Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:31, 7 June 2011

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

• WT:DYK

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

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

To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2010-05-05 Add nominator names to the Misplaced Pages:DYKSTATS tables. Priority 9

DYK queue status There are currently 2 filled queues. Human assistance in moving preps is requested. v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC) Current time: 08:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 8 hours ago( verify reset purge )

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

What should happen before a brilliant bot-maker does this?

Our DYK bot already posts on a DYK article's talk page after its DYK shows up on the front page--and that's a great feature! W:User:OhioStandard has proposed an earlier notification on an article's talk page.

Such a notice would be triggered when the article is nominated for DYK. The notification could be something like:

"This article Name of Article has been nominated to be linked to from Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know? column using the hook "Did you know ... (text of hook proposed?" The DYK discussion will be here (a link to article's discussion at DYK)."

Would this be a difficult project for a bot-creator? Do others support the idea of such notification? For most articles, it would just be a friendly notice that the DYK nomination had successfully registered. For contentious articles it would avoid the situation where some editors are prepping the page to showcase their favored version at DYK in the very near future but some other editors are in the dark about any timeline for moving toward NPOV. betsythedevine (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be necessary. As far as I know, in the vast majority of DYK noms there's only one editor working on the article and this message would just be telling the editor something he/she already knows. For the exceptions, maybe we could just have an expectation that people should notify other editors if the article is contentious, or reviewers should check the talk page and invite other editors to comment if the nominator has not already done so. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably not necessary most of the time, but very helpful in a few cases and not harmful in any. It would also be a real benefit to new authors/nominators. I know it took me a while to figure out how to find "my" article's discussion section -- I would go to T:DYK, search for my sig, and check to see if anybody had said anything yet, pro or con. But I think Rjanac's other suggestions are very good, especially if nobody wants to bot-ify notification. betsythedevine (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I support the creation of such a bot. We do need to consider how and when such a notification would be removed (or if it would just stay on the talk page until archived). cmadler (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The idea sounds good, but the bot that delivers it also needs to be coded to remove it once the actual DYK notice has been posted on the article's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 06:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I support a DYKNomAlertBot (for non self-noms) because it will alert page creators that their page has had some traffic, and will have more interest soon (time to tidy up, cite sources, add that image or graphic they've been meaning to add & such). If the notification message is small (just 2 lines, with no ==header==) there'll be no need to delete it afterwards. --Lexein (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Is anything happening with this? cmadler (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

<--I hear consensus for a small notice on an article talk page at the time it is posted to DYK. I proposed simple wording, above, which nobody objected to. Shubinator is the person in charge of the DYKUpdtateBot, so I will post a message on his talk page pointing to this discussion and asking his advice on creating such a bot. Because I am traveling for the next week-plus, my internet access may be chancy some days. betsythedevine (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good! I will add that, while the proposed wording is fine, I disagree with Lexein's suggestion that it should not get its own section heading. I'd suggest a section heading of ==DYK nomination== cmadler (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I also think the small header would not be intrusive. Surely the notice could be left on the article talk page if nobody cares about it, or removed to its archives manually if anybody cares to do so. I don't think getting the notice removed afterward is something that needs to be coded into a notice-leaving bot before it begins. betsythedevine (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

A header is essential. There might already be talk page traffic. Adding some text without a header might look like adding to the latest discussion. Schwede66 17:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

←A bot for this is feasible. The way I see it, the bot would add a notice (with its own header, and therefore its own section) on the talk page. The notice wouldn't be removed from the talk page later. There's one piece that's still niggling at me though: how will users interpret the bot not placing a notice on the talk page? Will they assume it's a bug in the bot, or a problem with the syntax of the nomination? I'm also concerned about users using the talk page notice as "proof" that the nomination is syntactically correct (but I don't foresee this being much of a problem). Shubinator (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have good answers to those questions-- And new questions may arise later too, but could you deploy the bot and see what happens? I think the bot will solve bigger problems than it creates, and I am grateful to you for working on it. betsythedevine (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree; even if some such issues arise, I think this will be a net improvement. cmadler (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I dislike starting a project with vague areas not filled in; the answer to the questions would affect how I make the bot. I'll put it on my to-do list though...I'm fairly busy for the next few months, so I'm not sure when I'll be able to get to it. Shubinator (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

<--Perhaps it would solve some of the issues you mention if the bot also posted an informative notice to the talk page of the person who filed the DYK, for example saying:

"Thank you for nominating Name of Article for Misplaced Pages's Did you know? column. Please check its DYK discussion Template:Nono here (a link to article's discussion at DYK) to be sure it is formatted correctly and to keep track of input from other users."

Thanks again for considering adding this to your already-substantial contribution to Misplaced Pages. betsythedevine (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That would work; it shifts the responsibility of finding syntax errors off of the bot. I'll probably add the "formatted correctly" disclaimer to the article talk page notice, since figuring out who nominated a DYK isn't straightforward. Shubinator (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Competition redux

It's been almost three years since I suggested a competition looking for candidates for broader hooks. Might be worth thinking about again in the face of comments about esoteric or boring hooks. If folks can scour a few areas and list a few areas where there are still stubs of less than, say, 150 words of text (or possibly bigger but are really an easy 5x expand). Shall I relist the categories again for thinking about? Okay then....(NB: Some of the old candidates are still unexpanded - as before, maybe leave off expanding to just get a feel for hwat is actually out there....)Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Great idea. I'm going to add a category and suggest that we also include redlinks here. cmadler (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

And look, I've been on wikipedia for five years and I'd never seen Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks (!!!) - I suspect some exploring there will find some interesting tidbits. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought, but perhaps this could be a potential expansion to the DYK project along the lines of a "requested articles" section seen in WikiProjects. I would say calling it along the lines of "Potential expansions" or somesuch would be suitable. I remember a couple of years ago a similar thing being done for the Christmas DYKs and it was very helpful (as has this been, as I've picked up a couple more article expansions from looking for ones to add here). This could help counter the issues with hooks becoming uninteresting. Miyagawa (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Halloweeny-type things

• Flies graveyard - moving here from food. Miyagawa (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Haha, good call :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Royal Ghost Frog Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Thoricourt Castle - a haunted castle. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Lake Galvė Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• The Talbot Hotel (Northamptonshire) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Bastille Day (i.e. French things for the 14th July)

• Take your pick and look at Category:Stub-Class France articles....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

(I slotted a spot for this one the suggestions page) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Any other special occasion possibilities

Biggest city/town/suburb/hamlet/village (by population)

• Aranui - one of the main suburbs of Christchurch - 30 words! Schwede66 23:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Most prominent geographical feature

• Mainland, Shetland - a wee stub at 76 words (cool name for a cool hook) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Most notable public figure

• Neil MacLean (coroner), first chief coroner of New Zealand, constantly in the media dealing with Pike River Mine disaster and 2011 Christchurch earthquake
• Busby Babes - The famous Manchester United team of the 1960s, currently at 201 words, but completely uncited. Really surprised the article is that small! Miyagawa (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Most notable writer

• Jeanette Eaton - four-time Newbery Medal receipient (retroactive) cmadler (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Doing this one now.BarkingMoon (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Genevieve Foster - four-time Newbery Medal recipient (retroactive) cmadler (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll do this one. BarkingMoon (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Most important literary work

• The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle - 147-word stub for a 300+ page book that won the Newberry Medal. (Aside: this book, published in 1922, is public domain, so a Misplaced Pages effort on the article might be partnered with a Wikisource effort.) cmadler (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • In fact, many of the most important(Newberry Medal-winning) children's novels are stubs. List here. cmadler (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes
• The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes - Miyagawa (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Most widely eaten food or culinary-type thing

• Corn fritters - only a 53 word stub...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Gözleme - 46 words. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Groaty pudding - great name, great alternate name too....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Lemon juice - 115 words. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Low-fat diet - yeah I know it's bigger at 290 words but surely this is a straightforward 5x expand (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Prawn cocktail - 36 wrods, bring on the 70's! Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Vol-au-vent 57 words, ditto...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Cumberland sauce 94 words...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Fairy bread wow! 70 words...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Jonathan (apple) - pretty notable apple breed, and 159 words. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Kalamata (olive) - I'll give this one a go for a change in topics. Miyagawa (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Cabanossi
• Spatchcock
• Tomato soup - 151 words but pretty common recipe. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Pumpkin soup
• Celebrity chef - at a mere 42 words currently. Miyagawa (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• French Fancy
• Chelsea bun
• Back bacon - adding another. Miyagawa (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Most important plant

• Aiouea - any plant name this long with all vowels should have a good story...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Ajuga - only 56 words. Importance genus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Most notable animal

• Blue-knobbed Curassow - you gotta laugh at the name...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Red-knobbed Imperial Pigeon ditto Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Screaming Hairy Armadillo- 93 words...just has a great name :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done AshLin (talk) 06:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Aha ha
• Calponia harrisonfordi - Couple more uniquely named animals. Miyagawa (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Black Bishop and Yellow-crowned Bishop - funny names and nice pix. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

working yellow-crowned bishop now.BarkingMoon (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Black Bishop now. BarkingMoon (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Saxon Monk, Saxon Shield, Polish Helmet, Dragoon (pigeon) - All pigeon breeds with some wonderful names. Miyagawa (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Orange-eared Tanager - nice image, south american so a little exotic...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Masked Crimson Tanager - nice image, south american so a little exotic..Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Mangrove Pitta - nice painting, tropical exotic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Hooded Dotterel -aaawwww, cute :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• White-headed Buffalo-weaver ditto. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Most notable unreferenced BLP

The House of Lame

Sorry to be a bore again, but on one of my rare visits to the main page today I saw this:

"Did you know ... that Gidleigh Park, a hotel-restaurant in Chagford, Devon, England, is located in a Tudor-style country house (pictured) set in 54 acres of gardens and woodlands?"

Well, I never ... how amazing.

It is a significant problem that the framing of DYK hooks is premised on the unusual, the surprising, the striking: "Hey, did you know ...?" Now, the fact that some hotel is a Tudor-style country house, and OMG more surprising, it's set in a large garden and woodland, might belong on a spin-doctored tourist brochure—where readers are apt to expect exaggeration to meet a commercially driven purpose to sell accommodation; but the main page of WP is quite different. There is nothing striking or unusual about the fact paraded as intrinsically unusual or noteworthy, and it is a let-down when the hook fails to live up to the theme.

If editors want to retain the narrow scope of new articles alone (why, I've never worked out), they need to bear the consequence that it's not easy to find a mass of suitable hooks in the frame that is currently used. Better to either (1) drop the expectant "Did you know?", which is what creates the expectation in the first place, and use "New articles" or "From our newest articles" or similar; or (2) ration the hooks to those that do work with such an expectation.

It wouldn't be The House of Lame if the expectation weren't set up. It's all wrong. Now bag me as much as you want for being a wet blanket, but I'm only telling you what the readers experience. Tony (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Tony, it is no surprise to me that we promote boring hooks (I might have put this up to the queues, because the queues were empty). It would be more helpful if you posted such comments, in a brief form, for any hook you find boring on T:TDYK. Materialscientist (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Material Scientist, thanks, I might have posted it there, but I think this is a generic issue. It could be solved by promoting fewer and allowing slightly older articles to be the subject of hooks, too. I suppose people are wary of promoting fewer, because DYK might come under pressure to yield space on the main page. That problem could be managed by collaboration with whoever manages the whole page. I know these matters have come up before, and there has been no consensus to do anything about it. This is disappointing. Tony (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(i) The reality is a DYK nom is fired and is sitting, waiting for feedback; picking that nom "slower" or "later" doesn't solve the problem of proper reviewing. (ii) T:TDYK is wide open to everyone, even anons. If you see any way to promote its existence, add extra links somewhere, please do. Only emergency problems can be solved when the hook hits the main page. Materialscientist (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• OK, I hear you. I note that the selection criteria include: "Try to pick articles that are ... interesting to a wide audience." Hmmm. For the record, here's my lame-index for the current display, from 1 (very lame) to 10 (highly suitable). Anything 6 or above passes the interest test, in my view:

• ... that according to Hindu mythology, the god-king Indra was cursed with having a thousand vagina marks on his body for having extra-marital sex with Ahalya (pictured)?

• ... that after World War II the 8th (Midlands) Parachute Battalion had to deal with riots in Tel Aviv?

• ... that the 10th or 11th-century Old Bulgarian Enina Apostle is the oldest Cyrillic manuscript currently part of a Bulgarian collection?

• ... that during his student days, working on spermatogenesis, UCSF Medical Center pediatric cardiologist Julien Hoffman developed a close relationship with Sydney Brenner and Phillip V. Tobias?

• ... that when the 5,800-seat Four Seasons Arena was built at Montana ExpoPark in 1979 it lacked air conditioning?

• ... that Elastica's 1995 song "Waking Up" resulted in the band being sued for plagiarism?

• ... that the Classic Aircraft Aviation Museum in Hillsboro, Oregon, once bought a fighter jet from a car dealership?

I think editors should consider one or more of the following:

1. Push the interest bar higher: this is the overriding one. The interest criterion is not being met in too many hooks.
2. Bigger pool of articles to choose from ("New", Criterion 1, needs to be loosened up).
3. Fewer hooks at any one time.
4. Keep the good ones there for longer. (Nom page might specify longer and shorter durations.)
5. Allow some hooks to be longer, since many lame hooks might be acceptable with just a little more information. Tony (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Allowing some hooks stay longer is not feasible, mostly for technical reasons (the bot swaps entire set and will likely mess up formatting if we design a system with individual timing for every hook). Fixed hook length urges concise formulation, and we can usually reformulate any long hook into less than 200 chars; when there is no easy way to do that we can (and do) allow longer hooks. Main page balance is a factor. We are flexible and the number of DYK hooks varies between 6 and 10 to keep that balance. Posting fewer hooks will inevitably reduce the variety of topics, which is important. Bigger nomination pool overloads reviewers and lowers the quality of selection. Some hooks are universally boring, like Julien Hoffman; for some we can't apply "I don't get it" arguments. For example, I believe many of our readers were not born yet in the 1970s and can't imagine a 4-season indoor sports arena without an aircon system. I'm not a specialist in Old Bulgaria, but I recall their alphabet was developed in the 9th century. Maybe writing was exotic then, and a 10th century manuscript is quite unique in this sense. There are many more factors which I either forgot or didn't mention. That said, I do agree that we should be tougher to boring hooks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that we should be tougher on boring hooks. But the problem is, as has been often mentioned here before, what's boring to some people can be very interesting to others. Until we can find a way of resolving this dichotomy, there will always be "boring" hooks. —Bruce1ee 08:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

So it's a boring encyclopedia? And on the main page, the In the news section is full of boring bits? And the featured content is boring? There are indeed ways of ensuring that commonplace associations do not make it onto the main page. For example, "... that Marga T's novel, Badai Pasti Berlalu, spawned a critically acclaimed film, album, and song?" I mean, give me a break. This is one of thousands, isn't it? What is special about it? Could we start by seeing things from the readers' point of view? DYK is not for editors' gratification. Tony (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree some hooks are objectively substandard. Any hook which highlights an unexceptional, everyday fact instead of an unusual one is a prime candidate for rejection. Unfortunately, this project in general does not have enough oversight. Gatoclass (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it might require more inventiveness on the part of the nominator or reviewer or others. I am not sure I agree with Tony1's ratings of the above. I thought the aircon one was alright....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I've been in too many nice sports arenas or maybe it's because I was born in the 1980s, but I also liked the air conditioning hook. Maybe it's the history major in me, but I thought the Cyrillic manuscript hook was interesting. The Hoffman hook should have explained why the close relationship mattered. So I see the Hoffman hook as boring and the other six as interesting, so in the example set above 1 out of 7 hooks was boring. OCNative (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I was notified of this discussion by Dahn, and given that one of my recent hooks was rated a 2 out of 10, I was prompted to express my opinion. Some people may find this disappointing, but it is not among the main goals of an encyclopedia to be interesting. Yes, some facts are boring and some articles consist solely of what many may consider boring facts. Yet, these articles may well be useful, encyclopedic and well-written.

As OCNative wrote above, another way to look at things is that different facts are interesting to different people. Like Dahn and OCNative, I honestly don't understand what's so terribly wrong with my hook about the Enina Apostle. In fact, I welcome anyone who feels they can extract a better hook from the article text to do this.

Perhaps Tony found it boring because he has little personal interest in Bulgaria, Balkan history and linguistics or Cyrillic religious manuscripts? For some readers, that is to be expected, but we cannot discard certain topics just because a fraction of all people do not like them. I don't really read much about maths and physics, does that mean new articles related to these topics should be discouraged because I personally find them boring by default? This is highly subjective.

I believe authors and nominators do their best to come up with an engaging hook: after all, who doesn't want their article to reach a broader audience via DYK? And let's not forget that reviewers are welcome to suggest revisions to the hook or a new hook altogether. There's nothing wrong with the DYK process as it currently is, and I believe Tony's points above are highly subjective. I'm not denying that some hooks may be poorly chosen and bland, but I do not think the process in any way promotes this. Or maybe I just have a vast variety of interests :) — Toдor Boжinov — 17:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would have given that hook a 5. It meets the unusual test, but just barely. However, I think for anyone interested in the topic it would be sufficient to pique interest, and that's another factor to be taken into consideration. Gatoclass (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering that we have a lack of hooks, having to set the bar high will slow the DYK to a crawl. Now, I understand that some hooks, like mine indicated by Tony, are "objectively boring", but considering the fact that that was a 5 article hook, it can probably be overlooked. The Hall of Fame is full of those kinds of hooks. Personally, I think saving the "hookiest" hook for last is usually enough. Also, I must wonder about the rules for "misrepresentation". Some hooks just need a little creative phrasing to be interesting... Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the editors above who point out how subjective any rating of "lame" is. For example, the Badai Pasti Berlalu hook that Tony trashes above as being only for the editor's gratification is the only one of that batch that I clicked through to read, both because I'm interested in international literature, and because it struck me as rare to have a critically-acclaimed novel generate a critically-acclaimed song. ("One of thousands"? Seriously?) I also liked the Bulgarian one that got a "2" above. I rarely click on specialized astronomy, botany, or physics topics, but I don't think we should censor them, either; for me, the esoterica is half the fun. I see the point that some hooks are hooky-er than others to a general audience, but I don't see any practical way to enforce the Tony-scale short of asking Tony for a more thorough list of his personal interests that we could post for other editors. I vote to keep the system as is. Khazar (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a side note: Although Tony's ratings up there were generally indicative of the response received (i.e. under 5, less than 1000 hits, over 5, more hits), they were not perfect. The parachute platoon (a 7) got 3,600 hits, compared to 2,900 for the aviation museum (a 10). I think this proves that the "lame factor" is truly subjective. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm amazed that my ratings would be born out in the relative hits. They're only to an accuracy of ± 1, hee.

Crisco, why not aim to boost the average number of hits for DYK overall? What proportion of hits on the main page lead to a DYK link hit, I wonder? To me, one obvious improvement would be to have fewer DYKs and leave them there for longer: one or the other or both. And having, say, one hook fewer at any particular time would allow the pic to be just a little bit larger, which would be so much more effective in drawing the eye down to the section. Some of those pics are ruined by microscopic size (like the current 12 man nom: it's a great pic, but hey, give me a magnifying glass. DYK needs to be sold to the readers. It's too passive at the moment. Tony (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think something that should not be overlooked is the way in which DYK acts as an incentive for editors to write articles of a decent length and quality rather than leaving them as stubs. Making it harder to get an article to DYK by having fewer appear or throwing out the ones considered by some to be too boring won't help matters on that front. A better way would be to relax the rules on so called "misleading" hooks. In the past some of the hooks I've suggested, that have started off as sounding quite interesting, have become so watered down by the time they've reached the main page that I wouldn't even have read the articles myself. Take a look at this current nomination for example, the wording is quite correct in context but because it uses a common term in an unfamiliar way there are calls for it to be changed - Basement12 (T.C) 13:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely with Basement insofar as making DYK harder to achieve could make people unwilling to develop articles, and his call for reform to the so called "misleading hooks". I remember clearly suggesting "... that during the bombing of Darwin in World War II, a gunner's hearing was so acute that he detected approaching Japanese aircraft before they showed up on radar?" but it was considered too misleading, even though it would have drawn more hits. It got 6.4K hits with the hook it used, but I think it could have gotten more with a little more oomph.

Tony, if we were to have fewer DYKs we'd end up with a pretty big backlog. Besides negating the Swahili rule, it would make more work for us. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a passing comment: I agree with thinking about the "reader's perspective". But exactly who are the readers? I have seen no analysis of that anywhere, seen no data and frankly I have no idea. A newspaper such as NY Times has various models of who the readers are, and TV stations have chart after chart of viewer characteristics, demographics, etc. by time of day. There is none of that for Misplaced Pages, so I can not know. Are the readers mostly students? Retired people? Airline pilots having drinks? I do not know. Does anyone? Or is everyone just guessing? Do we even know the readers by continent from IP addresses? E.g X% in the US, Y% in EU, Z% in Asia? Anyway, just a thought. History2007 (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't know if those are tracked. Probably not, for privacy reasons. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

At least these are tracked:

How about leaving the boring ones on for half the time? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

DYKSTATS reform?

So a couple weeks ago, Johnbod expressed this concern that non-lead hooks with over 20,000 views in DYKSTATS were being relegated to a lesser table of "Non-lead hooks with over 11,000 views" instead of being seen in the "Lead hooks with over 20,000 views" table; he pointed out that Euthanasia Coaster was the second-most viewed hook ever but was in the lesser table simply because it was a non-lead hook. (There are 8 non-lead hooks with over 20,000 views, by the way.) In that discussion, one proposal was discussed but was unable to gain traction due to it resulting in the creation of a new table and making the page longer.

Looking at the DYKSTATS page today, I thought of a new way to solve the problem Johnbod described without lengthening the page. What if one table were titled "Hooks with over 20,000 views" and the other table were titled "Non-lead hooks with 11,000–20,000 views" on DYKSTATS? This would have the net effect of simply moving 8 hooks from the second table to the first table. OCNative (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Works for me, but why distinguish btwn lead and non-lead at all? Just have a column for the pic and if it was lead, put in the pic, if not, don't put in the pic.BarkingMoon (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

@BarkingMoon - not to confuse the editors (the threshold for inclusion is different for different categories), @OCNative - why debating over one hook (it is a very rare event that non-lead gets >20k views; only happened recently)? Materialscientist (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about my muddling the issue, Materialscientist, my explanation on Euthanasia Coaster was to provide background context. What I meant to convey is that the way the tables are set up due seem to diminish the success of the 8 non-lead hooks with over 20,000 views (kind of like how there's adults' tables and kids' tables at weddings). I believe your note about how "it is a very rare event that non-lead gets >20k views" is a reason why we should make the change. These 8 hooks should be acknowledged for their extraordinary accomplishment (by the way, five of them were from 2011, and 1 each from 2010, 2009, and 2008). OCNative (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The "non-lead" table is not a "lesser" table, it's just the non-lead table. Putting the non-lead hooks in the existing lead hook table will diminish their achievement in my view, rather than highlight it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Say what you like, it is at the bottom of the page, and it's likely that far fewer people get it in their "view" at all. This is the old argument about the womens' galleries in synagogues ("closer to heaven") and so forth. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• OCNative's suggestion seems an excellent one to me - one could also add "See also Euthanasia Coaster etc etc above" which would just take 1 or 2 lines. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a good reason for having separate lists: One table has a slot for images, while the other one does not. Regardless, if you ask me, a place at the top of the non-lead hooks list is a place of honor -- and, anyway, DYKSTATS doesn't really matter, does it? --Orlady (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The 8 non-lead hooks being placed in the first table would show their extraordinary accomplishment because they would stand out by not having pictures. I should note the month by month tables of hooks with over 5,000 views do mix lead and non-lead hooks. Also, there are 83 hooks in the first table (lead hooks over 20,000) and 132 in the second table (non-lead hooks over 11,000); moving these 8 would make it 91 hooks in the first table (all hooks over 20,000) and 124 in the second table (non-lead hooks between 11,000-20,000). OCNative (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm with OCNative on this. Schwede66 10:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"Non-lead hooks between 11,000 and 20,000" sounds like a pretty odd categorization to me. One alternative might be to change the first table to "Hooks with over 20,000 views" and leave the second table as is, then list the non-leads with over 20k views in both tables. Gatoclass (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I would not oppose this proposal, but I believe the previous discussion objected to that proposal (or at least one similar to it) although this thread seems to have attracted far more commenters than that last one. OCNative (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Multiple article hooks

I am currently working on 5/6 new/expanded related articles, which I would like to include in one hook. In these circumstances, can the hook be longer than 200 characters? Will I be required to review the same number of other articles as new articles in the hook? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The length rule for such hooks is as follows. Compose a hook. Remove all bolded items but one. Count the length. it should be within 200 chars. As I recall, you're required to review one nom per one nom of yours (single or multiple; correct me if ..). Materialscientist (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict, the following question now answered above, thank you,

To my knowlege: the hook may be longer, and you have to review hook for hook, not article for article. I was granted a longer hook for three singers (for example) as a suggestion of the reviewer, but I don't know exactly how much longer the hook may be. Is it somewhere in the rules? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

We're a little flexible on multis, but there are very few hooks that require more than 200 characters minus the bolded article names above one. If your hook has more than that, it could probably use some trimming in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Finishing prep 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

never mind, finished it myself after sleep etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been adding to prep area 2, and am running out of time before I have to get to sleep (late here) and there are a couple of chores elsewhere I must attend to. Anyone is welcome to hoe in and finish prep area 2. thanks, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Prep 3

Can someone pull the lead hook off Prep 3 and place it in the holding area to be added on June 19? The person who placed it there didn't read the fine print. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed it myself but that batch needs a new lead hook. Perhaps we need something eye-catching when doing noms that a certain suggestion has to be moved to the holding area. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Or just move it to a hold area yourself and when you remove a lead hook, replace it yourself and let people know without the snarky comments.BarkingMoon (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Getting lead hook now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, I don't move hooks to prep area, not that I can't do it, but I just don't want to screw up (and I hadn't done it before). Hence I left this message to point out that one of the prep areas don't have a lead hook.

I thought I can't edit it, then I found that I can, so I just left this notice just the same so that everyone's notified. Perhaps in the DYK nom template there should be a separate parameter for suggesting a suitable date, formatted in a way that you can't miss so that the person moving it to the prep area is notified.

P.S. I won't apologize for the snarky comments which are the truth. If it hurts you ask someone to ban me. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No it's not true, but at least we know what you are now. BarkingMoon (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sheeesh! It was ignored plain and simple. What else what that? It was pseudo-ignored? lol–HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I chose one with a plant image that looks nice small. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2nd

There is an item in the special holding area for June 2nd (Thursday), and may need attention, whoever has the modification rights for the queue etc. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are two items for Ascension day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, they can of course both run. But i do not know if non-admins can pop them into the queue, else I would do it. History2007 (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

First step is prep, no admin needed, but you should not move your own. I hesitate to do it at all, because I don't feel familiar enough with the rules to arrange a set. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Those two hooks are now in the queue, BUT. The one with a pic (not mine) about art (!) is in q1 without the pic, just saying "example pictured", which should at least be "examples pictured", because the article has more than one, and the commons have more than I am willing to count. The hook would make more sense with the pic, instead of a green plant in the same set. Also it will appear very late, at least in Europe the day is almost over then. Worse for the other one, prep4 at present, which will not make the feast day for most of the world. Could that be swapped? Nathaniel Merrill (q1) would be a possibility. - Ascension Day is an important feast, which I hope can be acknowledged exactly because it is not observed as a holiday in many parts of the world. Bach scored more complex than for Christmas! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

US National Archives DYK collaboration

Hello, denizens of DYK! This summer I am serving as the first Wikipedian in Residence at the US National Archives (see Signpost article and WP:NARA for more information).

One of the first projects I would like to try would be related to the National Archives' "Today's Document" feature. I have written up a proposed editing challenge at Misplaced Pages:GLAM/NARA/Today's Document challenge. The National Archives will offer high-resolution images of documents as well as some kind of link back to the Misplaced Pages article from the National Archives' site and credit for the author, or even the chance to select a document for the National Archives to feature. In return, they would like to be able to stimulate content creation by Wikipedians related to the National Archives' holdings—either about documents themselves or about things the documents are needed to describe—and DYK seems like a useful benchmark to use for this project.

This project is still very much just in the idea phase, and I would like to solicit feedback from the DYK regulars. Basically, the main questions I have are "Do you like the overall idea?," "Do you have any specific suggestions for improvements to the process I've outlined?," and "Would you want to help publicize, or even write content, for this project?" If you have any comments, or questions of your own, please feel free to discuss here or at the project's talk page. Thanks! Dominic·t 13:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Rush request for June 1

Responding to the above announcement, I just put together a National Archives article which relates to a photograph that will be featured tomorrow, June 1. I would like somebody to quickly approve Desegregation in the United States Marine Corps and slot it into Queue 4 for a noon appearance in New York. Is that possible? Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's awesome. I can certainly upload a high-res version of that image and have the National Archives page updated to reflect your article in time for tomorrow. Hopefully the DYK folks can accommodate the short notice as well. Way to go! Dominic·t 21:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

See the above request, please. I would love to have the article Desegregation in the United States Marine Corps placed in queue 4 with its image, pushing the current prep 4 lead hook to a different queue. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

We should get consensus on hook approval on the suggestions page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The original reviewer settled upon ALT1. Does that work? Binksternet (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If this rush request can be placed into queue 4, bumping the current queue 4 lead hook, then there is one hour in which to carry out this process. Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have posted to the administrators' noticeboard, since some of the admin watchers here seem to be offline. If it doesn't make it, it's not the end of the world. We're still planning on featuring this in the National Archives' website/Tumblr. Dominic·t 15:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done as Binksternet suggested. The lead hook that was in Q4 before is now in P4. NW (Talk) 15:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If this could be done, how about improvement for 2 June, as suggested above? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all who jumped in on the rush job! Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all who got Bach cantatas in prep at the right time for all of 2011 so far! But the one for the Feast of the Ascension certainly came too late, a simple swap could have helped that. Well, the one for next Sunday is already in prep, let's look forward. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

4 empty queues

There are again 4 empty queues. Can an admin please fill them from the prep sets? Tks. BarkingMoon (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Done - images protected over on commons. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Self-nom rules

Just chucking in an idea for consideration. I fully agree with the requirement for reviewing another hook when self-nominating. The system is working well. However, it does sometimes lead to a difficulty in finding hooks to review. Therefore, I'm putting up for discussion that reviewing another hook or nominating a new article would also be acceptable. The nominator should have no previous involvement with the article, although minor clean-up would probably be OK. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I would accept multiple reviews (if they are substantial) of the same nomination. Too many reviews miss obvious problems. IMO, the major overlooked issues include (i) hook phrasing, (ii) referencing, (iii) checking the article for prose and style. Materialscientist (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Mjroots' proposed change. There is plenty of room for additional reviews, as evidenced by the almost constant stream of corrections posted here, queued hooks pulled back to the nominations page, and mundane hooks that could be improved upon. Of course, anyone can nominate a new/expanded article they haven't worked on, and in such cases the requirement to review another hook is waived. cmadler (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Small issue in Prep area 1

The last hook reads W.D. Childers . But according to title format, it should be W. D. Childers Also as I have moved the page, W.D. Childers is a redirect. Please fix. GaneshBhakt (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Anybody can edit hooks in the prep area, so you don't need any admin support. Schwede66 17:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ascension 2 June soon

Anybody can edit prep, as said above, but q1 still has "example pictured" with no picture, as said before. The rest still applies. Ascension starts in an hour where I live. The German Misplaced Pages will have the Bach cantata on the Main page right then, this is the first time that "en" is "behind", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

4 empty queues again

Need an admin on this again. BarkingMoon (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Two empty now. BarkingMoon (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Prep2

I've returned Nazi talking dogs from Prep2 to the noms page. The article doesn't mention the hook fact at all; ALT6 had been chosen. Can somebody please add a quirky hook to Prep2 to plug the gap? Schwede66 20:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• If you want help, it would be useful to link to the nomination an its current hooks. --Philcha (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Dots and spaces

Could someone pass by T:TDYK and give a ruling on whether the dots and spaces before the hook count towards the 200 characters. (see May 20 Will June)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've always understood it that the dots and the space before the "that" don't count towards the hook length (see previous discussions here and here). From what I can see, there is no mention of this in the DYK rules, but perhaps it should be added somewhere. —Bruce1ee 08:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

One way to really get the discussion going is to stick some draft words into the rules, and I've just done so. Please find it as C8 in the additional rules. C4 might be a more logical spot to it, but I didn't know whether turning the existing rule C4 into C5 etc would break any links or references. Schwede66 20:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Art LaPella's past comments that we do not count the ellipsis nor the leading space, but do count the question mark. I personally do not count "(pictured)" and the like, but this is not settled (see additional rule E5). cmadler (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hans Vogt

The composer was nominated and approved a while ago. His 100th birthday was in May, Maifestspiele were/are mentioned. Changes to his opera (article created by Voceditenore) made me tweak the hook. Does it need another approval? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Dan Savage

Just my personal opinion, but is it necessary to have Dan Savage in 3 different DYKs in a single day? It's as if we're advertising his books for him.--v/r - TP 21:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not IMHO, these are currently in queues 2,3, and prep 1. Can an admin fix this? Perhaps make a combined hook? Not only is it over promotion, and article is only eligible for one DYK/ITN ever. Thanks for catching this! BarkingMoon (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

None of the hooks are for the Dan Savage article specifically. They are for 3 different books of his and each contain a link to his article. I think a combined hook with all three of his books would be great.--v/r - TP 02:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's still over promotion and may have been intentional. A combined hook is the way to go here. BarkingMoon (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold on. Many of our regular and prolific contributors keep submitting articles, at a reasonably high rate, on the same topic. Also, to the better or worse, we regularly feature hooks on commercial products and services (books, songs, hotels, cars, bikes, tourist destination, etc., etc.), which all might be perceived as a promotion. We have no policy at the moment against that. Thus scrutinize individual articles and hooks, and avoid promoting them one after other, but I see no reason (yet) to blame the writing tendency. These 3 hooks will not all fall on the same day, I don't see an easy multihook, and thus sitting back and listening. Materialscientist (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have just resurfaced from RL chores but have no idea how long I've got. I haven't seen the hooks yet. My feelings align with Materialscientist's though I will try and think of a multihook if I can. We regularly have "runs" of content - birds, mushrooms, sharks, some Australian rainforest plants are ones I've done often. Ditto historical architecture of California and the East Coast, and synagogues by others. It really depends on who is writing what. We can space them out I guess.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The analogy of "birds, mushrooms, sharks," isn't valid. There are many varieties of them and they don't conduct smear campaigns like this guy does. The animal analogy would only be valid if we ran a set on the same species.BarkingMoon (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If each hook's main article is a topic of its own and shouldn't be merged, and neither the article or the hook are written in a promotional tone, then they are valid. The best way to avoid the "overpromotion" would be simply to space them in the queque. One, then one or two runs of other DYKs without it, the second, another group, and the third. Cambalachero (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A new thread has started below on this very group of Dan Savage hooks for very similar concerns. OCNative (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The New Girl in Town

I just expanded this article to 15,000 bytes, does it still qualify for DYK? AJona1992 (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's well over a 5x expansion of prose (lists and tables don't count) within the last 5 days and has over 1500 char prose per DYKcheck. An article needs to meet that or be a new article with over 1500 char of prose. It can't ever have been at DYK or ITN before either. Those are the basic requirements. You can nominate it at T:TDYK. BarkingMoon (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I have included it there. AJona1992 (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Shuffle Q4 hooks?

Might it make more sense to switch the positions of the third hook and the final hook in Queue 4 since the third hook is far quirkier than the final hook?

(The third hook is: ... that Tennessee governor Newton Cannon's animosity toward fellow Tennessean Andrew Jackson, who was U.S. president during his governorship, may have started with gambling losses at Jackson's racetrack?)

(The last hook is: ... that Lola Sanchez was a spy during the American Civil War who provided information to the Confederate Army, which led them to a victory over the Union Forces in the "Battle of Horse Landing"?)

OCNative (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Any mops available? Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Reshuffled. Materialscientist (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Nazi Dog DYK

Currently in Prep Area 1, shouldnt this DYK say the Nazi's "trained" a dog? I mean, it's not like they bought the parts off ebay and put the dog together with some glue.--v/r - TP 15:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it. It doesn't say they "made a dog"; it says "they made a dog call Hitler 'Mein Fuhrer'." rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Stalled nom?

Jewish response to The Forty Days of Musa Dagh was nominated on May 29th, but appears yet to receive a review beyond the one from a user who was subsequently blocked for hounding the article's creator. Anybody care to take a look? I'd do it myself, but I started working on the article to help with issues raised in the negative review. Khazar (talk)

I'll review it after I'm done building the preps. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"Nazi talking dogs" hook

In queue 1, the hook

• ... that Nazi scientists claimed to have trained a dog to call "Adolf Hitler" as "Mein Führer"? is a hook supported by all tabloid references, with the only non-tabloid reference being ref nine, and arguably ref 2 is alright. Is this O.K? Albacore (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This is certainly a controversial hook. The way I see it, the sources are repeating information found in a book (although in a much more sensationalist way). I'd love for Nazi documentation to turn up (for verifiability, of course) to help develop the article further, but I wouldn't be able to read it if it did turn up and it would probably be difficult to find. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

See the talkpage for the article. This has been accepted for DYK and put in a queue twice now. Meanwhile, seeing the discussion here and on the proposals page, I looked for German refs and found enough (in response to the press coverage of the book, but in one case including a report of a phone interview with the author; and one of the German sources I found is Süddeutsche Zeitung, which is solidly reliable) that I would have rewritten the article in a way that does not totally depend on (mostly but not entirely tabloid) reports about the chapter in the book and focuses on and moved it to a more neutral title - the name of the school, which was founded in 1930. The facts that Nazis wished to utilise the school's research and that one dog is reported to have vocalised "Mein Führer" are both adequately supported, IMO, and I didn't want to cause a big disturbance after the article was approved and put in the queue the second time. But I do think this article should be rewritten to make use of the German stories and to broaden its scope from "Nazis". And either the book or the English-language newspapers have at least one error: it wasn't some place called Leutenburg near Hanover, it was Leutenberg in Thuringia, a good long way from Hanover. - But I didn't get a response on the talkpage and it got put in a queue again, so I was waiting till after it ran on DYK to rewrite and move it. Which I am still inclined to do, including the geographic correction - I don't have the book and it seems likely that's what the book says. The article has been judged by several people to be a fair representation of what the book says and what the author has said in clarification (sources on the last including the BBC; I tracked that down and checked it). Yngvadottir (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead hook?

Please see this discussion. Thank you. Diego Grez (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Responded.BarkingMoon (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd actually love more input. Diego Grez (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know what it is between you two, but Barking seems to be downright discourteous. --Ohconfucius 02:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Link to dab page in Queue 2

The last hook of Queue 2 links to disambiguation page Irish. The link should be removed (my preference) or disambiguated to Ireland or Irish people. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Delinked. Materialscientist (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Disappeared hooks

I recently noticed that a prep I build was cleared, possibly by accident. I may have moved too quickly to build it, but now none of the hooks I originally added are in either the prep or on T:TDYK. The prep has been repopulated with different hooks. Could somebody either return the hooks I selected to T:TDYK or revert to the prep I built? I'd do it, but I have class in a little bit and don't quite have the time. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that it had already been cleared before I built the prep. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit you linked says "Clear, moved to Queue/3". So I went to Q3 and found your set there. Preps are cleared after the composed sets are promoted to the queues. Is there anything I missed? When composing a set, please add {{inuse}} in the preparation page (e.g. between the image and the first hook) and remove when done - this would help others understand the timing. Materialscientist (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Darn, you're right... never mind. I was confused because right now Prep 1 (which I worked on but is now Queue 3) was in front of Prep 2, which I also worked on but is still intact, and after Prep 4 (which I also worked on). Aren't preps supposed to be moved to the queue in order? :-s Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Better ask the one who moved it - there could be various reasons for not promoting sets in order.

Once we are here. Can we have a discussion on the lead of Q3 (which I would not let live as is and either return or update as uninteresing). What were your thoughts when promoting it? Materialscientist (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• ... that the conservation status of Grey Crowned Cranes (pictured), found in wetland-grassland habitats of Eastern and Southern Africa, including Tanzania, is listed as vulnerable?

Of the accepted alts, that one looked best in my opinion because of the picture. The others, such as "... that the wildlife of Tanzania includes some plant species unique to Tanzania, such as the African violet (pictured)?" weren't very hooky either. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

In general, don't hesitate leaving a ? template, with a note that the hook(s) does not sound interesting (promotion does include some evaluation), and try another nom at T:TDYK. Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. I'll readd it to T:TDYK, but could you remove it from the queue? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe leave it be and wait for other comments (alt hooks - e.g., maybe just saying that it is found in that country will do). Materialscientist (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Leave it in the queue or at T:TDYK? If you prefer just saying that ALT4 ... that the vulnerable Grey Crowned Cranes (pictured) is found in wetland-grassland habitats in Tanzania?", that would be okay too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the hook in Q3 with what first comes to mind, anything better is surely welcome. Materialscientist (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Edmund Ser

This DYK has been sitting in the suggestion box for several days now and has not been reviewed, Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_June_1. Would anyone mind please taking care of it for me.--v/r - TP 00:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a few nominations older than yours that haven't been reviewed yet. They'll all (including yours) be reviewed in time. Shubinator (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

My bad.--v/r - TP 12:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Toolserver maintenance

Toolserver is undergoing system-wide maintenance tonight, which means the server hosting DYKUpdateBot and DYKHousekeepingBot will be down temporarily. I'll move DYKUpdateBot onto my computer for tonight so DYK will update with no interruption. Both bots will be restarted on Toolserver before the 16:00 UTC update. Shubinator (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Toolserver maintenance complete, bots restarted, and everything's back to normal. Shubinator (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed some of my self noms

After a concern was raised at my user talk page, I voluntarily took the initiative to remove a few self-noms from consideration at the suggestions page T:TDYK — please see diff. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see my note on your talk page, an attempt to talk you out of this course of action. - Dravecky (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Savage hook currently in queue 1 ought also to be removed. There were two DYKs about Dan Savage on June 5, another one in the queue, and another four suggested, all by Cirt, which is clearly inappropriate. SlimVirgin 06:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I dispute the clarity of the inappropriateness. The hook, as approved, should stay. The others can be better spaced out by thoughtful editors assembling queues rather than simply disappeared. - Dravecky (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Request: I respectfully request that the DYK submission currently in Template:Did you know/Queue/1 which is credited to myself, please be removed from consideration. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the discussion at Talk:Santorum (neologism), it's clear that User:SlimVirgin is not a disinterested party but rather a politically motivated actor. As such, I have restored the approved hooks that they have deleted from the nominations page. A thorough discussion of these hooks and how to deal with them, not merely a browbeating of one editor and an essentially unilateral decision, should take place before any deletion of approved hooks takes place for political reasons. - Dravecky (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No comment on that, but respecting the request by Cirt, I have removed (replaced) his hook from Q1. Materialscientist (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dravecky, I have no political motivation in this case. My concerns are in the one case BLP, and here that DYK has crossed into active promotion. SlimVirgin 07:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Request: I have removed my self-noms from T:TDYK a 2nd time, diff. I respectfully request that they not be considered. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Out of respect for Cirt, I will let the matter drop for now. I'm still deeply troubled that outside political forces are being brought to bear on a talented content creator and that the system has been gamed to both hide that editor's contributions and the browbeat that editor into backing away from content creation. - Dravecky (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you think it's okay to have seven DYKs about one writer in the space of not much over a week, in addition to three templates created, one article, and yet another expanded five-fold. That's clearly inappropriate, and if DYK is allowing this kind of thing it needs to be overhauled. SlimVirgin 07:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Spacing of hooks on related subjects is a matter for thoughtful queue assembly, not deletion. DYK does it all the time with sports, bugs, polticians, and plenty of other topics that crop up in clusters. As DYK has nothing to do with template creation and is actually designed to encourage both article creation and expansion, the clarity you have achieved escapes me. - Dravecky (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

But thoughtful queue assembly wasn't working, given you had two DYKs about one freelance writer on the main page on the same day, with another one about the same person at the top of the queue, and another four suggested. So clearly something went wrong in this case. This is not the encouragement of article creation and expansion. This is the encouragement of promotion, with articles being created and expanded in the service of that. SlimVirgin 07:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a very troubling display of censorship. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Coming into this discussion only now, I would like to see at least some of approved hooks on the Main page, spaced in time. I hope we don't have to change rules, just encourage observation of the prep of more people to detect unwanted "repetition". - Having said that, I'm going to suggest two more Bach cantatas for Pentecost, simply because Bach performed three each year on three days. Afterwards we will get to the less festive half of the liturgical year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Even more troubling is that Cirt (who has a goodly number of DYKs), is quitting DYK. To quote his edit summary: "Undid revision 432807806 by Dravecky (talk) = removed my hooks. will not be editing this page again in the future. respectfully request they not be considered." I think the Savage hooks were fine, they just needed to be spaced a bit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Preface: I will preface my remarks to note that just three days ago, I was accused of a conservative bias for expressing concerns about a DYK nomination about a liberal organization (weirdly, for a political article, the problems weren't POV; the thing was just way off-topic), so I'm assuming I would not be accused of being a defender of Dan Savage (though there is that expression that if you're getting attacked from both the left and the right, then you're probably doing the correct thing). OCNative (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: This seems like a rather heavy-handed response to a problem that could be solved with a softer approach: for example, we could spread the articles out by using the special occasion holding area. Is there something else that's going on that people at DYK are unaware of? Was Cirt topic banned at some point? Did Cirt offer to avoid a topic at some point to avert disciplinary action? Is Cirt an employee/relative/friend/contractor/publisher/distributor of Dan Savage? Is Cirt Dan Savage? Could someone please fill us in on the whole story?
If there is nothing going on other than what's been described on this page, I'm concerned about the precedent it could set:

• Has Gerda Arendt been promoting Johann Sebastian Bach with her various hooks on that individual's songs?
• Has Basement12 been promoting the Paralympic Games with numerous hooks relating to that private organization, including 22 in the month of May alone (several days have featured multiple Paralympic hooks)?
• Was I promoting Stanford University when I did a streak of hooks on alumni of that private institution (11 in one week in April, including 3 in one day, and even 2 in one set)?
• Was I promoting the Parliament of Canada or the New Democratic Party when I nominated several hooks over the course of one week in May featuring 8 Canadian MPs, including 7 from the NDP?

Please tell me there is more to this story that has not been explained in this thread, otherwise this incident could set an unfortunate precedent. I really do hope there is more to this story that hasn't been explained in this thread. OCNative (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

As remarked already on Cirt's talk, I think promotion is a good thing (pro + motion), especially the promotion of knowledge which should be the aim of DYK, imo. I sure hope I have promoted Bach and his cantatas and the Liturgical Year in this sense, and that Cirt will return to promote knowledge. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

OCNative, and others, have a very good point. People tend to edit articles where they are knowledgeable, (or at least they should). Doing lots of work in one particular area may have nothing to do with advocacy or promotion, it may simply be a reflection of which area where someone is knowledge. This edit was particularly threatening, which is surprising because Cirt's response was to simply comply with requests and withdraw completely. I am not sure what more he could have to cooperate completely. But it seems he is all done here, so the issue is for better or worse closed. But it is handling of the issue is very disappointing all the same. Thenub314 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nominations good, where are they?

I nominated Death of Selena, The New Girl in Town, and Barrio Boyzz, and were all ready to go. However, Death of Selena, has now been moved to "older nominations" and still hasn't been placed on Did you know..., is there a problem that I didn't check? AJona1992 (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no schedule for reviews. Although it might be frustrating to sit and wait for the review to complete, this is normal. Your nominations will be reviewed, and their moving to the "old" section on the T:TDYK page means nothing in terms of their quality or suitability. Materialscientist (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Being in Old Nominations does not mean anything is wrong. All of them have been reviewed, and The New Girl in Town and Barrio Boyzz have already been approved. Death of Selena is waiting on a couple editors. You just have to wait; everything is okay. Hooks go to the queue starting with the oldest, so your nominations will wait a few days. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh alright, thanks for responding. AJona1992 (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Backlog

Queue backlog is at four now. Any mops to fix that? Preps are full. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(Four empty queues) Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be becoming the norm, 2-3 queues empty for hours even most of a day, 4 is not at all unusual either.BarkingMoon (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed normal. Queues and preps do not have to be all filled at all times. It is even better to leave one prep for reshuffling. It takes five minutes to compose a set, provided the reviews are well done. Reviews are the priority. One more (arguable) point: when the hook is moved to preps, it will sit for a few days before going live. If that hook was sitting at T:TDYK, together with its whole review, more people could spot errors. Materialscientist (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Very well. I am just worried about possible backlog at T:TDYK. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Normal doesn't mean okay. And no they don't have to filled every minute but they also shouldn't sit empty for long periods of time. When over half the queues are empty, that is not good, we could easily end up with an empty main page DYK slot, for one thing. We should go to 8 hooks and 6 hour queues too because the noms page is getting more and more backlogged.BarkingMoon (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You can always calculate how many hours will pass until then, and our wonderful bot does that too and posts a message here 2 hours before that happens. Adding more or less prep sets has no effect to the T:TDYK backlog, which is mostly regulated by the number of hooks/set, the update frequency, and the number of valid submissions. Yes, the switch to 6 hour update was forthcoming (248 noms at T:TDYK at the moment, and the tendency is to grow). Any objection to the 8→6 hr change? Materialscientist (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What about 7? Seems we just changed from 6 to 8 a couple weeks ago. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Six is good. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

We did. Six hours and 7 hooks is not good. I thought it was a mistake to go to 8 hours and I'd just "arrived" so I didn't say anything. We should go to 8 hooks too. I didn't say increase the number of prep sets. One of the big problems I see is hooks sitting on the noms page for weeks due to people arguing about wording, which is better etc. The longer it goes on and the more there is to read, the more likely reviewers will just ignore it, exacerbating the situation. The bottom line is the amount of time it takes to get a 'new' hook on the main page is ridiculous, sometimes almost a month. BarkingMoon (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding new sets to prep areas will not make the update faster. As to phrasing - we do regularly feature grammar errors and just odd and incorrect hooks. Many promotions simply rely on the green tick. The pressure from outside the project is to feature less, but of higher quality, whereas we tend to promote anything borderline that fits to our basic criteria of length and novelty, no matter what is written in the hook and the article. Materialscientist (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, I never said make more prep sets, I said 1) rotate the queues every 6 hours and 2) put 8 hooks in a set. The problem is that people don't agree on what is quality, or what is the best phrasing, or what is quirky, or how anally we should interpret the rules. See the DYK nom on "Black Bishop". BarkingMoon (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

<indent>We change the update interval not because of the number of submissions, but because of the tendency in numbers - when it is falling, we may end up with a few dozen suggestions half of which are on buildings (happened before). Our rules are guidelines, and the reviewer is not a robot to mechanically apply them and to deem the nom (un)acceptable - xe can request improvements wherever the article shows signs of major incompleteness, grammar and referencing problems, NPOV, etc., and this contributes to a quality review. Materialscientist (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't address my issues, but eh, I'm a nobody here so I'll move on. BarkingMoon (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists