User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 7

Hello BlueMoonset, FYI, I've reworked and reduced the quotes used in The Making of a Teacher, and have inserted an icon indicating a request for re-evaluation at Template:Did you know nominations/The Making of a Teacher. Perhaps because you are the one who initially raised the copyvio issue -- an issue that the original reviewer had overlooked and didn't feel highly knowledgable about -- it seem the original reviewer thinks that others should pick up the task of verifying that the DYK nomination is now ready-to-go. That may put the ball in your court. Many thanks in advance -- Presearch (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just asked Nikkimaria to take another look at it when she has the chance, since I don't have the time, and she's had far more experience at judging such issues than I have. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi! It seems that you are a big gleek. I sure that you know the answer to these questions

1. What are the diffrences between pilot's first broadcast and director's cut version?
2. I have heard that there was parody of Glee on Saturday Night Live... am I right? and when was it?
3. Why Blake failed with the song at Original Song?

84.245.229.37 (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

1. So far as I know, the primary difference is that the director's cut has Will singing "Leavin' on a Jet Plane". There might be other minor differences.
2. No idea. There was a parody on Sesame Street, though.
3. No one named Blake was in "Original Song", so you've stumped me.

You might want to check one of the wikias or tumblrs run by Glee fans; they might have what you're looking for and a whole lot more besides. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I was thinking of Blane :) And the song was Raise your glass. And for the 1st question - so on torrents are the director's cut version, yes? --85.254.224.240 (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

No idea. Sorry. If he sings the song, then yes. I think the director's cut is the only version ever released to DVD. Let's stick with on-topic going forward, okay? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

My submission of King's Chapel, Gibraltar was approved several weeks ago but seems to have been forgotten about (see Template:Did you know nominations/King's Chapel, Gibraltar). Is there any chance of adding it to a prep area any time soon? Prioryman (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I would think so. I haven't been able to do much prep area creation lately; Allen3's been doing the bulk, and I'm pretty sure he selected the most recent Gibraltar hooks, so I know he's aware of them. If I'm able to build a set at the right time, I'll be sure to pick it up if it hasn't been already. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it out. On a related issue, Template:Did you know nominations/Devil's Tower Road seems to have reached an impasse - I've passed it but the second reviewer has opposed it on grounds that I've never seen before at DYK: he seems to be arguing that (1) the subject is non-notable - it certainly doesn't seem right to me that a DYK reviewer should try to make such a determination unilaterally, without even an AfD - and (2) that it's "too local", whatever that is supposed to mean. He seem to have applied criteria that are well outside of the scope of DYK. As it stands, the review is deadlocked. What do you suggest we should do about this? Prioryman (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if there isn't an AfD or a merge under consideration, there isn't a DYK rule that stops it cold pending resolution. I think the argument is that absent the tower, which already has its own article, the rest of the material is insufficiently notable to justify a separate article, which is something we have seen on DYK before. The problem with this kind of review is that it's nothing that can be fixed, really. You might want to ask the opinion of one of the old DYK hands, like Orlady, to see what her opinion is. I'm still a comparative newbie, with less than a year under my belt. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I did have a look at some of the other Furcifer nominations and improved one of the articles but will have another inspection. The matter is complicated by the fact that Thine Antique Pen approached me for advice on avoiding "bloat" and writing species articles. As a result of my suggestions, Hyperolius ocellatus has been expanded and may find its way to DYK. I thought it was a considerable improvement on the previous articles. I would prefer to be thought of as a source of advice rather than as a critic of substandard DYK nominations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now dealt with the following articles, editing some to a hopefully acceptable standard, removing duplicate information from others so they are below the 1500 byte limit or putting comments on the DYK template. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Furcifer angeli
• Furcifer balteatus
• Furcifer lateralis
• Furcifer antimena
• Furcifer polleni
• Furcifer timoni
• Furcifer willsii
• Furcifer belalandaensis
• Furcifer bifidus
• Trioceros laterispinis

Cwmhiraeth, thank you so very much. I'm glad Thine Antique Pen approached you for advice, and also happy to hear that it helped the newer article. I very much appreciate you checking those ten articles: it was a huge amount to do under the circumstances. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I left a note on Template:Did you know nominations/Grootegeluk Coal Mine, Waterberg Coalfield asking if you would care to tackle the phrasing changes that Nikkimaria wants done, since she is emphatic that I am not qualified to make them. The reason I thought you might do it is that you seem very concerned about these articles. You asked for a second review after the first reviewer cleared them, and a third review after the second reviewer cleared them. It seems unfair to ask for a fourth reviewer. I can assure you that I will not be picky about the changes you make. My sole concern is that the articles accurately reflect the sources. Geology jargon includes various phrases and even words like fault, rift, basin and sediment that have very precise meanings, where rephrasing or substituting a synonym would give ludicrous results. They should be fairly easy to spot: many of them will have a definition in Wikipedia or Wiktionary. Thank you in advance for your contribution. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Aymatth2, I saw your note in passing: I'm extremely busy off Wikipedia right now, and expect to be for the next couple of days at least, but I don't want to leave you hanging. Is there no one you can ask to check Nikkimaria's points, and ask them to look for similar issues in the article sources? I realize that this is a blind spot of yours, but I simply don't have the time to do the research and comparisons that a thorough paraphrase check and resulting rephrasing would entail. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not know of anyone who would want to undertake such a job. There is no urgency at all. Perhaps when you have more time ... Aymatth2 (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought you might like to be involved in a discussion similar to the one that was about

Hello BlueMoonset. I'm sorry about the needless back and forth on the John Harvard statue nom, I should've probably been more careful from the beginning. But after the editor's comments, and thinking it over, I felt it would be best to delay it a bit than have it turn into another bout of drama (we've had more than enough already). Anyway, I've replied to your comment at the nomination page. Best. Yazan (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You had a good point about the article's intro containing a citation needed template. Now that someone's fixed that one, and you've commented out the two in the History section, I'd say the thing to do is to see whether your edits hold. If EEng reverses, then we may have to wait longer. If he doesn't, then I think it's probably okay to proceed, especially if he makes any other edits to the article... unless, of course, those are to add other templates... As noted, I don't care about templates in the Notes themselves. They don't interfere with the article proper. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding: I should have checked first; I see you've gone ahead and approved the article. That's fine. The edits you made to the article should hold; they're reasonable, and the information is clearly not verifiable by a reliable source or it would be cited there. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've cut part of the alt hook in Template:Did you know nominations/Women's sport in New South Wales. You might want to look it over now. Also notifying nominator. Buggie111 (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added to the list of older nominations that need reviewing in

WT:DYK; I expect someone will review it in the next few days. BlueMoonset (talk

) 06:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I am confused. Is it really wikipedia policy to require a cite at the end of every quote? A quick glance tells me that the uncited quotes are pretty clearly from the court opinion; it seems silly to keep citing the court over and over again. The back reference list at the bottom would blow up, and not even academics require that level of citing. Sorry: I am not trying to be disrespectful here, just a noob to wikipedia. Frgx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just checked some Wikipedia pages on this issue, and It may not actually be necessary to put a cite at the end of each and every quote. What the WP:Verifiability policy says is "All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." For DYK, we extend that to a minimum of one inline citation every paragraph, but each quotation must have a clear inline source specified. If a set of sequential quotes are clearly connected and equally clearly from the same source, you could perhaps get away with only citing the last of these within a paragraph. As each paragraph is considered a separate unit, you'd definitely need to have a citation in each paragraph even if to the same source in more than one of these paragraphs. Another point: if it's a long document, like a court decision (which can be hundreds of pages), it's important to include page numbers in your citation so people can easily find the quote and its context, so it may be necessary to do multiple citations from the same source in the same paragraph for this reason. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Aymatth2 added the cites to each paragraph. Can we still consider a DYK nomination? Frgx (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the nomination is still active. Aymatth2 did have concerns, which will presumably be addressed by the next reviewer to come along. Depending on what is said then, there may or may not need to be more work on the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you reply to Template:Did you know nominations/George Luther Kapeau?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for being active on DYK and for taking the time to respond to my entries! Your kindness and willingness to help are greatly appreciated. talk ) 07:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh gosh, I totally forgot about that! Do forgive me.. I was, instead, monitoring this dyk (So I would like to take this opportunity to ask if you would kind helping me review that dyk. Thanks). Alright, alright, I will fix the problem as soon as I can.. Do wait! Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

done! Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm afraid, though, that some of the information was based on sources that Wikipedia does not consider

reliable, and I've removed those unsupported sections. Also, some sources did not support the information given. I did add a little more from reliable sources where I could do so. At the moment, the article is once again below 1500 prose characters, and needs further attention. BlueMoonset (talk

) 14:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Look i know you think that you are important but let me tell you how it is;1st off if the information i put on the glee season pages about the cast is unnecessary then why is it on several other season pages for various shows, 2nd the sources i got from the wiki can also be proven true by watching them but you can't put that online so i am going to put it back up and i would appreciate it if you kept your grubby paws off the keybard and leave it be. Peace and Love — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomie54i (talk • contribs) 02:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my nomination. I have now proposed a similar hook but with a different wording. Please feel free to have a look. De728631 (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you are just a power hungry prick who wants to edit all these articles to your liking, how about i don't use a source lots of sections on articles do not have sources. The bottom line is the section i put on the Glee seasons 1-4 articles were both helpful and true so why don't you take your computer mouse and shove it, so you can stop messing with my changes. Now personally i have better things to do with my life clearly unlike your pathetic self however you have pissed me off so stop changing my edits. Have a lovely night alone with your laptop and cats who get more action than your pimply self could. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomie54i (talk • contribs) 05:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to acquaint yourself with how Wikipedia works, including basic civility (

WP:CIVIL) as well as the basic rules of what is an acceptable contribution, and what isn't. If you aren't willing to contribute in a positive fashion, don't expect your material to last long. It's never any fun to see something you've worked on disappear, but as I'm far from the only person to enforce the rules, don't be surprised to see these additions of yours continuing to be removed. BlueMoonset (talk

) 05:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

How was what i posted in the glee articles not positive. Whatever it is people like you who make the internet full of drama i never wanted any of this i just wanted to add what most people would enjoy. So if you want me blocked from editing go ahead, but know this karma will bite you in the ass and i think you need to acquaint yourself with a little thing called a life and manners and stop changing people info on articles if they are true!!! I really do you have a wonderful life but this has made me mad. --Tomie54i (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Tomie, it isn't positive or negative, or even personal. Every place on the internet has its own rules, and Wikipedia has a whole bunch of them about what sorts of information should be in articles, and what you need to back that up. Oddly, being true is not sufficient on Wikipedia: original research (

verifiable as well. This is Wikipedia's sandbox: if you want to play in it, it's good manners to abide by the rules in the sandbox, rather than assert that the people going by them have to let you do what you want even if it runs contrary to them. I hope you have a wonderful life, too, but if I may give a friendly word of caution, I don't think you'll enjoy Wikipedia much if you continue to insist that you should be allowed to do things any way you want despite the rules of the road here. BlueMoonset (talk

) 16:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you please add your opinion and explanation here? Thank You. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't think it was what you were hoping for—Yerevanci was right about a 5x expansion being needed, even if the exact numbers were not quite accurate—so there's more expansion needed if the article is to qualify for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, the edits that "broke" the table were very minor and easily fixed, which was preferred to reversing the multiple edits to make the table

Forgive me, but the wording of

MOS:YEAR allows discretion, and that discretion seems to allow the slash, not require it: "2005/06 may be used to signify a period of 12 or fewer months, such as a corporate or governmental fiscal year, if that is the convention used in reliable sources". That's "may be used", as in optional, not "should" or "must". So from my perspective, you'd changed three of the four seasons to use the slash (not all four, which was certainly problematic), not the preferred way we used seasons here, which was with the en dash, and you'd messed up a table: several problems in a single edit. So I reversed the edit, on the theory that if it was important you could come back and fix the tables while leaving the dates alone. It seemed to me that the sports season was most analogous to the television season, but there is apparently a countervailing interpretation of MOS:YEAR that's holding sway. Can you please point me to the consensus that requiring the slash is the proper interpretation? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk

) 07:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The wording of your quote from

MOS:YEAR looked a bit off, so I did a bit of investigation. There was a wording change to the MOS made two weeks ago that I wasn't aware of,[2] only two weeks after hundreds of articles were changed to comply with the previous wording, which said "2005/06 is a period of 12 months or less, such as a sports season or a financial year". --AussieLegend (✉

) 08:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, to me it makes no sense to have one season one way and three the other, so I'm standardizing back on the en dash. Let's leave it this way until the dust settles; there didn't seem much support for the slash. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Chart Moves: 'Glee' 'Grease' Tribute Album Debuts, Lianne La Havas Sees 978% Sales Gain . I came across this and I thought as you have added reception sections to the latest glee episode articles it might be helpful if your planning to add a chart history sub-section, for the articles;

Looks interesting and definitely useful for when the articles do gain their chart sections. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The article was promoted to prep 2, but had forgotten to link QPQ. So modified the page and added. That is OK, right?--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Not so smart of me not to notice the absence of the QPQ; good of you to add it anyway. Technically, the page isn't supposed to be modified after promotion, but I'd imagine this is one of the exception situations. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey BlueMoonset, could I get a second pair of eyes on The Colours of Animals, currently in prep? Over two-thirds of the article's prose is direct quoting - it's not a copyright issue, but...see what you think. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I think you're a better judge than I, since I'm the one who promoted it, such that it was in the next queue to go before you bumped it back. I have to confess I didn't read the article closely, just took a look and did a couple of spotchecks. Once the second half of the article has been properly blockquoted, as you've just done, it stands out: the proportion of direct quotes is too high, and the article could do with a lot more paraphrasing: it would be more concise and readable, I think, if that were done. It doesn't feel encyclopedic as it is now. Can I ask you to do whatever you think appropriate at this point?

Also, I was wondering if you could swap Patrick Omameh back from Queue 1 to Prep 2 with the Chateau, or (if you're going to remove Colours entirely), back to Prep 3 where he was (but the Chateau would go to Queue 1 regardless). I hate to have Patrick run when the US is asleep. I'll be sure to fill up any open slots after you're done. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It's the charm of the original text vs. the clarity of paraphrasing. I certainly think that a couple of blockquotes are warranted, especially from the book itself. The ones from the reviews of the book are less necessary: a couple of short phrases from each should be sufficient. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I responded to your comment here--

I responded to you again.

talk

) 09:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm leaving the review to Yerevanci. The article meets the 5x expansion rule in terms of numbers of characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you please count the number of characters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Race,_ethnicity_and_religion_in_censuses

And afterward, can you please show me how to do that. By the way, I use Google Chrome.--

32500. The instructions are at

WP:DYKCHECK. It says that the software works with Google Chrome, so you should be all set there. BlueMoonset (talk

) 19:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Aharbal. It is (pictured) as you see, but in Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1 the picture has been removed, why, is there any reason?  MehrajMir ' ^(Talk) 02:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

MehrajMir, there are far more hooks with pictures than there are lead slots available, so most hooks with pictures end up being used without the supplied picture. When I selected Aharbal, the set I selected it for already had a lead hook with a picture in place. In fact, the first five hooks in the set all had pictures when they were nominated; only the final hook in that set was not nominated with an image. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to BlueMoonset for the excellent work you do organising DYKs. Without your efforts, things would be much more chaotic over on the nominations page. Thank you for participating! -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I was just dropping by to give you a similarly-worded barnstar, so I'll just add my grateful agreement with the one above. Thanks for all you do. The Interior (Talk) 06:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both. I appreciate it. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about this one. When building a set, I normally load a current copy of Template talk:Did you know and work from that. Your edit obviously occurred after I loaded this page but before the promotion was made. --Allen3 ^talk 13:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saved it something like three minutes ahead of you. There seems to be something about the DYK template that prevents an edit conflict from showing up when two editors are working on the same as-yet-unsubstituted template, and the later one activates it. Wish I'd seen it sooner, so we could have avoided this. Incidentally, I work the same way, so it's probably just luck that I haven't run into this on one of my sets. No doubt my day will come soon enough. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind having a look at this? I question the promotion of this DYK as written, and believe the hook is unclear. While the meaning is indicated, it is confusingly presented and contains an assumption of reader's knowledge. There were three ALTs offered, but not discussed; they or others s/b considered b4 publication Djflem (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Djflem, I'm very puzzled by this, since you approved the article: that's your tick mark on it, and the words "looks good to go". If you didn't mean it to be promoted, then those words are completely inappropriate. If there were problems with or questions about the hooks remaining at that point, your review should have said so and not approved it, or made clear just what you were approving: so far as I can tell, only ALT2 was not yours, and therefore should have been the only one you could have approved. The hook as posted appears to be an amalgamation of your ALT1 and Doug's ALT2, though it's basically the latter, with your "reveals the story" and Doug's "reveals history" changed to "reveal the history", so the hook used doesn't end up being an issue that way.

If you think either hook or article is a major problem, you're welcome to post your concerns on

WT:DYK. With Anne Frank being brought in for the hooks—she's what's going to get people's attention—while I think the wording could be more concise if the article had a bit more detail (such as when in 1997 the letters were discovered, so "more than fifty" could be changed to "53" or "54"), it seems adequate to the task of attracting readers without being inaccurate. I've just made some minor copyedits to the article. BlueMoonset (talk

) 16:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No book hitting until 1/22...if you need anything, holler! And is the DYK dept. lucky to have you! Nice work there, I've noticed ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 09:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations! I hope you enjoy the time off. I have no idea whether I'm actually going to try for another GA at this point: not much ambition for it at the moment. There hasn't been anything worthwhile in the latest Glee episodes to hang a hook on—I thought of one for the Christmas episode a bit too late, and didn't have the time to pursue the sources that would have been needed anyway. With the next new episode after this coming Thursday not until mid-January, we don't even have an official title for that episode (which didn't stop someone from creating the episode article redirect), so it'll be a while before a DYK will be feasible. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

	AB Award!
	In appreciation of your contributions to Wikipedia, I hereby present you with the AB Award. By expanding and promoting one of these stubs, which I like to think of as seeds, you have improved this wonderful collaborative project. Thank you, and keep up the great work! Another Believer (Talk) 19:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Template:_prefix_on_Template_talk:Did_you_know. Legoktm (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied there. It's basically what I said in my reply to you on Rcs's page, with a bit of expansion. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Tell me, would User:Dr. Blofeld/Burkina Faso be an acceptable hook? It would be a worthy cause of expanding them all and having in one hook.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As worthy as it might be to expand so many articles, the hook itself strikes me as quite uninteresting and uninformative. Sorry. The numbers gag might work as an April Fools type of hook, though I'd check with people who have more of a feel for that than I, like Crisco 1492, because it also might not work there. There's also the sad example of the current 54-article paleontology hook, which is taking absolutely forever to review. My gut reaction is that such mega-multi-article hooks are a huge burden on the community, and are best avoided. It's also very difficult to create truly interesting multi-article hooks once you get past a few articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So you value DYK more for interesting hooks than as a mechanism for getting people to expand notable and important articles on wikipedia? Let's face it, the majority of hooks are not interesting to the average visitor are they? Here's one currently at random on the front page DYK that Ron Ball defeated former UK government minister James Plaskitt to become the first Police and Crime Commissioner of Warwickshire? The whole point I thought is not that anybody really cares about the hook as a fact or is interested by the hook itself, but it showcases what articles have recently been expanded on wikipedia (which are appreciated). You seem to have the view that people actually care about the hooks appearing, the vast majority I believe think "so what"? Have I missed the point of DYK all these years BM? The purpose of DYK from my perspective has always been as a mechanism which makes creating content more exciting and worth getting to start class and collaborating not for actually being interesting as a feature. It is just a way to merely show what has recently been expanded from my view point, obviously you think differently!! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, you asked me for my opinion on your hook, I gave it. The idea behind a hook is to pique the reader's interest (literally, to "hook" the reader so they click the link); the list of numbered links caused my eyes to glaze over. If all DYK was here for was to show what had recently been created/expanded, we could just list a couple of dozen articles a day in bulleted format, article name only. The idea, I thought, was to intrigue people enough so they actually took a look at these recently created offerings: clicked on them then and there to see this material, find out more about the person, place, thing, event, or idea on the other side of the link. If you don't interest them, they don't click. It's important that people are writing new and improving old content on Wikipedia, and DYK gives them a way to find an audience for their hard work. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree with that, although I generally just see the emboldened article in questioned and click it if it is a subject which interests me rather than really taking notice of a hook, unless of course it is quirky and stands out as unusual. The emphasis on DYK for me is to encourage editors to expand existing and create new content and to show others the sort of new work which is going into wikipedia. Generally I find the mish mash of article presented at DYK highly interesting, even if I don't think the hooks themselves mean that much.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 5.

There are two articles in this hook, which I have reviewed BOTH. They pass just fine. I want to know IF I have listed the "tics" correctly. If not, can you correct so that BOTH are given a "tic" correctly. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the placement of the ticks you gave; though I usually don't bother to give separate ones for the two articles while explaining that I'd reviewed them both, it isn't wrong to do so. I don't see a mention of the hook fact (that there are a dozen L'Ateliers) anywhere in the Hong Kong article (though it is stated and sourced in London), nor, curiously, that Joël Robuchon runs the London L'Atelier (Hong Kong is clear on this). These should both be addressed, and I expect would be easy to do. Oddly, back before the New York L'Atelier closed in June, the New York Times (usually quite a reliable source) said there were nine L'Atelier restaurants at that point, with three to open in 2013 (and New York to close). But that was May, and this is December, another source does mention the twelve, and a lot can change and even the NYT has been known to nod. Note: I've fixed the second and fourth DYKmake templates; the software has a bug that prevents it from adding the subpage parameter to any but the first of the DYKmakes for each article. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The article creator thought it appropriate, perhaps due to the "avalanche" of edits. The promoter didn't. I recognize the conflict issue. The article deserved promotion, and was well documented and worthwhile. ALT 1 was also a far better alternative hook that was amply supported by the on line