo; it will raise questions about whether we should start ranking countries/topics and letting, say, UK hooks on for an intermediate amount of time; it requires us to make a rigorous definition of what a 'US hook' is, which I don't anticipate being an easy process.

Sorry if I sound dismissive, but I really think that would bring up far more problems that it solves. Systemic bias is a real problem I agree, but the best we as DYK editors can do to solve it is just go out there and find good hooks on rarer topics and nominate them. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as I said, just a suggestion. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 15:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like a written "requirement" for an update to be 50% US either but I understand that it does reflect reality. I think a better route would be to simply remind the promoter of diversity and advise against an "all US" update. The admins doing the update are pretty savvy about compiling a balanced slate so I don't think we have an unmanageable problem. While we would certainly like to have a pool of hooks from a large range of topics, we can't control what is being nominated. Outside of writing articles ourselves (I can always flood DYK with some more wine topics ;P), all we can really do is encourage editors working on unique topics to keep submitting to DYK. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 15:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it exactly, it's just a reflection of the reality of the proportion of US nominations we get. The only way it could be changed is if one deliberately started ignoring US hooks, and you can imagine what sort of hullaballoo would ensue if we tried that.

The reason I put that note there is because I might spend considerable time trying to carefully get rid of all the excess US hooks over two or three updates, only to come back the next day to find that some less experienced updater has gone and used all non-US hooks, leaving me with yet another excess of US hooks to try and get rid of. The opposite problem is when someone comes along and promotes all US hooks, which then earns the ire of other Wikipedians who accuse us of being US-centric. So it seems to me the only way to avoid these two related problems is to leave a note there reminding updaters that, generally speaking, they should be trying to use roughly half US hooks in order to maintain an appropriate balance over multiple updates. Gatoclass (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the first question is do we actually have enough DYK candidates on stuff like articles mostly relating to the developing world that we could afford to reduce how many other articles? If we do, I guess this is going to be a controversial proposal to those here, but I don't personally see anything wrong if a greater number of US hooks are ignored/not used because we simply have too many US hooks. Whether this involves a tighter selection criteria or simply those involved in DYK ensuring a better balance (i.e. a lower usage of US hooks even if those unused hooks are eventually discarded because they get too old) or whatever I don't know. Note that I'm not suggesting we fill up DYK with too many UK, Ireland, Australia, Canada or New Zealand hooks either. Rather we should be looking at stuff like India (although we shouldn't let them predominate either), China, and other developing countries particularly in Africa. As far as I'm aware, all other areas of the main page aim for better balance rather then simply trying to use a balance of what is available (e.g. for TFA I'm pretty sure the backlog for US related articles is higher then Africa because Raul doesn't worry too much about the backlog but a diverse selection of articles.) Similarly OTD and DYK don't say, 'we have a lot of articles on US holidays/recent events so we're going to end up with a lot of US only stuff'. I appreciate that these two have an 'importance' consideration which DYK doesn't but it's still worth considering IMHO. BTW, for those who start arguing it's unfair to those who've worked on US-related articles (although I expect this proposal will disadvantage UK, Ireland Australia, Canada and New Zealand articles too if done properly) remember that DYK as with all areas of the main page are intended for our readers, not our editors. In any case, providing an extra incentive for editors to work on stuff we are deseperately in need of seems like a good idea to me. As for what's a fair number I would personally suggest we aim for no more then 33% (1/3) US. Note that I'm not proposing we spell it out in such detail, instead perhaps simply put a note asking editors to consider systemic bias and avoid placing too many articles on one subject whether over time or in one update, even if it means a backlog of articles on that subject develops. (Note that this doesn't mean DYK editors need to do detailed counting.) Obviously we should open up this discussion to a wider audience before we do anything Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive bot

Is anyone interested in setting up an archive bot for this talk page? It is getting a bit cumbersome. I'm not sure what time period would work best for archiving--maybe 14 days? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 15:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miszabot has been archiving the page for at least 6 months. He archives threads that are 30 days old. Normally this has been about right, but there's been a huge amount of discussion lately. How about we bump it up to 21 days and see how that goes? --JayHenry (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing for 14, but we can see how 21 does.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't see an archive notice. 30 days seems like a lot. I suspect 21 won't be much help either but its better than nothing. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 20:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was mostly just the discussion on infoboxes and such making the TOC so long. I manually archived that here to get the TOC back to the length that we're more accustomed to. --JayHenry (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK update banner on WP:AN

Do you think it would serve any benefit in helping out with timely updates if we proposed having the DYK update banner currently used on the suggestion page, Talk:Main Page and WP:ERRORS added to WP:AN? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, putting requests on AN for help or going on the IRC channel and asking for reinforcements for any kind of backlog never help, although there's nothing much to be lost. Those who come to Wikipedia for politics only do things that enhance their political careers, and doing real work like writing articles, maintaining DYK or scannings images doesn't come there. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen a really late update for a long time, although admittedly I haven't been around much in the last week due to other distractions. And inexperienced admins often seem to find ways to screw things up. The current batch of DYK admins seem to be doing a pretty good job—although we could always use another one, if you get my drift ;) Gatoclass (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second Gato's remarks (and I wouldn't be at all surprised if WP:AN regulars were opposed to an extra distraction on that page). Good work from all the current DYK admins, thanks! Olaf Davis | Talk 11:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Gray (musician)

I just nominated this article (created August 7) for DYK but it was declined for being just barely short of the five day limmit. However, I expanded the article by three fold just today. Is there anyway, around this? Could I get a time extension? Nrswanson (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featuring this DYK seems important to the editor in question and they have been polite about asking for this point to be reconsidered. I opine to favor this request (if possible, given that we're backlogged and no hook is ever guaranteed promotion) under the assumption that Nrswanson will keep the experation issue in mind for the future. Other opinions? - House of Scandal (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on my talk page, I have no objections to this hook being WP:IAR in, as long as it is clear that this is an IAR deal. My overriding concern is consistency and a fair application of the rules to every editor. If we are merely turning a blind eye (versus making a clear declaration of IAR) then we have little justification to holding other editors to any other DYK rules and criteria. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 00:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rules Question

A question on how exact references should be for DYK verification. A article has a citation to a web page newspaper article. The URL in the citation takes you to page 1 of the article. The hook reference is on page 2 of the article which is really a different URL. Should the citation in the article be changed to point directly to the page where the hook is referenced, or left for the reader to click next page to find the hook reference? Thanks --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ideally the URL for the specific page in question should be used. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing style reprise

I note that Bedford is, in my view, defying the consensus reached on experienced DYK editors providing adequate referencing for DYK nominations. For example, his Aug 8 nomination "... that Union general John A. Logan seized a a Confederate general's house as his headquarters in Columbia, South Carolina in 1865?(created by 8th Ohio Volunteers (talk · contribs)" includes merely names of a couple newspapers. Such referencing lacking the article title, author, date, is obviously inadequate to document the source once the on-line copy of the article at the newspaper site disappears. doncram (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, thanks for your concern about this issue. I have no opinion of whether or not Bedford should be aware of it already, but this discussion prompts me to make sure my own newspaper-derived references are better handled. - House of Scandal (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is why, people, you don't feed the trolls. Doncram tried to have Montana in the American Civil War deleted, which his was the only delete with eleven keeps, and many seeing it was done just because I wrote it and Doncram's jealous of me. Even Elkman saw it. Besides, the article was written by someone new to the process, and is immune to the new rules meant to satisfy a troll, only to encourage the troll.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 18:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford, please stop with the personal attacks and incivility. doncram (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion to a consensus on referencing was at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 29#Consensus on infoboxes, refs. Current Bedford nominations showing inadequate referencing, in my view, are:

This one includes bare URLs, specifically discussed. The article was created by someone else, but for Bedford to take DYK credit for it, I think it is appropriate for him to fix those: Kay Chorao nominated by Bedford in the Aug 9 batch as "... that Kay Chorao's Cathedral Mouse was considered one of 1988's best picture books by the New York Times? (created by PeaceNT (talk · contribs)"
Others created by others with inadequate referencing (lacking author, title, date), which Bedford nominates for DYK. Again I think clarification is needed, that Bedford should improve the referencing to take DYK credit:
- Delta, Minas Gerais ... that Delta, Minas Gerais, despite having a population of 6,600, had no banks as of 2007? (created by Vogensen (talk · contribs), nominated by Bedford in the Aug 12 batch;
- Conquista, Minas Gerais, nominated as "... that the population of Conquista, Minas Gerais decreased due to decreasing demand of coffee in the world, and the need for workers to create Brasilia? (created by Vogensen (talk · contribs)" by Bedford in the August 12 batch. This is an article to which Bedford added, with edit summary "extraneous ref for DYK purposes" this edit.
- Kris Kelderman nominated in the Aug 11 batch by Bedford as "... (alt hook) that Kansas City Wizards's assistant coach Kris Kelderman's high school soccer coach was none other than his father? (created by Mohrflies (talk · contribs)"
- Disaster Response Route nominated by Bedford in the Aug 10 batch as "... that British Columbia's Disaster Response Route network, while most consisting of roads, also includes marine routes? (created by Cahk (talk · contribs) "
In addition currently there are numerous other DYK nominations by Bedford for articles created by others that, conveniently, have pretty good referencing already. doncram (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those who want to see why Doncram has zero credibility: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montana in the American Civil War.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 18:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big whup. I opened an AfD on a dubious article, which has since seen criticism by several others on its Talk page. I think it was a justified AfD, although consensus went against me, and Elkman indeed noted "I doubt this AFD even would have been filed if the article had been started by someone other than Bedford, whom Doncram has been having a dispute with." It happens that I do indeed disbelieve much of what Bedford asserts in articles and in talk pages. Credibility is in the eyes of others; Bedford has shown too much bullying, incivility, and personal attacks in his responses to newbies, other DYK editors, and to me, to have much credibility in my view. doncram (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which you have no evidence of.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 18:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding, your incivility and personal attacks have been profuse and obnoxious. Just in this discussion, your terming me a troll would add to the total, by my reading of wp:PA and various Administrative noticeboard incidents, etc., which I am unfortunately reading up upon in order to inform myself to respond to you. You have been obscene and obnoxious, in my view. I am somewhat disheartened, I must admit, at other DYK editors including numerous administrators, not choosing to condemn more explicitly your numerous incivilities and personal attacks here on this Talk page. I accept that some blurring is necessary, that your attacks vs. me tend to suggest to others that i must have been incivil and to have engaged in personal attacks, when i believe that is not the case, other than tenuously, perhaps, in my somewhat frustrated AfD nomination. doncram (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I am willing to have a(nother) discussion about what referencing is and is not acceptable, and what a nominator should do to improve an article before nominating it. I am not, however, inclined to spend time reading through discussions of previous disagreements trying to work out which bits are relevant to DYK. Olaf Davis | Talk 20:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the editors of DYK should not have to evaluate the growing history of incivility and personal attacks, although I would appreciate DYK editors promptly condemning any new incivilities. I was not asking for such review here. I believe that I raised, above, without incivility or personal attacks, suitable questions on referencing. I don't appreciate Bedford's edits pushing the limits, but I suppose it raises new questions to be clarified for his and DYK's benefit. doncram (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford has been edit warring now on the Template talk:DYK page, three times removing my

for 4 or so of his DYK nominations due to referencing issues, mildly attempting to hold him accountable for consensus reached on his prior actions, with links to this discussion. It seems possible that he can find just one DYK editor or another to approve his nominations at the last minute, bypassing the community process here. doncram (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approval of DYK for Hampton-Preston House

After reading through the above comments I have decided to give a thumbs up to the inclusion of the Hampton-Preston House for several reasons. One, I see nothing in the current requirements for DYK noms to meet the high standard Doncram is advocating for citation/references. Second, there is also currently not a precedent in place to denye this particular article approval for the reasons mentioned, as a high volume of articles with similar issues are passed regularly. This article could therefore be said to be unfairly signaled out. Third, this topic really should be discussed beyond the merits of one particular article as it will effect how we evaluate all DYK nominations. Finally, I applaud any efforts to improve the process at DYK and encourage this conversation to continue but with more civility on all sides.Nrswanson (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was a mistake and a bad decision disregarding the community consensus reached previously with respect to Bedford's pointy nominations. This was, though, understandable as you acknowledged on my Talk page that you had not read the linked discussions. Then, I tend to think you are somewhat invested in defending your previous decision, though I don't think negatively of you; it is a gray area. Anyhow, you gave him the DYK and no one reversed you, so, as Bedford has described it on previous disputes, he "wins" and gets his DYK medal. In my view, that is a failure of DYK processes. doncram (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only failure is you not wanting to being productive, and instead harassing someone you are jealous of.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 03:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you stop it right now. You guys have been picking at each other incessantly all over the encyclopedia. Have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. And if that doesnt work, perhaps a long wikibrake from DYK will do you both good.Nrswanson (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have HAD IT with these two

I just deleted all their little flame wars on the suggestions page. I have, in the past, asked Doncram as a valued friend and collaborator on NRHP articles to simply refrain from reviewing any of Bedford's hooks. I have had no problem with them myself other than him simply linking to pages about a book he's using as a source, when he should either link to that page in Google Books if possible or not link at all if it's not. The fact that other reviewers, myself included, have passed them without holding his references to superhigh standards should be proof enough that it's a personal issue between these two.

It would be one thing if it had just stayed here, as Bedford has had more than enough problems elsewhere, even since his desysopping (and I give doncram credit for staying out of that RFC). But doncram's AfD nom of the Montana in the American Civil War article was rightly closed as a bad-faith nom and, I daresay, a WP:POINT violation (Removing a section referenced to an offline source because you doubt that the source supports it is really a new low in the annals of WP:AGF violations, I daresay. I know that's been downgraded to a guideline but it's still a guideline we all should follow). That took this vendetta to a higher level and makes it especially important that these two stay away from each other here.

I greatly value both of them as collaborators and for what they bring not only to DYK but to the project as a whole. But asking nicely just hasn't worked. So, I'm proposing a sort of restraining order here for any admin to enforce, and for both of them to indicate acceptance of should they wish to continue to be allowed to nominate hooks and review those submitted by those other then the other party:

Bedford and doncram are both to avoid reviewing a hook nominated by the other or making any comments on another reviewer's review of same or any ensuing discussion thread. Should they violate this, any administrator is authorized to remove the comments and block one or both of them for short periods of time (preferably less than 24 hours), escalating in length if they continue in such behavior after the block expires.

It's really pathetic that it has come to this. But I see no other resolution available at this point. Daniel Case (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I both support and applaud this motion. Wizardman 01:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sad it has come to this, but also support this motion and thank Daniel Case for coming up with this solution, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also support this motion by Daniel Case (talk · contribs), a good idea to try to keep the WP:DYK process more mellow, however unfortunate that a measure such as this should be needed. Cirt (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the assessment made by Daniel Case (talk · contribs) and support this motion as well.Nrswanson (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will comply with this.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 02:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. The question now is whether doncram will or not. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely gives me pause when Daniel Case deletes my comments on the t:tdyk page and when Ruhrfisch seconds. I do value civility. I do value the constructive, pleasant atmosphere that has generally prevailed at DYK. When I have posted here on the Talk page or on the Template Talk page regarding Bedford's actions, I have done so with consideration to the potentially negative impact of my comments on the atmosphere here. If you really wanted to evaluate what i have done, you might notice that I have shown considerable restraint. In the present instance, since Daniel's actions, I have refrained from further comment on Bedford's nominations that I had questioned, and all of them have been posted to the front page of Wikipedia. I appreciate that Daniel stepped in to attempt to resolve, in some way, the unseemly edit war on the Template talk page. I don't agree that Daniel's removal of my initial comments and Bedford's and my followups, which he replaced by label "Off-topic incivil discussion deleted" was the right resolution, however.

I do not appreciate being tarred with the same brush as Bedford, whose words have been repeatedly incivil and have not been adequately condemned, in my view. My words and participation here has resulted in some unpleasantness on view, which is understandably distressing to some. However, there has been, throughout all of my back-and-forths with Bedford big diffences between his words and actions, and mine. Bedford has been incivil in violation of the wikipedia guidelines countless times here and on the template talk page, and appears to me to show utter disregard for other editors here. My comments have been mostly or all focussed on the actions taken; Bedford often or usually does not respond on the substance but rather has attacked me, as he has done with others as well. Note, there is specific guidance in wp:PA that personal attacks are forbidden, but it is not a personal attack to point out that another's words are a personal attack.

I don't see the incivility in my postings: ":

Referencing inadequate, in my view, per previous discussions for this DYK nominator. Discuss at/see Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Referencing style reprise.", followed by "Unstriking. Please don't edit war, Bedford, and please don't strike my comments." and "Restoring and REPEATING, please do not remove my

indication." and "Restoring inappropriately removed tentative disapproval." I did hesitate before restoring the question mark symbol and following up, each time, but honestly I feel my actions were justified and were milder, at each step, than Bedford's.

Please compare that to Bedford's repeatedly striking my use of the Symbol possible vote, and his comments "Feel free to ignore above; user has proven to review anything I provide in bad faith."; then "You are the one insisting on warring. You are not El Jefe of Wikipedia" and then "You know you have no right assessing anything I do here. As it was illegitimate, away it goes."

I count that as 3 attacks or otherwise inappropriate statements on Bedford's part on the template talk page, each of which should be condemned. Further, in this very discussion here on this page, Bedford has called me a "troll", twice asserted that I was "jealous" of him, asserted that i have "zero credibility".

What i said in partial response to Bedford was NOT a personal attack and I don't believe it was incivil by wikipedia definition: I stated "...your incivility and personal attacks have been profuse and obnoxious. Just in this discussion, your terming me a troll would add to the total, by my reading of wp:PA and various Administrative noticeboard incidents, etc., which I am unfortunately reading up upon in order to inform myself to respond to you. You have been obscene and obnoxious, in my view." This may be unpleasant to read, but it is more than justified. I am, still relatively moderately, calling Bedford on his behavior.

I have persisted in occasionally reviewing and commenting about Bedford's actions because, in my view, he has shown a pattern of bullying and abusive behavior, plus he has pushed explicit rules and implicit norms of this community, and originally and frequently because his articles are not up to minimal standards. He has attacked me, viciously in my experience, as far as I can tell only for the fact that I have persisted in reviewing his work occasionally. In this discussion, and elsewhere, he has characterised me as "harassing" him. However, he has been informed that it is not harassment, in Bedford-requested feedback to his drafting an RfCU complaint about me. The comments at his talk page include: “I am suggesting that what you are perceiving as harassment is, in fact, not. My suggestion to you is that the mere fact of a user repeatedly disagreeing with you specifically does not in itself constitute harassment or a breach of Wikipedia etiquette...”.

Finally, I am simply puzzled by several of Daniel’s comments. About Bedford’s referencing, he states “I have had no problem with them myself other than him simply linking to pages about a book he's using as a source, when he should either link to that page in Google Books if possible or not link at all if it's not. The fact that other reviewers, myself included, have passed them without holding his references to superhigh standards should be proof enough that it's a personal issue between these two.” I have no idea what Daniel is talking about here. My comments in this discussion and previously have been about more basic levels of inadequate referencing, which have been discussed here and some degree of consensus has been reached upon them.

Also, Daniel states “But doncram's AfD nom of the Montana in the American Civil War article was rightly closed as a bad-faith nom and, I daresay, a WP:POINT violation (Removing a section referenced to an offline source because you doubt that the source supports it is really a new low in the annals of WP:AGF violations, I daresay. I know that's been downgraded to a guideline but it's still a guideline we all should follow)." I allow that the wording of that nomination, and my utter dismissal of Bedford's assertion in the article came across as arrogant to some, and contributed to votes against my proposal, and I have received that feedback. However, Daniel projects incorrectly that my views about Bedford's recent Civil War articles series are out of order. Although my AfD nomination for the Montana one was rejected by the first influx of ACW buffs, there is considerable discussion among ACW regular editors now, agreeing generally with my first reaction. See Talk:Idaho in the American Civil War#What kind of BS is this?, for example. And, pointing to one gray-colored action on my part, elsewhere, seems like grasping to find one fault of mine, which is not at all equal to Bedford's too-numerous-to-count transgressions elsewhere. And it is irrelevant to my specific comments that I raised, politely enough, here.

I recognize that Bedford's abusive comments towards me will tend to suggest to some, that I must have made similarly abusive comments in his direction, but that is not true. Again, describing Bedford's comments as abusive is not being abusive of him. Also, I recognize that my heavy-handedness at times in commenting on Bedford's nominations would seem unpleasant to others. However, Bedford's dismissive and abusive responses to me and to others scream for some heavy-handedness in response, I believe. I would appreciate if Daniel or others would comment more specifically about the nature of the incivility and the escalations in the discussions here and on the Talk page, making some distinctions.

And, in my view a reasonably correct first action that Daniel could have taken, would have been to delete Bedford's comments (and i suppose my responses) from T:TDYK, leaving my original, modest comments and question symbols with a link to discussion on this talk page. I don't agree with the proposal posed, worded as if it would have equal impact, that I should be banned from commenting on Bedford's work. I think that would be very bad policy for DYK and would reward Bedford for escalating incivility in absurd and incivil defense of his privilege to get DYK nom credits, no matter the costs. Some administrative blocks and/or bans on Bedford for his actions would have been appropriate, in my view. After that, i am not sure how this DYK community should respond to the challenges raised. doncram (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram I don't think any of us are excusing Bedford's behavior. And I do think the review process needs to consider some of the points you have made regaurding the assessment of DYK articles by seasoned contributers. However, your own behavior (at least here at DYK) from my perspective has been just as uncivil, if not in word than in tone, as Bedford's behavior. And although I don't condone his incivility, your hostility towards Bedford aggitated the situation and provoked the incivility on the part of Bedford. In other words your own lack of kindness and tact caused the uncivil responses. You could have said the same things in a much less hostile way that would have still addressed the issue. I would like to further add that whenever I have raised an issue with one of bedford's articles (I have done so twice) or another editor besides yourself has, from what I have seen he has responded well and without fuss. I have not seen his behavior elsewhere than DYK but from my perspective this wikidrama is largely a personal problem between yourself and bedford and not bedford's unwillingness to work with DYK standards. Also I am disturbed by the comment that prohibiting yourself from commenting on bedford's articles would somehow "reward bedford". It sounds to me like you have appointed yourself as the personal watchdog against all things edited by user:bedford which I believe is a very unhealthy practice and akin to wikistalking. This is not only evidenced by your comments above but also the fact that you do not review other DYK noms by other editors with the same level of intense scrutiny. Issues by editors should be addressed within and by the community as a whole. I think it would be best if you left the policing of Bedford's articles to other editors, at least here at DYK. Other people who have less of a negative history with Bedford would be more suited to the task of sorting things out with him and getting things running smoothly here. You are not the only person interested in doing things the right way at DYK and other editors are perfectly able and willing to improve the process here. Other editors can handle any issues that may or may not come up regarding bedford and his articles. Nrswanson (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for promotion of island raccoons + Informing the author

I don't know exactly who to "blame" ;-), but I am very happy that my article about island raccoons was chosen for DYK; and even at the most prominent place with a picture! However, it would have been better to contact me about the nomination, because it was just a stub at this time and most likely not good enough for the front page. I just figured that out and improved the article after curiously looking at the contribution history of the nominator who has made a small edit to the article. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see Bedford was an editor, and presumably put it up and took the DYK credit. I don't know, it necessary to create a DYK policy to require informing the article creator? doncram (talk) 03:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford was the nominator, but only made a minor edit to the article after the nomination. It was promoted by another user (administrator), whom I also want to thank. Bedford took the DYK credit... what is that supposed to mean? He has clearly written in the nomination that I was the author of the article. I do not think that a formal policy is necessary, but it is in my opinion a good thing when a nominator informs the author when another DYK user has a concern with the content of the article, so that he can correct it. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK informing creators of a nom is becoming more of a convention recently but I don't think it's yet been formalized as mandatory. Perhaps we should do so for the very reason you espouse, but I would like to consult our more regular nominators like PFHLai before making such a decision. Gatoclass (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought informing the creator has been a standard practice for years...has this lapsed somewhat? While I value the work of people that nominate articles, creating articles requires substantially more effort. In a related note, it seems a bit odd that someone who has written x# of DYKs and someone who has successfully nominated x# of DYKs displays the same "milestone awards". I also feel that seeking these milestones through nominating as many articles as you can find -- rather than actually writing articles -- is somewhat gauche. - Boston (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK clerking template

Everyone, it'd be appreciated if you gave your thoughts on a new temp. I created, {{DYKclerk}}. Feel free to make any improvements! —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would significantly increase the size of the already-cluttered discussion page so it'd need to provide a corresponding benefit to be worthwhile. What problems in the DYK process do you feel it would solve? (I'm going away tomorrow for the next ten days and may or may not have internet access, so apologies if I disappear from this discussion) Olaf Davis | Talk 16:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen a hook rejected for being too short. Art LaPella (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then improve it. To Olaf: It is much tidier than any other means of notification, just makes things slightly more expansive. I made this template to help; it is simple to use, and saves people from fetching new images. In addition, it shortens the writing load. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Olaf. Your efforts to assist are very much appreciated, but all these different icons are not necessary and will I think just make more work and add more clutter. Gatoclass (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sure. It just seemed to me you were already clerking within these parameters, but were constantly re-typing things. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for including (at least, intending to include) "my" article Sleep medicine: ... that eighteen years ago, medical schools in the US "covered" sleep medicine in a total average teaching time of just two hours?

I just wanna say that you guys are really good at re-wording hooks! Several tiny changes and - Voila! --Hordaland (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this normal

I expanded an article and nominated it for DYK by adding five hooks, which are all well-sourced with inline citations in the article. I did not get any kind of response in the last six days, since I nominated the article. Since this is my first contact with the DYK process, I'd just like to know is this a normal procedure for rejected hooks or something? I'm keeping the suggestions page in vain on my watchlist. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's normal is that hooks are most often taken (accepted) from near the end of the list, as in this recent example. In the next couple days, the hook will be accepted and disappear or rejected and disappear, but for now it's too early to say that. Nobody has even evaluated it yet, nor have they evaluated most of the August 11 hooks. Art LaPella (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

User:Tasoskessaris created in August 15 the article Junta trials (Korydallos), which was nominated for AfD. The AfD is still open but broad consensus seems to be against deletion. User:Tasoskessaris asked me what he could do regarding DYK for the article. Because of the 5+ days needed for the AFD process he may lose his chance to nominate it for DYK.

I am not familiar with DYK rules, and that is why I raise this issue here. What I can only say is that it does not look to me fair Tassos to lose his chance to propose this article for DYK because of an ongoing AfD with little to no chance to result in a deletion. But, again, I am not a "specialist", and therefore I would like to listen to your ideas and opinions. Thanks!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say go for it, but be sure to include a note about the ongoing AfD. I can't imagine a consensus to delete being reached as the article is clearly not a fork. Please note, this is just my opinion, but I don't think there will be any problems. Thingg^⊕^⊗ 18:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you nominate it before the 5 day mark you will be fine. We've had plenty of DYK hooks that were "on hold", sitting in the expiring noms section till the AfD was closed. Especially if consensus is leaning towards Keep and everything else about the hook/article qualifies, we won't delete the hook till the AfD is closed. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 20:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Thingg and Agne27 for your encouraging comments. I really appreciate them in this difficult period. You have renewed my faith in this great project. It's a comforting feeling to see people like you around. Take care and thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take the drama down a notch here

There's been a little too much drama on the suggestion/review page for my taste and I can sense the same frustration with other DYK regulars regarding the Bedford-doncram testiness. It is clear that neither editor care for each other much so I have a simple proposal for this case and hopefully any further potential drama stew pots that may come to DYK.

"To ensure fair and impartial reviews of hooks, editors with an established history (whether it be through project collaboration or editing conflicts) are encouraged not to review each other DYK hooks. If there is a substantial issue with the article/hook that goes against the DYK criteria, then these issues should be brought up with the reviewer on their talk page."

The purpose of this is two fold. One, we don't want editors who have been at each other's throats to bring their drama to DYK. Two, we conversely don't want "buddy-buddy" editors to just be giving each other a free pass on hooks and articles that may end up being problematic. While the later problem is not that troublesome (the regulars can normally spot the bad reviewers and double check their work), the former can be much more damaging to the DYK process as evidence by the rash of incivility, headaches and bickering that we've seen here the last month. Think about also the Wilhemia Wil and Blechnic drama that we had before. While Blechnic was right to point out issues with some of WW's hook, there is now clearly an anatagonist relationship between the two and when WW comes back from her temp ban, I don't think it will be wise for Blechnic to review her hooks. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 22:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK used to be a friendly drama-free place to help. Now it's a source of stress. I'm very sick of the bickering, disrespect and complaining. A few people are hurting DYK, driving away good contributors and admin help. There's no way that they should be reviewing each other's hooks because they are severely biased against each other.

I'm not convinced that there's a problem the other way. Some people have everyone's respect and support, so it would be impossible to find someone unbiased to review their noms. Royalbroil 00:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having people's respect and support wouldn't necessarily indicate the type of COI that my proposal aims to discourage. I'm thinking more of a close editing relationship--like for instance someone else from the Wine Project nominating a wine article for DYK. I have a natural COI since I've worked closely with most of those editors and therefore it wouldn't be prudent for me to review their hooks. Those are the type of situations that I'm aiming at. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you aren't aiming at forbidding a comment if another wine expert were to make some arcane wine-related error that only you would recognize. You aren't aiming at close editing relationships based on years of experience at Template talk:Did you know itself, because if I had to avoid any hook signed by a very familiar username, I would pretty much have to find some other page to edit. So maybe we should avoid trying to fix a "buddy-buddy" problem that hasn't occurred yet. Of course we have a civility emergency, and I would say something if I understood the underlying citation and plagiarism issues better. Art LaPella (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure Agne's proposal was made with the best of intentions, I think a caveat like that will just open us up to more Wikidramas regarding who "qualifies" as a neutral party - much like the constant dramas elsewhere regarding who is or is not an "uninvolved" editor. It seems to me the most recent problem has come about because when we decided to make formatted refs mandatory, we didn't actually specify what to do about articles nominated on someone else's behalf. As I said on the suggestions page recently, since it doesn't make much sense to have a ruling for formatted refs that only covers self-noms, then the solution is to clarify that the ruling applies to all noms.

Doing that should clean up most of the current issues between Beford and doncram. If not, we can deal with further issues as they arise. Gatoclass (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gatoclass on this. Except I do think a ban on doncram and bedford reviewing one another's articles is warranted. I think they will only find other things to war about on this page no matter what policies we establish and implement.Nrswanson (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelmina Will's DYK topic ban lifted

Per WW's improvements, I'm happy to say that the community has let me lift her ban from these pages. Just FYI Fritzpoll (talk) 07:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I am happy that this drama has come to a close, there does seem to be one smoldering ember, [1], that is perhaps best addressed as part of the DYK process. I'm not certain that WW should be singled out for special treatment regarding the review of technical articles. I leave that up to you as a community to decide.

If technical articles warrant special attention in terms of review I would think that, perhaps, the review process for those should be uniform with respect to all editors? I offer this merely as food for thought on potential process improvements for DYK.

Congratulations to WW on the lifting of her topic ban, and a thanks to all of you who expend so much time and energy to improve Wikipedia. --GoRight (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image credit?

Is there a "Did you know?" credit for image uploaders? I nominated an article that I wrote, along with an image uploaded by an editor from Russian Wikipedia. If there's a standard DYK image credit template I could use that, but otherwise I'll just write him a quick note. --Amble (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, there's no credit for image uploaders, though you can leave the user a note if you want. Wizardman 19:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stub -> Start

Now I have a minor question that might have been asked by someone before. NTR Gardens is an article that I developed 5x a couple of days back and nominated as a DYK hook a while back. It was marked as a stub before I worked on it. After developing it, I realized that it is not a stub anymore as per WP:India's assessment scale and marked it as a Start-class article. Let me also introduce myself as one of the members from the WP:India Assessment Team. I want to know if my good faith actions are acceptable. Thanks. Mspraveen (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that people regularly do that when they update the hooks, as it is good sense to do so. Your edit was correct. Wizardman 15:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. Mspraveen (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an error in the Archiving process?

I don't see the block of DYK's that was headed by the Avro 533 Manchester article from last night in the archives. I believe it followed the DYK block headed by the AMX-30E article. Am I correct or is it an issue with my browser?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The error in the archiving process is that although automating that process has often been proposed, it has never been implemented. (No, it isn't your browser.) Therefore, some administrators archive the OLD hooks they're taking out and some administrators archive the NEW hooks they're adding. This is because months ago it was proposed that we should archive the old hooks coming out, because they have several more hours of corrections, and are more likely to be accurate and free of typos. So some administrators archive the old hooks and some archive the new hooks, and the two systems aren't compatible. Notice that the set of hooks starting with "... that William Hogarth ..." is listed twice. Art LaPella (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Victuallers has been responsible for mistakenly archiving the new set a couple of times recently. I have left a message on his talk page to remind him that now we archive the old set. Gatoclass (talk) 06:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, any chance I can manage to look at the list of the other DYK's in that block, or am I SOL? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the history of the T:DYK template. This is what the person who fixes it will have to do eventually anyways. It would be wonderful if you would take the time to find it and fix it. --JayHenry (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just fixed it, I think: [2]. Olaf Davis | Talk 11:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A record?

In the current update, AlbertHerring had 8 articles bolded in two different hooks. Six articles in one hook and two articles in another.[3] I believe that 8 articles for a single author in a single update is a record and have added it to Wikipedia:Did you know/Hall of Fame. Although it's just for fun, it's worth being accurate. I've never seen anyone close to eight articles in an update. Anyone with a longer memory recall such a thing? --JayHenry (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I managed to squeeze nine or ten articles into a single hook once :) I haven't done it since, as I decided afterwards it was overdoing it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. Was it this batch? If so it looks like we have a tie and should add you as the original record holder. --JayHenry (talk) 06:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a quick find! Yeah, it was that batch. I actually wrote a complete set of 11 new articles for those ships, but I guess I decided eight noms would be enough for one hook :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drat, I managed just seven! - so close... there's a challenge! Bencherlite ^Talk 07:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would the traditional 200 characters or less hook rule hinder any future possibility of DYK editors trying to submit multiple new articles into one hook? For example, if someone managed to create/expand say, 10 articles related to each other in some way, and the hook in the most extreme modified form surpasses the 200 character criteria, would it be passed with an exception, or would it be grounds for automatic disqualification?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice for an exception to be made in those sort of circumstances, where a great effort has been put in to create 10 or so articles which are DYK-worthy—after all, just creating one can take quite a while, depending on the subject! Of course, some topics lend themselves very well to extreme-looking multiple hooks. At the moment I'm writing an article about Stanmer church, where several Earls of Chichester are buried. A few of them are redlinks. Now imagine a church where lots of earls are buried, none of whom have articles... from there it's a short step to "Did you know that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th Earls of Foo are buried in the churchyard at Foobridge Church?"... (Pretend that those numbers are links!) The Main Page DYK template is a certain size, but AFAICT we have plenty of flexibility within those boundaries; having a slightly longer than usual "record-breaker" at the expense of, say, two normal hooks (which could be held over for the next update anyway) sounds like a good idea. Anyway, it doesn't happen very often, so I expect it will be discussed the next time it does. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I ask, because there is actually multiple situations alone in the NRHP concerning Multiple Property Submissions, Thematic Groups, and the like. For example, I could've done a three-fer with one Submission alone, but ended up with a two-fer due to lack of info for two of the three properties and instead opting to combine info under the Thematic Submission and the stand-alone.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, I have been rebuked for noting a 200-character violation on a multiple-article hook. In my mind, an unwritten-unwritten-rule exists to give multiple-article hooks more characters – without specifying how many more characters. I can't speak for other 200-character rule enforcers. Art LaPella (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly give some leeway... but I suggest that create a level playing field then claimants for max noms in a hook must keep to the 200 rule. Oh and a 7 went up last night. Victuallers (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch..guess that my group hook for this octet was a record. Guess I was too late. Usually the 200-character rule is waived for a group hook, since I think it is obviously more economical. I always put my disclaimer "300 chars for a quad hook" and so forth. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second pair of eyes

Sorry to double post. Could I ask for a few more pairs of eyes at Hans Joachim Sewering and the related-hook at T:DYK/N. There was concern about BLP/NPOV on both hook and article. I believe the claims are reliably sourced, and I tried rewriting both the hook and the lede of the article. I placed it on the Next Update, but would appreciate a gut check from others to see if this rewording is okay, before it goes "live", given the potentially sensitive nature of such a claim. --JayHenry (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My only comment, which is an odd one, is that it mentions that they were catholic in the lead. Maybe "from a catholic institution"... but I feel this shows slightly the wrong emphasis... but I don't feel strongly about this ... its just my impression. Victuallers (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Length of next update

OK, I loaded up the next update with 7 already, but there is some whitespace still. I am a novice at this, is it worth squeezing in another hook? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five-fold rule and Stub-class rule

I was just wondering why an article that is classed as a stub cannot be used for a DYK hook, but an article that hasn't been classed at all, can.

Also, the five-fold rule for expanding existing articles is a little unfair. I recently had a DYK hook featured, but it could have easily gone the other way. The article I worked on failed numerous policies and guidelines, and was just a page full of one-word sentences set out like a list. Why can't the five-fold rule be extended to expanding articles by quality as well as size? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The five-fold rule is used because it is objective and simple to calculate. Meaningful quality interpretations, on the other hand, take time and effort to determine and are subjective by nature (look at the ambiguities in the current article assessment process). While in a perfect world quality would be a better metric than quantity for determining which encyclopedic material to display on the Main Page, the use of size keeps the workload involved in performing updates to a manageable level. The use of an objective measurement also greatly reduces the level of Wikidrama by removing a level of personal interpretation from the process. --Allen3 ^talk 10:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As frequently pointed out here, an otherwise eligible article is almost certainly no longer a WP:STUB, though the tag may remain through error or forgetfullness. It might be time to amend the rules text to point this out, or just remove the stub provision, since it still seems to confuse people. Johnbod (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What we have lots of and what we don't

Musing on what I have seen I guess and why certain subjects are more represented than others..and maybe some target areas - all input welcome, this is sort of a free association type-thing: Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biology

Birds, Fungi - steady flow and nice pictures
Mammals - not much really
Reptiles, Fish, invertebrates - a trickle
Cultivated breeds of plants and animals - very little on WP, is trickling in

Other science

Astronomy - very little
Medicine - a trickle
Pure maths - basically none Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

American sport - a fair bit

Geography

Anything 3rd world is underrepresented

mythology

Alot of this I think was expanded greatly early on, so is underrepresented here but then again, there is alot on WP.

Irrelevant info

If i remove information that isnt really relevant to the topic and then expand the article 5 fold, does that still count? I'm talking about Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005. I removed the artist's biography which originally cause the article to be put up for deletion. Grk1011 (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, according to the previous precedent recorded as "Unwritten" rule A3. Art LaPella (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't right now. But is there a time frame for when such an article would be eligible? I think we can all agree that editorial discretion and removing bad/unsourced/irrelevant content is a natural part of the editing process. If someone trims the fat on an article now, how much time needs to pass before we use that "current article size" as the basis for calculating five fold expansion? Either that or are we going to re-write the unwritten rules to state that we'll base 5x expansion on the largest size that the article ever was in its history? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 20:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should count, just as we don't count infoboxes or image captions. --NE2 20:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the bottom line was, we don't have time to mess with more exceptions to the convoluted counting rules. There's more to life than debating character counts, and among them are other Did You Know problems that nobody has time to check. Many articles aren't even spell checked. I think excluding infoboxes etc. is also more work than it's worth; prose can be padded just like any other component of an article. Grk1011 is of course welcome to expand his article. Art LaPella (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Mainspace section

This has probably been discussed before (although I looked through the archives for quite a while back), but if so it might be good to reopen discussion.

I think that a DYK section that contains more than the mainpage DYK articles might be worth considering, in the same way that In the News is on the mainpage and has a separate section. What do others think? Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like considerably more work, and we don't have enough workers as it is. Gatoclass (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, it would only involve cutting and pasting green-ticked articles to a separate page, which doesn't seem particularly difficult - the evaluation is already going on here. That said I haven't spent much time round DYK, and don't know what extra work would be entailed; it does seem like a valid objection if that is the case (and I certainly appreciate the work done here!). Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to add article length to noms

I've been thinking about this for a while. It might help reviewers see at a glance which are the more substantial articles. Given that we seem to have been accumulating a rather worrying backlog over the last few days, it would also help us identify the better articles and weed out the stubby ones, without having to look at each and every one. Comments? Gatoclass (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or a simple classification system, ie A B and C class articles. In fact I think I might start doing this myself anyhow as a guide. Gatoclass (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about something like having the green tick continuing for articles over 2000 characters and introducing another symbol for articles in the 1500 to 2000 range. The instructions could then be amended to say something along the lines of "articles in the 1500 to 2000 character range might not be accepted when there is a backlog of hooks to be used". This gives a clear rule (less arguments than with a more subjective classification), is easily monitored on the suggestions page and gives an easily understood incentive to make the articles more substantive to reach the main page, while leaving the option of including smaller articles when there is less of a backlog. (Note that 2000 is just a number I thought of and could be subsituted for another number) Davewild (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've sort of been thinking along the lines of having star graphics, you know - one star for an article that meets minimum requirements, two stars for a decent article, three for a good one. I don't think we'd need any more than three because it would probably only confuse people. But I was thinking of separate graphics for ratings because I'd like to go through hooks and rate them without the time-consuming fact checks, so that later I or somebody else could just check out the better hooks and forget about fact checking the not-so-good articles altogether. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support Davewild (talk · contribs)'s idea. It is time to make the change to a 2,000 character range. Cirt (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still inclined to disagree with that because there are some subjects that are amply covered in 1,500 chars while others are covered completely inadequately in several times that. If we make the limit 1,500 chars, for example, we are immediately going to disqualify a large number of articles about fossils or living organisms, which are often quite good, even though they are short. And that would be a bad thing, because we really need such articles for variety.

If you just want to find an easy way to disqualify articles there are IMO better methods, like quality of refs and level of wikification.

As it happens, I just tried as an experiment rating all the articles under August 18 to see how that went. It's harder than I thought, but with a little refinement it could be useful. Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like Davewild's suggestion as well, although would also include additional requirements on refs. The reason I prefer that suggestion is that I think a two-tier system will work better than a three-tier system, and because I think an objective system will run better than a subjective system. Basically what I would propose is that the minimum standard remains what it is, but there be a "preferred" standard, for which I would suggest 2000 ~~words~~ characters and at least 1 in-line citation in addition to the DYK hook. These could be increased if conditions warrant. Articles that meet the minimum standard but fall short of the preferred standard would not be disqualified from DYK, but they would not necessarily be unless there were not enough preferred articles or unless they covered underrepresented subjects that can be adequately covered in 1500 words (which could include fossils and living organisms). Since there would likely be more than enough standard articles to use, the DYK admins would need to use some objective discretion to determine which get used. But at least the contributors would be on notice that if their article does not meet the preferred standard they should not be expecting the article to get used. Rlendog (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you mean characters and not words in the above :) I have no problem with additional requirements for the preferred standard but hope that they can be as objective as possible. While I think Gatoclass has done a good job with his ratings it is a bit too subjective for me. This leads to submitters not being sure what they need to do to get their hook selected and could easily have different people giving different ratings for similar articles. Davewild (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean characters. I corrected it. Although my suggestion for at least 1 additional in-line citation may be too lenient. Maybe that should be 3 additional in-line citations (in addition to the DYK hook). Rlendog (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Davewild (talk · contribs) that this type of a rating system is too subjective and prone to potential conflicts in the future. Cirt (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as they meet the character requirement, they shouldn't be classified differently. I've seen hundreds of articles where the smaller ones are of a much higher quality. Qst (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we have that situation already, even with the current single requirement. A particular 1000 character article may be better than a particular 1500 character article, but the latter is eligible for DYK and the former is not. We could just increase the 1500 character requirement to 2000 (or whatever) but that would allow less flexibility for when there is a dearth of nominations or when there is a 1500 character article that is particularly good, relevant, important or for some other reason ought to be used despite its shorter length. Rlendog (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all of Rlendog (talk · contribs)'s above suggestions so far are excellent and the best way to go moving forward. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a word of explanation re: the suggestion for ratings. I think a ratings system can actually be based on "objective standards". Although I rated a bunch of articles by the seat of my pants last night, mainly to get a feel for how practical it might be, I was actually doing it based on certain criteria, although not strictly so.

The criteria for a ratings system could include:

Length of article - longer articles get more points.
Level of wikification - articles with headers, properly formatted refs, infobox where appropriate etc get an extra point or two.
More points if the article contains pictures or graphics.
Points subtracted for articles that clearly need copyediting, or which rely on only one reference or which rely on dubious refs etc.

These are the things I had in the back of my mind when I was making those ratings last night, and I think with a bit of refinement one could probably come up with a very useful method of quickly rating articles for quality without delving into "POV" terrain. Gatoclass (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Within the last several months the number of nominations nearly doubled, as did the workload for our admins. The benchmark needs to be raised one way or another, preferably without us waiting until the number of nominations triples. --Poeticbent talk 22:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started sorting them by length, because while length isn't necessarily the best indicator of quality, it's probably as good a simple measure as we have. I honestly think we are going to have to dump a huge bunch of hooks one way or another, because we don't have enough updaters and even if I work for several days in a row to try and catch up a bit, you only have to have a couple of late updates and it's back to square one. Apart from which, after nine months of updating DYK I am burned out quite frankly and need a break. So my suggestion would be to drop a good forty or fifty of the shortest or lousiest articles and just promote the longer ones, until we are no more than about 20 or 30 behind. Gatoclass (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking. Apart from the articles’ length, we need to promote good writing skills as well, including grammar, spelling and punctuation, which are the most obvious criteria to follow, and the easiest to understand by the community. Bad spelling and a fury of grammatical errors should never be left unchallenged. BTW, I’m sorry you feel burnt out. Maybe that’ll inspire you promote higher criteria for the entire DYK project. Cheers. --Poeticbent talk 16:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Now, I do realize that for some ESL speakers my suggestion (above) might sound like a systemic bias… which is furthest from the truth since I am an ESL speaker myself. There are many English language editors willing to help out. All one needs to do is ask… before submitting a new DYK nomination. --Poeticbent talk 17:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, we are getting waaaay behind - currently around 72 noms behind, and we are already 10 hours into the current day, which means a whole new day's worth of hooks are about to be added after only one more update. I think we are just going to have to dump a large number of hooks for whatever reason now, but my preference is to dump based on quality. Gatoclass (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was the result of DYK backing up over the weekend. I had to force the line moving by moving the noms myself throughout the day and the duration shown was 8 hours thrice (losing one cycle in the process). - Mailer Diablo 13:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the bright side, it looks like there aren't too many hooks for the next few days, so we could still catch up a bit unless more hooks get added in the meantime. The only other alternative I can think of is to post updates more frequently - every four or five hours, say, for the next few days, but then we have to find someone willing to do that. Gatoclass (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two "Next Update" sandboxes?

I forced myself awake for the whole of Sunday to force the line moving. The backlog is not squarely the result of increasing nominations, but rather "Next Update" has been slow to get the nominations to Main Page. For a number of times the DYK exposure time on Main Page has been stretched to 8 hours or more. And even after that, nobody was willing to tag the articles and add the credit/thanks templates to the editors (which means the "Next Update" page is not emptied until 2-3 hours after the current DYK batch went live), leaving only 4 hours for editors to work on the new batch.

What I think we should have is two "Next Update" sandboxes where their cycle alternates, giving editors more time to start working on it. (i.e. extend preparation time to 12 hours) This will help us keep to the 6 hour cycle better. The point of DYK is to encourage editors to write new articles, particularly for newcomers. We already have a backlog with editors having to vet through the article for eligibility, let's not add to it with some new kind of rating system. What we need to do is to keep the line moving, not creating more bottlenecks. - Mailer Diablo 13:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, just lost my whole post due to an edit conflict. Let's try again: having an extra update page isn't going to solve the underlying problem, which is shortage of labour. I do actually prepare updates ahead of time sometimes, I just do them in my sandbox and then slap the whole thing into the next update page under a "next next update" section. So you can do it if you want to anyhow. I just don't see how adding an extra official page will achieve anything. Gatoclass (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I suppose there is a possibility that maybe someone comes to the next update page now and then, sees it's already full, and decides they are not needed. So I suppose you could give it a try. Can't say I'm terrifically optimistic about the results though. Gatoclass (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to run...

Can someone stick in a couple more hooks? I have to split pronto. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be sure to work on that. Thanks for your help though. :-) -- RyRy (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for letting us know. -- RyRy (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

I left a note to see if some other folks may like to join in. I have cleared it a couple of times when it is red or yellow, in an effort to keep the throughput but am juggling a zillion things at the moment. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't help much, I am burned out after doing this job for nine months and would really like to get away from it for a while. I'm afraid I'm even less inclined to participate when we have this backlog because I dislike discarding hooks and I don't want the hassle of people complaining on top of everything else.

As I said to poeticbent above though, I think we are going to have to discard a large number of articles to catch up, I suggest dropping 50% of the articles based on length, and just keeping the longer and more substantial ones. I don't see that we are going to catch up any other way. Gatoclass (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My sympathy! Is there anything non-admins can do to help? Or do you need to mount a recruitment drive among either existing admins or potential new ones - as Sandy Georgia has been doing for the FA? Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to lend a hand whenever I'm not in the barracks. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, do I approve this message! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, there is plenty to do for nonadmins - the only thing a non-admin ca't do is switch over the templates for the main page, but checking DYKs and placing them on the T:DYK/N anyone can do. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(E/C - sorry, might be some repetition of Casliber's comment) Per Johnbod, as a non-admin I am willing to help more (i.e. to do more than just verifying hooks). Next, perhaps I will try moving hooks to the "Next Update" page (have just checked and found that anybody can do this; instructions are here and here), but I would appreciate a bit of checking/hand-holding on my first few attempts! Might be able to have a go today or tomorrow. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have filled up the next template ready to roll. However, it is 11PM here in Sydney and hence about 3 am when it updates (and I need to sleep!). It would be terrific if it could be updated right on time as it would be wonderful to try and clear the backlog and give as many nominators as possible a chance on the mainpage. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can do the next update - I think I may add another hook as the next DYK is a bit shorter than On this day (and it helps the backlog) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I can probably manage a couple tomorrow, though am more than happy to leave it to someone else :)) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, thanks to User:Mailer diablo who beat me to the punch. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If being short of labour is a problem, then here is a simple suggestion: Encourage the regular DYK contributors to do some of the necessary work (on other editors' nominations). So simply, if you get a DYK award, you pay for it by doing some volunteer work. Oceanh (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Heads up #2

I was AFK for a couple of hours, buit is now updated. I am seeing if we can be really prompt with updating to clear the backlog. I have to go off for a bit so it would be really great if someone could hand out the credits? (I did the dyk note on page talks themselves, just not the contributors yet). I will be back in a few hours and can fill up the next update though anyone else is more than welcome to have a go. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming no one else has done it, I will do the credits Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to hopefully help with the backlog, I made a stab at the next update. I did not erase the credits from the last "next update" (credits not yet given, and I didn't know how). If I've screwed things up, let me know on my talk page.Cbl62 (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cbl62 - I did the author /nominator credits from before and just removed them from the Next Update. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, hopefully if we stick closely to the update times we can give more folks a place on the front page. Not sure if I will get a chance to update the next, so if everyone can keep a close eye that would be great. If someone wants to put up their hand now, cool, if not I will see if I can get a spare minute to do it at the time. Well done all :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be offline for the next update, but will keep an eye on this. I like coordinating the updates this way, I think people are often hesitant to do the updates because no one is sure who is doing it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass has done it a bit early, which I was musing on doing at some stage as well. OK, if someone can fill in hooks that would be great. Gotta run....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The August 19 hooks are now 9 days old and pretty well picked-over with no green checks left. I'm not an admin, but how about jettisoning the remainder from that date to move things along?Cbl62 (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start working on the next update but one of my noms from Aug. 20 is green-checked, which I can't add. Cbl62 (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I emptied Aug 19, not much of a choice here. - Mailer Diablo 08:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mailer. I agree with Gato's comments above that given the huge backlog we currently have it'd be best to drop a load of hooks at once: prompt updates are good and I'm not in any way knocking the effort people have volunteered to put in, but we have so many stale hooks I'd advocate dropping a good deal of the current expiring ones, leaving only the longer articles and more interesting/unusual hooks. Unfortunately I'm really busy with other things right now or I'd do some myself. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article lost in shuffle

this expiring hook closure was done by a semi-retired editor earlier today and Albert White had not gotten verified. What happened?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. I think a few other valid ones were also lost in the shuffle. Just because there is a huge backlog doesn't mean we should get rid of these. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 14:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verified and on next queue. - Mailer Diablo 15:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Is there as way to get WP:ITN to lengthen their section so we can use more hooks at once to offset them?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking at Template talk:In the news seems like the best bet. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is your wish? How many items would you like to have at ITN? At the moment, I left the last item instead of removing it. --Tone 21:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inflating ITN by re-adding the latest news item that got bumped is the best. Inflating the selected annivesaires is an other, and an easier one because nobody patrols SA, so there is never a fight over padding it up. I always used to pad it up. Tweaking the hook to rm redundnant works or a shorter synoym also works. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can ITN bump up to nine or ten items?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up #3

OK, thankfully the FA lead in is short, and I have been able to squeeze 10 hooks in. Update is past my (Sydney) bedtime at something like 2.41 AM. So if someone could do it that would be great. I am tempted to archive August 20 material now, as there is some issue or other with each hook remaining (though quite a few different reasons), but wasn't sure where to put them. Consensus for this or leave it for further possible tweaks? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Someone refreshing the next update could probably squeeze 9 or 10 hooks due to the brevity of the FA lead too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget you can also adjust the length of the DYK section by adding or substracting items from the In The News or On This Day sections opposite. Oh, and I won't be able to post the next update either. Gatoclass (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ho hum, another late night, I posted it anyhow. Gatoclass (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog policy

Basically, we have four options with regard to backlog.

Shorten the minimum run time to 4 or 5 hours.
Increase the number of hooks (which requires either WP:TFA shorten their blurbs or WP:ITN increase the number of stories they post)
Begin purging more hooks.
Set up a bot to automatically transfer the hooks after time expires (6 hours on the dot) when some flag is present saying the hooks are complete.

Any ideas on what is best.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a bot, so forget about that one.

Apart from increasing the length of updates, I've been updating about ninety minutes early for the last couple of updates. If this doesn't work, and I'm sceptical that it will, then we will have to start dumping hooks. I have suggested discarding the shorter articles by temporarily raising the minimum length to 3000 or 4000 chars. Gatoclass (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Option one looks most feasible in the short term. Purging hooks might raise questions on why some hooks got passed over. - Mailer Diablo 15:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Raising the minimum length to 3000-4000 chars is wrong, maybe 2000, but not that high. Option one is probably the best. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 15:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of continuing to update early as Gato's been doing, and squeezing as many hooks as we can fit into an update. But I'm also somewhat sceptical that that will be enough. If it's not I favour purging by a combination of raising the minimum length and minimum 'hookiness' requirement. Yes, I'm sure we'll have people annoyed that their submissions are rejected, but the rules page does say 1500 is necessary but not sufficient ("In practice, articles longer than 1,500 characters may still be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting administrators"), and hopefully most of them will understand that we had to become more stringent to weather the current crisis.

Writing a bot and having it approved for admin status is a distinctly long-term solution if it's possible at all. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, all it needs is for people to get lazy for a couple of updates and all the time saved is undone. So we probably will eventually have to raise the minimum length anyway, and I'd say to at least 3 or 4k or we won't get rid of enough hooks. We only have to do that temporarily though, until hopefully the glut is overcome. If we keep getting too many hooks though, we will probably have to substantially raise the minimum size permanently. Gatoclass (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3,000 or 4,000 is going to scare a lot of newcomers away. We'd look like we're taking only B-grade articles. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2,000 or 2,500 characters, including spaces, is still a very short article. I have been listing the character totals in the Aug. 27 noms, and using a 2,000 or 2,500 character threshold would screen a number of real short ones. Bumping the minimum to 2,000 or 2,500 characters, even if on a temporary basis, should help.Cbl62 (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is everyone dismissing the possibility of getting a bot to keep us from going way into extra time? Someone probably could design one. I don't think lengthening the requirement is such a good idea in the long run. I think shortening the time to 4 or 5 hours would be O.K. in the short run.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I should provide rational as to why increasing the threshhold would harm WP. DYK encourages people to create articles that are not stubs. Often times I have taken an article that I would have left as a 500-600 character stub to 1500 for the sake of a DYK nod. Almost anything can be taken to 1500 characters. There are many articles I could not have taken to 2500 characters and would have left as stubs. The project benefits more by having 500 character articles improved to 1500 than 1500 character articles improved to 2500. People will get discouraged from improving 500 character stubs if they can not get them up to DYK standard. I think shortening the hook time to either 4 or 5 hours would still give people encouragement and get them exposure. I don't really see what the problem is if it takes ten days or even two weeks for a DYK nom to make the main page so I don't see why the character requirement should be increased.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this argument doesn't hold up as well as I originally thought. After all, a 500 character article would still have to be expanded to 2500 characters to meet the 5x rule. Rlendog (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dubious about a bot because designing and writing it, setting up a system to indicate which hooks are ready, publicising said system and testing the bot (and a bot which adds material to the main page will want a lot of testing) will take a hell of a lot of time. Besides that, last time I checked we had exactly one admin bot (though I know the possibility of more was being discussed) so having it approved would be distinctly non-trivial. Of course I'd be happy to be proved wrong, and just because it would take a while doesn't mean it's not worth doing, but right now we need a much shorter-term solution than a bot could provide.

Which brings me on to the question of minimum length. What Gatoclass and I are suggesting is a temporary increase, effectively just a one-off jettisoning of some short hooks from the current backlog. I don't think that would be too damaging to the lure of DYK. If this problem starts recurring frequently then maybe we'll need to consider a more permanent change to which hooks we take or how often we update them or whatever, but for now what I at least am advocating is a purely temporary measure.

Finally, as for what harm it does if hooks take two weeks to get processed: first, it increases the length of the suggestions page and makes editing it awkward; second, it increases the number of "I submitted a hook and no-one's reviewed it, DYK sucks" complaints we're likely to get and harms the project's image; third, it detracts from the 'Wikipedia's newest articles' idea. I know the five-day limit has a lot of wiggle-room in practice, but if we start allowing things that are three times that old through we might get a situation where a backlog isn't viewed as a backlog, but just a long, legitimate queue which can be allowed to grow almost indefinitely and exacerbate my concerns above even more. Anyway, that's my take on the matter. Olaf Davis | Talk 23:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I am not keen on longer articles, many mushrooms it is really hard to get above 1500 characters, and I think this may be true of much obscure material. As it is having DYK/GA/FA is good as articles fall into 3 depths/sizes quite nicely and it makes for a good three stage progression. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several comments. First, ignoring for the moment the potential difficluties of writing and getting a DYK update bot with admin powers approved, the real problem is that a bot would do no good if there were not articles ready to go in the Next Update queue. Vetting the articles, checking refs and lengths, tweaking hooks, and choosing the mix for the Next Update are all things that I cannot imagine a bot doing. Second, I think that if an article has problems when the hook is moved to Expiring noms, then it should be removed. Sometimes the problem is that the article has not been (re)checked, but if it has problems (too short, not cited properly, not expanded enough, etc.) and these have not been satisfactorily addressed in the five day period, I see no problem with discarding the hook / article from the DYK queue. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support shortening the run time to 4-5 hours. I would also support increasing the minimum article length - but I think 3000 or 4000 characters goes too far. I think 2000 or 2500 characters is more suited to the purpose. And the admins can still have discretion to use 1500 character articles for subjects that don't get represented enough and can be adequately handled at that length (such as, apparently, life sciences or fossils). For most subjects, 2000 or 2500 is really not very hard to achieve. If expanding the article length doesn't help enough I'd rather add additional simple requirements than extend the minimum length further - further extension may well exclude many subjects. Additional requirements could include in-line citations (say minimum of 5) and/or article subheadings (say minimum of 2). But if we keep getting more than 40-50 qualifying articles even with these requirements, then maybe it would be appropriate expand the requirements further (again, perhaps allowing for exceptions for certain topics). That would still be better than just purging hooks. But I wonder if the current glut is a temporary situation resulting from a lot of people (in the U.S. at least) having some extra time on their hands the last 2 weeks of August. Rlendog (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support- Rlendog's sentiments regarding shortening run time and increasing characters. I think 2500 should be ideal but we can always leave exceptions for under-represented topics. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 02:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support increase of article length and disagree with shortening hours on the mainpage- I agree that one helpful solution would be to raise the article length to at least 2,500. Anything less than that, regardless of the topic, is really a stub anyway in my opinion (even if it isn't labeled so). I think 3,000 would be ideal for our criteria but no more than that. I think that if we get backloaded a temporary stop gap could be to shorten the ammount of time on the main page but as a general practice sticking to the full six hours would be best. Otherwise, new articles don't get enough "airtime" to get sufficiently noticed which is one of the whole points to DYK.Nrswanson (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it looks to me as if we are going to have to bite the bullet and dump a large number of hooks. After four days of intensitve effort, the backlog has only shrunk by a dozen hooks, from 79 to 67. At this rate it will take at least another five days of the same effort to get rid of the backlog, and I have my doubts we will be able to keep moving hooks at the same rate as over the last day or two. It only takes one missed update for us to be another dozen hooks behind again after all.

I think probably the fairest way to do it is to decide to get rid of the 50 shortest articles, but in order to do this I think someone will have to go through and size all the hooks so that we can figure out the best cut-off size, and then we just dump all the hooks under that. As someone said above, we can exempt science articles as we are always short of them. Gatoclass (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, when you say it will take at least five more days do you mean five times four, i.e. twenty, days (since a dozen in four days = sixty in twenty days)? Olaf Davis | Talk 08:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, we caught up by about 10 hooks yesterday, the previous three days we only caught up by one or two. So I based the five day figure on catching up ten hooks per day. If we can maintain that level for five days we will get rid of most of the backlog. If we can't, then I think it's time to start dumping articles. Gatoclass (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think throwing out hooks is the answer. The backlog is shrinking. We now have a backlog of 43 hooks, of which 5 are unviable, making the count really 38.Nrswanson (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but then the next day moves into expiring noms and adds another 30 or more hooks to the pile. Gatoclass (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal #1

I don't want to see hooks thrown out either. I hated it when one of mine once lost out when it was around 1500 characters. I put a lot of effort into it. I would much rather see articles spend less time on the main page, even if it's only a few hours. Some time is better than none. I would like to see this written in the DYK rules: "Administrators may shorten the length of time that a hook spends on the main page whenever there is a serious backlog of proposed hooks." Comments? Support/Oppose? Should we do an official poll of shortening the article minimum size vs. length of time? Royalbroil 14:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest amending to: "Administrators may shorten the length of time that a hook spends on the main page to no fewer than 4 hours whenever there is a serious backlog of proposed hooks."Nrswanson (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to the amendment. Royalbroil 14:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too - I like to see everyone get their 15 minutes...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally perhaps we wouldn't throw hooks out but the only way it can be prevented is if there are enough people working to move an update every four or five hours. And it's pretty clear that's only a pace we could keep up for a few days at best. So if we aren't making substantial inroads into the backlog over the next day or two, I think it will be time to switch to plan B. Gatoclass (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the proposal. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to the amended (by Nrswanson) proposal. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Rlendog (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. - Mailer Diablo 01:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Cirt (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal #2

I propose that we raise the DYK requirements permanently from 1,500+ character non-stub text to 2,500+ non-stub text. This will make a few more articles inelligible, but not too many, and will hopefully encourage the growth of some more stub-like articles before they are submitted to DYK.Nrswanson (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you have a 2,500 character stub? Not on my reading of WP:STUB:"A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information" (& see above passim). User:Grutness/Croughton-London rule of stubs asserts that a 3-para article on London would be a stub, but we see hardly any subjects that are anything like that important at DYK any more. 2,000 might be a gentler first step. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wary about permanently changing anything at the moment since it seems perfectly possible this is a one-off deluge of new hooks and not the start of anything long-term. Let's get through this current backlog and if similar things start happening more often consider a permanent change, but 1.5 to 2.5k is a big change to the nature of DYK based on a few days of backlog. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raising the size requirement for DYK may significantly exacerbate the problem of systemic bias. There is often relatively little online coverage of notable subjects relating to less developed parts of the world, and it's often difficult or impossible to write a 2,000- or 3,000-character article about such topics using only online sources (unless one pads the article with insignificant trivia - a poor practice for DYK and article-writing in general). While there is usually more information available in paper sources, not all editors are able and/or willing to obtain them. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sets the minimum far too high. I wouldn't support a permanent change to 2000, much less 2500, for the reasons indicated by the opposers before me. Royalbroil 19:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support if the current backlog situation becomes permanent. But for now I think it is premature. However, I think there should be a policy (that is stated so there are no surprises) that if there is a backlog, preference will be given to articles that are either at least 2500 characters or that cover a subject that is otherwise underrepresented. Rlendog (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nay for now, per previous reasoning. - Mailer Diablo 01:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Olaf. Not clear that we need to do this yet. Gatoclass (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal #3

The current selection criteria require that the nominated hook be cited in the article with an inline citation. However, they don't really mention sourcing (or other) requirements for the rest of the article. So, I propose: A nominated article must be suitable referenced, and all major points must be appropriately cited to reliable sources.

While this is perhaps an unwritten rule of sorts, I have occasionally seen DYK feature articles that contain large blocks of uncited text (as much as an entire section). While it is possible that references used elsewhere in an article substantiate the claims made in an uncited paragraph, it is important to make this explicit by using inline citations. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although that may be difficult to administer and lead to disagreements as to what are the "major points". But I think that some minimum requirement on in-line refs on the rest of the article is a good idea. Rlendog (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in favour of this, as it's the sort of thing which encourages cite bombing, something I very much dislike. It's also not absolutely necessary and therefore I view this proposal as an example of instruction creep. Gatoclass (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gatoclass on this.Nrswanson (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In principle I agree with Black Falcon (talk · contribs)'s idea here, but the wording is something that would have to be nailed down a bit more. Cirt (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up #4

Several hooks in expiring noms required vetting/revetting. - Mailer Diablo 18:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up #5

The next update is now ready if an admin wants to flip it over a bit early. It has 11 hooks but they seem to fit with the current Main Page length. Cbl62 (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another "Next update" is now ready with 10 hooks. If an admin is available to flip it at about 9:30, that would be the 5-hour mark.Cbl62 (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK folks, I am on it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something that might help

One thing that would help a little bit with the backlog is taking closely related articles and combine them into one hook. I've looked over the suggestions, and found the following: Tang Dynasty generals (5), U.S. cargo ships (3), crime on the Arab Peninsula (2) (as for the Tang Dynasty articles, the hook fact is sourced, but generally they're so under-sourced that it's a question whether they qualify at all. Policy's not entirely clear on this).

This is a small measure, and it wouldn't affect the expiring nomination backlog much, but in the long run it would at least reduce the total number of entries by seven. Maybe there are others I haven't seen? Lampman (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have queried Nlu's articles before as I am not convinced his ancient source (which presumably he is still using) qualifies as sufficiently reliable. I meant to take it up at the relevant noticeboard one time but didn't get around to it, now he is adding articles again, I might do so. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, if there's a sensible way to make joint hooks that don't seem contrived like "...that there is an interesting fact about Foo, who was a Tang Dynasty general like Bar and Foobar". As you say, it won't make a massive difference but it won't hurt if done sensibly. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making progress

With only abour 36 expiring noms (excluding those already ruled ineligible) and only 21 noms for Aug. 24 to be pushed into expiring noms later today, we are making progress on the backlog. If the next update can be flipped promptly or a bit early, we're getting closer.Cbl62 (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also about 25 noms for Aug 25, so it's getting back to more manageable numbers in the pipeline.Cbl62 (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up #6

Bit like a Lernaean Hydra really (all the heads, that is) - ok, I need to sleep as the next update is about 3 am, so I guess if someone really hopes on it on time or even a bit early that would be great, and we can clear the backlog..I can do the one after that Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next update can be flipped if someone's available to do it.Cbl62 (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To keep things moving, I've started working on the next next update here Cbl62 (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(yawn....must...get...coffee...)...aah, ok, then, I can make sure the next one goes up not a nanosecond past the timebox gettin' jaundiced....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for administrator help

It's time to to update the mainpage. Could an administrator please update the mainpage now. Thank you.Nrswanson (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:mangojuice came to the rescue and all is well.Nrswanson (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rang Rasiya

A question has come up over allowing articles about upcoming films. My view is that we should not allow these sort of articles at DYK as they could easily be used as or viewed as a form of advertisment on the wikipedia mainpage. I believe we should include these articles under "Unwritten" rule C2.Nrswanson (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it here. The only defense, as the article creator, is that I wasn't aware of any such rules as such. Eventually, I try covering articles (esp. from WP:India which are under-represented in DYKs). When there is always a hint of systematic bias (also refer the discussion on it), then articles from under-represented areas could be exempt. I don't know if that'll set a bad precedent elsewhere, but if there is policy discussion on length of article or number of hours for articles, there can always be a policy for such under-represented articles. Mspraveen (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this has anything to do with bias. The article could easily be featured at DYK once the movie has been released and is no longer an upcoming film. This should apply to all articles on upcoming films, CDs, and other future commercial products from all cultures and places. I think articles on future non-commercial products would probably be acceptable. Nrswanson (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. If the community approves it to be an advert, then the hook may be rejected. Mspraveen (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with concerns above about not using DYK as vehicle to promote new releases on wikipedia Main Page. Even though that may not be Mspraveen's intent, it would set a bad precedent.Cbl62 (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2008

I first raised the question about this DYK with its "future film" tag over in the Template Talk page. I asserted that the DYK hook should at least indicate it is a future film rather than imply it is already released, but I am not sure that articles on future films should be banned from DYK. The article evidently meets Wikipedia notability standards and appears well enough sourced. Future film articles could possibly have Conflict of interest and Advertising issues, but they don't necessarily suffer those problems. Is there some way to evaluate whether such a DYK suffers from COI or Advertising concerns, short of banning them? About the content area, anyhow, I for one would be glad to see a series of DYKs on Indian films. doncram (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a good service to readers to have the DYKs on future films out there. And if articles about films tend to be started before the film gets released, a ban on future films would tend to prevent us from having any DYKs on films at all. In general, I think the DYK acceptance timing has to correspond to when that type of article becomes Wikipedia-notable, or else you systematically exclude that type of article. doncram (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, all of the film DYKs I have reviewed are for films that have already been released (this is the first time I personally have seen one for a future film). Besides there is always the possibility of five fold expansion which is perfectly possible after reviews come out and box office records are recorded. Also, I think any attempt here to create criteria to evaluate COI on articles like these would only result in accusations of bias and further wikidrama here at DYK. A flat out policy banning articles on future commercial products would avoid all of that.Nrswanson (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Nrswanson puts it, there is always a scope for a five-fold expansion. But as I said on the suggestions page, artsy Indian films hardly receive any attention in the media. To source the article well, it was quite a struggle for me. Hence at least for articles like these, I'm sure I can't look for a DYK unless I create/expand the article after it's release. Talking of COI, article and I don't qualify for such a thought (given that I'm an independent, responsible editor from WP:India's assessment team and a very active contributor to WP:Indian cinema. Anyways, I'd stop short of promoting this article for the DYK. If the editors deem it fit, have it as a DYK. Else please set a precedent, at least, on what Nrswanson classifies as commercial products. Mspraveen (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to flip?

If we're going to try to change to the next update at the 5-hour mark to clear the backlog, it's time.Cbl62 (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to be a pest, but if we're going to dent the backlog, we need to get the next update flipped. Is there an admin who can do that. We're past the 6-hour mark.Cbl62 (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To keep things moving, I've started working on the next next update here Cbl62 (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bother, stuff has come up in real life (a blocked drain, not really compatible with typing on the computer). Been busy. Well, only 12 min late. I have to get back to stuff for a bit. Can someone just finish the last few credits I have removed the ones I have done. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Kicking myself for not havving done it at 5 hrs. I am going to be busy in 5 hours' time too, so can an admin stick up teir hand for the next update? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up #7

I started updating but have to hop off for an hour or two. I will try to upload but anyone else is welcome to, otherwsire I will get back as soon as I can. Can someone chuck in a few more hooks (I am out of time). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Next Update page is now filled. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 10:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we think a one-liner could be squeezed in? Thanks muchly, back now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is long enough already. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just saw your reply and reverted my last change. I hav archived the current DYK hooks, you wanna do the honours or shall I? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have a few minutes - bombs away then...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) done then. OK, next update is way past my bedtime so needs to be someone else. If someone can volunteer that would be fantastic :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start populating the Next Update soon, as there are plenty more ready. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. I have cleared the credits so I'll leave you to it (I hate those pesky edit conflicts :) ) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The next update is done. To keep slogging through the backlog, it's got 10 hooks. If the admin doing the next update thinks it's too long, maybe hold one back. Next update could be flipped as early as 16:35.Cbl62 (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update running late now. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophe

There's a grave accent being used instad of an apostrophe, creating a jarring visual effect. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by Shimgray. Thank you. (WP:ERRORS, which I watch more often, is the intended place for such reports.) Art LaPella (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up #8

The backlog has been greatly reduced at this point. The current next update has 10 hooks as part of the backlog reduction, but do the more knowledgeable DYK folks think we can start reverting to fewer hook after this one? Cbl62 (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eek - over 6 hours again! Let's get through the weekend first. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will do the update Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is on the Main Page now and I will do the notifications next - two questions: 1) do we notify people who made a hook? I have not seen this noted before but two hook authors are listed there - I will notify authors and nominators first then check back here; 2) the DYK archive seems to be missing a few recent updates - could someone else do those please? Thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Q1 it isn't I think the normal procedure, but sometimes happens, maybe by confusion. Thanks for prompt flip. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I misread one (it was just saying who wrote the articles) and just left a note on the hook author's talk page. I also believe I caught the archive up. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next update is ready to go. It can be flipped as early as 7:58 if we're still sticking to the 5-hour protocol.Cbl62 (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! - Mailer Diablo 08:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←) If only Bedford and PeterSymonds were still administrators, we wouldn't have these DYK backlogs so often... Everything was on time very often with them around. *Sigh* We lost two DYK update regulars in less than about a month... -- RyRy (talk) 08:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll know for sure I'll probably be sticking around here up to Christmas, so hope that'll provide some relief until new helpers come in. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth pinging all the editors who listed themselves here at Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins to see who is still active (and happy to keep themselves on the list) and is happy to keep a close eye on the 5-6 hour turnovers for a bit, and maybe get more active for a stretch? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used to do more here and am trying to help out more again - I watch this page and find these Heads up notices have worked fairly well. I can do an update a day or so. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. I can create a few more science hooks :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question on nominations for DYK

Would I be able to renominate any article that I had in the past, like yesterday? Ominae (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as its less than 5 days ago you created it or expanded it 5x, you can nom it.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 22:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I move it to Articles created/expanded on August 31 then since my two nominations Minebea PM-9 and Surveillance Kanshisha are on Articles created/expanded on August 30? Ominae (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You move it under the date you created the article, or if a x5 expansion, under the date from which the expansion started. Gatoclass (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you wanted to renominate the articles after an objection was raised to the length of one of your hooks. That's not necessary: you can just put a new hook below the objection as a reply. I've uncommented the previous nomination so people can see what discussion has already taken place on it, and removed your second nomination (as Gatoclass says, nominations belong in the date they were created or expanded, which in this case was August 30). Hope that makes sense. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Kotla Mohsin Whosin turn most of the articles for the DYKs into comments. I reverted, but need to get some sleep. Does someone else want to follow up on this? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 05:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spellcast has blocked that account as a sockpuppet. Art LaPella (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up #9

OK, I noticed no-one had added any suggestions so I started. Gotta run now and it can be updated in 1-2 hours, can someone add some more, protect the picture and load it up (hopefully after 5 hours?) I may be able to but unlikely (lots to do off-keyboard in a moment). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TonytheTiger has (correctly) pointed out the first one has a long hook. as it was interesting I was prepared to ignore all rules for an interesting lead-in, but am ahppy for it to be tweaked if the consensus is on a strict length. So discuss away, but I will be off-keyboard for a bit Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up #10

I started the ball rolling..but I need to sleep now. Can someone get stuck into the hooks and an admin upload the next lot at the appropriate time? Figners crossed it can be 6 hours or a little earlier. G'night all. PS: Don't forget to protect pic. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can do the update to the Main Page and notifications I just tweaked the first hook - is it better? Before it sounded like the daughter was christened at her parents' wedding. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sioux Falls Uprising of 1923

The above article was a last second nom for Aug. 27. All sources are off-line, and my on-line research finds nothing to verify this event. The one url cited in the article is not working. The only links found doing a google search are to a piece done by comedian, Stephen Colbert, in 2007. This link (http://conversationstoppers.blogspot.com/2007/10/pumpkin-riots-of-1923.html) suggests the whole thing may have been a spoof/hoax. See also this link (http://www.wikiality.com/Pumpkin_Riots) to a Colbert related site, also suggesting this is a spoof. This suggests we need to use care in evaluating hooks supported only by off-line hooks. While we should assume good faith, we need to be alert for potential hoaxes getting on the main page. Not sure if this is a hoax, but it appears to have some indicia of that. How should something like this be handled? Cbl62 (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info seems to make it clear this was a hoax. See discussion at the Talk:Sioux_Falls_Uprising_of_1923. This one was caught, but it was cleverly done with fake off-line cites that looked very authentic at first glance. We need to watch out for this kind of thing. Should the article author (Sherurcij (talk · contribs)) and/or nominator (Minnehaha Mouse (talk · contribs)) be reported or warned? Cbl62 (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this. I think this should be mentioned at WP:AN/I - does anyone else agree? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was BOLD and went ahead an posted this on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#DYK_hoax_averted - even if it was just a joke gone awry, the author and nominator need to realize the seriousness of the attempted hoax. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in the United Arab Emirates

I did not receive the DYK message for this article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the message on your talk page - sorry for the omission Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up #11

OK, have started teh ball rolling with the next update, but have to run - can someone keep going with it? I may be able to update it (not sure), so if another admin does it, great, but I will try to pop back. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog done

Given that we are now only 20 hooks behind, and with an almost empty next update page, I think we can safely say at this stage that the backlog has been eliminated. Special thanks and congratulations to those who worked so hard to get rid of it! I think we can probably resume our normal schedule now. Gatoclass (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool....Under an hour till next refreshing.........busy :(((( Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well done to everyone - I'm happy to say it looks like I was wrong about the extent of the problem. I'm only annoyed that I've been so busy these last two weeks my period of least DYK activity came during the backlog cleanup. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time for me to go back to writing... ^.^ - Mailer Diablo 11:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

template problem

The "next DYK" page has a template problem. I have tried to place a sound Listen template where there usually is a picture. It looks OK until you try it on the main page when you see a leading line of white space. Any expertise? Obviously we need to get this right as we need to think about all the different kit people may be looking at the page with. Ideas? Help? Victuallers (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to post exactly the same question. I am not good at these things...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worst case there is a free use image that could be used instead. Cirt (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better? - Bobet 21:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it, it seems I just changed it to how it was before you (Victuallers) tried tweaking it for some reason. I don't see a problem with it, however, is there still something wrong with it? - Bobet 21:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it out of the way in the hope that an expert comes to hand. Note the problem is that the "picture/Sound icon" is too high. It makes the main page look odd if you try it there. Do you have a fix Bobet? Victuallers (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobet solved the problem but he and I have to sleep, so ...

credits to do
test the next DYK on your browser to check it works. thx Victuallers (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Songs

Can we use recordings as a "picture" for the first slot? I just noticed this in the Nezxt Update. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 21:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 21:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting feature, I must say! - Mailer Diablo 10:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible DYK nom, if you want to make an exception.

I have expanded the USS Nevada (BB-36) article from what it formerly was (the DANFS entry plus an unreferenced list of commanding officers)....

I doubt that I have expanded it 5-fold even if you do not count that unreferenced list (it was removed)...but considering that the only reason why it was so long before was because it was a total copy from DANFS, would it be possible to make an exception with one of these noms? (worth a try, at least.)

...that the USS Nevada (BB-36) was the first U.S. Navy battleship to have triple gun turrets?

...that the USS Nevada (BB-36) was the first battleship in the U.S. Navy to be fired with oil instead of coal?

...that the USS Nevada (BB-36) was the first battleship in the U.S. Navy to adopt the "All or Nothing" principle?

More wikilinks maybe? You tell me. This nom would be for Sept. 1st, where I already put one nom, then crossed it out. the_ed 17 04:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you guys think? the_ed 17 13:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid consensus in the past has been not to make exceptions for this sort of reason, even though it'd be a nice article and hook to have. If we start allowing some like that we'd pretty soon have to check loads of articles and carefully decide how much material was copied (or otherwise ineligible to be included in the 'before' character count). Given how much time DYK takes and how prone to backlog it can sometimes be anyway, it was decided that sticking to the simple measure of fivefold expansion is worth the few good articles that get missed over. Sorry. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is the diff from Sept. 1st to now: [4]. If the article isn't eligible, so be it...I tried! =) Thanks, the_ed 17 14:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

possible exception for DANFS / ship articles

I have sympathy for the_ed17 for seeking DYK credit for new development of a U.S. ship article that was previously almost all cut-and-paste from the DANFS public domain source. The original development of the article by DANFS cut-and-paste is not eligible for DYK. And, given the DANFS tag in the article (which generates message "This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships."), perhaps even if it was all created just now it would still not be DYK-eligible. I would want the editor to clarify in the article by use of quotation marks or block quotes which remaining material is pasted from the DANFS source, and to remove the generic DANFS tag. the_ed17's edits appear to be very extensive and may in fact already justify removal of the DANFS tag. Perhaps a little more checking to ensure that all pasted-in wording is explicitly credited to DANFS is needed, to justify removing the tag. With the tag removed, then the article's material would meet DYK criteria, except for the issue of measuring 5X increase. In this case it would be hard for DYK editors to measure.

But if the_ed17 had first set aside the DANFS text in regular quotes or in block quotes in the article, then it would not be hard for DYK editors to observe whether new development meets a 5X increase threshold over previous non-DANFS material. So, I wonder if, for future ships articles involving DANFS, if an editor first fully segregates the existing DANFS material into block quoted sections, and then develops the article, whether we could accept the increase measured from fully segregated version to final article? Otherwise, ship articles started with DANFS PD paste-in are pretty much excluded from DYK eligibility forever. doncram (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The DANFS stuff was copy & pasted in there because it is in the public domain; it would have been legal to use it as a DYK, in fact (if I had just started it a couple days ago!).....the exception that I was asking for would be a, say 2x-3x expansion from an article that was very close to its DANFS entry.....the reason being that DANFS entries tend to be of a decent length. Anyway, what I have done is use that basic history from DANFS that was there and integrate it with other refs....compare this (which is as recent as I can get while staying almost exclusively all DANFS) with the current article...most of the pasted-in DANFS stuff is in the 'Construction' section:

Construction

The Nevada's construction was authorized on 4 March 1911; she was laid down on 4 November 1912 by the Fore River Shipbuilding Company in Quincy, Massachusetts.[2] Her launching on 11 July 1914 was sponsored by Miss Eleanor Anne Seibert, who was the niece of Governor Tasker Oddie of Nevada and also the descendant of the first Secretary of the Navy, Benjamin Stoddert. She was commissioned on 11 March 1916 with Capt. William S. Sims in command.[2]

Note: DANFS is the only reference that has more than just dates on the construction of Nevada, so no matter what is decided, this is going to have to stay like this or it will have to be very close to this...

...and in few individual sentences that only DANFS covers, for example: "On 24 March 1945, Nevada massed off Okinawa with the "mightiest naval force ever seen in the Pacific",[2] as pre-invasion bombardment began.[2]."

However, after saying all of that, if an exception is not granted, I understand why!!! Thanks for your time, the_ed 17 20:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I can go through and change all of the DANFS sentences, if you guys so desire. Just leave me a message telling me! the_ed 17 20:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are incorrect that pasted-in DANFS text is DYK-eligible. By basic DYK criteria, an article has to be "New", and Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 or other pasted-in public domain material is not (as stated explicitly in the DYK rules). doncram (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Doncram, stop advocating for DANFS text to be placed in quotation marks. You've tried before and failed. Do you really want to keep going down this road? -MBK₀₀₄ 21:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MBK, please, let's not. I have no interest in arguing in the wrong forum with you about general practices with DANFS that are not relevant here. What i suggested above, with relevance to DYK nomination for this one article that I first commented about on the t:tdyk page, is about clarifying how some ships articles might be made acceptable for DYK mention. It is my understanding currently that DANFS material is not new material and articles comprised of DANFS paste-in are not DYK-eligible originally, and are not DYK-eligible even when 1500 chars of new text are added, either. I perceive you to be pro-ships articles, and I think you misunderstood what i wrote above. If it is complicated and any one person such as yourself is opposed, then trying to set up a policy exception is not worth it. doncram (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the hooks that I suggested are not from DANFS. the_ed 17 00:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DANFS is a fine source, and the facts from DANFS and your footnotes to DANFS are fine. The issue for DYK is whether there is enough new material to count for a 5X expansion. And there is not, if the originally pasted-in DANFS material counts in the old material. I'm not positive but I think if the DANFS material had always been set aside in block quotes, it would be treated like graphics and tables and other non-main text material, and not counted as old material in the 5X calculation base. However, it is too complicated now for DYK editors to ascertain what part of the old article is in the base, and what i was trying to propose is too complicated for DYK, too, so I think you are just out of luck. doncram (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's no big deal...it's only a DYK...I figured that I'd try, but I know that it's not going to happen now; you don't get everything you want in life, and I know that, so I'll live. =) Cheers, the_ed 17 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up #12

OK, I updated and uploaded and protected the pic. Started a couple of hooks for the next to start the ball rolling but have other stuff to do. Anyone is most welcome to take up the slack. I may pop on before I turn in for the night but the next update will be at something like 3 am fore me (again), so someone to stick up a hand would be fantastic. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have time to select hooks, but if Next Update is ready to go, I can put it on the Main Page and do notices (may be about 5 minutes late). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations

Are inline citations always a must? I recently nominated William Turner (composer) for a DYK without inline citations for several reasons. 1. This subject is too obscure to find reliable online references so all of the sources I used are offline. 2. The two offline references I used have identical information in them so there really is no need to cite anything in the article as either reference will support the material. In this case I find a list of properly cited sources at the bottom of the page preferable to inline citations.Nrswanson (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably all the info comes from the short entries in these two reference works. I would just add a note saying so to the lead, with another to the hook fact. Or a note per para. It may seem a bit of a nonsense, but what if down the line dubious extra material is added? Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Seems absolutely pointless but ok.Nrswanson (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it improves it you can always remove them after it's been DYKed. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5 fold rides again

Re the Samuel Johnson 28 Aug hook. I have queried this as it is a 12k character article, of which 4k is a split from the main Samuel Johnson. I think there is precedent that there needs to be a 5x expansion of the split material, but after a quick look in recent archives can't see a relevant discussion. Can anyone recall? Johnbod (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The unwritten rules state that the new information does not count, and that new information must have at least 1.5k, or 1,500 characters. That is it. I have had multiple DYK, as with most literary DYK, that import biographical information or have duplicate information that is reworked, that amounts to more than 20% of the article, and this has never been a problem before. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but it is not that clear - the rules also say flatly that split articles do not count as new (that is G7). Logically, if an existing article has to be expanded 5x, it is difficult to see why a split one should not have to also. I think this situation has arisen before & no doubt someone here will remember. The tendency here is to encourage wholly new articles. Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out on your talk page, it also does not say it needs a 5x expansion. I believe it allows for the A rule to go into effect - 1.5k new. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, as I stated before, I put in the new information, wait til it hits DYK, and then add it later, which is redundant and doesn't actually do anything differently. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relying on my unwritten rules here is somewhat circular, because I just added those rules, trying to record the consensus on this same issue. Art LaPella (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I see Victuallers has taken the article anyway, without commenting on the issue. I hope we can at least get further concensus on this for the future. As the unwritten rules seem to be suggesting, there appears to be a contradiction in what we currently have. To say clearly that splits that are allowed but must be 5x expansions seems sensible to me. Johnbod (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added some re-explanation. Art LaPella (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it again: "*A4: If some of the text was copied from another Wikipedia article, then it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article." I am now behaving more like a king than a scribe, so this would be a good time to object. But this version is more consistent with what someone who understands the normal fivefold rule would expect. Art LaPella (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be easier to understand as say ""*A4: If some of the text was copied from existing Wikipedia articles, this text must not constitute more than 20% of the new article (ie five-fold expansion is required)"? As I've said, this seems logical to me, but I hope others comment. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think Art's current version is slightly better than your alternative, Johnbod. I don't feel strongly though, and both are better than what it used to be. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found it needed reading a few times: "it" is potentially ambiguous, and "seperate" could have "pre-existing" or something added. Mine also deals with material added from more than 1 article. Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either versions are fair. This means that a page cannot be developed properly because there may be similar information, which negates the ability for critical, scientific, and literary topics to be discussed. That goes against the spirit of the DYK and promotes creating cheap stubs instead of well developed pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I lost you at "because there may be similar information". The actual rule/proposed rule says "copied", not "similar information". If text is "copied", then "may be" is wrong because the author would know for sure that he/she copied it. Art LaPella (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the consensus was pretty clear here. Splits and forks off of other articles are not admissible, correct? Cirt (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:DYK: Former redirects, stubs, or other short articles that have been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are also acceptable as "new" articles. Existing articles that have been expanded to only twice or three times their previous length are not eligible for DYK. - I agree wholeheartedly with that. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splits are not former redirect, stubs, or short articles. Splits sometimes reuse content, sometimes create new content, and sometimes do a lot of things. A split is simply any page that is connected to another page's content. This includes all novels, poems, books, etc as splits from the author, and most science pages as part of a subject. In order to connect between these articles, they need to have necessary information. If author A writes a book, and you create a page that has background of 3k which is taken from the biography page, no, the page should not have to be 15k. This is not practical, nor is this how DYK operate currently. Any suggestion against it is absurd, as it would mean that people cannot put in such information until after the page is made into a DYK, and that defeats the purpose of having a DYK. DYK are there to let people know that there is a brand new page, or a previous page has a massive expansion. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a Wikipedia split means Wikipedia:Split, or "copied" as I put it. If "A split is simply any page that is connected to another page's content", then everything is a split. A page unconnected to another page's content would be rejected as unverified. Art LaPella (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are mistaken. There are many new pages on new topics not linked to other pages which have citations that make it verifiable. Verifiability has nothing to do with interconnectiveness of topics. Any anything is only a split when you define it as not being able to be contained on its own page, which would mean all novels, poems, etc with their own pages. Thus, to use "split" to not allow certain pages having duplicate information becomes ridiculous. New pages should mean new pages. If information is already used before, and then contained in a new page, that should not force the new page to jump through even more hoops. It is still a new page on a new topic. It would be extremely unfair to suggest otherwise, and completely against why DYK exists. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If only 1,500 new chars were required we would have all sorts of artificial new splits (I don't suggest these are). NB that Ottava has now nominated another example, as explained in the nom, 2nd item on September 2nd - only one of the 4 hooked articles is affected by this issue. Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a topic is notable to stand on its own, it doesn't matter if it was a split or not. We have notability as a requirement for a reason and I think it should be enforced strictly. If you want, you can raise the bar to say 5k is necessary for a direct split. However, 5x rule can become rather silly, especially if you talk about a book and want to export more than 20% in about background that may be duplicated in some form on another page. And yes, I know that one of the four is affected, and any reviewer can de-bold it if necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your definition of "connected" or "contained" isn't citation or copying text, then I don't know what it is. But can we start by agreeing that a Wikipedia split is a Wikipedia:Split? Art LaPella (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have misread me somewhere along the line and I can't identify where. I am referring to article topics and how articles in a subsection of that topic are counted as splitting. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have certainly misread each other all along. According to Wikipedia:Split, a large Wikipedia article may be split into sub-articles. By that definition, your phrases like "splits from the author" are meaningless within the context of Wikipedia jargon, and all the alleged dire consequences from this meaningless situation leave me lost. Is a Wikipedia split a Wikipedia:Split? Art LaPella (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art, splits are sub pages of a main page. Normally, if you have an author, you would discuss all of their works. A page devoted to one of those works rightfully counts as a split. It does not necessitate the page having to be "full" first, as a split can rightfully happen at any time. Because this is what a split is, your take on splits results in a logical fallacy. What I am saying is 100% what that Wikipedia page says, and I am confused why you don't understand that. Perhaps you are confused by the page mostly describing the process of splitting of a section using templates instead of building a new page from scratch. If you want, I can take you through a tour of how articles on major topics are created and how their sub articles interact with them. It might clear up many of your misconceptions and probably keep you from thinking that it would need to fall under a "five times" expansion, which clearly goes against the principles of DYK being there to promote new article topics. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fives times count

How do you count 5 times expansion to qualify for a DYK article? Example, how many characters to you count for Parkesine? How long would it have to be expanded to, to qualify for a DYK? Using "Microsoft Word" I see 633 characters in this article - is that correct? Do you count References? Or External links? To qualify then one would have to expand the article to at least 3165 characters - correct? Is it hard and fast or is there exceptions? Under what conditions? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I count 684 characters, also using Microsoft Word, and confirmed by prosesize.js. So 5x would be 5x684=3420 characters of prose. I can't explain how you got 633 from Word. My count started from "Parkesine is..." and ended with "London.", 684 characters including spaces. The relevant rules are: Wikipedia:Did you know#Selection criteria says "Articles should have a minimum of 1,500 characters (around 1.5 kilobytes) in main body prose (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables)." "Unwritten" rule A2 says "A2: The prose portion of the article, which must be 1500 characters, excludes (in addition to categories listed in the rules) block quotes, headers, images and captions, the "See also" section if any, and edit buttons, but includes reference link numbers like [6], although I think the character-counter prosesize.js excludes such reference link numbers." Thus References and External links don't count. How hard and fast is it? Harder and faster than it used to be. Sometimes it seems harder than others, but I can't imagine it slipping by if it weren't at least near 4 times. Uncounted parts of an article such as long lists are occasionally cited as a good reason to relax the 5x requirement somewhat, or maybe if the original 684 characters were a copyvio or something. Art LaPella (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed answer. That clears up a lot of this for me. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up #....heck I lost count

Folks, I updated the page, and left the dyk note on the article talkpages, but my internet connection from where I am is insanely slow. Can someone please do the credits? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will do them - thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up #14

OK, I loaded up the next lot (and uploaded and protected the picture). It is late and I need to sleep, so have at the next ones someone. Can someone do the credits please? It is late here and I need to sleep (clunk - sound of head hitting keyboard) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up #15

OK, I have refreshed but I have to run. Image is uploaded and protected. can someone deal out hte creidts? I can't get back for a few hrs. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! - Mailer Diablo 04:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification please

I need some advice on a question I have before the nomination expires on time grounds. I wrote a brand new article on U.S. Route 41 in Michigan in my sandbox and posted it to mainspace on Aug 30. I think one sentence of the section out of U.S. Route 41 was reused, and that's since been discarded in a copy edit. In fact that section was in such atrocious shape, I've since summarized the new sub article and replaced the original main article's section, but I digress. I nominated in good faith a hook from that new article. In the process of updating a second article to use the photo of the Peshekee River Bridge I took earlier that day, I find that the paragraph on the bridge was copied verbatim out of the new article into a separate article on just the bridge. I came back to change the proposed hook for the US 41 in MI article to another referenced fact out of the article instead. The editor who created the bridge article then advocated a combined hook. These three nominations are now sitting about to expire with no further activity than a debate over whether or not it's possible to do such a combined nomination. I'd like to know how to deal with the usurpation of a good faith nomination by the creation of a new article. I've been patiently waiting on information, but I'm afraid that the nominations will expire without any of them being complete vetted for inclusion, meaning both article lose out on a possible DYK. I appreciate any insight others can offer me. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the combined one can't be sorted out, then at least Route 41 only which qualifies should go up. If that is the case, the Bridge article would be on its own merit. - Mailer Diablo 05:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]