Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 47

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

History of Christianity

I found a series of "History of christianity" articles by Carlaude, but when I asked on their talk page about nominating them, they haven't responded. I'm not sure if its appropriate to make nominations on their behalf, so I've posted the articles here.

There are ~18 articles in all, but I'm tired now and so I shall "nominate" the remaining articles tomorrow. My question is, are these articles DYK worthy?Smallman12q (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Christianity_in_the_20th_century

... that during the first five years after the Bolshevik revolution, 28 bishops and 1,200 priests were executed.? Created by Carlaude (talk). Nominated by Smallman12q (talk) at 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The numbers are referenced to a 2001 piece by Richard Ostling. While he is a reputable writer on Western Christianity topics, he is at best tertiary, if not quaternary, source here, and definitely obsolete. In the past 8 years a lot of new information popped up, ROC is updating its martirology every year, so current estimates are quite different (this also applies to other numbers listed in his text). 1918-1920 alone are estimated at >9,000 deaths among clergy. Also, the "five year" boundary is awkward because the 1921-1923 extortion campaign hit hard in the fifth year but actually spanned into the sixth. NVO (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Christianity_in_the_19th_century

... that during the 19th century the Russian orthodox church was involved in campaigns of russification, and anti-Jewish pogroms?

Comment: This one is a bit short compared to the rest.

Created by Carlaude (talk). Nominated by Smallman12q (talk) at 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Christianity_in_the_18th_century

... that during the 18th century Restorationism began to devolp ? Created by Carlaude (talk). Nominated by Smallman12q (talk) at 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Christianity_in_the_17th_century

... that during the 17th century Restorationism began to devolp ? Created by Carlaude (talk). Nominated by Smallman12q (talk) at 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Christianity_in_the_16th_century

... that during the 16th century the Council of Trent convened? Created by Carlaude (talk). Nominated by Smallman12q (talk) at 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Too trivial. NVO (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Christianity_in_the_15th_century

... that during the 15th century the Ottaman empire had Christian pograms? Created by Carlaude (talk). Nominated by Smallman12q (talk) at 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the first one, I'd say no. The first had no lead, was littered with tags, and had quite a few unreferenced paras. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no strong objections to nominations, per say, but I am still doing a lot of work on them.

I was just going to do "Did you knows" a bit later. Few if any of these articles, for example, have even a lead written. --Carlaude ^talk 05:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My only concern was that some of the earlier ones will soon reach their "5 day limit". However, because you are composing 20 new articles at once by yourself, it is likely that editors will IAR and allow for a an extension of a day or two. also, thank you for responding. Would you like me to postpone the nominations until you finish, or would you prefer that you self-nominate them now?Smallman12q (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have never done a "DYK" before. I see now the 5-day limit-- I wish I had known before.

If anyone can nominate and write a lead for some of these please do so. I would do it myself, but I am about to do out of town for a day.

By the way, I added hunks of text from various articles to all the 20 early this morning. If this makes some article confusing and will hurt the odds of getting a DYK please just comment it out, , but I would look on a case by case basis. I will add it in later.

If you have partiular requests or questions, I will try to check back in later today.--Carlaude ^talk 11:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Are these new articles, or are they splits from an existing article? (I can't find any "prehistory" of the articles I looked at most closely.) --Orlady (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

They look like work in progress on redactions of other articles to me - the 16th century one has many things repeated about 4 times in different sections. That wouldn't be right for DYK as it is now. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Queue is empty!

The poor old bot just fired a blank as there were no updates in the queue. I've fixed it now, but there is still only one update in the pipeline so if someone could put an update or two together, that would be nice. Gatoclass (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I added one myself but we could use a couple more. Gatoclass (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We currently have NO sets ready to go and it updates in an hour and a half, I'll go do one but we'll need a lot more.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 19:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Giants. That will keep things running for another 15 hours or so :) Gatoclass (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you picked up on my "one and a half" instead of "two and a half", haha.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 19:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for being a neophyte here, but how exactly would one "do a set/update"? I would be inclined to help but I'm not sure what you're talking about. Mahalo, Skomorokh 23:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Great question, Skomorokh. We'd love your help. You've done several DYKs, so you probably understand the suggestions area. You would start with the oldest suggestion to find nominations that have already been approved (or approve more yourself that meet the DYK criteria). Be careful if you find lots of discussion to make sure that it is been worked out. You should also avoid placing any of your own hooks in the prep areas. You assemble a set of hooks at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. If Prep area 1 is full, you can assemble them in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2. An admin will review the prep area and place in one of 6 queues. A bot moves the approved hooks to the main page when the timer says go. The complete process can be found at Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Updating_the_DYK_preparation_area_page. Royal broil 23:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Been away for 12 hours and I come back and the last edit to Prep 1 was mine! As a result of which, there is only update left in the queue again. If someone could throw an update or two together, it would be very handy. Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way

I just wanted to mention that I am almost done a large DYK set on Samuel Coleridge's early poetry. All of them are over 5k before leads, pictures, and formatting. I have also placed the corresponding poems on Wikisource. The hook will be something along the lines of "... that the topics of Samuel Coleridge's early poems included: cannibalism, death, pain, gambling, an Otter, Bars, Pixies, prison raid," etc. The hook is 60 characters for the base and an average of 9 characters for each poem with approximately 16/17 pages. I estimate that the total size will be near 210 (an alternate intro - "the young Samuel Coleridge (pictured) wrote on many topics including:" would be the same amount of characters). The attraction to the hook would be the variety of the descriptives (who would not want to click on cannibalism, for instance?) If anyone was curious about the prep, they can look User talk:Ottava Rima/Samuel Coleridge's early life here and User:Synergy will be working with me on leads, some copyediting, formatting, etc. (with joint credit). Note - some of the pages are long, some are only about 6k. They represent either important moments within his life or within his poetry. Not all of them are complete (Monody is way too large to be finished, and the "Pain" poem needs a little work on the reception and organization. I plan to finish these pages by Friday. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the current paucity of hooks and the undoubtedly interesting hooks you'd be able to form from these articles, perhaps you'd consider breaking them up into a short series of multi-article hooks that will give people time to click on each link rather than a mega-hook that will garner fewer views for each painstakingly crafted article? Give them their moment in the sun (and give DYK some hooks we can spread over a couple of days in the process). It's a win-win. - Dravecky (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No - hooks are supposed to be spread out by theme, culture, and topic. It would be a severe off balance to have late 18th-century British literature receive multiple hooks within a short period. Plus, larger hooks always attract more people overall and the size is part of what makes it a hook (as most people would never think of Coleridge as writing anything beyond Rhyme and Kubla Khan). I have many other pages that can be put up for DYK also, including 6 more sets which I can have finished by the end of next week for the most part. Spreading out this hook would definitely make the others problematic (2 sets more for Coleridge, 3 for Ainsworth). Ottava Rima (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think far more people will read your articles if they are spread out over a number of hooks. And we often have "runs" of articles on a similar theme across a number of days, like the bacon series we are currently doing.

In my experience, a great way to get the maximum number of people to ignore one's hard work is to submit a multi. However, they are your articles, and you can present them any way you choose. Gatoclass (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the run idea on principle and I feel the bacon theme was done poorly. After all, DYK has always been about balance of topics and articles based on the make up of the encyclopedia and new pages in general. I would really hate to have 2 weeks worth of Coleridge simply because there will be over 35 new pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's only one hook per update and they're not all the first or last hook in the update, it won't be an imbalance. Look at updates nowadays, every update has at least one hook on some random place or building, and almost all updates have a hook about some athlete or something. One Coleridge hook per update for a few days will barely be noticeable. And it may be less painful than a single monster hook (granted, I haven't seen the hook yet, but so far I have never seen a 20+ hook that was worth reading—some have been downright incomprehensible). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Besides, he doesn't have to submit 20 separate hooks, the hooks could be broken down into smaller units of, say, two to five articles per hook, that way you wouldn't get an excessive number of hooks on the one topic. Gatoclass (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

And the other authors? I have three other authors that will also be in the update. Then there are other people with DYK. And it isn't a monster hook as it would be only around 200 bytes. Furthermore, there would be nothing exciting for some of the hooks, so people would get tired fast. Regardless, this is to warn people about the requirements. There is no requirement about amount in a hook, so none of this really matters. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

In case this got lost above - the above hook is just the early poems. There is still a series of his Conversation Poems (7 part), to his later works (10 part), to his lectures (7 part), and to his journals ('The Friend, The Watchman) and collections of works. Then there is still Ainsworth, that has the Cruikshank controversy novels (9 part), juvenilia (8 part), and major novels (12 part). Then there are sets on Keats (9 part), Hunt (8 part), and a few others. These will all be finished between now and the first week of July. If the first set of Coleridge is spread out, it will really off balance just -my- hooks. And we have plenty of hooks from my scan of the page, so there is no real concern in that direction. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

An observation

This may be a topic that's been raised here before, and if it has I apologise in advance for raising the issue again.

Out of curiosity I've looked at all of the main page DYKs over the last few days, and with only a few exceptions their quality was pretty abysmal, including serious grammar and spelling errors. Are these the types of articles that really ought to be featured on the main page? Does nobody check them for such basic errors first? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the benefits of DYK is having your page on the mainpage so that people like you can see the errors and then fix the errors. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"People like me" don't count, as I hardly ever look at the main page, and I expect that rather few other regular editors do either. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know the vetting process only extends as far as the number of characters and that the hook has a reference. Quality is sadly not guaranteed. Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not expecting miracles, just an eyeball for basic spelling and grammar. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

We're short on reviewers. You're welcome to propose fixes! There are quite a few sets assembled at the queues right now; take a look. Shubinator (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and are you referring to the hooks or the articles? The hooks are held to a higher standard than the articles; it would take a lot longer for reviewers if we had to give each article a copyedit. Shubinator (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the articles, which were almost uniformly unfit to be showcased on the main page. I'm not talking about a "copyedit", I'm talking about very basic spelling and grammar issues. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Typically, hooks are scrutinized in minute detail, but the article hardly at all. However they are often improved while featured, which is part of the reason for DYK. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Your own contribs shows it takes 3-5 minutes, which would double reviewing time. If we have enough reviewers, sure; but on the weekdays we're usually running out of oxygen. Shubinator (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Then don't put so much rubbish on the main page, be more selective. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps once a hook is moved to the next update page, the article should be given a brief run through to check there are no glaring mistakes? That way, the quality of DYKs is improved while minimising the number of articles this would be done to. Nev1 (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As Johnbod and Ottava said, one of the founding principles behind DYK was that brand new articles were improved while on the Main Page. It isn't rubbish, it's material that could use improvement; exactly what DYK was made for. Shubinator (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't happen though, does it. Not unless I come along. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Shubinator - I keep this page watchlisted in order to see when there is anything urgent. I didn't see a notice about needing reviews at the moment. Perhaps we need a better system that has alerts (a subpage with notices when there are less than, say, 40 approved hooks (5 new queues). I tend to jump in only in emergencies, as my standards tend to be high and drama sometimes comes out when I post concerns (thus, I don't want to tempt fate that often). Ottava Rima (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

#Approved_hooks_still_in_short_supply, #Drama_resolved.2C_approved_hooks_in_short_supply. Shubinator (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably got lost in my watch list. That is why a subpage would be better. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Where would we put the subpage so everyone sees it? This page usually has discussions if we're low, and the queue page has the table of approved hooks. Shubinator (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a way that you can create something similar to the RfA notifications so it shows up as a template. Then people can link it directly on their pages, have it at the top of this page, or watchlist the template and view the updates from their watchlist. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Would {{Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count}} work? Shubinator (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the above an attempt to shove the issue I raised under the carpet? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No. I have responded to your comments, and there's nothing new for me to add – the discussion had already started covering old points again. Others are, of course, free to give their opinions. Shubinator (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

e/c with Shub. Malleus, I don't know about other articles, but since becoming too active on wp, I've found that DYK does encourage people to improve articles. I've listed two that I created (a third is in a queue and a fourth will be nominated shortly). My standards of spelling and grammar, at least in article space, are (I think) high, but Osaka Maritime Museum still benefited from the attentions of others whilst it was assessed and whilst on the main page - diff. Naniwa Maru also had the benefit of other editors attention and I think the changes show the detail with which people look at the articles. Have you got any diffs to show that even if a "dubious" article gets onto the main page people ignore it?

I try to ensure all the obvious mistakes are whisked away from articles I assess (and in general in my wp use) but I think the system is fine as it is. Bigger digger (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that In The News articles are linked from the Main Page about a week, and Did You Know articles are so linked for 6 hours. So I consider spell checking etc. for In The News articles to be a higher priority. But I would have no objection to less quantity and more quality. Art LaPella (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this observation, while a valid concern, is a blanket statement. I have seen several users at DYK who have pulled articles for copyvio, potential plagiarism, BLP concerns, poor sources and diction. I haven't come across any DYKs that made it to main with basic grammar and spelling errors - perhaps I have just been lucky. Law_{type! snype?} 00:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

So there's no problem then.[1], [2], [3], [4], --Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If I were to assign a conservative margin of error here, I would still say no - this is not an overwhelming problem. Law_{type! snype?} 02:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) This is an argument that has been going on for months (at least...but probably more like years) over a more basic disagreement over what DYK's purpose should be—showcasing quality articles, or showcasing 'new' articles. Most of us try to balance (i.e., giving a conditional OK on articles that meet the DYK criteria but not technically accepting them until some minor copyedit-y sort of things have been cleaned up, or rejecting them outright if the entire article has egregious spelling/grammar/copyediting problems), but the basic question of how "good" DYK articles should be is not something that's going to be resolved in one little thread here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly not going to be resolved anywhere, as there's no will to accept the fact that there's a problem here. The cold, dead hand of "consensus" will no doubt make certain of that. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No-one thinks it's perfect, but then there are no perfect articles on wp. The consensus is that DYK is a good opportunity for new and improved articles to be shown to all users, with the hope that an interesting hook might even get some of them editing a page or bring experienced attention to a new article. Consensus is not a cold, dead hand, but warm, active editors who believe that championing new and expanded articles is worth the cost of a few typos in articles on the main page. But thanks for trying to find a suitable metaphor for us ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the truth is that many (perhaps even most) DYK articles do not get edited significantly either while they are on the MP or later in their life as an article (see User:Rjanag/DYKfuture for the number of former DYK articles that have gone on to be good or featured content; they look like nice numbers, but as a proportion of all DYK articles it's actually rather small), and most DYK hooks nowadays are not "interesting". So the point that people like Malleus often bring up is, if DYK is not doing a good job on t hings like that, why not change its focus to something else, like showcasing more quality articles rather than more new articles?

There is a perennial debate over whether DYK should also showcase articles that recently achieved GA status, and that debate touches on the same issues as this one does. On the "pro" side, people will say that GAs are better. On the "con" side, people will say that the original goal of DYK is to let the main page showcase both sides of an article's lifespan: FAs show an article towards the pinnacle of its development, and DYKs show articles at the beginning. Of course, DYK is not really the "beginning"—stub-class is closer to the beginning, but most stubs are an embarrassment to the encyclopedia, so DYK could basically be defined as the earliest point in an article's lifespan where it's fit for people to see. The point of disagreement, then, has always been what exactly constitutes "fit for people to see"; people like Malleus, and others who have raised th is point before, simply place the bar higher than DYK's standards often do. On the other side of the spectrum, some people will vehemently argue that DYKs shouldn't need to be "mini-GAs" to be fit for the main page.

Of course, on the side DYK also has other raisons d'etre that can confound this picture a bit more. Some people will point out that the purpose of DYK might be less about content and more about giving awards and recognition to encourage editors and build the community. Others will point out that it's the only way to get any recognition of peer-reviewing for short articles on weird topics that probably will almost never be looked at again. There's a whole mess of issues beyond just copyediting, and it all boils down to what people think the purpose of DYK should be; as long as we don't all agree on what exactly DYK is for, we will not agree on which kinds of articles should make it and which shouldn't. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be all or none

I don't know why a discussion about improving the quality of content featured at DYK always boils down to "Maintain the status quo vs start accepting GAs (or something close to that)". Improving the quality of DYK doesn't mean abandoning the spirit or purpose of DYK in featuring new content nor is accepting GAs or "mini-GA"s the only way to improve the quality of DYKs. DYKs should never be "Main Page Perfect" because part of functional benefit of DYK is the encouragement of MP readers to edit and improve the article. Nothing hammers down the point of being the encyclopedia that anybody can edit more than DYK with its ever present encouragement for the reader to became part of the project by improving DYKs. That said, growth and improvement is a vital part of any healthy project and DYK should not be so resistant to reform under the mistaken belief that any diversion from the status quo somehow equates to losing the soul and spirit of DYK. There have been many viable suggestions (such as reconsidering the expansion rules) of ways to reform DYK that still maintain the spirit and purpose of DYK in featuring new content but also lift up the overall quality (and interest factor) of the content being featured. However we will never make progress on this discussion until there is a broad realization that this is not an "all or none" scenario--that we don't have to lose our soul or just feature FA-wannabes in order to better serve our main page readership. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 15:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems sensible. The steps to improvement needn't be large ones, several small steps taken over a period of time could be just as effective. I was only remarking on what I considered to be easily corrected errors (spelling, grammar, etc.) in DYKs, for instance, the presence of which I don't think does the reputation of either DYK or wikipedia any good. Rjanag also quite rightly draws attention to the fact that an interesting DYK has become a rarity. Why not focus on "interesting" regardless of "newness", for instance? The "mini GA" argument is of course a red herring. GAs have to be a lot more than free from spelling and grammar errors. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK is my favorite part of the Main Page, and I almost always read the Main Page when I log on. I like the interesting tidbits of info in the articles. I like that these new articles get exposure to a wider audience, and I think the fact that articles can be featured there, simply because they're new or newly expanded, is a good motivator for people to write or expand articles. It works for me, anyway. As for the quality, I occasionally see articles with some horrible mistakes, and by "horrible," I mean obvious grammar issues, and bad links. But not all that often. And I often fix them. I'm not sure this happens often enough that we need to take action. Some people no doubt believe that this should never happen. But I certainly don't recommend changing its purpose. Best I can suggest is to only post new articles every 24 hours, instead of every 12. This would allow you to be more selective quality-wise. And maybe, since you're posting less often, you'll have more time to judge the articles. On the other hand, allowing less articles in might throttle back on the motivation for some editors. -Freekee (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

We actually post every 6 (or sometimes 8) hours, not every 12. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Blanking

I just reverted this blanking. The article appears to have been expanded enough to qualify. Am I right? --BorgQueen (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good revert to me! That's a x10 expansion since May 26. Gatoclass (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Moan about Hal Lubarsky

On the main page at the moment there is the following DYK: ... that Hal Lubarsky outlasted 6,300 other players at the World Series of Poker despite playing blind?

Sounded interesting that he played without looking at his cards so I clicked on it it. The fact is that he wasn't playing blind, he is blind. Furthermore, there's no cite to how many people he beat. Are wikipedians meant to know that making it to the money in World Series Poker means you beat 6,300 other people? I certainly didn't. That, and the fact the hook basically lies to get your attention forced me to report it at WP:ERRORS although I've since realised it's not up much longer. I looked at the diff in template talk and it seems these problems were noted, but it still got onto the main page. Perhaps the not-so-clever play on words needed to be held over until April 1? I'm not sure, I just know I felt cheated and riled enough to moan about it here!

I'm not trying to blame anyone, we all make mistakes, but I would hope we can all learn from this. Bigger digger (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, well I just assumed when I read the hook that he was blind, so I'm sure I wouldn't have felt cheated. However, I generally dislike these "trick" hooks, as I said during the last April Fool's event. Most of them just don't work.

In regards to the inaccuracy of the hook, it seems that Imperator promoted the hook before it had been verified by anyone. Perhaps he took the last comment in the thread as a verification when in fact it wasn't.

I think we have had a few problem hooks and articles sneak through recently, partly perhaps because we have a number of new reviewers/promoters, so we may need to start checking updates a little more carefully for a while. Gatoclass (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I went back and read the review and there's no tick. I had a quick look at the rules and there's no mention of it - should it be inserted (hooks should only be promoted after receiving a and when reviewing, once the hook is suitable for promotion, please tick it) or is that more creep? Per the previous discussions with Malleus, is the current system "good enough" or does it need strenghtening? I initially thought that this would be a good idea but am now unsure if it's necessary. It's a small minority that slip through the net, it's just annoying when they do. Bigger digger (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Similar rules are N2, B1 and B5 in the "Learning DYK" system, but I didn't find anything like N2 (or the self-evident B1) elsewhere. Art LaPella (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

@Bigger Digger: I generally make a habit of not promoting things unless they have a tick, but in past discussions here I think the consensus has been not to make that a rule. Personally, if I see something that looks verified but hasn't been ticked yet, I just tick it myself and wait for someone else to promote it (that adds another level of checks & balances) unless I really need that particular hook for an update I'm preparing. But yeah, I think the reason there has not been consensus on the past to make such a rule is that if someone is having to prepare an update on the fly, with few verified hooks available, they should be allowed to check and promote hooks themselves to construct the update. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think we need to add a new rule. A quiet word to the promoter in question is probably all that is necessary. It's not as though this is a problem that's occurred very often. Gatoclass (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

<--@rʨanaɢ, I don't think you'd have to do the ticking rigmarole if you were checking and promoting yourself, but... @Gatoclass, I think your right, I'm creating a mountain from a mole hill of an annoying hook! Bigger digger (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Update due

The update is 1 hour overdue and the queues are empty so the bot has nothing to work with. Is there anyone around who can throw an update together quickly? I just got back from a run and am sweating all over my computer, otherwise I would do it. If it's not done by the time I'm back I can take a whack at it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've promoted the queue in prep 1 to queue 3 and tinkered with the clock. This should get the bot back on track. (Oh, and I'm back from vacation now.) - Dravecky (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Phew, talk about sweating on the keyboard! I stuck everything into P1, Drac, have you protected the image, I wasn't sure how to do that bit. Bigger digger (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And welcome back - Rjanag has let things get a bit sloppy in your absence ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey there everyone, I just locally uploaded the image and protected the image ;), I also promoted a set of hooks from Prep 1 in addition to putting together my own update and putting that in a queue, and Backslash Forwardslash also put an update into one of the queues so we should be good for a little while with 3 updates in the queues and ready to go :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Queue editing needed!

A few tweaks needed on Q4 and Q6 before they hit the main page ... Q4 lacks (pictured) for the Albert Bridge, and Q6 has a spare (pictured) in the Mooney hook. The President of Ireland is in danger of being compared to that moth! Also, in the same hook, "blue tits" (lower case) might be preferable. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Done Fixed the (pictured) issues. Not sure about spelling it lowercase, because the article is currently uppercase. So, it might be best for the article to be renamed first. Jamie^☆S93 22:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Animals, plants, and other organisms. Art LaPella (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive updating issues

Someone pointed out at WP:ERRORS that Wikipedia:Recent additions hadn't been updated since 8 June 2009. I've brought it up to date and sent Nixeagle an email to ask whether this is something that his bot does, or whether it's a manual task. Unless/until the bot is regularly archiving the hooks, this is just a reminder to people to check that hooks that have been removed from the main page make it to the archive. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked instructions on T:TDYK

I made a small change to the way things look on T:TDYK. This is because over the past couple days I've noticed a lot of people posting nominations by copying and pasting other noms, rather than using the templates, and in many cases they cause formatting errors (generally by leaving off the </div> or </small> near the end of the nom, which causes noms below theirs to be shrunk or hidden). I figured changing the names of the section headers might make it more obvious that there are instructions, just like at XfD and stuff like that, and they can follow them to avoid messing things up. Anyway, feel free to double-check the changes I made and make sure everything is still ok. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine, much clearer. Thanks for doing this, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dual noms

I've just received credit for Edward Riou as part of a dual DYK hook I submitted, but HMS Amazon (1799), the second part, seems to have been omitted, both in the credits on my talkpage, and on the article talkpages themselves. Amazon is bolded as included in the 'new article' DYK mainpage section. Is this just a bot error, as this is not the first time this has happened? Benea (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh this has happened before I'll go check it out, the credits are somewhere out there.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 00:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Figured it out, see here, the second article wasn't listed in the credit section, I'll go do the credit stuff.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 00:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thought it must be something simple like that. Thanks for the speedy response! Benea (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate for the main page?

This hook caught my attention:

... that players in the Flash game Cunt take control of a penis that shoots semen at an enemy vagina?

I personally don't have strong feelings either way, but I know in the past some things like this have been kept off the main page. Does anyone have any thoughts here—either about the hook itself (i.e., if it can be feature-able with a different hook, and with the title piped so that "cunt" isn't on the main page), or about the article in general (i.e., maybe some people might think this can't be featured no matter what the hook is). We all know that WP is not censored, but we also all know that the main page is more sensitive than regular article space. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If that article isn't appropiate then how did this image get on the main page and how did this article with a picture get on a main page, I feel that it's fine.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 02:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The first is at least in good taste, which this video game certainly is not (not anything wrong with that, it's just the choice they made when they created it). And neither one of those photos or associated hooks used what many people consider one of the dirtiest words in this language. And cleavage is far, far less raunchy than penises and vaginas.

And OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally am not bothered by the idea of featuring either the above hook or the article on the front page, but if you think it might cause a stir I guess you could always start a thread at AN/I and see what people think. Gatoclass (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally I could live without it on main page - the boobs linked above seem in a different class altogether. If you don't get many comments here, ANI might be the place to go. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Giants27 - your two examples don't really translate to this hook. The Cleavage one was an official title of a nationally recognised event, which would've been covered in the media 'tits and all'. Cleavage, and indeed the other image, are not necessarily obscene or inappropriate - more cheeky than anything. This flash game refers explicitly to intercourse in a crude and immature manner. Sexual topics on the Main Page typically haven't boded well, and this is too inappropriate to be deemed Main Page-able. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. :Wikipedia is not censored, but we don't need to publicize other people's attempts to generate shock value either.--Kubigula (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If the topic is notable, then disqualifying it merely on the grounds that the subject matter might offend someone sounds very much like censorship to me. If we start discriminating on that basis, where does it end? Gatoclass (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I oppose censoring the article, but I also oppose promoting it on the mainpage. What goes on the mainpage is a matter of editorial judgment - it's an opportunity to advance Wikipedia's goals and give exposure to deserving articles. If this were a great little article or an important subject, then I might see sufficient value in promoting that to outweigh the certain contraversy. As it is, it's a start/stub article on a low importance flash video game.--Kubigula (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So, because it only qualifies as only a stub or start-class at low-importance right now disqualifies this as DYK? I thought nearly all articles were like this when brought here. MuZemike 07:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Gatoclass - Sex on the Main Page has come up frequently, yet I haven't seen a similar amount of negativity directed at another topic region. Invoking the 'censorship argument' to protect an article called Cunt is pointless, as this is very clearly outside the realms of appropriateness. If it were the Cerne Abbas giant, I would be inclined to say otherwise but really, Cunt? \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Cunt" is a four-letter word, nothing more. What's the big deal about that?

I do think there are some hooks which could legitimately be kept off the front page. For example, the hook that ended up getting Bedford desysopped was seen by some as sexist. But there is nothing intrinsically sexist about this hook - it's just a straightforward description of the game, that's all. Now the game itself might arguably be seen as sexist, or misogynist, but that's not the same thing. As long as the topic is notable, and written about in an encyclopedic manner, then I'd be reluctant to keep it off the front page just because the language or the subject itself might be seen as tasteless or vulgar. Gatoclass (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, the current hook in question, as well as those is those discussion previously linked, were/are much worse than the one that got me gangraped. If Wikipedia was consistent, this current hook and others wouldn't be seen as acceptable. It is all the matter of who objects and what kind of friends they have. To this day I will defend that hook that got me gangraped.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 14:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the reasons have been more or less summarised above, but in short, no, this is certainly not appropriate for the main page. It's certainly an interesting topic to read about elsewhere, but no. Just no. Recognizance (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I fully support the DYK nomination. I have no idea what the objections are; I see absolutely no policy reason to disallow it. I will be extremely disappointed if this is censored. Chzz ► 08:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia isn't censored, that doesn't mean we should promote a shock site whose very name is intended to offend. I should think it's a matter of common sense. Recognizance (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) Can everyone please refrain from calling "censorship", in both this and future discussions? We go through this song and dance every time an issue like this is discussed, and every time the arguments are the same—someone says "WP is not censored", someone else says "the main page is different." Backslash Forwardslash already gave some helpful links to past discussions where people said essentially the same things, and the fact that they're coming up again suggests to me that everyone has forgotten. I had hoped to ward off this song & dance by stating in my first message "We all know that WP is not censored, but we also all know that the main page is more sensitive than regular article space", but it doesn't seem to have worked. In any case, though, the "censorship" card does not further any discussion, it just makes people upset, there's nothing constructive at all. Let's please stay on topic and not rehash the same pointless argument we have had three or four times already this year.
(For what it's worth, I am also of the opinion that the main page should not be "censored", but that it is more sensitive than article space and special judgment needs to be exercised in what we put there, since many readers see the Main Page as how Wikipedia "wants" to present itself. I don't believe any article should be "censored" because all articles should have their chance to exist somewhere in mainspace even if they're somewhat "offensive", but at the same time some of them may not be appropriate for showing off to the world and boasting about via DYK. That is the same stance that has been taken towards some articles by Raul, whom we all know will not put Jenna Jameson or a pooping seagull on the main page.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents. Cunt isn't just a four letter word, it's wikt:cunt a derogatory term for female genitalia or women - the word itself implies sexism. I use it all the time, but in my opinion it isn't appropriate for the main page. I don't think this is about censorship, the existence of the article is proof of the lack of censorship, it's an editorial judgement about its appropriateness (sp?) on the front page — it would be a pretty rapid lesson in Wikipedia is not censored for a random passerby. I've realised this is not about censorship but about taste: there was a proposed hook a few weeks back about a test pilot who died in a crash which spread wreakage far and wide. It was felt disrespectful to use that fact as the hook, and I believe this is a similar situaton. I looked at the other discussions \ / provided but couldn't work out what the consensus/outcome was, could \ / or Rjanang summarise please? And my word what a boring game. Nice soundtrack though..! Bigger digger (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember all the details, but Miki Mizuasa was featured (I thought with a hook that didn't mention her sex change, but I guess not--it looks like the original hook was the one used), and as for the Cerne Abbas giant it was run with this image; as far as I know, neither one caused any dramaz (although, to be honest, I never thought either of those were too offensive anyway; they are certainly in a whole different league than this one). It appears Human-goat sexual intercourse was not featured, although I wasn't on Wikipedia yet when that happened so I wasn't party to that discussion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, so was it resolved by DYKers, a posting at WP:AN/WP:VP, by the posting admin or some other reason? I think the appearance of the word cunt on the front page is more likely to provoke upset than a chalk man, a transexual and (just) a bit of animal-loving... Bigger digger (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think they were all pretty self-contained and involved mostly DYK people (but I remember Raul came in and commented on the Cerne Abbas giant). And yeah, I agree that this hook is quite different from the ones discussed in the past. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I led the charge against that article as I felt the topic was unencyclopedic. In fact I'm kind of suprised to see it hasn't been deleted yet. The article is basically just a random collection of google hits mentioning sex with goats. Gatoclass (talk) 06:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

comment I actually came here looking for something else, and happened to notice this thread. I personally would be strongly against this being on the front page. I know all about "censorship" and the fact that we are not; however, I think there is something to be said for common sense and the integrity of the site via the main page. I guess we don't care what our detractors have to say, but perhaps we should, and I think this is fuel to a fire that is best kept small. IMHO. — Ched : ? 15:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Three thoughts

Raul654 has OK'ed the Main Page appearance of the Featured Article Gropecunt Lane (though he has not yet scheduled it). See here for the discussion.
I think that if this article were to appear on the Main Page as a DYK we would want to make sure it is as good as possible. Currently refs 1 and 5 seem to be blogs, which are not generally reliable sources. I do not write about video / computer games, so these may be OK sources, but I would feel better if someone who writes about such games could check the sources.
I think the problem with having the word cunt on the main page in DYK is that it becomes unavoidable. While Wikipedia is not censored, most things people would find objectionable have to be actively sought / searched for, and as such are also avoidable. I assume the Main Page is the starting point for most users and as such everyone who views the Main Page in the 6 hours this would be up as a DYK would see it. I know the same objection could be made for Gropecunt Lane (above), but there the same potentially offensive word is part of a larger word and as such is slightly less visible and perhaps less objectionable. There is a difference between having uncensored information on any topic freely available for those who search for it, and this. Just my attempt to state why I think the Main Page is seen as different. Hope this helps the discussion, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The objection is not just to the word "cunt" in the title of this article, but to the general content as well. It would be easy to write a hook without the word "cunt", using pipes, but it would still be controversial.

As for your third point, about why the MP is different...yes, I agree entirely, and that is the point I tried to make in my first message on this thread, and the point that has been made every single time this debate comes up. The fact that it's had to be rehashed again here is very frustrating to me, as most of the people involved in this discussion have heard it time and time again. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wholly inappropriate for the Main Page. We have similar restrictions for featured images and even, to an extent, today's featured article. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Are these restrictions part of the policies and guidelines? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not the written rules. WP:NOTCENSORED in particular is the name of a consensus that bears little resemblance to its written form. If all you knew is that "Wikipedia is not censored", you would have no idea if the Wikipedia jigsaw logo could be replaced with a nude, nor if it meant primarily sexual issues, nor would you know what routine reverts might be considered "censorship". Art LaPella (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well then, it seems to be a bit of a grey area doesn't it? Perhaps the wider community should be encouraged to create some sort of guideline regarding front page content.

Personally, I think this is a storm in a teacup - if a spotty 14-year-old wants to google "cunt", he is going to see far cruder material than anything he is likely to find on wikipedia. My main concern is that if we start censoring material simply on the basis that it might offend someone, it creates a precedent that may cause problems later. Where exactly do we draw the line? Gatoclass (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Gato, it's not about what you can find out there on the WWW. It's about whether the word cunt is suitable for use on the front page. I use the word with my (male) friends but I wouldn't use it at a family gathering - that context is important. I don't know what attitude the NYT, the WashP or the BBC take to the word in their articles, but I'm sure you would never come across the word on the front page due to issues of taste which I flagged before. These are the standards the front page should be aiming for, and it's often the first port of call for anyone (any age, any gender, any sex) to wikipedia, who deserves not to be offended unduly just so the 14 year-old gets a laugh. I think the majority are against this but if you feel strongly you should obviously post it elsewhere for comment/opinion. Bigger digger (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't actually feel that strongly about this particular article because it is, after all, just about a silly flash game someone invented for laughs. It's more the principle I'm concerned about. There is never going to be a consensus on what constitutes offensive material, because people are offended by different things. So if we start banning articles based purely on the fact that someone might find them offensive, where do we stop? That's the issue that concerns me. Gatoclass (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Gato, I think the concern is not to much about protecting the little ones, but about protecting Wikipedia's reputation. There are things that are wholly appropriate for us to have as articles, but we don't necessarily want to go pounding our chest and showing them off to the world. I think it's pretty much the same reason we don't allow stubs or crappy articles on DYK: they exist on Wikipedia (in fact, they are the majority of articles on WP), but we don't want to display them and make people think "this is Wikipedia". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about this article, but WP is not censored, so let it appear on the main page. Of the whole conversation, the troubling part was whether or not the article is using reliable sources. Although we're not censored, we should make sure that anything controversial has impeccable sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that it occurs to me, I would also like to know what exactly it is that is being objected to here. Is it the word "cunt", specifically? Does that mean we would also have to ban submissions like Cunt (album) or Cunt (novel) if they turned up? Or is it the overtly sexual nature of the game itself that is the problem? It might help if someone could clarify that. Gatoclass (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, it is a combination of all of those things. If the article was just called 'Cunt', I would be able to let it go. If it was only sexual, I may find issue, but I wouldn't feel as strongly. But this particular hook is both explicitly sexual, remarkably immature, and profane and represents an article with very dubious sourcing and 47 characters over the absolute minimum. There are just too many issues with this one for me. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Echoing \ /: it's not just the word (because a hook could be written that doesn't use the word), it's just general inappropriateness. When I started this discussion I was neutral, but now I'm definitely leaning away from promoting this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So - we have lots of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and no policy reasoning whatsoever. Conversely, we have reasoned arguments supported by policy, such as WP:NOTCENSORED. If people wish to discuss and change policy, then there are other places for this. What is the reason for the delay here? Chzz ► 08:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Characterizing your opponents arguments as bunk and your own as "reasoned" and "supported by policy" is not very convincing when you're the one doing it. If someone came in from outside and said you were so reasoned, then maybe...but of course you think your arguments are reasoned. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED is not really applicable to the Main Page - this is about editorial restraint and appropriateness. This isn't a matter of not liking an article, it's the fact it has just scraped in through the CSD guidelines, is extremely likely to cause offense and is wholly immature and innappropriate to place on a page which represents this entire site. We wouldn't put pornography on the Main Page, or explicit pictures of autopsies because we aren't censored, so why are we putting this hook on there? \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinions - but I see no place on Wikipedia where your ideas have been agreed upon by consensus. If you believe that such a policy of censorship is required for the front page, then please discuss your suggestion on the appropriate forum. Chzz ► 09:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not basing it on a policy, I'm applying common sense. There hasn't been a need to create a policy for it because it is generally the exception to the rule. (WP:IAR :P) I'd be very surprised if I needed to draft a policy page in order to keep an image like (NSFW) this image or this one (NSFW) from the Main Page. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You must work in a very odd workplace, if they have policies prohibiting the viewing of pictures of soiled nappies :-)

Your argument seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I see here that other people do not have the same objections to the DYK; hence, as with all things, we can discuss it and try to reach a consensus. I am trying to stick to policy-backed argument. I see no policy argument to disallow this on the front page, and if you choose to IAR to prevent it, then I will object. If I see a consensus to prevent the horror of that particular juxtaposition of 4 letters from offending, then I will of course abide by the community decision. Chzz ► 11:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

With all these discussions we've seem to have had now over main page censorship, I think we very much do need to set this in stone at WP:CENSORED to avoid future ad hoc et ad nauseam debates whenever something objectionable next turns up on the main page. A line very much needs to be drawn if we are to consistently censor any such content on the main page, as right now the only real basis on which content is removed is on claims of "common sense", "editorial restraint", "appropriateness", etc., which are all completely subjective and therefore likely to ignite discussion.

Just to clarify, I don't actually support any removal of content from the main page on such bases as those stated, I'm just saying that if we establish a consensus to remove content from the MP on grounds of censorship, then we need to draw a line to do so and not just decide things on a subjective basis. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that something needs to be done to pre-empt repeating this argument forever. I left a message yesterday at Wikipedia talk:NOT#WP:NOTCENSORED and the main page, but so far few editors have taken notice (a discussion about addresses seems to have stolen my thunder). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

Regardless of what we decide in this discussion about the rules, censorship, and whatnot, I believe it has become clear that, if there is not specifically consensus against promoting the hook that started this, there is clearly no consensus for promoting it. Enough editors in good standing (Ruhrfisch, Juliancolton, Backslash Forwardslash, Recognizance, MZMcbride, Ched Davis... as well as some editors I don't know as well, Kubigula and Bigger Digger—not to imply you're not in "good standing", I'm just less familiar with you) have objected that I don't think it will be possible to promote. Yes, I know other editors in good standing have supported promoting (Gatoclass, Haipa Doragon, Giants, Chzz, and Peregrine Fisher), but it's clear to me that at best there is no consensus, and at worst there is consensus against. By all means feel free to continue discussing censorship and other issues, but as for this specific article I do not see it getting promoted (and even if we extend the discussion to the VP, ask Raul to comment, or do any other things that we have done in similar discussions in the past, I imagine the consensus will not shift), so if it's all the same I will probably BOLDly remove the nomination within the next 24 hours since it's not going to succeed anyway. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well actually, I wouldn't describe myself as in favour of promotion exactly - I'm just wary of the precedent that will be set by turning it down simply on the basis that somebody might be offended by it. Once we have opened that door, arguably it's going to be more difficult to resist such arguments next time we have a hook that someone happens to find offensive. Gatoclass (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree - in case I was not clear enough above I am against featuring it. Re the comments above the last, we are not talking about "removing" anything from anywhere, but choosing not to feature it on the MP, where no policy gives any article the right to be. I'm not sure a policy addition is needed or desirable - each case is probably best discussed individually, though it might be helpful if a reference list of DYK precedent cases like this could be set up - I'm sure I recall others apart from those mentioned above (not all on sexual grounds). Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, and I do not support your proposal to remove the nomination when no consensus exists. Chzz ► 18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that it's not passing. You can unilaterally add

all you want, but that won't change things and it'll be little more than edit warring. I don't care if there's consensus for changing NOTCENSORED or not, but what is clear already is there is not consensus to promote the hook, or to do anything for that matter. If you want to force the DYK project to feature this, feel free to go to the Village Pump or wherever else you want and bring some people in to tell us why we should promote the article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I no more unilaterally added

than you unilaterally added

. Why should I need to raise this at the pump, any more than you should? I do not want to force anything. If you want to force the nomination to be removed, then you are of course "free to go to the Village Pump or wherever else you want and bring some people in to tell us why we should not promote the article" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chzz (talk • contribs)

I'm not forcing anything. I raised a question here, consensus become clear, I went to the nom and stated the obvious (that it would never pass. If consensus had been in favor of promoting the nom, I wouldn't have rejected it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Latecomer to the debate (as usual), but I feel the need to echo something that User:Rjanag touched on.

The arguments at work here seem to be a generic "Use common sense" argument vs. a policy argument (i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOTCENSORED). Assuming good faith all around, I have to side with those declining to feature this article on the Main Page. Our best arguments backing up the un-censorship of Wikipedia has been along the lines of "If someone looks up the penis or hog-tie bondage article, they should reasonably expect a picture of those things for a full encyclopedic treatment of the topic". This clearly does not apply for the Main Page, since a user would not reasonably expect to view objectionable content. While "I don't like it" is clearly a bad argument, it is similar to the argument I will use: Including this hook on the Main Page would be detrimental to Wikipedia's image, and have no substantive positive effects.

Moving away from policy, the "common sense" side seems to have a better case. The Main Page is the most visible on Wikipedia, and is meant to draw people in, new readers and editors alike. I agree that its dangerous to draw a line anywhere with regards to "morality" and related topics. However, a way around this is to treat all articles on a case-by-case basis, instead of drawing some arbitrary line or blindly following some policy or guideline. In this case, the potential negative impact on Wikipedia outweighs any arguments for transparency and equality.

In contrast to the general content, WP:DYK is a way to promote new material at Wikipedia. As such, it should be a place where "common sense" rules, and not where policy binds us to prominently feature material which will without a doubt portray the site in a negative light. The question that should always be asked is this: "Will my action improve Wikipedia?" In this case, it would not. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 19:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Very well said. To promote this article on the main page would be remarkably irresponsible of us. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

For the exact same reasons, I want to see this go ahead. As the main page is so visible, it is the ideal forum for demonstrating that Wikipedia is not swayed by petty censorship, and represents articles regardless of personal prejudices. If the article is blocked, then I believe that it will be detrimental to Wikipedia's image, because it will show the world that we are making judgments about censorship - about what is and is not permissible. By putting this on the front-page, without fuss, we would demonstrate how neutral we are. Hence I honestly believe that it is in the best interests of the project to approve this suggestion. If we start to arbitrarily remove things without policy-based consensus, then we are moving away from our core values. Who are we to judge what is and is not offensive? Our duty is to report verifiable encyclopaedic material without forming any kind of opinion. I remain as neutral as I can possibly be, and therefore I judge the nomination in the same way as I would any other article. I see no reason whatsoever to reject it. Chzz ► 01:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an article on the US government, Muhammad or the Chinese dictatorship, where WP:NOTCENSORED was meant to be applied. This hardly qualifies as scandalous or devious on the censorship scale. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note - don't forget that Bedford was desysopped for a hook making it to the main page on a similar theme. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he was desysopped for a number of things, including wheel warring over the hook, leaving denigrating edit summaries, and also for some off-wiki commentary as I recall. Gatoclass (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, okay, the desysop in retrospect did look inevitable. However, the one hook seemed to be the straw that broke the camel's back, especially with the backlash over sexism. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ottava, I'll look forward to an admin volunteering to promote it then! I had a proper look at WP:NOTCENSORED and nowhere does it suggest not nominating something to the main page is censorship. On a similar note to \ /, I think its use here might be a Fallacy of quoting out of context. I would particularly highlight the final sentence there: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." If we consider the mainpage as an article (which is probably a fallacy I've created for this argument!) is the omission of this hook likely to make the mainpage less informative, relevant or accurate? I think we need to let this one go; there is no precedent here — we will discuss each potentially controversial hook here on its own merits. People might want to refute my argument, which is fine, but really if any editor wants to get this on the main page they should go and seek some non-DYK opinion now. Bigger digger (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading an argument that the reason for keeping a DYK hook off the front page as being "IDONTLIKEIT". For me personally, that is not the case at all. We are not talking about an AFD, we're talking about the image that Wikipedia portrays to the viewers as its Primary introduction to the site. One thing crossed my mind, if you're an editor, and your 8-year old daughter needs to write a book report, and you are going to introduce her to where you work. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page). Is this something you want her to see as a reflection of your contributions to the society? I'd like to think that for the most part my time spent here is an effort to build an encyclopedia. Something with integrity, class, honor, dignity, and a touch of professionalism. I simply feel that if we're going to "talk the talk" about how wonderful wikipedia.org is ... then we need to "walk the walk", and put our best foot forward. — Ched : ? 07:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
After looking at the article, viewing the sources used to establish notability, and looking at Wikipedia:Notability (web), I'm not even sure how well this article would fare at an AfD. Just saying — Ched : ? 08:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ched, are you happy for the 8 year old to be able to click 'random article' and see List of sex positions, Ejaculation, Prince Albert piercing or Bondage (BDSM) - or whatever you personally find 'inappropriate'?

If we have integrity, if we are to be professional, then we need to remain true to our core values. Chzz ► 09:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. We do not decide what is wrong and what is right. We make no judgements. This is a pillar; this is a core value, and this is why I feel so strongly about what might seem a trivial issue. Once we begin to judge what is and is not appropriate, we open a hideous can of worms. Is it right to show a nude on the front page? A semi-nude; a portrait nude; a porn-star; an article about bondage; an article about the word cunt; an article about the human penis; an article about breasts; an article about masturbation? I expect many of you reading this will have your own opinions on this, and that's fine - but those opinions should not affect your approval or disapproval, because we strive to be neutral, unbiased, objective and encyclopaedic. This is not a matter of common sense - clearly, there are differences of opinion. My own common sense tells me that freedom of expression is an essential part of the project, and that it is detrimental to the project to start making censorship judgement calls. Chzz ► 09:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That applies to article content, not to the running of Wikipedia. We make judgments all the time - AfD, BLP etc.--Kubigula (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a closing note as I drop the stick here. First Chzz, I think you know how much I value your input, and appreciate all the help you have and do give me here. I'm honestly sorry that I have to disagree with you on this one. In a way, I kind of feel like I'm betraying my teacher here. It's just that if I'm helping an 8-year old once I get to our main page, then I'm not clicking on the random link. I'm going to be showing her how to find that "Winnie the Pooh, (or whatever) story. I'm not even saying that the article itself doesn't belong in Wikipedia, it's just that I don't think it belongs on the front page. Others may say it more eloquently, but I just don't believe it is the type of image we want to display at our front door. I'd imagine my view of this particular DYK have been expressed adequately by now, so I'll return you to your regularly scheduled programming. Cheers to all (no matter the final outcome), and happy editing. ;) — Ched : ? 14:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody explain which, if any, of the sources for this article are reliable? They look like blogs. If that's true, should the article be at AFD rather than DYK? Gimmetrow 01:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I checked a couple of sources, and while they are little known websites, they appear to have editorial oversight and independence from the subject. So I don't think it's correct to describe them as "blogs". Gatoclass (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are just a filing system that has increasingly been adopted by numerous sites, the old "all blogs = personal blog = John Doe's diary" line of thought is extremely out of date. The format favours regular postings to keep things fresh and has categories to aid searches for related articles, is it any wonder that it's a widely used format. Rock Paper Shotgun is run by four well-known games journalists, and is no less reliable than IGN or GameSpot. Play This Thing is the review frontend for Manifesto Games, the founder Costikyan can easily be considered an expert in the subject, and both he and the site's #2 Dugan (quoted in the article) have been approached to speak about indie games (I believe both were quoted in Edge magazine, which again is extremely reputable). Derek Yu is a celebrated indie developer (much like McMillen has increasingly become over the last year), again relevant to the subject area. PopMatters' distribution goes beyond some backwater site, Kotaku is a funded site with paid contributors which has been around for five years - in the context of a flash game I see zero issues with them as sources. In short: I wouldn't have created the article if I didn't think the sources were up to it. Someone another 17:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This debate looks to have wound down, but since the item is still sitting in the queue, I will add my two cents, which is just to say i agree with JulianColton, Ched, RunningonBrains et al. This shouldn't be on the mainpage - that would not advance WP. We are doing all we need to do against censorship by allowing the article to exist and not judging it based on personal views, but rather solely on criteria such as reliable sources, notabilty etc. regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag asked me to weigh in here. I think this is a bit over the top, and shouldn't be on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. When I schedule the POTD, I go by what might be visible on the front page of a major newspaper. This certainly wouldn't be (at least with this wording). howcheng {chat} 06:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Question that I'm sure's been asked before

If an article has been at DYK before several years ago, and I were to expand it 5x, would it be acceptable to be at DYK again? The article in question is David Clyde, which I plan to expand to a GA-quality article sometime this month. It was put on DYK back when apparently citation requirements were looser, and the article can certainly be greatly improved upon. If it still would not qualify despite the changes in the past years then that's fine, but if it's allowed, then I'll at least try to get it put up. Wizardman 04:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an issue as long as the expansion means it genuinely is a different article. Skomorokh 04:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Wiz, but if you mean it's been promoted to DYK once already, our policy is that it can't be featured a second time. Gatoclass (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's additional rule D1. There seems to be a consensus against re-featuring content, which I suppose is fair enough - an article could be new, DYK'ed, five times expanded and then DYK'ed again within a week. Good luck with the GA drive though!

On a related note, if Wizardman hadn't notified us and removed the DYK template how would we know it had been nominated before? Or is this a game-able loop hole we can't really do much about? I know I don't check the talk page history of an article when reviewing and it would be easy enough to hide the fact it had been removed with a misleading edit summary and then burying it with plenty of "talk". Bigger digger (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:BEANS. Let's hope this thread is archived quickly :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Does DYKcheck take care of this or does the same problem affect that too? Chamal ^talk 13:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt DYKcheck can take account of such factors. I use it for determining article length, but for determining expansion length I think you need to check the history page. Gatoclass (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, you mean does it check to see whether the article has previously been DYK'ed? I think it does, but only by checking the talk page, so if someone has removed the original DYK credit, it would probably return an incorrect result. But I think you'd have to ask Shubinator to get a definitive answer. Gatoclass (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, DYKcheck looks for the DYK template on the talk page (and the ITN one too). Although it would be theoretically possible for the script to check every revision of the talk page, it would take a ridiculously long time if the talk page had a real history. Articles previously at ITN or DYK have not been knowingly featured on DYK again. However, with my work with DYKHousekeepingBot, I've run across a few articles that have appeared at DYK twice. Some weren't the same article (for example, the first article was merged with the second, creating a redirect, which the bot followed), but Cloudland Canyon State Park is a clear example of the exact same article appearing at DYK twice. Oh, and the script does do expansion checks, although occasionally it gives false negatives. Shubinator (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

the script does do expansion checks, although occasionally it gives false negatives

Yeah I know it does, but the fact that it "occasionally gives false negatives" is why I feel obliged to check the history manually :) Gatoclass (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It can't give false positives though, so you could only manually check if it says "not expanded" :) Shubinator (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How can you be sure it doesn't give false positives? What if a user himself deletes material and then rewrites the article to give a x5 expansion from the reduced count? Does your program check for such occurrences? I have my doubts that a program could reliably make such checks. Gatoclass (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the script doesn't check for that. However, the first revision it checks is the "halfway" edit, or 250 edits ago, whichever is smaller. In other words, at least half of the edits to the page would have to be the user's edits for the user to dodge the script this way. A quick glance at the history would catch this. Shubinator (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

<--Gato, see this edit, and maybe start a new section so that this doesn't hang around so long? ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Aces and Eights

Sorry to bring this up here, but I need this issue resolved, as I've become too involved to resolve it myself. The hook suggestion for aces and eights (blackjack) is about to be dropped in terms of date, but the issue surrounding the hook has been addressed for days now (the initial hook exceeded 200 characters) with at least three to four other hooks being provided, but no rereview has occured with this suggestion. I wish to ask if someone can rereview this article's suggestions before it's dropped without a second look, or if it can be put on hold until a review has been made. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, as long as the hook isn't

ed then it will hang around until it's DYKyesed. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to look at it and/or tell me I'm wrong! Bigger digger (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bigger digger is right according to A2. Art LaPella (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, workable hooks under active discussion do not age out.--Dravecky (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clearing the misunderstanding, everyone! Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK crediting done wrong

The automated crediting for the hooks on the main page right now were done wrong. I got a message on my talk page about it [5]. I don't have time to address the problem, I have to leave. Would someone please address? At least the first 3 hooks were done wrong. Thanks! Royal broil 12:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

How were they done wrong? The Bot has followed the DYKmake credits just as it should. If it's credited the wrong people, that's because someone screwed up the DYKmake credits. Gatoclass (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, they're fixed. It was only the first three. Either someone did them manually and got them mixed up, or something very strange happened with DYKmake. But the bot did exactly what it was supposed to do. Gatoclass (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Gato! I anticipated that the bot was right and the credit templates were done wrong. Royal broil 22:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No stubs

Does "No stubs" still have a consensus, or is this a good front for fighting instruction creep? If the purpose is to prevent readers from seeing stub tags, the rule should be more like "If there is a stub tag, remove it (if the article qualifies for Did You Know, then it presumably is no longer a stub)." If the purpose is to make the article longer, it was made obsolete years ago when enforcement of the 1,500 character limit became routine.

If an article is disqualified by the 1,500 rule then it doesn't matter if it is doubly disqualified by the stub rule. If it's over 1,500, then Wikipedia:Stub says "articles may still be stubs even if they are a few paragraphs long..." but I've never seen an article disqualified for that reason. So when a 1,500+ article gets the objection "No stubs", the reaction is never "Oh my gosh! I need to add more prose so it won't be a stub!" It's always "Oops, I forgot to remove the tag."

"No stubs" sounds like a way to make articles longer, but in practice it just makes people jump through the bureaucratic hoop of removing the tag. That hoop is a distraction from anything else the author might be doing, including making the article longer. So the net result of "No stubs" is to make the article shorter. Art LaPella (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I've always found it silly. If an article really is a stub, we can already fail it by pointing out that it's not long enough. As you pointed out, the vast majority of "

Article is tagged as a stub" cases are where someone just forgot to remove the tag after expanding, and really we can just remove it on our own without all the fanfare. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think an article on a large subject can still be a stub at 1500, but how many such large subjects still don't have non-stub articles I don't know. I did Ancient Roman pottery from scratch in the last year, & I think that would still have been a stub if it were only 1500 long. The question is do we want such articles on DYK, & I for one can't see why not. On the other hand the current set-up does have the advantage of prompting people to remove many un-needed stub tags that would otherwise get left. Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe I addressed both points: If the pottery article were only 1500 long and were marked as a stub, would it be disqualified? The stub article says that's possible, but I can't remember that ever happening; the tag is always removed. Or if the purpose is only "prompting people to remove many un-needed stub tabs", then the rule should be more like "If there is a stub tag, remove it ...", or perhaps more responsive to Johnbod's example "If there is a stub tag, it can ordinarily be removed if the article is long enough for DYK." Art LaPella (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed it. [6] [7] [8] [9] Art LaPella (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK addition missing

The DYK update of 13 June that included Lauritz Sand seems to be missing from the WP:Recent additions. Did someone forget to update the archive? Manxruler (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The bot doesn't auto-archive anymore so it has to be done manually. So probably it just means no-one's gotten around to updating the archive yet. There's nothing to stop you doing it of course if you'd like to help out :) Gatoclass (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, cool. How do I go about doing that? I've never done that before. Manxruler (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The way you do it is by going to the T:DYK history page, grabbing a copy of the latest version of the update in question (the one before the update which superseded it), and copying it to the archive page. By "copy of the last version", I mean everything between the  and  comments, including the picture and its accompanying code.

One further point - we don't archive the current update until it's been superseded by a new set of hooks, because updates are subject to corrections while they are on the front page.

Anyhow, you can find further details on the archive page itself. Hope that helps :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Gato. I'll look into that someday when I have some spare time on my hands. Manxruler (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Stonewall

Just FYI that this hook for June 28th is on T:TDYK right now. I don't have a problem with it, just thought I should leave a note. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK hook barometer

Hi all, I was active here a while ago and am again from time to time. I generally think about writing more hooks if I feel there is a relative dearth and less if there is an abundance or backlog. Problem is, it can be hard to tell what the situation is. Is it worth having some sort of barometer at the top of the suggestions page (and that I can transclude to my user page?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a list of the number of hooks and the number of hooks currently verified on the T:DYK/Q page, if that helps. Gatoclass (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - most helpful :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Credit error

I'm not one to complain about receiving DYK messages, but today's message wrongly credited as creator of Eryngium racemosum. I checked Queue 3, and I was correctly listed as nominator only. But as said I later "became" a creator. Just saying. Punkmorten (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That appears to be a common problem that really needs to be fixed.--Giants27 (t|c) 21:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.--Giants27 (t|c) 21:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Grammar question about a hook...

The hook currently in prep area 1 (7pm EST) that reads "...that Thomas Bertie was one of three future admirals serving together on HMS Seahorse in 1773, the others being Horatio Nelson and Thomas Troubridge?" should probably read "...that Thomas Bertie was one of three future admirals that served together..." Historical things should always use past tense. Sorry if I'm just being a grammar nut. Parsecboy (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it sounds better than "serving".--Giants27 (t|c) 23:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I just switched the wording. Btw, in the future, you can always tweak hooks in the prep areas yourself, especially for less controversial grammar fixes like this. :-) Jamie^☆S93 23:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I thought you meant the next update queue since you mentioned 7PM, but the hooks currently in prep1 won't make the main page until about 4:35 AM EST, Saturday and the prep1 and prep2 areas like Jamie said are fully editable by non-admins.--Giants27 (t|c) 23:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm an admin, so I could fix those in the queues. I'm just not a regular around here and didn't want to step on any toes :) Parsecboy (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's grammatically incorrect to refer to human beings as "that", because they are subjects, not objects. I have therefore changed "that" to "who". Gatoclass (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be either "that" or "who". [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Art LaPella (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you on the interpretation of those sources :)

Some of them indicate that "who" and "that" are interchangeable, but also say that "who" is preferred by many people. Others say "that" is acceptable when referring to an unidentified person ("the man that I marry") but not when referring to a particular individual - which is the case in the above hook. Gatoclass (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The first link just says "that" or "who", regardless.
The second link says "some overzealous grammar instructors" prefer "who", but I said the consensus, not everybody.
In the third link, which must be where you got the word "marry", it recommends either "that", "who", or "whom" in that same top paragraph.
In the fourth link, "that served together" is a restrictive clause; not just any three admirals, but the three who served together. That's why there aren't any commas around "who served together", which would be needed for a non-restrictive clause.
The fifth link says "Corporal Powder, who..." but "the pilots, who..." or "...that...", which probably resembles the admirals more closely than Corporal Powder does.
Maybe my Google search criteria were biased, but I don't see how I misinterpreted those particular sources. Art LaPella (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into a wrangle with you about grammatical minutiae, but I will simply note that the last source states that "that" should not be used when the persons are identified, as they are in this hook. Gatoclass (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This may be a little helpful. Sorry, Gato. Colloquialism seems to win out over strict grammar. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Chicago time error

The times for Chicago should be 4:35 and 10:35, because of DST. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This is for the Queues. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The next update is due at 14:35 UTC, and Chicago is on CST, which is -5 UTC, so 14:35 UTC - 5 hours = 9:35 Chicago time. Shubinator (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it's right, I work off of that one and I know that the next update is due at 10:35 AM EST.--Giants27 (c|s) 12:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The next update is 13:35 UTC, not 14:35 UTC. I'm 100% sure for proposed times are right, since I used my computer clock. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The previous update (at the time) was at 8:35 UTC, so the next update was at 8:35 UTC + 6 hours = 14:35 UTC. Shubinator (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

	Los Angeles	New York	UTC	London	New Delhi	Tokyo	Sydney
Queue 7	29 April 17:00	29 April 20:00	30 April 00:00	30 April 01:00	30 April 05:30	30 April 09:00	30 April 10:00
Queue 1	30 April 17:00	30 April 20:00	1 May 00:00	1 May 01:00	1 May 05:30	1 May 09:00	1 May 10:00
Queue 2	1 May 17:00	1 May 20:00	2 May 00:00	2 May 01:00	2 May 05:30	2 May 09:00	2 May 10:00
Queue 3 Prep 3	2 May 17:00	2 May 20:00	3 May 00:00	3 May 01:00	3 May 05:30	3 May 09:00	3 May 10:00
Queue 4 Prep 4	3 May 17:00	3 May 20:00	4 May 00:00	4 May 01:00	4 May 05:30	4 May 09:00	4 May 10:00
Queue 5 Prep 5	4 May 17:00	4 May 20:00	5 May 00:00	5 May 01:00	5 May 05:30	5 May 09:00	5 May 10:00
Queue 6 Prep 6	5 May 17:00	5 May 20:00	6 May 00:00	6 May 01:00	6 May 05:30	6 May 09:00	6 May 10:00
Prep 7	6 May 17:00	6 May 20:00	7 May 00:00	7 May 01:00	7 May 05:30	7 May 09:00	7 May 10:00
Prep 1	7 May 17:00	7 May 20:00	8 May 00:00	8 May 01:00	8 May 05:30	8 May 09:00	8 May 10:00
Prep 2	8 May 17:00	8 May 20:00	9 May 00:00	9 May 01:00	9 May 05:30	9 May 09:00	9 May 10:00

It says 09:35 on this chart, not 08:35. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see what's wrong with it, the latest update happended at 4:35 PM EST meaning in Chicago it happened at 3:35 PM so then +6 =9:35.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh I get it now, you've got it backwards you're talking about CST while Shubinator is talking about UTC, it's still right however.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify. Shubinator said that the last update was on 8:35 UTC. The chart says 9:35 UTC. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the chart says 9:35 PM not UTC.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I said! Shubinator said last update was 14:35, 14:35 = 2:35. The chart says 3:35, which means that the chart should say 2:35 and 8:35 for the last updates for London. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the next update is for 0235 UTC. Chicago time on the table is 9:35PM, which is 0235 - 5. -5 is Chicago's Daylight Saving Time. London is 3:35 am, which is +1 because they are on daylight saving time. It's right. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now I get it...Laugh out loud. Sorry for wasting your time and frustration, guys. Just trying to make sure the time is right. Would be nice if the table had a UTC column for the people like me who would think that London is always UTC 0. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd hope it is easier for people to understand what UTC is, rather than looking at London. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? You'd hope it is easier for people to understand what UTC is, then wouldn't you put a UTC column on the table above? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the template documentation? Is says there when Daylight Savings Time is relevant, and for when it isn't, there is (UTC) next to London. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"forced to begin considering"

The Polish article...wordy..."forced to consider" would suffice

Please see WP:ERRORS.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Off the front page now, but in retrospect, I think I would agree. Gatoclass (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent additions

Why has this not been updated since yesterday? I thought it was updated every 5 hours. Simply south (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The bot that used to update hasn't done it for a while, so now it's completely manual so clearly someone hasn't gotten to it yet.--Giants27 (c|s) 15:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've updated it with the latest sets. Remember than any autoconfirmed user can archive DYK sets. Shubinator (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

DYKSTATS Update

It's been a while since DYKSTATS has been given a good update. I've been working on it since yesterday and will continue as time permits. Anyone who wants to help is welcome. I think DYKSTATS is one of the best ways to demonstrate the vitality of DYK in drawing attention to diverse and sometimes neglected topics. Here's a short chart showing DYK hooks in June (so far) that have attracted at least 10,000 page views. Cbl62 (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Article	Image	DYK views	DYK hook
Stannard Rock Light		31,000	... that the Stannard Rock Light (pictured), known as the "Loneliest Place in the World", is the furthest lighthouse from land and described as one of the top ten engineering feats in the United States?
peanut butter, banana and bacon sandwich		17,000	... that the peanut butter, banana and bacon sandwich (pictured) would be New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's choice for his last meal and is sometimes referred to as an "Elvis sandwich"?
Sword of Stalingrad	The Sword of Stalingrad	16,400	... that after Winston Churchill handed Joseph Stalin the Sword of Stalingrad (pictured) at the Tehran Conference, a clumsy Soviet general let it slip out of its scabbard?
Marshall Newell		14,200	...that "Ma" Newell (pictured), one of the few four-year All-Americans in college football history, was run over by a railroad engine on Christmas Eve 1897?
car cooler		13,300	... that a car cooler (pictured) is an early type of automobile "air conditioner" that has been around since 1930?
Albert Bridge, London		12,300	... that Albert Bridge (pictured) in London is seriously structurally unsound in part because of rotting caused by dog's urine?
Mitch Morgan		11,100	... that a Mitch Morgan (pictured), bourbon with a slice of bacon as a garnish, served as the inspiration for Bacon Salt?
Edward Riou		10,900	... that Edward Riou (pictured) sailed with Cook, survived his ship hitting an iceberg, but died by being nearly cut in two aboard HMS Amazon at Copenhagen?
Nicolas Jacques Pelletier		10,800	... that Nicolas Jacques Pelletier was the first person to be executed by guillotine (pictured)?

I usually check how many hits my article got, a day or two after it was on the MP, and add it to DYKSTATS myself if it was over 5,000 (ie, once). I assume a lot of DYK regulars do this, but non-regulars probably don't know they can. Maybe we can update the DYK award bauble with a sentence or two saying "after 24 hours have passed, you are welcome to check how many hits your article got _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rjanag it would be a nice addition to the DYK notice thing.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A bunch of somehow not-quite-OK-but-not-actually-officially-incorrect hooks: query

I don't really know if i should raise this at all, and I haven't raised it with the editor in question, candlewicke. I don't mean to be uncivil towards him/her, I just don't really know how to raise this query, and I am happy for candlewicke to jump in here.

Candlewicke has provided a host of recent DYK noms, mostly relating to Irish radio /TV / music. These have included David Carradine is a Bounty Hunter Whos Robotic Arm Hates Your Crotch, How Am I Supposed to Kill You If You Have All the Guns?, Fight Like Apes and the Mystery of the Golden Medallion, Aine Lawlor, Cathal Mac Coille, John Murray (broadcaster), Fight Like Apes, Mary Wilson (broadcaster), Rachael English, The Meaning of Life (TV series), and Dublin Women's Mini Marathon. I've read a few of these articles, and have been monitoring the feedback at T:DYK, and there just seems to be a kind of range of problems with these articles and the nominations. It isn't any one particular thing. For some of them, there seem to be issues of notability that aren't necessarily getting articulated; for others it's the wierd hooks, sometimes relying on unusual stuff like what the parents of a band member thought about their son's music. With others, the original article seems not as well prepared as most DYKs and/or could possibly be merged into something broader. There seems to be such an avalanche of nominations I'm wondering whether we're not addressing all these issues simply because there seem to be so many at once. I've probably reviewed over a hundred DYK noms in recent months and this cluster is raising more problems than average. My suggestion to candlewicke would probably be to say write fewer articles and spend more time on them, and try for hooks that aren't so cryptic (the David Carradine one is an obvious example). On the other hand, candlewicke is an experienced editor (certainly more so than me). So I'd like other editors' views. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at these individual entries, but some of Candlewicke's articles do tend to be a bit light on content. That doesn't mean however that they don't meet DYK requirements - there are a great many DYK submissions that are thin on content but meet the requirements, and I see no reason why we should single out Candlewicke for attention just because he is a freqent contributor.

The hooks are another issue - if a hook is problematic, a more appropriate hook should be found. But that alone wouldn't be a reason to start disqualifying articles. Gatoclass (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gatoclass on this one, if it passes the requirements (and isn't a copyvio and such) then it's fine, however a hook is key but like mentioned it shouldn't be used to disqualify articles instead the more discussion that occurs the better because then more hooks can be found and the best one available can be used. And I know some of my DYKs in, the, past have been content light but they still got the six hours because they qualified.--Giants27 (t|c) 01:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This most recent batch has been troubling because the articles haven't supported the hooks, the hooks have not been about the subjects, the hook text is in random trivia improperly inserted into the article, and/or is one random opinion about something tangentially related to the subject. This is a problem with multiple DYK nominations at the moment and I'm hopeful that focused attention by multiple reviewers can clean this up a bit. - Dravecky (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

AfDs are a viable option and can be performed before the article is listed or after the article is listed. If it is deleted, just drop a note here for a record of it happening. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD for one of the articles can be found here. Others should be listed. There are serious problems with lack of notability, non-reliable sources, and original research. These should never have been passed. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed that this has happened but Ottava has just informed me of this discussion. I have only tried to reply to each issue raised and solve it in the best possible way - however, I am confused as to why Ottava is using a reference against me in that AfD despite it being added only after I was specifically asked for it by a reviewer (I cannot remember who, perhaps they do). I have not regularly subjected to questions over my edits outside DYK - matters like this have never come up at GA or ITN so I don't know why there are so many difficulties over sources, paraphrasing, etc. both here and now. I have noticed that several other users, including admins it seems, are also experiencing difficulties around this time, so I find mention of me alone a little strange. However, there must be some specific difficulty with me alone as that is what is being raised here. The trouble is that it is a different problem on each occasion and some of the problems are contradicting each other (I've never been told how a link which is closely paraphrased one day can be original research the other day - how does one solve that?), some are agreeing and with others there is disagreement so I'm not sure how to respond but I do my best to satisfy all issues. The "weird stuff" again is something which is suddenly a problem but so too is a hook that is too boring. I accept that the articles may not be perfect (but then I've never tried to make them all FAs, that would be a big ask if I can't do the simple thing without provoking comment), many of those mentioned above have been nominated by me and contributed to by another; indeed I am most disappointed for him as he has been great with some of these articles and does not deserve to be dragged down in this way with me. It might be better for me to not contribute here any further, it is not very fun anymore and when there is no enjoyment there seems little point when it is not my job and I'm not submitting DYKs due to any struggle for survival. I am sorry for all this bother, none of it is intended. --can dle •wicke 20:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I was the person who started this thread, and i should respond. I didn't want to bother you with something if it wasn't an issue in the eyes of other editors - hence the way I ended my post: "candlewicke is an experienced editor (certainly more so than me). So I'd like other editors' views". There seemed to be a range of views: Gatoclass and Giants were pretty much saying that sure, there might be issues, but lots of articles start out this way, and we should just stick to applying DYK rules and improving things where we can. Dravecky and Ottava were more critical, but even then, Dravecky's overall response was "I'm hopeful that focused attention by multiple reviewers can clean this up a bit" - in other words, the onus is on all of us, not particularly on the nominator (yourself), to do our best with the material and to improve new WP entries. I was fairly comfortable with that. At the same time as raising the (non) issue, I was continuing to work positively on your noms: see for example this (which I forgot to sign at the time). And about the same time as I was querying some of your noms, I got tripped up in pretty much the same way as some of yours did here, and i thought that was fine - it made sure I improved my accuracy. Anyway, I definitely did not want to offend or disappoint you or other editors. I hope you'll stick around doing more DYK noms. I'll copy to your talk page too. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Candlewicke seems to be upset due to a couple of posts Ottava has left at his page regarding his "bad articles" that are about to be put up "for AFD".

I think it should be made clear at this point that no-one but Ottava has proposed putting Candlewicke's articles "up for AFD." Moreover, I for one have certainly not described Candlewicke's articles as "bad". This seems to be just another example of Ottava creating needless wikidrama. Gatoclass (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if I misread anything or contributed to anything disruptive. Ottava informed me that you had all been discussing me all week over here and that he was intending to delete nominate a series of my "bad articles" based on the opinions of everyone here. I later realised that Ottava had come to this conclusion himself but have not been able to work out why. I am not even fully certain if I am doing wrong right now as I am still a bit confused about things Ottava is saying about me and anyone who happens to leave messages on my talk page but when I find out if I am I will try to right any wrongs. --can dle •wicke 21:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Now is a good time to panic

We have 195 nominated hooks but only 19 approved ones. We have five empty queues and two empty prep areas. We had six empty queues but I just cobbled one together out of what little has been reviewed. So DYK needs urgent attention from article reviewers and queue builders or in a few hours we'll be back to six empty queues and DYK skids to a halt. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Gatoclass is filling another queue, I'll go try to review some (I noticed that the 16th is practically empty in terms on verified hooks).--Giants27 (c|s) 16:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you guys could try, you know, checking them yourselves and putting them in the prep area if they work instead of waiting around for someone to put a check on them. Let's not be lazy, please. Wizardman 16:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had to do that a few times myself when looking for bio hooks.--Giants27 (c|s) 17:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it, let's reduce the number of hooks to about 6 again, shall we? For now, there's no need to require a higher level when we don't many approved hooks for those updates. This would only be temporary, but I might move a hook or two from prep 1 to prep 2, since it looks full enough now. Jamie^☆S93 17:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, Gatoclass kept the prep 1 update to 7 hooks, and just moved to the queue. Jamie^☆S93 17:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally think we should leave it at 6 for longer than temporary because not only is it easier to read but it also takes away less verified hooks making more available for more filled queues. So instead of 1-3 queues with 8, then we can have 4-6 with 6.--Giants27 (c|s) 17:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason we have eight hooks is because otherwise we would end up having to dump hooks simply because there wouldn't be room for them, and no-one wants to do that. I agree that six hooks is probably the ideal number, but the reality is that we get more than 24 eligible hooks every 24 hours. Gatoclass (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Me too. After we continued the 6-hook rate for a while, I got used to it and found it much more readable. I only said "temporary" because this would have to be a consensus change. Also, DYK fluctuates by the week, sometimes lacking verified nominations, and other times backlogged with a good amount of approved hooks (sometimes rare). So, a "norm" is not easy to attain with this system, although I think that 7 hooks might not be a bad default, rather than 8, which pushes the standard of easy readability. Also, recently we seem to have been occasionally back and forth between 8 and 6, so 7 may be worth a try. Jamie^☆S93 17:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been checking hooks and had to promote a couple I'd checked myself just to fill the queue. (We're woefully short on approved non-sports non-US bio hooks, for example.) I've also been trying to move along some of the more problematic hooks and was hoping, at the very least, that some other folks could pick off the low-hanging fruit of easy to approve hooks to keep us going. Thanks to Gatoclass and anybody else who jumped in (or will jump in now) to assist. - Dravecky (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've also been doing some of the older noms. Awadewit (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I notice Jamie has restored the six-hook notice. It won't hurt to do a few six-hook updates, but the number of hooks over the last few weeks has been steady or climbing while we've done 8 hooks per update, which means that sticking to 6 for any length of time is going to create a backlog, which in turn just means more work down the road for someone. Gatoclass (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything I can do? Do approved hooks need to be moved to the Prep Area? --can dle •wicke 21:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Will verify a few hooks now. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

@Candlewicke: basically anything really whether you do what Wizardman suggests above, verify and wait or move hooks to the prep area.--Giants27 (c|s) 21:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have verified several (only one had a problem of being a blog) so hopefully that will go some way to at least sorting out the emergency "panic" situation. That was enjoyable; I may do more later if no other issues distract me. --can dle •wicke 22:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center

The original hook for the article Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center, which has been the subject of extensive discussion on T:TDYK and is one of many articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict that have been under DYK consideration, was promoted as is for inclusion on the main page. I firmly believe that we should do everything we can to get appropriate articles approved for DYK and I have no objection at all to approving this for DYK. In a corresponding situation in which the article never appeared, I valiantly tried to get the Palestinian Land Laws article approved for DYK, and persistently offered a thoroughly-sourced compromise hook as a means to reach consensus. I think that the hook that had been proposed here by User:Ynhockey regarding the center's role in treating cases of the Jerusalem Syndrome is relevant to the article and represents an appropriate middle ground to move ahead. The article remains unchanged on Wikipedia and all of the material regarding the site's history is there. We have a few choices here: 1) all hooks go ahead, regardless of controversy; 2) no controversial hooks are approved; and 3) we work to find acceptable hooks that reach consensus for controversial articles. Option 1 is a recipe for disaster. Option 2 gives any editor (or side in an argument) veto power over articles they don't like. Option 3 is the Wikipedia way. Whatever we choose, it should be applied consistently for all articles. An alternative hook for this article and a similar approach for other controversial articles should be the solution here. Alansohn (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a sticky situation, no matter how many hooks are proposed either side is going to say that it doesn't show them in the right way, even when it's completely sourced. I say let it go on the Main Page, it's fully sourced yeah sure it's kind of negative but the whole situation is so like I said, if it qualifies and isn't too sexual (see above) then let it go.--Giants27 (c|s) 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I did suggest that perhaps an alternative hook be found, but several neutral editors disagreed and said they felt the original hook was fine, which is why the hook has been chosen (and by another neutral editor, I might add). The debate about "Palestinian land laws", on the other hand, wasn't merely about the hook showing one side in an unflattering light, it was about the accuracy of the hook and the neutrality of the article itself. So it was a quite different situation. Gatoclass (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In both cases, I offered and suggested alternative hooks that address the subject in neutral fashion and that were backed by reliable and verifiable sources. In the case of Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center the suggestion was ignored and the original hook was used. In the case of Palestinian Land Laws, the neutral and properly sourced suggestion I offered was ignored and the article disappeared off the DYK candidate queue. The inconsistency applied here is a matter that must be addressed, and one for which I have already suggested a remedy in which mutually-agreeable hooks are used in controversial subjects. The decision to push this hook as-is with no consensus for the original hook and a clear, viable and interesting alternative hook rejected is probelmatic, at best. Alansohn (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no inconsistency Alansohn. As I said, the problem with Palestinian Land Laws was not just the hook but also the article itself, it was finally failed because the article was considered to be POV.

As for your comment about consensus for hooks, we have no established method of resolving such issues but I would be wary of any "solution" to the problem that involved giving effective veto power to one or another interested party, for obvious reasons.

In this case, we have had a number of neutral users with no involvement with the I/P conflict consider the arguments put by both sides and come to the conclusion that the original hook was okay. I'm inclined to the view that allowing uninvolved parties to decide these issues is probably as good a means as any of resolving them. Gatoclass (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I can't imagine "neutral users with no involvement with the I/P conflict" that are aware of politics at all, I don't know which of Alansohn's 3 options I prefer. My POV differs from the POV of the personality type attracted to journalism, so to me, balance would mean we wouldn't harp on the massacre and the death march without mentioning why they couldn't just live together as neighbors. That's an example of why I've learned to avoid tasks like "In The News" that would require me to guess what political whim is driving the Wikipedia consensus at the moment, and that's an example of why I don't trust Wikipedia for politics in the same way I trust it for science. Art LaPella (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The article continues to be extremely unbalanced. The hospital has received a huge amount of press, been written up in books in many languages, and appears regularly in professional literature because of its role in treating Jerusalem syndrome Yet the article is almost entirely about Deir Yassin. Surely it ought to be improved and balanced before it appears on DYK.Historicist (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I must confess I found the hook a bit long and clumsy, and I really don't think that either the article or the pic are good enough to warrant the lead spot. So as a compromise, I've trimmed the hook a bit and moved a new article to the lead spot. Gatoclass (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

July 1st is the opening day for the Canadian Football League along with it being Canada Day and I was planning to get some hooks ready for it but I'm not sure whether there should be a special holding area for it or not. Thoughts?--Giants27 (c|s) 19:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I've generally used the special holding area for any hooks that are meant for a certain day, no matter how important or international it is. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Canada Day? Why not? If Saint Patrick's Day and July 4 in the United States are acceptable... --can dle •wicke 19:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Created special holding area.--Giants27 (c|s) 20:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

right|100x100px

Brent Townsend, the artist who designed the Loonie (pictured) and the Polar Bear on the Toonie would be a good DYK expansion for anyone interested in Canada Day. Cbl62 (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Posted a comment here so that way someone who knows more about the artist people and painters can do it because I wouldn't know where to start. :)--Giants27 (c|s) 02:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Probable bot bug

[15] --NE2 15:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah for some reason the bot does that when ever there are ,000.--Giants27 (c|s) 16:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I would think it's the $1... --NE2 21:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's the dollar sign. The bot operator knows of the problem, but he hasn't been around lately. Shubinator (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Could we use a template as a workaround? Something like {{$}}1 so that the bot renders it correctly? I seem to remember ' is for a similar reason, but I could be mistaken. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

An interesting idea, but I don't think it'll work as planned. The bot is written in PHP, and PHP variables start with $, so the bot thinks it's a variable, and the dollar sign doesn't show up. What might work better is bypassing the dollar sign completely by hardcoding it with html like so: $ gives $. Shubinator (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

How about {{dollarsign}}? \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that would work too. Shubinator (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Created. {{dollarsign}} produces $. Won't be too hard to implement - only the moving admin needs to use it. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)