Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45 ← Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 → Archive 55

One reference used

Please read. I would like people to weigh in about the use of one reference. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

#Rule against single sourcing. The consensus appears to be for "Multiple sources are generally preferred". Shubinator (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I meant on the actual DYK section and not talk page. :P I don't want to unilaterally deny this hook. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

South Ossetia article

The hook on Russia – South Ossetia relations was recently put into queue 2 despite a possible NPOV violation, no edits to the article to fix the issue, and no clear consensus about 1) if there is a bias, or 2) if it can be ignored if there is. The nom should be discussed further before being displayed on the Main Page.

So why do I think it's not neutral? In the 2008 war in South Ossetia section, the article essentially says that Georgia invaded South Ossetia, and then Russia sent troops in to protect its citizens. All of the facts are correct as stated, but the facts are not chosen in a neutral way.

For example, let's try this story on the latest Israel – Palestine incident: On January 3, 2009, thousands of Israeli troops marched into Gaza. During the invasion a UN compound in Gaza was shelled.[1] The elected party of Gaza fired rockets into Israel in self-defense.[2]

Most people would agree the paragraph above is biased. The Russia – South Ossetia relations article is similarly biased and shouldn't be displayed on the Main Page as-is. Shubinator (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know... while I see where you're coming from but I don't see it. The paragraph does seem to be Russia centered but not necessarily Russia biased. IMHO And since I was the one who moved it to the prep areas, I feel I should comment and my comment would be that, I promoted it mainly because of what Wehwalt and SusanLesch said which I agree with. DYK is not FAC or GAN and the main purpose is to have people edit the articles to improve them to GA or FA, thus I promoted it in the hopes someone will fix yours and others concerns.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK doesn't have as high standards, true, but I see this as blatant bias. We have pulled articles in the past for bias, especially in politically charged conflicts like the Israel-Palestine one. Both Wehwalt and SusanLesch said they weren't familiar enough with the subject to comment on possible bias. I'm not an expert, but news last year couldn't decide who was "right" (like the Israel – Palestine incident in January). The article goes out of its way to quote a Russian leader as saying they went in to defend Russian citizens, yet depicts Georgia as an invader. Shubinator (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, is it Russia centered? Yes. Biased in my opinion? Not really. I'm sure there are (not my area of work so I won't but...) sources out there for Georgia's leader about it. And what would be nice would be to have a something like a Pre-war section talking about whatever led up to it. Because to me it's rather obvious Georgia did it for a reason (I'm not politically up to date so I have no idea) whether it be independence or Russia struck first.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I say again, let it go. I looked at it, even with my limited knowledge of the field, it didn't look totally out of whack. It's there, it's gone in six hours. It won't kill us. It isn't a TFA. Let it run.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
We don't have such a carefree attitude with the IP articles. I've notified the nominator of this discussion, since he/she hasn't replied since the article was nommed. I would like to see the article go through the natural DYK cycle - nom, issues brought up, issues fixed, verified, DYK - instead of being rushed through with issues not addressed. Shubinator (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I had a read through it and it seemed reasonably NPOV to me apart from the citizenship issue, which Russia controversially extended to South Ossetians after the '91 conflict, so I've made some edits that I hope have clarified that issue. I think the article probably meets NPOV now, but if you have any further concerns, let me know. Gatoclass (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Probably if this was the Russian Wikipedia, Shubinator, we would not take such a casual attitude towards Russian-Georgian relations, but I-P would probably get a shrug. Seriously, I don't think you can compare anything to I-P. But I do see your point, one in a thousand articles requires a little extra care. Lydda Death March was rather casually verified, and we all got a lot of drama when it turned out to be problem. I don't know how you allow for that one in a thousand article except taking a close look on sensitive subjects before they hit the queues.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Gato for helping out. Since the Russian POV is highlighted, I added some material from the other side. I'd also be fine with striking both POVs, and leaving it at dates of troop movements into South Ossetia. I had raised this issue before the nom was promoted to the queues, and hoped it wouldn't be promoted without the issue being addressed (and the nominator still hasn't commented, despite editing since I left the notice). Shubinator (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
This is not Israel-Palestine, but rather Russia-South Ossetia relations. Of course the article is going to be Russia or South Ossetia centric, as it is also not an article on the war, nor is it an article on the international recognition of A&SO. But rather, it is an article on the bilateral relationship between Russia and South Ossetia, so of course the bulk of the article is going to be on these two states. One can also see that I have also included some criticism of the relationship, as I always do when writing articles from an NPOV standpoint. Do we need after every treaty or agreement that is signed that Misha in Tbilisi condemns it? That would be pure overkill because we get it already, Georgia doesn't recognise South Ossetia as being independent. But again, this is Russia-South Ossetia relations. There has already been a somewhat disruptive attempt to expunge the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia – South Ossetia relations, but it was quite rightly speedily kept. As one of the editors mentioned, anything that needs to be discussed should be done on the article talk page, which after putting in all the time I have on this article, I see that not a single editor has yet to utilise Talk:Russia – South Ossetia relations for it's intended purpose. Having said that, I am not saying that the article is perfect, and as one can see I am still adding and tweaking information in order to make it flow better and be more informational. More information on the war, remembering of course this is not 2008 South Ossetia war, will also be added. --Russavia Dialogue 18:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, to use the I-P analogy above. The key to presenting information on WP is to attribute it to the source. For example, in the R-SO article, it doesn't say "Russia intervened to protect its citizens", but rather it says, "Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, in noting the deaths of Russian peacekeepers and South Ossetian civilians, stated: "In accordance with the Constitution and the federal laws, as President of the Russian Federation it is my duty to protect the lives and dignity of Russian citizens wherever they may be."" There is a vast difference in presenting something the way in the I-P example, and the way that I have done so in this article - in this article, it is attributed to who wrote/spoke it. --Russavia Dialogue 18:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting here. The bulk of the article is fine, but it's the section about the war I'm concerned about, as it paints Georgia as the aggressor. Attribution is good, but if facts are picked selectively, they can give the reader a biased picture, even if all the facts are attributed. Do you mind if I change the wording a bit to address the bias?
What makes the article talk page so sacred? The discussion began at DYK, so it makes sense to continue it here instead of spawning threads. This is still related to DYK since the article could be pulled if there were unexplained partial reverts of others' edits to give the article a more neutral tone. Shubinator (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource reliable?

Is Wikisource considered a reliable source for a fact that is used for a hook? Refer to [3]. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's just a copy of something that otherwise is a reliable source, I don't see why not. We can probably AGF that the wikisource entry created is an accurate copy of the real source (ie, unless we have a good reason for doing so, we probably shouldn't assume that the wikisource editor made up things that aren't in the real source). If it's a problem, we can always just have the reference refer to the actual charter, rather than the Wikisource version, and comment out the Wikisource link. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Rule against single sourcing

Right now our rules say that a single source is all that's required. Over the past few months, many reviewers have asked for more than one source in an article, and some nominators have resisted (often citing E3). I propose a new rule:

  • The article should have more than one source.

Shubinator (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that people ask for more than one source in order to verify notability and hedge off any notability related AfDs. It is more procedure for new articles than for DYK. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Personally I think this is unneeded WP:CREEP that crosses into WP:FA and WP:GA territory. If the single source is reliable and verifiable, that should be all that is needed. AgneCheese/Wine 16:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Every source, no matter how reliable, has its own biases. A single-sourced article will reflect the bias of its source. And there are notability issues. Shubinator (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, your lordships, if you need a second source you'll have a second source. Got the point? Now, if you want a second source to back up DYK hook, word-by-word, be prepared for a thinner line of proposals. Perhaps what Shubinator really means is a basic yet thorough notability test, but it is up to human reviewers, auto checklist won't do. Bias issue is well above the capacity of DYK staff (blatant pov cases aside), and above any formal checklist. Besides, you really have to persuade the audience that, for example, Nonimaging optics is unacceptably biased (in what particular direction?) and needs support from, say, Introduction to Nonimaging Optics ... or Le Monde or Pravda. NVO (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

My point is that many nominators see E3 and assume that one reference is enough. In other words, they think if an article with only one reference appears, the "default" is to accept. However, this is not the case on the nominations page. The default for single-sourced articles is to reject. I agree assessing articles is subjective, but the rules currently give nominators the wrong impression. Shubinator (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
It still looks like another attempt to define reliable sources and is easily "gameable". Same problem, relying on a single definitive source in a FA, has been raised at Wikipedia_talk:Plagiarism/Archive_3#Plagiarism_or_excellent_article.3F and ... Rabindranath Tagore is still a FA. Of course it has other sources, but the core of the article follows a single source. If it is accepted in a FA, it shouldn't be ruled out in DYK. NVO (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying single sourced articles should never be accepted. I'm saying the default is rejecting a single-sourced article, and the rules should reflect our current procedures. I intentionally phrased the rule as "should" instead of "must".
Also, Tagore does have inline citations to multiple sources. Shubinator (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) Perhaps the better option, rather than adding a new rule, is to clarify that E3 and the other things like that don't necessarily mean that nominators are "entitled" to certain things (like a right to have their article featured when it only has one source), because they're not—like most things on WP, DYK noms are judged more or less on a case-by-case basis, and while there are certain precedents and standards, that never means you're guaranteed a spot.

As far as sourcing goes, when I used to review noms a lot I more or less ignored the specific DYK rules and went by a general mantra, "articles featured on DYK should not stink". That does not, of course, mean that they need to be mini-GAs. It does mean, though, that if the article has something that I perceive as a major problem—serious copyediting concerns, parroting a single source, or whatnot—I will usually raise a complaint about it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

D11 says articles may be rejected for something not explicitly in the rules (and, for that matter, approved "against" rules). Quite a few nominators have grumbled at being asked to provide more than one source though. At the least I think E3 should be removed. This won't affect how we review articles; for a while the informal consensus has been against articles with single sources. I'd appreciate reviewers' opinions on this. Shubinator (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Removing E3 sounds fine to me, although I think the best thing would be to tag the whole E section with some sort of comment stating something along the lines of "none of these things mean that your article won't be rejected for this, reviewers always reserve the right to evaluate articles on a case-by-case basis; even though E-whatever might be sometimes controversial, your article can still be failed for it." rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I know in the past I've rejected articles with only one source mainly because of what Ottava said it shows notability and helps to verify info. I'll also add that it ensures that there probably isn't any copyvio's in it. Removing E3 isn't likely to make anyone scream bloody murder so go ahead.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Removing E3, thus turning it into an unwritten rule, would also make authors more likely to write articles based on one source, and then be disappointed to find out that isn't enough. In particular, "the article must not stink" won't mean to them what it means to you. The consensus has probably become stronger than the existing wording but that could be solved by stronger yet not absolute wording. For instance, "An article with only one source is more likely to be rejected." Or even "An article with only one source is likely to be rejected." Art LaPella (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Both of these work for me. Shubinator (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
As for the rest of WP:DYKAR#"Rules" sometimes invoked but lacking a consensus, I originally wrote it with the thought that it would embarrass the rest of you into clarifying those situations. "The article must not stink" is a great rule for reviewers, but it's a terrible rule for authors considering whether to attempt to comply. Art LaPella (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't know. As NVO suggested, a rule like this would be highly gameable. If 99% of the article relies on a single source, and one statement in the article relies on a second source, does that make the article as a whole any less dependent on the first? Or are we going to apply a minimum percentage, and if so, who would like to try policing such a rule?
I'm a little uncomfortable about articles dependent on a single source too, but I think, like Rjanag, I would prefer to retain a little flexibility. There are certain subjects, for example, that one wouldn't want to see dependent on a single source. I would also be more inclined to accept a single-sourced article that was short rather than long. But I'm not sure anything would be gained by making a second source a requirement. Gatoclass (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought my wording accounted for that objection. Although I think "The article should have more than one source" could be interpreted as "The article must have more than one source", I thought I toned that down. Do you think "An article with only one source is [more] likely to be rejected" means the same as "The article must have more than one source"? If not, I think I have already accommodated your objection. I didn't try to specify when one source is enough; I just warned authors that one source might be a problem. Eliminating the rule invites authors to write one-source articles and learn the hard way. Art LaPella (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I think "An article with only one source is [more] likely to be rejected" is the best solution. Although, as a corrolary to my "articles shouldn't stink" comment above, I should point out that there already is an "unwritten rule" saying that articles with outstanding major cleanup tags are likely to be rejected. Though it doesn't explicitly say so, that also means that an article that could be tagged at any moment should also be rejected. Since {{single source}} is a major cleanup tag, this rule should handle these articles (although, of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that nominators know about it or pay attention to it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
My concern is that if such wording is adopted, it will rapidly become the de facto response to challenge or disqualify every article that has only one source. Your comment about tagging the article just reinforces that perception. So it seems like a slippery slope to me. Gatoclass (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
It already is the de facto response. Current procedure is it takes an exceptional (whatever that means) source and a good article without copyvio or bias to get around it. I did know about the single sourcing tag, and if my proposal to remove E3 was shot down, I would have suggested changing the cleanup tag rule ... as is, the two rules conflict. Shubinator (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
As I said earlier Shubs, does an article become more credible, or notably less dependent on a single source, if the author adds a second reference to cite a single statement, leaving the other 99% of the article cited to the original source? Hardly. So what concrete gain is to be had from insisting on the second source? Little if any that I can see.
I think we're better off just sticking to common sense. If the source is solid, and being used to source uncontroversial facts, I don't see much of a problem. If the source is iffy, and/or being used substantially to opinionate or interpret facts, or if the subject matter itself is controversial, that's when I think single-sourced articles start running into problems. Gatoclass (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree totally with Gato. The de facto response to single source articles should not be rejection without taking the quality of the source into account. Frankly I'm shocked to hear that is the case. Again, what is up with the WP:CREEP into WP:GA & WP:FA territory? Of course we don't want utter crap on the main page but there is a lot of ground between crap and GA. We don't need to swing the pendulum far to one extreme in order to avoid the other. AgneCheese/Wine 03:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the cleanup tag rule covers single source article tags, and yes, nominators might not know that – I didn't know about single source article tags either. Art LaPella (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Easy enough to find two extremist cources, if that's what they want YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


Quite a few people have completely missed the aim of this proposal. The rule change would not affect daily operations at DYK, but reflect our current procedure, and give editors a good idea of what to expect at DYK. Of course subjective reviewing doesn't go away, and I'm sure some single-sourced articles would be approved, as they are now. "Rejection without taking the quality of the source into account" has not been proposed anywhere in this dicussion.
The heart of this boils down to a simple question: Is a single-sourced article more likely to be accepted or rejected at DYK? Shubinator (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your question should be "None of the above". The classification of "single sourced article" shouldn't even exist in the DYK vocabulary. There should only be consideration of "well sourced" vs "insufficiently sourced articles". The quality of the reference should be the only consideration, not the quantity. Any rejection based on the number of sources--which is EXACTLY what a blanket (or de facto) rejection of "single sourced articles" is--does poor service to DYK and certainly shouldn't be codify in the guidelines. AgneCheese/Wine 17:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you would like to change Wikipedia:Notability then? "Multiple sources are generally preferred." Shubinator (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Preferred does not mean required and it certainly doesn't mean that DYK should be counting the # of references as a de facto criteria. Quality and Quantity are not interlink. The former should be of paramount importance to the reviewer, the later is simply fruitless bean counting. AgneCheese/Wine 03:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Agne, you appear to be missing my point. Would you be satisfied if we adopted the same wording as Wikipedia:Notability? (To clear up any confusion at all, that's "Multiple sources are generally preferred"). Shubinator (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Any objections/comments on "Multiple sources are generally preferred"? Shubinator (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be okay. Obviously they are preferred, but one source noms aren't always automatically rejected on that basis alone. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on the discussion here I have added "Multiple sources are generally preferred" to the additional rules. Shubinator (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

T:DYKT Page too big

Has anyone else found that it takes a really long time to load nowadays? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a perennial issue and it's just because of the size of the page, I don't think there's much that can be done to change it (other than telling people not to nominate so many articles?). It takes maybe 5-10 seconds on my computer, and I don't have a fast internet connection (although when I tried accessing it from an internet connection in Argentina, it would freeze up the computer for several minutes). Overall, I don't think it's any slower than WP:FAC. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Luckily for FAC/FAR they are transcluded, so I just get the list of articles and look at the ones I want indivudally...YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) For me it's probably 3-5 and a way to fix this is (just tossing out an idea don't necessarily support it but...) maybe creating separate subpages for the nominations that can be linked on the page (kind of like WP:AFD.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
This has been suggested before (can't find the link in the archives just now, I think it was by Backslash Forwardslash) and I believe got a lukewarm reception. It would create a lot of clutter (although I guess no more than AfDs) and most of the subpages would be pretty tiny, since typical DYK noms generate less discussion than typical AFDS. Having a large number of transcluded templates on the page would create its own loadtime problems and thus might not even improve the situation. And, probably most importantly, it would make it difficult for the people preparing updates at T:DYK/P, since it would become difficult to grab (by copy-pasting) multiple hooks in a single edit. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
IMO, we already have too many pages at DYK. The slow load times are a nuisance, but I don't think there's much more we can practically do to speed the process up. The backlog is obviously a major contributing factor - there are currently about twice as many hooks at Suggestions now as there were only a month or so ago. Gatoclass (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Here is a link to a previous discussion on a similar proposal proposed by myself, Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_44#T:TDYK and Loading Times. I am still very much in favour of such a system, and perhaps it is high time we do something to actually make DYK accessible for slow connections. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Another possible way to split the page would be to divide it into the first 5 days (where new articles would be added) and the rest kept in 2 different pages. But this would create a problem with moving hooks every day from one page to the other. Looks like introducing any kind of subpages would result in either a lot of work or a lot of clutter. Maybe a bot can help with moving hooks if we implement something like this, but that would still take time.
If we are going to implement a new method here, we have to be prepared for some setbacks as well though. The introduction of the new new nomination template made the page larger and longer, but it also made it more neat and easier to find and review hooks. I don't think we can't expect a perfect solution for something like this so we'll just have to go for net positive. ≈ Chamal talk 10:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm opposed to splitting the Suggestions page. The delay is annoying, but it's not crippling. And I fail to see how splitting the page will make the process any faster overall. It will just mean that the time you used to spend waiting for the Suggestions page to open will be time you spend flipping from one page to another looking for a suitable hook. Gatoclass (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
How about we just split the days' pages to separate subpages, i.e. each days gets their own page but not each nom? Also, imho most of the current lag when loading does not come from the amount of nominations but from the huge backlog in reviewing them (there is a 5 to 7 days backlog usually). Regards SoWhy 13:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
@Gato: I felt that way before, but after my two weeks in Argentina earlier this summer I did get somewhat convinced that decreasing the loadtime would be nice...for most of us it's only a minor annoyance, as you say, but for people in other parts of the world it can basically make it impossible to participate in DYK at all (as it did for me on most of the computers I used there). Granted, I do not feel that splitting it into subpages is the best way to do that, and there may not be any other way anyway, so our hands might be tied. But if there are any alternatives (other than splitting) that will decrease loadtime, it would be worth exploring them. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Well it might preclude some people with slow net connections from participating in DYK maintenance tasks but I wouldn't have thought it would stop them from submitting articles, and if it did they would only have to ask someone else to submit it for them. I mean it's not as if we've had anyone actually complain about it. But if you can think of a possible way to speed up the page without splitting it, I'd certainly be happy to look at it. Gatoclass (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I would like the idea of having the main 5 days listed and having a separate page for expiring noms. That way, we can keep track of people which are more in desperate need without interfering with people listing new ones. I have no real desire either way, and I'm just throwing this out there. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I know I'm a few days late in saying this but I have noticed this too even though I did not believe my connection was all that slow. It has discouraged me from trying to load the page and even then I am usually nominating several at once rather than individually as I used to. And the delay also discourages me from reviewing anything. So in a way I am not able to assist with the backlog as much as I was doing even a few weeks ago and am adding to it by nominating. It has almost become my least favourite page to visit now(!) (: I am one person but if there are several who have the same experience it probably doesn't help the overall situation. So I would definitely support any change that improves this and allows greater participation. --candle•wicke 22:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I have had no problems loading the page at all. But maybe a wonderful internet loading god is watching over me. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've found the load time a lot better than it's been in the past (say, than nine months ago). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Leo Mintz

Someone in this process has changed my hook from "...one of the first...", which is referenced, to "..the first...", which is supported by some but not other sources, but is debatable and potentially contentious (among the small circle of people who care about these things!). It may not be noticed or important, but I thought I should mention it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I changed it several hours ago -- and posted a message here to tell you I had done so, but apparently the message got lost in the ether. Anyway, it's done. --Orlady (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

13 part nom

Just listed a 13 part nom. I made sure to squeeze it under 200 characters (194). There shouldn't be a problem. The individual pages are incomplete, but I was mostly going through sources of the series and dealing with each as they were. I made sure to make them all over 5k. Anyway, just a little heads up in case anyone was wondering. I need to take a nap now. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Going for the record? :) If I remember right, the current one is 12 articles. Anyone feel this should be included in WP:DYKSTATS? It's a considerable achievement, after all. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 04:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
There's already a list somewhere of biggest hooks. And I think the highest is actually 25 or something (as disgusting as that sounds!). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, found it. Much of this page is horribly out of date. Anyway, I was wrong, it looks like the current record stands at a paltry 19 hooks. (Now that I think about it, I think I was one of the party-poopers who argued for splitting up the abovementioned 25-article hook.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
That's big... Ottava seems to be one of the record holders anyway. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 05:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Wait, you mean 17 right? Or did someone pass me? Hey! I got that 17 character one within the 200. That should be something! (it took me 3 days to figure out how to do it haha). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I did a 25 one in 4 days once. I must have neglected to shout about it afterwards. :) --candle•wicke 02:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
25 part DYK in one hook? Actually, that is incorrect. You were force to split it up because most of it did not fit together and was way too large (a ridiculous 733 characters). One of them was a 12 part DYK (274 characters). One a 7 part DYK (252 characters). Another 6 part DYK (262 characters). Ottava Rima (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, this started as you informing everyone that you had increased the backlog with a 13 part nomination, then there was speculation that this was a record nomination, then someone said 25 was the record submission, then I recalled once submitting a 25 part nomination. The question being asked was if 13 was a record nomination (since the 13 was just a nomination at the time and may very well still be now). So, by those calculations, 25 (and neither 13 nor 19) must be the minimum record nomination until someone says otherwise.
Thank you very much for your little heads up which led to me being informed of this! ;) You have made my day Ottava, perhaps we can produce a 14 part nomination together on some occasion. :) --candle•wicke 22:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It is acceptance, not submission, that counts. :P [4]. Note, you are up there quite a bit too. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
But does it count towards anything in the end? :D It doesn't further the encyclopedia, does it Ottava, to compete for your place on a list of other users? --candle•wicke 23:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I only write the noms to promote literature. One article with a clever hook in my subject area might get 500-1000 hits on the main page. That is decent. However, people seeing large hooks on major authors that they remember from their school days would then have a greater appreciation of the individual and a greater appreciation of Wikipedia. I am full of pride every time I can get one of the top 20 English poets on that list. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
'Tis decent indeed. But which are the top 20? :) --candle•wicke 02:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Not in any particular order, but here are some - Shakespeare, Milton, Pope, Keats, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Tennyson, Eliot, Donne and Blake. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominating DYKs

I don't expect anything to change because of me, but I feel like I have to mention that I used to be a very regular contributor to wikipedia under a different name (2 or so years ago) and I would create and successfully self-nominate articles for DYK constantly. I think I had something like 25 of them over the course of a few months or so of editing. I am looking at the new formats and templates for nominating an article, and my eyes are bugging out of my head. It seems 10,000 times more complicated now. It also occurs to me that this process effectively prevents relatively unsophisticated users from ever nominating an article for DYK. Is that part of the purpose? Imaginesuccess (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Recently a guide was made for new users at Wikipedia:Did you know/Learning DYK; let us know what you think. Shubinator (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I guess it's going to be a shock if you've been away for a while :)
In our defence, the additional rules (which I think would probably better be called "Rules clarifications") and the additional requirements have gradually grown mostly as a result of recurring issues that we've eventually agreed on the need to address. But really, the underlying process hasn't changed much at all. Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
In my defense, he didn't say that our criteria for approval have been explained in too much detail (anyway, my system provides summary versions); he said "new formats and templates". As a nominator, the only new one he has to learn is NewDYKnom, although that wouldn't be obvious if was trying to read WP:Did you know. NewDYKnom is perhaps justifiable because it lets DYKcheck automate some proofreading. Art LaPella (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure none of the changes were done without good reason, it was just a bit overwhelming. Also, the various pages for "how to nominate" and "here are the rules" and "here's the unofficial guide" are, in my opinion, very confusing. I think a lot of my confusion would have been eliminated if there had been a sign or box somewhere that said "cut and paste this template into the section below, and fill in all the details that are required." The way the instructions are worded sort of make it sound like there is a much more elaborate set of steps to go through, and when I clicked on the template itself the first thing I saw was a warning that essentially said "this is extremely complicated, please make sure you know what you're doing." Of course, I later realized I didn't need to open the template, but just copy and paste it. You know what I mean? Imaginesuccess (talk) 05:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Certainly I agree our "shop front"" is a bit messy and could use a revamp. It has been redone several times already but in typical wikipedia fashion, perhaps not always for the better. Hopefully someone will get around to ironing out some of the wrinkles eventually :) Gatoclass (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
My contribution was that if you go here and click "nominate a new article" it goes to this summary and its subpages. How did that work for you? Art LaPella (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Fuckin' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus

It's that time again, and an editor has expressed concern over the hook for Fuckin' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus. Hook:

Personally, I'm not too fussed over this one, but in the interests of having community opinion... \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say keep/allow. The article isn't that bad, and, it does meet WP:NOTCENSORED. We've had worse on the main page before. Cheers, I'mperator 13:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
NOTCENSORED is not a blank check. It states: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical 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." Not featuring this hook would not make Wikipedia less informative, relevant, or accurate, and there are certainly many more hooks available to feature. Anyhow, I thought it was important to at least raise the question, and I'm happy to go along with the community decision. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it's fine. Articles rejected before have often been ones that are totally lewd or gross-out (c.f. Cunt (video game)), which this is not; it's just a swear word. Sure, there may be children reading and whatever, but keeping them from being exposed to swear words is their parents' responsibility, not ours. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Why would parents expect Wikipedia, which claims to be a valuable educational resource, to feature swear words on the main page? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Let it pass, I don't see what's wrong with this. It's not obscene or deliberately offensive (even if it was, remember that wikipedia isn't censored) and if people are offended by an exclamation of surprise, so what. People are allowed to be offended. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Remeber to read WP:NOTCENSORED before citing it in a discussion. I have discussed the problem with NOTCENSORED as it applies to this situation above. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
If necessary, it could be changed to ... that the singer of a song about Fred Titmus had never even met the cricketer, "let alone greeted him in such an overfamiliar way"? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
If that is done, the "let alone greeted him in such an overfamiliar way" would have to be removed (since it no longer refers to anything). But I think it would make the hook not very interesting anymore. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't really see "fuckin' 'ell" as that familiar. :) But yeah, I guess as is the quote would refer to the title. I was thinking the quote would refer to the content of the song. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I actually like OttavaRima's hook as he has set it out - the reference to "..such an overfamiliar way" would get readers to click on the link to see what the "overfamiliar way" was, and then be surprised by the title of the song. I prefer that hook to the original one which gives the title of the song - it might shock, but it would lose the element of surprise. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
"...that despite writing a song about swearing in surprise at meeting cricketer Fred Titmus, the author had never met him?" or something along those lines? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason to delete the expletives, but it will be fine either way, I'm sure. If we can have Gropecunt Lane as TFA, we can have this. And that's not defining deviancy down.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
This version of the hook should not be used. Omitting the title of the song in question makes the hook less informative to readers for no reason other than censorship, and is thus contrary to both the spirit and the letter of WP:NOTCENSORED. Algebraist 21:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

I believe that Wikipedia is not censored?

I entered the following Did you know... suggestion;

This has been amended to;

This is currently in Template:Did you know/Queue#Prep area 1

Policy states that: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. [...] Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical 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."

The subject of the article is a song. Not having the title in the tag is a ridiculous form of censorship; against our policy. Of course the omission causes it to be less informative.

Despite the common sense prevailing above, we seem to have this "censorship by stealth".

Can this be changed back?  Chzz  ►  22:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree it should be but keep getting reverted because of the "Think of the Children!" argument. It's just six stupid hours. Who'll die if it goes up with "Fuck" being used in the hook?--Giants27 (c|s) 02:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, please! The issue is accessibility. Shutting off access to the Main Page for six hours at the start of a new school year is a deplorable thing to do to our users, both children and teachers. It's not an issue of exposing minors to foul language, but of denying them access to the Main Page because of school-implemented filters. No one will die, but causing fatalities is not the only concern we have on Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
If we hold it back until Queue 2, school will be out for the weekend all over the world when it appears on the main page. --Orlady (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I find the use of the word 'Fuck' on the mainpage to be lacking tact. Law type! snype? 03:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not just tact, taste, or censorship. Deliberately taking an action that we know would deny access to a significant fraction of our users is discriminatory. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm still more stuck on the basic principle of taste. I know we technically can put it on the main page, but it reeks of the drunken sorority girl who insists on the incessant badgering of other party mates with orations about her current inebriation. It is attention-whoring at its finest. How's that for a visual? Law type! snype? 04:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
And to me, leaving it out reeks of pathetic Victorian prudery. How about we leave our respective personal feelings out of this discussion? Algebraist 04:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
This sort of thing that is decided by the community via agreed policy. If you think that policy needs to change, then suggest changing it. In the meantime, please adhere to the policy. What the various filtering softwares decide is and is not permissible is nothing to do with us. We cannot, and must not, make any such judgment calls.  Chzz  ►  04:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Which policy deals with accessibility of the Main Page? We aren't discussing the article's informativeness, merely the hook that is designed to draw people to that article. We frequently and deliberately have used misleading text (especially on April 1st), so how is it such a problem to not use text that could block user access of the Main Page? --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
@Algebraist - If we left our personal feelings out of discussions these discussion pages would be empty. I'm not sure how you communicate, but throwing policy back and forth is useless when it comes to a judgment call. I would hope you realize that in order to erect our policies and guidelines, one would have to use personal feelings to form an opinion as to what policy should be and why. Victorian prudery is an argument I hear from others but generally regarding why they wear sweat pants to court. I mean, yeah, technically you may, but class doesn't go out of style, regardless of the associated period. Law type! snype? 05:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I feel I must point out that it's not the case that school will be out for the weeekend everywhere if you hold out, since not everyone has Saturday or Sunday as the weekend. Also it's clearly confusing to talk about it being the start of the school year in the generic sense. It may be the start of the school year in some places, but not in a number of other places Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


(outdent again)

  • The current hook is wrong in several ways. Mr. Blackwell is not an 'author', he is a singer. There is no factual basis for declaring that he 'swore in surprise' the cited fact refers directly to a greeting, there is no mention of any surprise. The article does not state that Mr. Blackwell wrote the song; it states that he sang it. Apart from all of those factual inaccuracies, it is grammatically clumsy.  Chzz  ►  09:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Most of these problems can be solved by tweaking the hook. That we aren't informed of the song's author is a failing of the article. Long Shrift (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


Section break

In the interest of finding a compromise and avoiding any further conflict, I have replaced the hook with the compromise based upon the consensus above;

Cheers, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Works for me as a good compromise. Thanks! When I approved that hook set, I didn't figure the discussion was finished (but I did want to clear the prep areas to allow more hook sets to be assembled). --Orlady (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm good with that, at least we're not purposely avoiding using the word.--Giants27 (c|s) 12:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not causing problems for the filters that I can currently check. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, considering most people hit this page on entry rather than the Main Page (because most people don't bother to type the "en."), I don't think there's a problem with filters at all. In fact, we shouldn't even worry about schools, because all the teachers ever tell you is that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" anyway, so if any student is on here (to get blocked), they're not doing anything important. Also, the Main Page is a rather blatant spot to violate (or even seem to violate) WP:CENSOR. BAPACop (converse) 21:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, knowledgeable teachers tell their students that Wikipedia can be a good source of ideas, but that they must use the References section to find their actual sources because Wikipedia is, most definitely, not a reliable source in an academic sense. I've demonstrated already why this is not a violation of WP:CENSOR. I see no reason to believer that we need to include "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers" simply because most people are too lazy to read the full policy and realize that no DYK hook is so important that the encyclopedia will suffer without it. As far as I can tell, the only thing to be gained is a pre-pubescent sense of satisfaction that "Heh heh...we said "fuck" on the main page". I would be willing to go so far as to say that it would violate Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. People seem to want to say "fuck" and "cunt" just because they think it would be funny or would offend a large group of people. This inevitably leads to complaints and dozens of editors spending hours quoting carefully chosen portions of WP:CENSOR while intentionally ignoring the spirit of the policy. If that's not intentionally disrupting the encyclopedia, I clearly don't know what is. The hook is just fine as it currently is. It gets the point across, it will get a decent amount of hits so that people can brag in the DYK hall of fame, it will still offend some people, and Wikipedia certainly can't be blamed if people choose to follow the link. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I guess I should say that it was just fine with the asterisks, as it was apparently changed back without consensus in an obvious violation of multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion about it here, which may be removed as it doesn't really belong there, but other editors have supported the original hook. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
GaryColemanFan, as grandfather to four, I'm no longer pre-pubescent, but I did not appreciate seeing the "F**kin' 'Ell" version show up in lieu of the proper title. I find that WP:NOTCENSORED was violated with this unnecessarily bowdlerized asterisk version. The song title is effectively a quote—you can't refactor a quote to try and tame it down, and you can't change the title of an artist's work. The song title is part of the artist's intent! Did we use "Fuckin' 'Ell" on the DYK page just because we could, just because the encyclopedia is not censored? No, we did not. We used it because it was the exact right wording, unalterable if accuracy and relevance are the targets. Binksternet (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I know this is a moot point considering the section has changed already, but it still has importance regarding the interpretation of guidelines on Wikipedia. Concerning your comments here...

From WP:PROFANITY:

  • 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.

Seems to me that changing the link in a title makes it less accurate, as it could seem to some who aren't familiar with the article in question that the original title might have the asterisks... Also:

  • In original Wikipedia content, a profanity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols.

Of course, the emphasis is mine. The source you cited in your own defense contains this sentence which is the exact opposite of your stance... Mentioning WP:CONSENSUS, I didn't really see any consensus at all in any debate yet... From WP:CENSOR:

  • However, some articles may include text, images, or links that some people may find objectionable when they are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.

Tell me how it's not appropriate to include the title of the article in the link to said article, and I'll agree with you. BAPACop (converse) 08:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

On an unrelated note I have written an essay about this, Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED and the Main Page‎, so that both sides have blue links to throw at each other. :P \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with BAPACop that the asterisk version is not an option. We must decide either to have or not to have an objectionable word. It amazes me that anybody at all was in favor of the asterisks. To me, the three choices were a) the full song title in plain view, b) the song title hidden via pipe link, and c) not to run the DYK hook at all. I preferred the plain view for reasons of relevance and accuracy.
The WP:NCMP essay lacks supporting evidence that the Main Page should be treated differently. I'm not convinced. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

T:DYK/Q7

I was a bit bold and created the page for Queue 7. It may not seem so now, but we have recently had all 6 queues plus two prep areas full, so this'll just allow extra space. What do you guys think? It is needed? The bot can cope with more queues, as was evident when Queue 6 was created. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a limit? If there are 10 queues for instance there would be less hooks on the suggestions page. :) And then several days worth of queues could be made ready in advance. --candle•wicke 14:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Technically no, but it would need to be something reasonable otherwise they just wouldn't get used. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
How about we just add some prep areas?--Giants27 (c|s) 15:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Adding prep areas would just make it more confusing I think. Adding a couple queues may be okay. Wizardman 15:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
To me the problem is that there are never enough admins around to move the sets into the queues, but there are always enough non-admins around. So to me, same problem would exist unless we make the queues, autoconfirmed protected instead of admin protected which is why I suggested adding prep areas.--Giants27 (c|s) 15:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't be creating more queues without prior discussion. I don't believe we need any more queues, it's only a rare situation when the existing queues are full. Gatoclass (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the extra queue is necessary. On a more practical note, our bot operator hasn't been seen in a while, so it's a moot point. Shubinator (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree with that, as to me the only use of number 7 would be if the queues were opened up for editing by non-admins. And if I'm not mistaken the bot operator should be back on the 17th at the earliest.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole queue and prep system could be looked at afresh. It might be a lot easier to have a separate subpage for every set of hooks. For example Template:Did you know/15 August 2009/2 for the second set on 15th August. These would be fully editable by all editors until they are within two days of appearing on the main page. They could then be transcluded automatically using parser functions (see thread above). This would follow the practice of the blurbs for Today's Featured Article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

We are using the queues for protecting each group's image before it hits the main page, so any solution needs to take that problem into consideration. Royalbroil 11:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, we would need to run the bot anyway to hand out credit and mark DYK-articles, so replacing one of its tasks with a new system would not replace the other tasks, so the work saved is almost nil compared to the work needed to create such a new system. Also, we are using queues to ensure that all hooks there have been approved by an admin. The system Martin suggests means that it's easy for mistakes to slip past us if noone has to actively check those pages created. Regards SoWhy 12:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

c/e for Nano Ganesh item?

The Nano Ganesh dyk could probably use some context. I was tooling around with

before it was moved into the queue. Cheers. HausTalk 02:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Image protection (again)

Currently, as soon as a Commons image is placed in the DYK queue, it appears to be protected. Accordingly, I've stopped uploading the images to EN. However, I have a hunch that the protection template is misleading. Is the protection template that appears on a page like this one merely protection on the page, and not also the image? --Orlady (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct, it only protects the English Wikipedia part of the page (for the example, only the Featured Picture template). All pieces on Commons (the image itself and the Commons image description) can still be modified at Commons, so the temporary upload is necessary. Shubinator (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
If you're lucky enough to know an administrator over at Commons, you could request for it to be protected there, rather than temporarily uploading it here. But it is not policy, just out of courtesy, that they sometimes do that. See Commons:Template:Enwiki main page. Killiondude (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
There are a few DYK regular admins like myself who are also admins on Commons, and I protect images directly on Commons. If you see me online, you can ask me to do the protection - but don't assume that I'm checking the queues like I used to. If I don't respond within 1/2 hour then you probably should assume that I went offline and that you need to take care of the protection. I don't have the time that I used to have for Wiki but I do pop in and out. More frequently over the past 2 months, that happens because my internet ISP has problems and I get locked out right in the middle of editing. Royalbroil 12:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, Royalbroil. --Orlady (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know#No homo

The nomination at Template talk:Did you know#No homo seems to revolve around a bit complicated problem with an AFD being SNOW-closed to allow the DYK nomination. Could a few regulars here give a bit more input so that nom from 8 August 2009 can be decided soon? Regards SoWhy 21:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with the DYK going ahead and if CzechOut feels like opening another AfD then he can go ahead but at present the article qualifies and I see no reason to allow it. But completely failing the DYK because you think the AfD was closed prematurely is not the way to go about it, since the article will not go "stale" because we're waiting for AfD to finish.--Giants27 (c|s) 21:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

ParserFunctions suggestion

I think that instead of having a bot update the DYK template manually, it might be easier to transclude the queues directly into the template, using ParserFunctions to select one of them based on the current time. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a good idea. Some thoughts, though, about issues that might come up (not saying i oppose this, just things to consider).... we would lose the opportunity to have a permanent link or diff to a particular version of T:DYK to prove that something was on the main page at a certain time (I don't know how important this is). Also, there would have to be some way for the parser function to recognize if the next queue has content in it (specifically, hooks), and not transclude the next queue if it isn't prepared yet; as far as I know, that can't be done with parser functions (although we could add some sort of parameter to the queues themselves, like |hooksready=, and have admins set that parameter to "yes" every time they load hooks into a queue; not sure exactly how we'd make that work, but something along those lines.)
Ok, I had some other thoughts but I don't remember. I'll try to add to this later. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Sometimes we don't have a set ready though. There's a system so the bot won't update if a set isn't ready; could we do the same with ParserFunctions? Also, having separate queues helps for special events like April Fools'. In general I think there's more flexibility with the bot; for example, could we change the time between updates with ParserFunctions? Shubinator (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
You can always remove the ParserFunctions when necessary. For the U.S. presidential election, a datestamp ParserFunction was set up to display "Today's featured articles" [emphasis added] (Obama and McCain) only on that day. If they can be added for a one-time deal, they can also be removed for the same purpose. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The main point Rjanag and I are trying to make is that there's nothing to prevent an empty queue from being transcluded. Shubinator (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Empty queues come about because their wasn't anyone paying DYK enough attention. How would Parser Functions be disabled by an admin in the event of an empty queue when there isn't an admin monitoring it? \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Empty queues could probably be easily detected using the PAGESIZE magic word. I agree this would be an improvement to the current system and be willing to help with implementing and tesing this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. If queue X is empty, then automatically transclude queue X-1 (with some mod 6 adjustments). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

T:DYK was blanked

[5] :| —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing a <!--Hooks-->. Shubinator (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Yup. What we need to figure out now is why that string was missing. Gatoclass (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like it was just a one-off typo. Really though the bot shouldn't be posting a nonexistent update, it should include code to deal with that. Gatoclass (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Yep, the <!--Hooks-->'s being left off generally happens when the admin moving things to the queue makes a cut-and-paste error (or just isn't familiar with what needs to be copied over). I think I made that mistake, too, the first time I updated it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
This is another reason to just transclude the queue rather than copying/pasting everything. (Less possibility for things to go wrong.) See the thread above #ParserFunctions suggestion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bot screwed up again...

The bot screwed up and blanked Q6 but never updated the actual template. However, it again did all the credits.--Giants27 (c|s) 15:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

T:DYK has not been updated since 02:35 (UTC) this morning when it was updated manually. The bot is resetting the clock here, but the template is not changing. --Bruce1eetalk 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, now T:DYK is missing a <!--Hooks-->. Shubinator (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like Q5 hasn't been on the main page either, I'm thinking that we need to fix the <!--Hooks--> problem and bump all the other hooks back with the hooks that were in Q5 going to Q1, hooks in Q6 to Q2, Q1 to Q3 and Q2 to Q4.--Giants27 (c|s) 15:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking there was a problem, was just waiting to see if it sorted itself out. But I noticed it blanked Q6 without them appearing on the Main Page. It seems to be doing everything else though. --candle•wicke 16:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I just updated the main page with the contents from Queue 5, reset the clock, and changed the counter so that Queue 6 will be next. --Orlady (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

DYKbox

I was thinking it'd be a good idea to add a link to Wikipedia:Did you know/Site map in the {{DYKbox}}. We have a large number of subpages, and it would be good if an index can be accessed quickly by anyone who needs it from any of the main DYK pages (particularly from T:TDYK, where we have to find and link to rules quite often). ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 06:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be likely to just confuse people still more. Gatoclass (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
How? --candle•wicke 14:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Because the Site map linked above is a site map of the "Learning DYK" guide, not of the whole DYK system. Shubinator (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and that's another problem. Why the heck isn't the "site map" showing the whole "site"? Everyone here seems to have the idea that DYK pages have become very confusing, but nobody seems to know where to start de-confusing it :) A new user would have a very hard time finding something (I know I do, and I've been here for more than an year). So how about we get together and try to find a way to do that? We might actually find a way... ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 14:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah. Makes sense. --candle•wicke 14:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made a whole DYK site map: User:Shubinator/DYK site map. Feel free to make changes. We can move it into Wikipedia-space if/when it's ready. Shubinator (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with having a site map, but I still see no reason to put it into the DYK template. The template is there as an easy method of moving between frequently used pages, and a site map is unlikely to get the kind of traffic that would justify its inclusion there. Quite frankly I rarely find site maps useful in any case, and we have already had complaints about DYK being too complicated. In my opinion we should if anything be looking to streamline the shop window, not be cluttering it up with even more links to confuse people with. Gatoclass (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The site map would help regulars, but it is overwhelming for newcomers. I know a few times I've been looking for a template or editnotice and the site map would have been nice. As for streamlining the shop window, I think it's WP:DYK that's cluttered. The bottom third only applies to set preparers and admins, so that could be moved to a different page. In general the page is outdated. Shubinator (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
What I thought was it would be helpful for newcomers, since the regulars know their way around (or at least can find it). Anyway I'm not insisting on this, and I agree that adding more things without clearing out the jumble of things currently there will increase confusion. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 15:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
How about moving the "Updating the DYK preparation area page" and "Updating the DYK template" sections of WP:DYK to Wikipedia:Did you know/Guide? Shubinator (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure, that was one of the reasons for my attempted rewrite which is now "Learning DYK". On its first page, that system makes you choose one of six tasks, keeping them separate from then on, and separating nominations from updating is part of it. Art LaPella (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. Shubinator (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Well I really don't think you should have moved that without a little more discussion. WP:DYK is supposed to be a comprehensive explanation of DYK, whereas the Guide is supposed to present a more user-friendly interface. If you are going to start moving large chunks of WP:DYK into the Guide, what is the point of having WP:DYK in the first place? It's beginning to look like just another Guide page now. Gatoclass (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
We've been getting a lot of complaints about a cluttered shop front. What's the first page people go to if they're unfamiliar with DYK? WP:DYK. I don't think we can have both a comprehensive guide and something that newbies won't be overwhelmed with. Shubinator (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Although my unpopular submenu system was intended to offer both ... but that can be bypassed using WP:Did you know/Onepage. Art LaPella (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, you're right, your menu system is rather unpopular, it's only getting 10-20% of the hits that WP:DYK is getting. Maybe we should just dump that to simplify things instead. Gatoclass (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I like your reasoning; you're using a hard statistic, not just an opinion. But I wonder what the percentage would be if you had to go through a "Learning DYK" (renamed as "DYK") and click a hatnote marked "Unofficial" to find WP:DYK. Perhaps a better criterion is this quote from February 28: "DYK regulars can talk about what we think is understandable, but only newcomers like Smallman12q and ResMar can give us eyewitness testimony", although as regulars we know how to find the rules from both places if you know how to disentangle them. Art LaPella (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, that's a fair enough point I guess. Gatoclass (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, unclear, I meant it's quite difficult to have it both ways on one page. WP:DYK (as it is now) is for people who want to nominate, and Wikipedia:Did you know/Learning DYK is for people who have a few hours to read up on it. WP:Did you know/Onepage and User:Shubinator/DYK site map are for the regulars that want something fast, and I would not recommend a newbie going to either of those pages off the bat. Shubinator (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I don't agree but I do prefer the current version to yesterday's; it does solve one of the problems. Art LaPella (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Split into logs

Template talk:Did you know is very difficult for me to load because it's 200K+ long. I'm thinking maybe we could split it up into daily logs like AfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_44#T:TDYK and Loading Times and #T:DYKT_Page_too_big. Shubinator (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, AfD is different because there aren't "sets" to be made or proofreading to be done. The Summary of points in the first link is a pretty good overview. Shubinator (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I have a great idea - we could move all of the pages that are checked over to a new page. I am thinking of something call "Prep". Oh wait, we have them. :) A lot of articles that are checked just sit there without being moved to the queues or prep areas. On an average glance over, I see about 30-40 of them each time. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
So you review them then move them over? --candle•wicke 00:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any particular problem loading the page. It's a little slow, but not as slow as some articles. Am I unusual? (I think the reasons given above in the links provided by Shubinator are compelling as to why not change the current method.) —mattisse (Talk) 01:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't touch the moving over part - you should try to avoid promoting your own work or ones you reviewed, and I would rather review old items and let others sort them out. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The suggestion above has some merit. Currently the setup is suggestions > prep > queue > main page. The suggestions page does get very long. It could be shortened by introducing a new tier, thus: suggestions > approved hooks > prep > queue > main page. On reviewing an article, if it is approved then it is moved to the "approved hooks" page. If there are further objections then it can be moved back to the suggestions page. There would be a further advantage as the approved hooks would all be in one page, instead of being scattered throughout the suggestions page. Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of moving the approved hooks to a new page. The problem is that "approved hooks" often seem to end up getting unapproved after someone else takes a look at them. If we start moving them all to a new page, I think there's a strong possibility they will no longer be double-checked by anybody. Also, quite frankly I don't see how an idea like this will save time anyway, because it only means that every time you approve a hook you've got to spend additional time moving it to a new page. Gatoclass (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Ha, I didn't mean to suggest a new page. I merely meant to suggest that we need more people to put together queues. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The idea of moving hooks to a new page sounds good, but could use some tweaking. For example, an idea I just came up with which builds on that is having one big move of verified hooks to the approved hooks page.--Giants27 (c|s) 17:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that an approved hooks page will lead to less double-checking. It may also discourage reviewers because of the extra work. Also, I don't think this solves the issue. A few months ago we regularly had 250+ hooks on the noms page, and people had issues loading. Now we're down to 170 hooks, and people still have issues. Shubinator (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think an "approved hooks" page would lead to extra, unnecessary process. What I'm saying is actually, instead of a suggestions page, go log > prep > queue > main page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that it's worth the bother. The AFD pages take a long time to load too. Gatoclass (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Time error

On the Queue page is the disturbing message: "The next empty queue is Invalid argument for ln: <= 0". --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's in beta and not being used for anything right now. Shubinator (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Backlog on 12 August?

Hi. Any reason why a substantial number of articles from about 12 August have not been accepted or rejected? Before and after this date there seems to be quite a lot of activity. (Looking back at it now, I see many entries have picked up discussion since Monday 17 August only, was there perhaps a U.S. holiday last week?). I'm keeping an eye on my Sheikh Yusuf nomination, which has generated only 1 response in about a week. Zunaid 08:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason for this apparent anomaly is selection bias. As a date moves to the bottom of the current suggestions list, nominations are moved to the queue to appear on the Main page. As nominations that have already been checked and found ready require less work, they tend to be promoted first. This in turn tends to result in the oldest dates having only nominations that have not yet been checked or which have been found to contain problems. As to the next question—why are some nominations checked while others linger apparently without notice?—I have no answer, just a strong suspicion that ease of confirming hook/article information and personal interests of active reviewers both play non-trivial roles. --Allen3 talk 14:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I can understand the selection bias as you've explained, it's the systemic bias I have an issue with. We already have a systemic bias in the total number of WP articles and probably in number of DYK nominations too (I haven't been at DYK long enough to know), but I'm surprised and a bit concerned that there is systemic bias on the part of DYK reviewers as well. This is going to compound the problem; we should be doing everything to judge all nominations on their merits, not on how we feel about the topic. The Sheikh Yusuf one is pathetically easy to check, the hook is directly referenced and the article itself has 3 solid references. I've seen a few marginally referenced articles go through in the week I've been here, as well as topics that one would consider "less important" and/or quite subject-specific. In comparison, a wide-ranging (geographically) and important (historically) topic such as the establishment of a religion in a particular part of the world goes unnoticed? Troubling... Zunaid 18:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
If you see an area that needs reviewing, feel free to help out! We are volunteers, and it is only natural that we review things that interest us. No doubt every editor would say their recently-created article is more important/interesting. I do not find the variety in humanity troubling. Shubinator (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Activity varies, but I think you're looking at percentage of unverified hooks per day, which is misleading. If you look now at the straight number of as-yet unapproved hooks per day, without considering the number of approved hooks, you'll see smaller numbers for the oldest days and a rather steady increase in that number as you pass to more recent dates. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I see the nomination has gone through. I hope it had everything to do with the strength of the references and the interest/impartial observance of the reviewer, and not on my bringing attention to it here. Zunaid 19:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ferret legging

...is not a new article. Chuthya (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but the prose has been expanded 5x. See our rules. Shubinator (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see a five-fold increase from when this group was up for AfD on 08/13/09, but whatever. Chuthya (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
There's quite a big difference from this to this. Apparently, 5x or greater. Killiondude (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wallace Souza

(copied from WP:ERRORS)

I'm not sure where the appropriate forum for discussing current DYK hooks is, but I have removed the hook about Wallace Souza because it was primarily a negative claim about a living person, discouraged per Wikipedia:DYK#Selection_criteria.  Skomorokh  16:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Link to previous discussion: [6]. Shubinator (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I don't have a problem, although I can't see how it is non-neutral. It is a well sourced fact, only stating he has been accused of a crime.  Cargoking  talk  17:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
For anyone who bothers to RTFM, this was clearly inappropriate for the main page. Lara 17:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
If it were clearly inappropriate, we wouldn't be having this discussion. In five days of listing as a nominee, three people commented and none had a serious objection to using the hook, and one person expressly thought it was OK. Another person above thinks it is OK. I can't say I'm excited about the hook, but I also don't see a problem. I notice that you haven't indicated why you think the hook is inappropriate in expressing your opinion. Presumably, the question is whether the hook "focus[es] unduly on negative aspects of living individuals". The hook states that he was increasing the ratings of his show, which is positive. The hook says he is accused of hiring hitmen, but there is nothing about any person actually being killed. The hook is well-sourced. So, what is your objection? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I did intend to leave a note asking the creators to add some additional information as I felt the article was a little more negative than it should have been. But I guess I never got around to it. Gatoclass (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I need to get used to explaining the obvious, apparently. And I have to continue to resist the urge to use sarcasm, like saying "Oh, yes, you're right. Simply "hiring hitmen" is not really negative at all, because no one was actually killed, at least not for the purposes of the hook." That, of course, would be bitchy of me. The fact that this hook was not appropriate for the main page should have been obvious to anyone who knows the DYK criteria. In that it made it live, which is the second inappropriate hook to do so in recent history, indicates that the editors and admins working DYK are doing an insufficient job of upholding the BLP policy and the standards of the main page. Lara 15:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, one of the DYK rules is "Articles and hooks which focus on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided." --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that rule should probably be amended to "focus unduly". We also have WP:NOTCENSORED to consider. Gatoclass (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I think NOTCENSORED does not entirely apply to the main page and DYK. The idea is that if someone looks up Penis they should expect to see a picture of one, but we shouldn't force it on people on the front page. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
NOTCENSORED doesn't trump BLP. Lara 04:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe the hook violated WP:BLP. The information in the hook has been widely reported in the media and therefore could hardly be described as poorly sourced or defamatory. As for the article itself, as I said I felt it wasn't quite up to scratch and should have been revised before it went to the main page, but it got there while I was otherwise engaged. Gatoclass (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
BLP says that we must report facts, and accusations of an action are not facts. I'm just pointing out the standard argument in regards to the matter. We should probably put together a proposal about clarifying BLP related matters. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't quite follow. Do you mean that no accusations can be included in Wikipedia articles even when they are adequately sourced? Going through WP:BLP once again, I don't see any indication of this. Jennavecia, you are an expert on the BLP area, so why don't you explain in detail what we have done wrong here? None of the comments here are enlightening us very much, and either say "it was ok" or "it was not ok". As for Ottava's proposal, I agree we need to have clearer guidelines on BLP issues for DYK. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 06:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Prefer DYK's of higher standard?

Hi. So I've been observing here for a week and thought I'd poke my nose in and ask a few questions. I'd like to dive in and help with reviews etc., however I do have a few major concerns/questions. I am quite a strict editor w.r.t. references and notability in article-space. However when it comes to DYK I've found that referencing and particularly notability standards are very loosely regarded. Extremely marginal articles (some even having been nominated for AfD) are sometimes pushed through, primarily based on the fact that they are "interesting" or provide an "interesting hook", and have seen reasoning along the lines of "DYK is not GA/FA". This a fallacious reasoning, there should be nothing wrong with rejecting a nomination if there are better ones available. Are we really that short of nominations that marginal cases have to be pushed through?

I suggest/propose that reviewers judge DYK entries based on the strength of the referencing and an assessment of the article rather than on how "interesting" or "unusual" the subject/hook is. If there are better-referenced nom's and we are not struggling to fill the DYK queues then by all means we should be able to reject marginal cases. Thoughts? Zunaid 08:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We have recently improved our reference requirements a bit (see WP:DYKDN. Notability is not decided at DYK, and if you see an article that you think should not be in Wikipedia, you should take it to AFD. However, I don't think we have passed any articles that fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Also, I don't think we have really pushed articles through just because they have interesting hooks. I would say that while these standards are lower than GA, we are by no means loosely regarding them. Can you give some examples of such DYKs?
About the marginal ones; we have set limits, (i.e. 1500 characters, 5x expansion, 5 days) so if an article is past those limits, they qualify provided that there are no other issues regarding it. If we say your article is just 1550 so it's too short when the limit we have actually set is 1500, that's just going to make us look stupid (but see C3 of WP:DYKCN - rarely happens, but possibly when the article doesn't have too much of a visual appearance). We could and should reject articles that qualify these limits if there are other problems with it. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 09:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd also like to see some examples for such article. I have not seen a single nom at DYK that suffered from such problems when it was passed. I don't see how an AFD nomination has an impact on the notability of a topic, articles are sometimes nominated incorrectly for AFD, it happens more often then we'd like. Regards SoWhy 10:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with SoWhy and Chamal; even though there are articles that are nominated at AFD and still pass, they pass because we wait for the AFD to close, usually as keep. Just because something gets nominated at AfD, or, for that matter, PROD or CSD, doesn't mean it's a "non-notable" or even non-ideal article to use at DYK. Cheers, I'mperator 16:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
You said there should be nothing wrong with rejecting a nomination if there are better ones available. However, this is not the mentality at DYK. If you meet the rules and there aren't obvious problems, the hook gets promoted. Indeed, some nominators feel they are entitled to a DYK if they have met all the rules, and complain if anything not enumerated in the rules is brought up as an issue. There have been a few pushes to cut down on the total number of hooks and bring up the quality of those showcased (for example here). There have also been a few times where stricter sourcing guidelines were proposed and had to be watered down due to opposition (for example at the top of this page). Shubinator (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course we'd all prefer to see the highest possible quality articles on DYK. However, the reason to allow lower quality DYK articles is present an attainable option for a new editor with limited experience with Wikipedia. It's a way for this new editor to become rewarded with being able to see their effort on the main page. Hopefully it is a positive experience and it brings them to help even more. I hope that experienced editors take DYK seriously and go the extra steps to present the best possible article for the main page. As an admin, I've placed countless DYK articles on the main page which had already achieved GA level. Royalbroil 02:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if Zunaid was confused by the comments we leave next to the when passing an article. Usually this would be something like "good to go" or "age, length and ref verified", but we do get stuff like "interesting hook btw". If this is the case Zunaid, these are just comments we leave there (well, nobody knows why), and all articles are checked to see if they qualify the rules and a quick check on stuff like WP:NPOV would follow before actually placing the 'passed' comment under the nomination. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses guys, I was a bit over-zealous throwing accusations around. The articles in question have been discussed AT LENGTH in the case of concerns, before being approved. They are not "pushed through" in their unfinished state, but instead are pushed through in terms of generating paragraphs of discussion and being "shepherded" into shape for DYK, at the expense of other articles (perhaps that are already DYK-ready, the author having done the necessary leg-work) that don't receive feedback. This all comes from my post above ("August 12 backlog"). We should be going for the "low-hanging fruit" that can be passed more quickly. But I digress, people will obviously discuss (sometimes at length) articles that interest them more. About the AfD approvals, I saw one DYK nom go through last week (it's more than 500 edits ago though so it's a pain to find it in the history) that had to wait for AfD to close, and another (Mao Amin) that has a link to an AfD'd article in the hook ("list of honorific titles in music"). (I have syntax highlighting in my monobook that changes link colours for AfD'd articles so I see them quite quickly.)

Glad to get feedback on the mentality of DYK, I see it is much more permissive than my own personal quality radar. I'm coming from a very different perspective being a New Page patroller and having to deal a lot with VERY marginal articles that end up getting deleted. I still feel we should pass over articles on the basis of quality, rather than try to approve as much as we can, however I can see there's no consensus for this view :) Regards, Zunaid 08:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we try to get those articles improved to meet the requirements. Even in GAN or FAC, you don't fail an article if it is just short of the criteria, but you tell the nominators what should be fixed. Same thing here. The main point of DYK is to "... give publicity to newly created or expanded Wikipedia articles, as a way of thanking the editors who create new content and to encourage other editors to contribute to and improve those articles... ". It's not about showing our best content (which is what GA and FA does). IMO, the procedure is pretty much the same in all three, but standards are different. And also, DYK is not very particular about the order the articles are passed in or displayed. If an article qualifies, it will be featured eventually. Also, we can't stick to a first-come-first-served method, since we have to mix up the hooks to on different topics. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 09:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

List of the largest single day Jeopardy! prizes Discussion

Resolved
 – Article already went on main page, nothing for DYK to do now, bring to article talk page if you must. --Giants27 (c|s) 19:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
✍ 23:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 – There is an ongoing issue about the propriety of this article's ascendancy to DYK, and how this might be a useful test case for future similar nominations. CzechOut ☎
(From T:TDYK)
  • I'm pullin' the plug. We're at 9 days from actual date of article creation (Aug 7), and we still have a current AfD. Since the AfD started on 12 August, we might have another few days to wait, and we've got other hooks to look at. Besides, even if the AfD is closed, it still has dispute tags, which fall foul of rule D5. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 15:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Where's the harm in waiting for the AfD to conclude? Due to the surfeit of DYK noms recently, we've had a number of hooks that waited more than 10 days before being added to a queue. Why not wait a little longer for this one? --Orlady (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • A fair enough question. I'm not a huge stickler for timing things out to exactly five days — even if there is a rule, F8 to suggest it at least as a general guideline. But this case is kind of pushing the envelope a bit for my tastes. It wasn't even the right length until seven days after time. (Remember we're counting from Aug 7, not 8.) And now it's only midway through a legitimate AfD. I guess I just don't see the point of waiting anymore. Yeah, it might all check out by the 20th or so, but c'mon. Is it really so interesting a factoid or, indeed, article, that we should keep the door open for that many days? In my view it isn't, so it's easier for me to invoke not just F8 but D8 as well. We're beyond five "real" days, and five "Swahili" days as well. Of course, here's the real kicker. Even if it survives AfD, it's still likely to be stuck with its dispute tags. And that, again, falls foul of rule D5, with no fast way of achieving necessary consensus to remove them. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 01:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • We do not "pull the plug" by time after nomination. The article was nominated on the same day it was created, so this nom cannot be rejected by time. (F8, D7, and D8 refer to time between creation/expansion and nomination, not time between creation/expansion and approval.) Feel free to point out issues with the article/hook itself, but this nom will not be removed simply because time has passed. Shubinator (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • So what's the point of WP:DYK Rule #1 then? "For the purposes of DYK, a "new" article is no more than five days old." Furthermore, I point to D7 which says, "'Five days old' means five days old in article space." I'm not seeing anything in the rules of why the nom can't be rejected on time. The hook hasn't been approved, it's more than five days (or even 10 days) since the article's creation (which was on the 7th, not the 8th), so it is not, at the time we're considering it, a "new" article any more. D8 seems to imply that the "five day rule" isn't meant to be taken strictly literally. And I don't think I am in this case. It's 10 damn days since this article entered article space. Doubling the time seems fair enough to me. I see nothing in the rules to prevent rejecting on grounds of time. In fact, what are the rules about time for if they're not at least occasionally, and with great temerity, y'know, used. But hey, if you don't like that, there's still D5, which no one seems to want to address here. It does have dispute tags, and I don't see how those are going anywhere for months. Unless someone just rips them out of the article without consensus (which D5 prohibits). CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 03:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting) The five day rule pertains to the DYK nomination period, not to the length of time it takes to resolve issues after nomination. There is no actual time limit for resolution of issues, that's just an issue where common sense applies. Gatoclass (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, alrighty, I'm honestly confused by the "five day" thing, then. If you read the rules, and stick to what's written there, you don't come away with the interpretation you're making. I think what you're saying is that an article is disqualified on time only if more than five days have elapsed between its creation/expansion and its nomination. I can't nominate work that I did two years ago. Fine, that makes sense. But the rules really don't say that editors are prevented from rejecting an article because they've been under consideration for more than five days. In fact, I think what D7 is implying by saying "Five Swahili days" is that the process of vetting the articles might very well take longer than five actual days, but that, nevertheless, the days under nomination actually count toward the five day rule. The general sense I get from reading the rules that pertain to time is that DYK articles should be new ones, and that, though a few might occasionally take longer than 5 days to get through the system, they should be as close to 5 days old as possible. My problem with this particular instance is that there's no end in sight here, really. The resolution of the AfD is probably going to come at the 12 day mark, sure, but who knows when the dispute tags will come down? This is a case where you can reasonably say the article will be nothing close to new anymore once its problems have been resolved, so why not fail it now and move on? Surely that's "common sense" as well? CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 03:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
We can't guarantee that the nomination will be reviewed within 5 days because of the large number of nominations and also because there aren't exactly a lot of people reviewing them. That is a fault on our side, so it would be unfair to the creator/expander to reject a nomination based on that. In fact, the backlog is quite low at the moment and it could be much higher than this. So once the editors have nominated it within 5 days, that would be the end of that part of the story. If they have failed to respond to a requested correction or change, then they could be rejected after a few days of course.
As for your the other issue you raised - we generally try to make articles meet our requirements and pass them instead of rejecting them straightaway because of a problem with it (although this is not really a rule). So, in a case like this, we wait for the AFD to close. The tags in the article (about notability and WP:NOT) will be moot if the AFD closes as keep since that should prove that consensus is that it is notable and encyclopedic. Worth giving a chance IMO. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Me too. Our practice is that the nominator gets 5–8 days to write/expand and nominate his article, and he gets 5 days to respond to objections. He has unlimited time to wait for us to do our part, and that includes waiting for an AfD. If our rules don't match our practice, that doesn't mean we should change our practice; it means we should explain our rules better. The 5-day old encyclopedic and notability tags would be a good point, but see Chamal's answer above. Art LaPella (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, the rules totally don't say any of what you describe as your practice. So yeah, maybe they need to be changed. Or, and this is not really to impugn you, maybe you're not using the consensus definition. I find it weird that the written form of those rules could be so different to what you've just so clearly laid out. I mean, if it was possible for you to precisely define the 5-8 day thing, why has it been defined so well in another way in the rules? It's just strange to me that your interpretations are so markedly different than the actual rules. After all the assumed audience for the rules is the nominator, not the verifier. At least the way I read 'em.
At any rate, still not buying that the dispute tags will automatically come down on AfD resolution. Disgruntled parties will be within their rights to keep 'em up. And these entertainment lists have a nasty way of just continuing on being contentious immediately after one AfD round has closed. It just seems so pointless to wait for things to resolve, when they probably won't.
And here's a new one for you: D11. Multiple sources preferred. Everything here is the J! Archive really. And, um, another point no one's brought up, amazingly. The hook doesn't have an in-line citation. It didn't have one back on the 8th either, when the hook was ostensibly passed. Indeed two editors apparently passed the article on having an inline citation for the hook, but it's never had it, as far as I can tell. Under D12, I invoke the unusual but applicable WP:OR. I find it odd that if it's such a big deal, that the record of 11 $50K days doesn't appear on his own page. The grids at Ken Jennings mention lots of different records that he set, but not this one. So is it really a record that Jeopardy sources care about, or is this original research on the part of the editor?
Please let's just give up on this thing. It's just not worth it. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 07:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Please come to WT:DYK. You are trying to discuss DYK rules here and this page is long enough as it is. I will repeat this though: we try to pass articles, not fail them. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 07:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, uh, did not realize this discussion had gotten so in depth. Apologies for not being around to chime in. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Guys, we're going to have to do something quick; the article is soon going to become antediluvian if we don't decided. So, do we approve or reject? Cheers, I'mperator 14:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • IMHO this article should be scheduled to run. The issue preventing promotion for the last several days has been the article's AfD, everything else appears to pass muster. Now that the AfD has been resolved there does not seem to be a reason to sit on this article any longer. --Allen3 talk 19:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • My only concern is with the big ugly banners across the top of the page added by people arter the list was created. Since those seem to have gone now, I'd like to see this list featured. Lists don't often get the positive recognition the usually deserve. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The list is now at T:DYK/P1 :) Cheers, I'mperator 16:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I completely disagree with how this ended. The AfD did not close as "keep", it closed as "no consensus", which entirely changes the interpretation of events. The nominator removed the final dispute tag, not the AfD-closing admin. If you look at the closing admin's impact on the article history, you see him removing one-by-one the AfD tag, then the WP:GNG dispute tag. But he leaves the encyclopedic tag up, which is absolutely appropriate to an AfD that closed as "no consensus". (Here's the comparison, clearly showing the DYK nominator as the person who removes this last dispute tag, some three hours after the closing admin had departed the scene.). The nominator directly violated, Rule D5. Because there was no way to achieve genuine consensus in a timely fashion, given the way the AfD ended, this DYK nomination should have failed. Yes, we try to pass articles, as per User:Chamal_N, but we don't bend over so far backwards that we break our backs doing so. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 19:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's already gone through, no need to continue disuccing the article.--Giants27 (c|s) 19:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Ahh, but I'm not discussing the article. I'm discussing the process by which DYK editors selected this article. Yes, there's nothing that can be done about this article being listed at DYK. But there is, I think, a question of future practice. A majority of editors supported a nom based upon their slightly incorrect prediction of an AfD outcome. Many were predicting that the article would be kept and that the dispute tags would be properly removed. Instead what actually happened was that the debate was closed as "no consensus" and the nominator removed tags without consensus. That's a violation of our rules, and had everyone not been in such a rush to approve the DYK nomination before it grew stale, we wouldn't have collectively made an error. I think this serves as an example of why we should somehow modify the language at WP:DYKAR to reflect the fact that we should be wary to approve DYK nominations where there's an AfD that closed as "no consensus". CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 23:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As for process, a "no consensus" conclusion at AfD defaults to "keep." For the purposes of DYK, that's the same as a "Keep" conclusion because it means that the article survived AfD -- and wasn't deleted. As for the removal of the "nonencyclopedic" template, somewhere in the course of the discussions it was correctly pointed out that surviving AfD would implicitly resolve the "nonencyclopedic" issue and result in removal of the template. Thus, the nominator's removal of the template was NOT against consensus. --Orlady (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Backlog

As someone who has been contributing to DYK it has become apparent that there always seems to be a backlog of articles for assessment. Can I just jump in and start assessing as I see lots of articles which are too short or haven't been expanded sufficently. I'm no admin but clearly need experience before I could successfully become one...? Francium12 (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Any interested editor, not just admins, can review nominated articles at DYK. - Dravecky (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. See Wikipedia:Did you know/Approval for a bit more details. Thanks for offering your help, it's appreciated. :-) Regards SoWhy 09:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Just one question - is dullness a valid criteria for rejection. Some are very good at creating 1501 character articles with the dullest of hooks Francium12 (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Intrigue is not one of official criteria, but there's nothing to stop you expressing your opinion that a hook is bit on the dull side, and giving the nominator a chance to write a more interesting alternative. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The DYK Bot screws up again

The DYK Bot screws up again. Queue 1 got emptied by the bot with none of the hooks getting posted on the main page. Check Special:Contributions/DYKadminBot and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know&action=history for yourself. Pay attention to what happened at ~05:00 UTC on August 24th. Please unblank Queue 1, and let the lost hooks return. --74.14.19.4 (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Not the bots fault, somebody didn't remove it from T:TDYK when updating the preps, in all honesty it could've been me since it seems to be an honest mistake.--Giants27 (c|s) 03:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
What honest mistake about not removing things from T:TDYK, Giants27? The bot screwed up at 05:00, 24 August (UTC).
Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know&action=history
DYK was updated at 23:00, 23 August (UTC) with hooks from Queue 6.
DYK was next updated at 11:00, 24 August (UTC) with hooks from Queue 2.
There was no updating at 05:00, 24 August, yet DYKadminBot updated User:DYKadminBot/count to "2", and posted {{dyktalk}} to talkpage of articles on Queue 1.
Please unblank Queue 1, and let the lost hooks return. --74.14.19.4 (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I've reported this to WP:ERRORS. --74.14.19.4 (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, misread your original comment, you're right the bot screwed up as it seems to do at 05:00 UTC everyday.--Giants27 (c|s) 12:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) These never hit the main page, Giants. An admin will handle this soon; I've taken the liberty of reverting the bot's article credits. However, a note: Mao Amin should not appear on the main page per ongoing discussion at T:TDYK. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the bot blanked the queue without ever updating the template, like you said. I've re-posted the former contents of Q1 into Q5 (currently the next queue in line). Now all that needs to be dealt with is the tags already placed on user and article talk pages—should they be deleted so they aren't duplicated when the bot updates again?
As for what caused the bot screw-up, I'm not sure...the only thing out of place I can see is that the first line of the queue was {{DYKbotdo|[[WP:DYK|Wikiproject: Did you know?]]}} instead of {{DYKbotdo|~~~}}. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
When that sort of thing happened a week or so ago, someone much wiser than me had the brilliant idea of removing the DYKmake credit templates from the queue, so the bot would not repeat the notifications. That was an easy way to avoid duplicate credits, with the only downside being an erroneous timestamp on the credits. --Orlady (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Well...I already removed the credits from every page. Shub's way would have been way easier though. :P Next time... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Removing them is the correct way this time. Otherwise, someone has to fix the date. It's not Aug24 anymore. Thank you all for fixing this. --74.14.19.4 (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It screwed up again with Queue 1 today as far as I can see. Could it be the use of {{DYKbotdo|[[WP:DYK|Wikiproject: Did you know?]]}} instead of {{DYKbotdo|~~~}}? As far as I saw, only those queues where the template uses this kind of attribution instead of an admin username get screwed up sometimes. Regards SoWhy 11:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Pls clear the prep areas?

Can an admin clear the prep areas to the queues? Both are now full. Ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a poke: we have no full queues right now, and DYKbot failed on the last run. *sigh* —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 11:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll do it now. Regards SoWhy 12:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 Done Okay, I moved the stuff to Q6 and Q1 so non-admins can use the preps again. On a side note, please remember that 50% of the hooks should be US related topics. Regards SoWhy 12:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • They don't have to be 50% US related - it is a ratio driven by the content of hte queue. I was focussing on clearing out the oldest hooks - i basically took every old hook for which i or someone else had managed to resolve outstanding issues, and moved to the queue. Apart from making sure I didn't end up with two middle-eastern villages, or two windmills, in the same batch, i didn't pay any mind to where they came from. I figure if I'm taking the ten oldets hooks, it's a random sample as regards georgraphy :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
No, but they should. I understand the weay you did it but since you also filled prep 2, you could have used some US topics from there for prep 1. It was just a side note anyway, I swapped them afterwards and resorted them a bit. It's the same as with "don't have three biography hooks in a row" and "try to put the most interesting without a picture as last", guidelines. But since this is a wiki, we can all just fix such things, so there is nothing to worry about :-) Regards SoWhy 12:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
My understanding is that the reason for this guideline is to prevent the hooks being too US-centric. So it probably should say something like "at most 50% US-related". That said, I agree it would be odd not to have any US items on a set. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd say it's to prevent it to be too US-centric and to be too less US-centric. After all, the majority of readers of the en-wiki will probably be from the US and as such likely be more interested in hooks from the US. Regards SoWhy 12:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Verified" numbers bogus?

I'm looking at the count for August 18 and it says none are verified. Which seems weird since I count 9. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. A slight change in the page formatting (at some point, not necessarily with the last few days) was causing it to occasionally not match up the days properly so the 18th's #s were being listed in the 19th's space. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Noirmoutier-en-l'Île

This has now been moved to the queue on the basis that:

a)"there are tons of sources that back this up". We have one in the article from the Guinness Book of Records that purports to back this up (I can't check to see whether it does, but based on past and present dubious and inaccurate claims in the article it is worth checking). Of the two other sources cited there, one appears to be a machine translation of an unidentified source (which states a price in disagreement with the article anyway), and the other is the growers' co-op which does not mention the price.

b)"With all due respect the commune takes up half of a 49 km2 and 3/4 of the commune is marsh fields which are used for cultivation." The potato almost certainly is grown in the commune, but I thought we wanted citations to back up the claims made in an article or hook.

Additionally the hook has been altered to not directly include the article at all. "... that the French island of Île de Noirmoutier is home to the world's most expensive potatoes?" has an "easter egg" link to the commune of Noirmoutier-en-l'Île when there is already an existing article for the island of Île de Noirmoutier. Surely we shouldn't be redirecting wikilinks to a related article when there is already an existing article, especially when the only purpose seems to be to avoid the need to cite the claim made in the article. Himalayan Explorer claims that if this hook is too problematic, there are others. Let's have one of the others. Long Shrift (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I genuinely don't mind if you don't want to DYK. I have work to do expanded the other 34,000!! Oh I'll propose another tagline. Himalayan 11:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

<raises hands in air>I was the one who moved this to the prep area, so: mea culpa. In seeing the referencing issue fixed, I missed the issue of the conflation of the Island name with the commune name. I think this should be altered in the hook - and that now requires an admin, which I am not (having clearly just demonstrating why I'm not :-)). I did also think a little WP:COMMONSENSE was needed in dealing with the finer points of the refs substantiating island versus commune etc. I have no issue with withdrawing the hook altogether, per Long Shrift, but I thought the article itself looked nice, with pleasant images, and I thought those aspects fitted well with the overall goals of attracting reader interest at DYK. Oh well, tant pis. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you guys want this to be moved back to the suggestions page, or can you come to an agreement on the wording here? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've completely changed the hook to avoid "complications". Personally though I thought the previous hook was a good one... Himalayan 12:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Himalayan's alternative suggestion of " ... that inventor Brutus de Villeroi tested the first French submarine in the commune of Noirmoutier-en-l'Île on 12 August 1832?" seems fine (taking the ref on trust) - although the article on Villeroi makes an unreferenced claim that his submarine was "demonstrated" at Noirmoutier in 1833, there is no reason to suspect it wasn't tested earlier. Long Shrift (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I have replaced the older one with the new hook. It doesn't say this was the first test, so no problem there. Also, a search at google and google books shows that the event did take place. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Citations\sauces (hehe)

Should the whole article be cited when created\expanded or could the fact be the only thing or one of the only things sourced?

Secondly, am i allowed to have fun with titles if i say later on that i am meaning information databases instead of what you put on food?

An article i read which i can't remember now since its been and gone had the fact approved but the citations seemed to be in the final section only. Simply south (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Since our citation requirements recently got a little more strict, I think we expect (I know I do) the full article to be adequately sourced. Some reviewers now expect a minimum of 1 RS per paragraph. I don't really understand what you mean by your second question, but if you mean wording the hook to make sort of intriguing, that's ok (but not on the level of April fools' day DYKs :)) ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 04:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I meant this thread for the second part. Wrong word for second one. Simply south (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

hook update request

The front page currently has a DYK for Karhu Sports which I nominated, mentioning the "three stripe" trademark. I have created a new article "three stripes", and I am wondering if it could/should be linked up. I was hoping to have it ready in time, but this one has been rushed onto the main page ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 05:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 06:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me...

{{adminhelp}} ...or is the bot not giving {{UpdatedDYKNom}} credits? Vicenarian (Said · Done) 17:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be giving everyone {{UpdatedDYK}}. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 17:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It also does not seem to have cleared the most recent queue or updated the count. I would do it myself, but no admin bit (yet). Vicenarian (Said · Done) 17:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The bot appears to have stopped mid-update while tagging article talk pages. After 10 minutes of inactivity from the bot, the update was completed manually. --Allen3 talk 17:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It stopped right after tagging the last talk page. It seems this has happened before. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 17:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, the bot has had nom credit errors in the past couple of months, not properly giving the {{UpdatedDYKNom}} tags to users who are nominators-only. Others have to manually go about fixing the bot's mistakes most of the time. JamieS93 17:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I suppose there is no way to shut off just this part of the bot's process (the credit part)? I'm perfectly happy to do the credit giving myself manually. Or, maybe, fix the bot?Vicenarian (Said · Done) 17:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

←For wont of an admin bit, I'd volunteer to run the updates manually myself. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 17:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(NB: This is an expression of extreme eagerness on my part to help, NOT being whiny about my failed RfA. :) Happy to help however I can. I'll do some archiving.) Vicenarian (Said · Done) 17:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Problem is that the bot operator has been gone for what a month now?--Giants27 (c|s) 18:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I guess the question is are the errors problematic enough to warrant shutting the bot down and going manual? Or should we just clean up after it when it goofs? Vicenarian (Said · Done) —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC).
They are in my opinion. But as you can tell there are never enough admins lurking around to do the manual update so that's probably not a realistic option at this time.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they do seem to warrant a shutdown. Oh well. I'll watch each run and bug any available admin if something hiccups. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 18:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Most of it can be done by non-admins like the credits and talk page stuff but the actual DYK template, queue and counter have to be done by an admin which is unfortunate since the bot periodically screws up.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, well. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 18:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
@Jamie: Yep, I haven't seen DYK nom credits get given in months. As far back as I remember, whenever I've nom'ed something the bot would give me creator credits and then the unstoppable workhorse/bot known as Shubinator would manually fix it on my talk page ;) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Different approach to the bot problem?

So, we all know that the bot op is awol and the bot screws up continually, right? But nixeagle (talk · contribs) just took over the bot from Ameliorate! (talk · contribs) when they retired but who is the original coder and thus bound to have the code for the bot lying around still. So we could just ask Ameliorate! if he can make sense of the problems or, even better, run a replacement bot while we block DYKadminBot until nixegle returns. What do you think? Regards SoWhy 19:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Whatever happens, the bot needs to be fixed. In the meantime, is it even possible to work out some way to ensure manual updates? Vicenarian (Said · Done) 19:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I invited Ameliorate! to this talk page, I hope he can help out here. Regards SoWhy 19:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
This sounds like a good idea, we really need to shake things up to try and get a bot to do everything when it's needed.--Giants27 (c|s) 19:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Makes me wish I hadn't switched my major from computer science. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 19:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The bot's current problems with not completing updates might to have something to do with the toolserver. However, judging by the mailing list, the server's been fine for a few days. Manual updates are a pain, and if the bot completes updates with predictable errors (like not recognizing {{UpdatedDYKNom}}), I think it would be best to keep the bot running and clean up after it (which I've been doing). These partial updates are worrisome, and if it's a problem with the bot code instead of the toolserver, hopefully Nix or Ameliorate! can figure it out. I have some code for a replacement bot, if we should need it. (An admin bot does need an admin operator though.) Shubinator (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It is unlikely that the toolservers are the direct cause of the problems. Past symptoms, as recorded above, instead suggest the root cause is some type of connectivity or loading problem. This observation in particular is interesting in that it notes that the bot halted at different points when using the same input. Having looked at the bot's code, I found no indication the bot uses a nondeterministic algorithm. This means that what ever caused the bot to stop at different points during an update was not contained in either the explicit bot code or the input. Some kind of timeout when making one of the twenty to twenty-five edits typically performed during any update would however explain the bot halting at a seemingly random location. From the human standpoint such an edit would look like a page that is requested takes an extremely long time to load, a condition I usually see two or three times each day when working on Wikipedia. --Allen3 talk 13:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Can one of you guys make a list of the things to check after the bot makes an update (as a temporary measure), so that admins unfamiliar with DYK or newbie admins (like me) can take care of it? The bot seems to like messing things up in different ways, so someone who hasn't seen it working will find it difficult to clean up after it. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 15:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Chamal: I expect you are already aware of Wikipedia:Did you know/Guide, but I mention it just in case -- it (the Process section, in particular) covers the steps for admins to follow in a manual update.
Speaking for myself, I think the easiest way to see if the DYKAdminbot messed up is to review the bot's contributions log, and make sure all the usual steps happened and that all of the credits were issued. --Orlady (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but I was thinking about the different ways the bot can blow it :) Checking its contributions sound good, and my brain failz for not thinking of that. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_49&oldid=1140163368"