Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 74

It seems ok to me. Frankly these article titles are not grammically correct; they should be "Structure of ...." Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The titles are not about grammar, but about finding them. I asked for a discussion on Classical music. - The hook: if I see only "structure" bold, I think of building, not of Creation, not of music, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The hook parallels the opening sentence of the article very closely: The Creation, the German-language oratorio Die Schöpfung, composed by Joseph Haydn in 1796–1798, is structured in three parts. I don't see the problem. Kevin McE (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

My problem is not the wording, only the bolding of it. The emphasis of the DYK article is The Creation (both the bible narration and Haydn's music). That doesn't show if structure is bold and The Creation is not and links to the general article (which is a link on the first word of the DYK article anyway). My suggestion was The Creation is structured, to cover both, because The Creation is ambiguous. Personal note: I will sing the piece in choir this afternoon, the music, not a structure! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

i would welcome comments about this edit to the new edit notice. It was intended to allow us to have all the same content but while hiding it away, expandable one section at a time. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Like I said in my revert, I think it's important to make the checklist noticeable and I don't think the amount of space it takes up is a problem (given that it can easily be scrolled past). rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I've produced a less-tall version of the page (that is, one that occupies less vertical space) for everyone's consideration. It's at User:Orlady/DYK review criteria. It includes all of the points included in Rjanag's list, plus a couple of others, but it does not exactly follow the terminology enshrined in the review templates currently on the nom pages. --Orlady (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think not including the stuff from the tables is fine. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I actually like to have it all there because it's explained in a little further detail and I always look at at least some of it, if not all of it. Tall / less tall is a minor issue, imho. Then again, I'm not surgically attached to fifty digital devices with my mind splintered across them all. However, a recurring question for me is whether the 200 ch cap on hook length is including the elipsis and question mark. I've been more successful of late in not maxing out that hook length, but this further explanation of the 200 cap would be nice to have with there, just for us brevity-challenged folk. Marrante (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

How to nominate multiple articles for a single hook?. I'm a little confused here, no idea what to write at "YOUR ARTICLE TITLE". Is it only for a one article? — Bill william compton^Talk 17:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You can write anything you want in the "YOUR ARTICLE TITLE" field. The place for specifying the exact article titles is in the next step of the process. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I would be pleased if the next prep could take the Bach cantata for last Sunday BWV 99 (not to be confused please with BWV 95 for next Sunday which is also approved). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Hook is currently in Prep 4. --Allen3 ^talk 21:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As noted in the Signpost, the collaboration between Wikimedia Indonesia and the Lontar Foundation will begin on Friday. The project is hoped to result in 300 new articles about Indonesian authors, their works, and related organizations and companies (in other words, similar to what I've been doing). I'm hoping that this can also result in at least 100 DYKs, but we will see how that goes. As one of the coordinators for the project, I will try and keep an eye on their articles if nominated; hopefully this will ensure that the reviewer has an easier time. Also, if the Lontar trainees begin nominating DYKs, please contact me if there are any major issues like copvios and whatnot, as it will have to be reported to Wikimedia Indonesia. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Am I alone in being a bit bothered by the image currently in Prep Area 1? (Displayed at right.) I think the coloring is a bit "off", I don't find the image particularly interesting (other than its arresting color), and there's always something a bit promotional about a hook focused on a newly released recording. I would not normally question the judgment of the hard-working DYK volunteer who assembled the hook set, but having stumbled upon talk-page evidence that the volunteer who assembled the set had earlier been helping the hook nominator, I wonder if this choice looks "right" to others. At least two of the other hooks in that set also had suitable images nominated (displayed at left). --Orlady (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A crop of the grave would be okay, methinks, but the street in Copenhagen doesn't seem too arresting. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Like so. However, the shadowing is not quite attractive. Perhaps lowering the saturation in the DYK of the Nurhaliza article would look better? (I'll get on it). Appears MSC did it already. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for looking at this. The edit to the image does help... --Orlady (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

But it seems still unchanged in the queue, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• See what the original image sorta looked like in the history of the image on the album's page. You'd see what Orlady was worried about. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• The earlier version of the image appeared to be bathed in magenta... --Orlady (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

My German is a bit rusty these days, but I think the hook fact might be wrong for the second hook (FV 09 Weinheim), based on the article wording and the supporting source. The defeat of Bayern Munich in 1990 was certainly the first first-round defeat, but it looks like they suffered another in 1991 against FC Homburg ... and the article suggests that as well. Could somebody pls check to make sure I've got that right, with a view to correcting the hook if necessary? Danke schön, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 15:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree; the cited page on Bayern's own site says FV Weinheim was the first to pull this off, all the more astonishing since it was a 4th-division amateur club, but the following year FC Homburg, a 2nd division club, managed it in overtime. (And that is the extent of my football knowledge.) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry: that was me. In trying to avoid the singular/plural row to do with teams, I carelessly swapped first for only. How to put it while avoiding first first round? I've now changed it to "FC Bayern Munich's first defeat in the first round of the cup": OK? Kevin McE (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not just "... that in August 1990, FC Bayern Munich was defeated in the first round of the cup at amateur side FV 09 Weinheim?" ... or even without the "in August 1990"? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That looks ideal – thanks. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The answer to "Why not" is that it re-introduces the problem of whether a team takes a singular or plural verb: I think we are better off avoiding that cross-Atlantic row. If you want to use that construction, "FC Bayern Munich were defeated..." would be more consistent with the ENGVAR of the Weinheim article. (Later edit: on a second look, the history section is a horrible mix of ENGVARs: I've raised that at the articles talk, but this hook should be ably to avoid the controversy.) Kevin McE (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Duh. Sorry. That tells you how long I've lived here. I've boldly changed it to "... that in August 1990 FC Bayern Munich lost in the first round of the cup at amateur side FV 09 Weinheim?" Yngvadottir (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the purpose of Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed? Because the instructions told me to do so, I've listed several noms there recently when I returned the hooks to the noms page from prep areas, but I don't know what purpose this list serves. --Orlady (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have looked through the past few months of this talk page's archives and the closest thing found was a

WP:MfD for proper disposal. --Allen3 ^talk

22:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This is unrelated to that archive. Someone wanted a list of articles that have been taken out of the queues (supposedly for records-keeping and analysis of trends). I don't remember the details; you can ask User:Nikkimaria and/or User:SandyGeorgia. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That explains it. I'm happy to keep adding noms to that page, if it helps document that there truly is a quality control process here at DYK, but currently it appears that I'm the only one who is doing so... --Orlady (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up: The new MediaWiki 1.18 has been rolled out and there are bugs, one of which is messing up the references in my footnotes on Anna Essinger, currently in Prep 2. For an explanation of what the problem is, see: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#bug in #tag:ref parser function. I assume (hope?) this will be fixed soon. You may want to hold off using this article until the bug is fixed because although the refs work properly, they look awful. A looooong string of gibberish. It gave me quite a start when I went to look at another article with refs in the footnotes. Marrante (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This bug has been fixed. If the page still displays incorrectly in your browser, add "?action=purge" (without the quotes) at the end of the URL and reload the page. Marrante (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot and DYKHousekeepingBot

DYKs two maintenance bots appear to have not survived the MediaWiki 1.18 upgrade. A note has been sent to the bot's owner. Hopefully they will be back up shortly but it appears to be manual updates until then. --Allen3 ^talk 12:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Allen, thanks. I should be around (the current 12-hour schedule syncs with my timing). Materialscientist (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like there have been changes in the API for 1.18 that affect how logins work and how namespaces are returned in the XML. Bot operator is aware of the issues but may not have time in his schedule to work on a fix for a couple of days. --Allen3 ^talk 14:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Both bots fixed, in theory. (For the curious, it was a single XML namespace issue; previously, MediaWiki APIs didn't use namespaces at all, and now they do.) DYKHousekeepingBot should run fine since it's successfully completed one run. DYKUpdateBot hasn't had a complete run yet, so there's a decent chance it will crash on the next run. (Sorry for the uncertainty, don't have time right now for a test run.) Will look at DYKcheck later today, assuming nothing crops up with DYKUpdateBot. Shubinator (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Character count Javascripts

• User:Dr pda/prosesize.js
• User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js

It doesn't work for me in Firefox. Does it work for you? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• User:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js also broken for me (Firefox). rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• DYKcheck not working for me on IE. Mikenorton (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• For me, using Firefox, DYKcheck correctly reports article history (creation date and name), but fails to do a character count. --Orlady (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• It's doing pretty much jack for me (Firefox). Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Scratch that, give it enough time and it does everything except the character count; for some reason even the 5x expansion is showing up (somehow?). Checked at List of Major League Baseball players to hit for the cycle and Hitting for the cycle. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Scripts are broken in IE because of a Mediawiki MIME type mismatch (something similar to this). Will look into Firefox next. Shubinator (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Character and word count issue

Bypass your browser cache first though to make sure you're seeing the latest version of the script.) Also let me know if you see other issues. Shubinator (talk

) 17:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

DYKcheck appears to be working fine in Monobook. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

After clearing my browser cache (Firefox 7.0.1 in the vector skin on Win 7), DYKcheck now works fine, except for one small issue: when I click "DYK check" a second time to clear the results, the prose in the article remains highlighted in yellow. Not a big deal – it's easy enough to simply reload the page. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK check in Modern skin, Firefox and Windows XP. Prose size/Readable prose reads "0"--Maile66 (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I get that if I'm just previewing a page that I'm editing, but the prose size is correct once I've saved the page. Mikenorton (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I saved the page two days ago. It says Zero. Clearing the Cache does nothing. --Maile66 (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Odd. I get it if I am in preview mode, but not if it has been saved. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, not with me. It never even occurred to me to run the DYK Check in a preview mode. Gremlins, perhaps?Maile66 (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

My nom here is now at Prep area 2, but as the British Library exhibition opens on November 11, can we hold it off until then (the 2nd batch ideally)? Should have thought before. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Request is now in the Special occasion holding area. --Allen3 ^talk 13:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This nom was moved to prep without actually having been given a tick mark, although essentially approved. The discussion was still going on, as to which of the hooks would be used, plus there was some work requested on the article, which I had (then) not yet done. The reviewer wrote to me on my talk page afterwards and mentioned a preference for a different hook, one that referred to the key aspect of the school, that it had been moved lock, stock and barrel from Germany to England in 1933 to escape Nazism. I had written something to that effect as the main hook, but had not mentioned the reason for the move, making the hook much weaker. Having slept on the reviewer's remark, I would now like to pull the nom from the queue so a better hook can be written. I don't have time to do this at the moment, but wanted to note my desire. I will be able to get to this in several hours, if no one else has pulled by then. Thanks. Marrante (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Sorry about that. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite alright. And thanks for moving it back. Marrante (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"... that award-winning director Garin Nugroho (pictured) liked to bathe in lava streams as a child?" is currently at

Agree. Maybe change "lava" to "lave-fed"? Materialscientist (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Considering what happens in Yogyakarta after eruptions of Merapi (saw it after the 2010 eruptions), the "cold lava" in the source may actually be lahar. This suggests that the JP translates lahar as cold lava (compare the descriptions) Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think it would be foolhardy for anyone to bathe in a lahar, but after reading the cited source and the other article that Crisco found, I think Crisco's interpretation probably is correct. I'd feel more comfortable with it if someone could read the interview in the Indonesian language -- is the Jakarta Post published only in English, or is there another version? Neither the article nor the hook should link the term "cold lava" to lava -- that's clearly wrong. --Orlady (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• In my experience with The Jakarta Globe (for the Lontar Project), the reporters do the interview in Indonesian and then translate it for publication. It's too much to hope that some of these people speak fluent English, although I'd expect Garin to have a decent command of the language. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Is possible that "lava stream" is a mistranslation/colloquialism for "hot spring"? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'll fix the article and hook if it is still in prep. Regarding hot spring, almost certainly not. The Code River (or stream) goes from near the base of Merapi, cuts through Yogyakarta, and if I'm not mistaken empties into the Indian Ocean. It's fairly shallow, and I've yet to see a hot spring yet. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Volcanic runoff in the hook. It is perhaps the most neutral wording, and more people will understand it than lahar. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just pulled an item from the queue as inadequately reviewed. It seems that it was cleared for posting while only the hook was reviewed. I don't know what other problems might exist, but all I can say is that the prose sucks and needs a lot more work. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is an article of 1770 chars. Isn't is easier to review it and quick-fix than pull out? Are there glaring problems with creation date, size, copyvio, refs? I don't see much upon a cursory look. Not to say that this is an exemplary article, but what is really the reason for pulling off? Promoter might have reviewed it upon moving to preps. Materialscientist (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think non-brilliant prose is in of itself enough of a reason to pull a hook from the queue. (I just skimmed it and I don't see glaring errors; the prose may not be compelling but it's not an obstacle to comprehension either.) I don't see any indication that it fails to meet the DYK criteria, which are not that stringent. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Fine, if the presently-assembled thinks it's acceptable to have Janet and John style prose appearing one click away from the main page, because it doesn't blatantly fail any DYK criteria, then I have nothing else to say. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• If you feel that DYK should have more stringent criteria regarding prose quality you would be welcome to start a discussion about that issue. But like I said, doesn't currently include any rules about the quality of prose (that is to say, as long as it's not in dire need of copyediting because the text is practically illegible, then it's ok), and it wouldn't be fair to fail someone's article on the basis of ad hoc criteria. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well, one thing positive about Janet and John-quality prose is that it is unlikely to have been lifted from any professional publication, thus diminishing our copyvio concerns. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'll do a bit of a rewrite, but as noted above the prose doesn't need to be "brilliant" to pass the DYK criteria. It looked to pass the DYK criteria when I promoted it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Done. I wouldn't have called the original text "bad prose", especially since the author does not seem to be a native speaker of English. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with that statement, but would like to see the temperature in question. I am not yet familiar with the convert template. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Another request: mention the article name in the heading, not just "item in queue", it helps to tell from the watchlist if it needs my attention, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• That was my goof. Thanks for pointing it out. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi.

I'm currently working on an expansion of the article for the former village of Scammonden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and I notice that the current content about the bridge plagiarises, if not outright violates the copyright, of this webpage (which is strikingly obvious). Because the text is not a word-for-word copyvio (although Copyscape may find it very fishy), does the supplemental rule about copyvios count? Sceptre ^(talk) 04:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I would lean towards saying yes in this case. The text is bad enough that if I stumbled across this article I would blank it and replace it with a stub, and I think those are the cases that rule is meant to apply to. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'd say so to. Remove the copyvio, and have an admin revdelete the versions with it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

In Maroon Creek Bridge the claim made for it is not supported by the source in the footnote. In Stab wound the claim does not even appear in the article. How do these get approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.147.165 (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You can read the review that was conducted for any article by going to the article's talk page and finding the link to the review. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Great idea ... I've done that now (and I appreciate the work you did to set these pages up. Here's what I found:

On Maroon Creek Bridge, Crisco passed a hook that is original research, unsupported by the source, and from a source easily found on google books. It was a Daniel Case DYK ... this seems to cast the whole Quid Pro Quo concern in a new light (DYK regular passing original research hook, unsupported by the source, for another DYK regular). There are other problems with that article and its sourcing, but can't the hook at least be sourced? And again, the checklist here did not prevent an unsupported, in fact untrue, hook from being on the main page (but it did give us the accountability I've long asked for-- Crisco passed both of these hooks).

The stabbing article-- also passed by Crisco-- is even worse-- the alleged "hook" is not even contained anywhere in the article, which was passed with glaring prose problems, other sourcing problems, and nonsensical statements.

So, thanks for the accountability, and that makes two hooks that were unsupported by their sources-- and yet I see a section right above this claiming DYK is ready to up the volume again. What's up with that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A few bad apples don't spoil the bunch. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

01:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That was helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've been reviewing approximately 5 articles a day for the past three weeks. If you would prefer I stop doing nominations except for those required for my own nominations, that is fine. I apologize for messing up the two nominations mentioned above. I had noticed that the four times claim in Stab Wounds and forgotten about the comparison with gunshot wounds; I seem to have really dropped the ball on the bridge. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at page 94 of the source, the "only" seems implied. The source reads "The demolition of the Rio Grande depot eliminated a reminder of the railroad preeminence in the community, leaving Maroon Creek Bridge as a relic of the era of train travel" Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"Seems implied"? As I said, uncited and original research, and apparently from someone who doesn't know the area. More useful than stopping reviewing would be for everyone involved to understand why there is a lack of rigour in this process-- why is it assumed that every DYK must pass, why aren't hooks verified, and why on earth are we seeing some hooks passed on "AGF"? DYK puts content on the mainpage-- can ee apply some rigour to make it worthy, and if not, reduce the volume so that thorough reviews can be done? The stab wound article is too much of a mess to fix, and there was no reason to put it on the mainpage with an uncited hook. Please do keep reviewing, but learn to apply rigour to your reviews rather than to push volume. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• I pass hooks AGF which are in books or a language I can't read , such as Norwegian, and you may check them. I believe in good faith, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"why is it assumed that every DYK must pass," It's not - plenty of nominations get failed due to a lack of meeting standards. "and why on earth are we seeing some hooks passed on "AGF"?" Because Wikipedia does not require that articles have sources available online (and the day it does is the day I stop editing.) If an article is sourced to reputable, hard-copy/offline sources, it has to be taken on good-faith that the citations are accurate, just like any other Wikipedia article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• "Seems implied" as in it implied IMHO. Another editor naturally could have a differing opinion. I will work at making the reviews I do even more thorough, although we should keep in mind that every reviewer can make a mistake. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• "A few bad apples" actually do spoil the bunch; and I'm not at all convinced that it's just "a few". Tony (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Crisco has proven that he is capable of doing sterling work. It just seems that he's overloaded by doing most of the heavy lifting at DYK. Three shifts a day may be too much; maybe we should slow down a tad. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the vote of confidence, Ohconfucius. Regarding the number of shifts, I think we are still at 2. Going back to three would require consensus, which we don't have just yet. I've done another review in case anyone wants to double check to see if I am being thorough enough. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• One more word of praise of Crisco 1492, just look at Template:Did you know nominations/Anna and Bernhard Blume: exception to make a date, insisting on not too much quoting, finally even supplying a paraphrase, - excellent! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Gerda :-) Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello there,

I just expanded this article (mostly

• Nice work! But alas the article doesn't meet DYK standards - it hasn't been 5x expanded. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! and that sucks :( but its ok. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 20:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

For some reason the DYK check tool doesn't come up with a number of characters of prose before the expansion started, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This article was already a featured article. The

DYK rules clearly state that DYK is for articles that are new or that have been expanded fivefold (i.e., articles that are five times as big now as they were before you did the expansion). rʨanaɢ (talk

) 21:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is still a featured article btw and alright thanks for clarifying this. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 21:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I am unable to create a nom page for the article Shite-hawk as 'shit' is blacklisted. Is an article with this name automatically ineligible for DYK (I note that Fucking, Austria was DYK'd in 2009)? And if not, how can I nominate it? BabelStone (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you can give the template any name as long as you document it well, for example link it at the article's talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I just created Template:Did you know nominations/Shite-hawk, with the nomination template commented out. Feel free to go there, fill out the template, and complete the nomination. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, done now. BabelStone (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

G'day All. I've raised this at Crisco's talkpage, but I gather that s/he's gone offline because s/he probably has a life, unlike me. When he posted the JJ Cahill hook to Prep 4, he seems to have shortened the hook. I think it's now rather uninteresting, and probably a bit misleading.

I gather that this was done to make sure that everything fits, or something (even though I'm within the 200 character limit), but I don't think we can let this go through as it stands. I'm not keen on it going through to the front page as it is without a discussion on a new hook (if my original proposed one is unacceptable). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've fixed it (very slightly shorter...), but if anyone objects, please return it from prep. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your definition of "uninteresting" and mine are obviously different. The shortened hook Crisco placed in the set sounded like the school had some type of unusual organization or layout and would have given me reason to click on the link for additional details. The fixed version however makes it clear the administration was simply using students as an inexpensive alternative to a moving company when initially occupying the newly constructed school. The longer hook provides too many details to be interesting and should be replaced in the quirky/funny slot of the set. --Allen3 ^talk 12:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I think we do have different ideas on interesting. Heh. But I still think that it would be too misleading. Can you suggest something better? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I prefer Danjel's original hook, although I've trimmed it a bit by changing "when construction of [the school] was completed" to "when [the school] was built." I personally have an aversion to hooks that are deliberately misleading. IMO, the ideal hook is one that attracts readers to am article because the hook arouses genuine interest/curiosity about the subject of the article. On the other hand, I have a hunch that hooks that attract readers by distorting information do not make readers particularly happy about Wikipedia. I agree with Allen3 that this hook does not belong in the "quirky" slot. --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

None of the hooks, long or short, would attract me to click, and none is quirky. But we don't have to pull it, even if the nominator says so, as there is still time to improve/move it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think Orlady's current revision is good enough. Regarding the last slot, there aren't very many quirkies near the top of the page, and I wanted to keep the older ones moving. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• There's no requirement to fill queues with the oldest approved hooks. I've found that balance in a set of hooks is often most easily achieved by including a couple of the most recent hooks. For prep 4, I found one that I think is sufficiently quirky for the final slot, and I moved another hook to prep 3 to fill the empty space there. --Orlady (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current state, if everyone else is happy. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 22:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy, too, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What happened here? Was the Argo tea hook not replaced? Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I removed it and didn't replace it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The Queues are all empty, but the Preps are all full. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.80.113 (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, all 6 Queues are empty, with all 4 Preps being full. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.80.113 (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

And? Moving them faster to the queues does not affect the DYK throughput, but keeping them in preps allows non-admins to correct errors. Materialscientist (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please keep one prep area open. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.11.237 (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The Argo tea hook is going to hit the main page in 1 hour and 15 minutes. There was some miscommunication in the modification of the hook. It currently reads "that Argo Tea is a chain of cafés focused on the world's most popular beverage after water?". I had wanted the hook to read "that Argo Tea is the largest chain of cafés focused on the world's most popular beverage after water?" All the ALTs in the DYK nom describe it as the largest and this fact is sourced.--

P.S.

WP:FOUR

) 22:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• The change was entered by Kevin McE (talk · contribs) with this edit. What was on Tony's talk page is what I put in preps. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The change seems to have been made with faulty logic. I think he only noticed the 1st 4 NYC locations.--
    WP:FOUR
    ) 23:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

    Restored. Materialscientist (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

But "largest" where? The source implicitly means largest in the US, but the hook by default suggests largest in the world. And I'm sure that there are main chains of tea-focussed cafés in Asia. BabelStone (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec with babelStone) This simply cannot be true, at least not without some qualification. Some chain with 5 cafes is "the largest chain of tea cafes"? Impossible. It might be the largest in New York City, or it might be the largest [some particular kind of cafe], but it is certainly not "the largest chain" in the world. For instance, in many Asian countries there are tons of tea chains. Plus, the source's claim is shaky at best, it just attributes the claim to one guy: "Darren Tristano, an executive vice-president at Technomic Inc. in Chicago, says Argo Tea is the largest chain focused on tea." rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)With over 20 cafes it is likely the largest in the U.S. Not sure. Name a larger tea chain in Asia.--

WP:FOUR

) 23:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Erh, I don't think it's up to us to do your homework, but not even going to Asia, how about Teavana with 150 outlets in US and Mexico? BabelStone (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

And in Canada, Teaopia has over 40 locations. I'm sorry Tony, but your preferred hook is flat out wrong. Resolute 00:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the claim based on number of outlets or revenue generated. Most businesses compare themselves based on sales units or revenue. Argo claims $10million in sales.--

WP:FOUR

) 00:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the very fact that that question needs to be asked illustrates why people are concerned about this hook. It's just too unclear. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Check this for Teavana - seems much more than that, and no claims that Teavana is exceptionally big. Materialscientist (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly so. The meaning of "largest" by the source is so imprecise as to be meaningless, and no-one here should need to guess what it means or do OR to verify it. With this level of concern the "largest" claim should simply be removed from the hook. BabelStone (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

O.K. can it run in the next batch from queue 6 rather than just resume its old slot.--

Now that we have resolved to go with the

WP:FOUR

) 16:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Where was this decided? I don't see any discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Argo Tea and I certainly don't see a resolution here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My "O.K." above was an agreement to remove the largest from the hook and revert to the version I disputed at the beginning of this post. Do you have an issue with that?--

WP:FOUR

) 18:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, we can relist

WP:FOUR

) 18:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I am just now seeing that this has been relisted at

WP:FOUR

) 18:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody weigh in at Template:Did you know nominations/Harry Powers regarding choice of hook? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Another one at Template:Did you know nominations/Lemon Souffle. The editor does not seem to like my reviews. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The only possible reason for mentioning a salary of $35 (what currency incidentally? We are only meant to use US$, Euro, or £ sterling without posting an equivalent) is to give the impression of a very low salary. This was, however, at least equivalent to the national average wage, it was a managerial role, and his father owned the company. This was not a case of struggling up from the most menial taskrole and overturning the odds. A highly misleading impression is given by the hook. Kevin McE (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, at that time, the paper was controlled by the bank against a large debt. That said, I suspect $35 a week was actually above average. My goal was simply to point out where he started from and where he peaked in an interesting fashion. And not many people go from mid level manager to newspaper magnate. I think you read too much into it, though I certainly encourage changing to an alt. Might I suggest then something beginning with the debt he faced leading to owning the large chain? Resolute 16:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Not many people inherit a newspaper: that is scarcely insignificant. ... that Max Bell inherited a newspaper company in debt before going on to own Canada's largest newspaper syndicate? Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

He inherited a paper that his father had already lost, so using that alt's format, I would note he had to recover the paper first. Maybe: "...after regaining control of his father's newspaper and paying off its $500,000 debt, Max Bell went on to build Canada's largest newspaper syndicate by 1965?" Resolute 17:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Inheritance is an issue of ownership, not control. To bring that into a <200 character hook is excessive detail. I would argue that mine allows for a contrast, without suggesting that he was not without advantages. As I understand it, simply linking the currency does not address the WP:Currency issue. Kevin McE (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think my alt is better, but we'll probably need someone else to choose between the two. :) If we end up going with yours though, I'd drop the word "company". Bell inherited only a single newspaper. Resolute 17:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as the currency goes, the MOS suggests using C$ in this case, so you are right on that. Resolute 17:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

On 15th October, an exhibition opens in Barcelona of Miro paintings. The Wikipedians are curators. 17 of the paintings are described by new Wiki articles in Catalan, English, French, Russian. There are two DYK noms - "caresss of a bird" now in Prep 4 and "Woman ascending a Staicase" which is in the just created 15 October section. Any help appreciated. Victuallers (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the description of this man as a vagabond, as was not one when he became the "greeter". I was reverted, on the grounds that it is true that he had been a vagabond, and later became the greeter. In that case, it is equally true to say that he was a pupil at a Danish school before he became the greeter. This looks like an attempt to crowbar onto the main page a word that an editor decided to put into the article, but is not in the cited material, and thus display our ability to use words that many readers will have to look up. Not, I would suggest, a noble use of our main portal. Kevin McE (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I am the one who restored the original hook. The article clearly documents that the man was a vagabond in the pure sense of that word -- someone who was a wanderer for many years, with no settled life, before he settled down in Laguna Beach and took on the role of greeter. For me, your removing that term from the hook converted an attention-getting hook into one that I would not give a second glance to. --Orlady (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, for reasons given above. But the pathetic amount of attention that hooks receive before reaching the main page (basically, anything gets there if about three people fail to object) mean that this has appeared without further discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Simple answer to this, really: offer yourself to be another overseer of the process. It's really that simple; the more people looking at the hooks, logically, the closer we get to perfection. Moaning about the "pathetic" nature of the process gets us nowhere. — Joseph Fox 09:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Just in case anyone doesn't know: at

WP:ERRORS, Kevin often offers specific suggestions for the Main Page ("overseer") as well as some negative comments ("moaning"). Art LaPella (talk

) 16:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Joseph: have you seen how many corrective changes I have made at the prep stage over the last few weeks? The problem is that there are very few eyes at this stage, and many of those are, I believe, more focussed on providing hooks than seeking to hold them to a high standard. Obviously there is a need for the production, but there are too few critical eyes to effectively check them. There was clearly a matter of dispute in the phrasing of this hook, but next to no people aware of the discussion to render anything that might vaguely be considered a consensus before it went to the main page.

Art: I'm sorry that you choose to interpret some of my contributions as moaning. I don't believe that I have knowing ever made observations at WP:ERRORS that have not been intended to improve the encyclopaedia, or at least draw the attention of others to that which needs attention. If you think you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to discuss it at my talk page. Kevin McE (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I just nominated an article, and when I did that I saw that I could add something to the article's talk page, but I forgot to do so. It wasn't mandatory to do so, but I'd still like to know what that was. Could anyone advice? Manxruler (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

== Time to return to 3 hook sets per day? ==

The hook supply has been growing, leading me to think that it may be time to return to 3 sets per day (one every 8 hours). Alternatively, we could increase the number of hooks in each set to 7. Note that three sets per day increases output by 50%, whereas an increase to 7 hooks per set increases it only 17%. 

Regardless of the number of queues per day, I'd prefer larger hook sets, as it is easier to balance the content of a hook collection when there are 7 or 8 hooks than when there are only six. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 14:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
*I think we're ready. Looking at the bot's report, we currently have approximately 18 nominations a day. At 3 preps a day, we would be using 18 to 21 hooks a day; this would keep the number of hooks on T:TDYK stable. [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 15:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
*More haste, less speed. --<small>[[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt 'kristen itc';text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em;">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]]</small> 04:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
*From what I see below, the system is not coping at all well with two shifts a day. [[User:Tony1|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><span style="color: darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color: darkgreen">(talk)</font ></span>]] 06:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

:: Too early to return to 3 per day IMO - I would at least wait until the hook count is over 200. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 14:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

::Regretfully concurring that it's a bit early to be sure of a trend, although I'd like to see us back at 3 a day soon, let's first increase the number of hooks per set and revisit the issue after Hallowe'en. (I'm also thinking we don't yet have enough Hallowe'en hooks for 3 sets that day to be spooky enough.) [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 19:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

:::I think it's time to return to 7 hooks per set. Before we increase, we need to warn the other Main Page projects, so I've inquired at [[Talk:Main Page]]. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 14:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

== DYK nomination ==

{{Template:Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE}}

rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Manxruler (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be handy if this were mandatory or automatic, at least until after it has appeared on the MP. At present, to trace how a hook was arrived at, one has to trawl through the What links here list (which even for new pages can be lengthy if the page is in templates). Is such a thing possible? Kevin McE (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Some editors are automatically adding that to the article talk page, but I don't see the need; the template title always has the same format so I can find it by remembering what that is. It usually comes up as a suggestion in the search box when I start typing in the article name after the beginning bit. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to make it mandatory. There are links to the DYK nomination pages in the prep areas and the queues (so if you're reading articles in the queues it should be easy for you to get to the nomination page), and after it runs there's a link to it on the article talk page. Furthermore, as Yngvadottir pointed out, you can usually find it easily even without a link. If anyone wants to make a bot that will do this automatically, they are welcome to, but I don't see a reason to require people to do it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Once a hook is in the prep area or the queue, the discussion as to how that hook was arrived at is not any longer at T:TDYK. Although it is available after the hook has appeared, discussion on it then is futile. It is precisely at the time that the nomination is made available for wider discussion that it is least accessible. Kevin McE (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• As noted above, the discussion is linked directly from the prep / queue page... Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry: am I missing something really obvious here? I look, for example, at the

queue page, and in the Prep 1 section I see a hook on the Lost River sucker. Are you telling me that, when looking at that, there is a one click jump to [[Template:Did you know nominations/Lost River sucker]]? If so, where? At present, I either have to type 35 characters into the search box, or click on the article, then on the "What links here" tab, then search down the list. If I am being really daft and missing the obvious, please point me at it so that I can kick myself. Kevin McE (talk

) 17:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

From there, if you click the link to prep area 1, you will find links to all the nomination pages (each labelled "View nom subpage"). rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah: that's what everyone meant. Thank you. Problem arose from confusion of the page called queue that has all the queues and prep areas transcluded, and the 6 pages called Queue 1, Queue 2 etc. Kevin McE (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I can find no evidence for the claim of this man becoming figurehead of the city. One colour piece in one Sunday paper refers to him as a symbol. That is no more establishment of a fact than is the same article's description of the people of Sheffield as blunt or of Beck's hairstyle as a thatch. To be a figurehead is to be a leader and inspiration, to be a symbol is to be a recogniseable person associated with the place. Suggest that after the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, dean Peter Beck (pictured) was described as a "symbol of the city"? Kevin McE (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed in Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Beck and I found the hook in Prep 3. I agree that the hook fact does not accurately represent what the source says. I'm moving it back to the noms page for additional discussion. PS - I, for one, really appreciate having links to the items that are discussed on this page. --Orlady (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I noticed something odd while building the preps. It appears that the month of the nomination is not showing up automatically when the nomination is created. I verified this by creating a fake nomination and it didn't show up. It appears this has been so for a few days (5 maybe), and I thought that we needed the categories to keep the entire process easily accessible. Could someone fix the template? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems like the MediaWiki update has broken some stuff about the way the {REVISIONMONTH} and {REVISIONYEAR} magic words work, and those are what was used to fill in the month and year. I'll have to leave a message at the village pump about it; I don't know if it will be possible to fix the template until that stuff is dealt with.

In the meantime, people doing promoting of the hooks can just fill in the nomination month and year manually while promoting. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it. (There is still a problem with the magic words; I just switched to some different magic words that can accomplish the same thing. The new version is actually more appropriate anyway. ) rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion for "Palestinian rabbis" has been on the noms page for over 2 months, during which time the article has survived an AfD and a couple of requested-move discussions and has undergone extensive editing to resolve multiple issues of copyvio that I identified. There also have been 6 or 7 different hooks proposed, of which I believe only one (ALT4) is supported by the article and RS citations therein.

The article creator is adamant that his preferred hook, which I contend is not supported by the article, must be used. I have given him the choice of using ALT4 or failing the nomination. He doesn't like my opinion, and now is saying "If you are not happy with approving this hook, please don't reject this nom, but request comment from others." He also has suggested that Gatoclass thought one of his hooks was OK.

I've expended an inordinate amount of time reviewing this nomination, but now I'm wondering why I bothered. I am not interested in receiving the inevitable flak that will ensue when this controversially-titled article goes to the main page in DYK if I am also going to get flak from the article creator.

Accordingly, "comments from others" are requested. --Orlady (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read the discussion at all but I think it should be failed. It's nothing close to "new", and the fact that it's taken 2 months and still there's no agreement over it indicates that it's probably not stable or ready for the main page either. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've read and closed the discussion as "no consensus" to promote. Cunard (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There's seems to be a trend here towards more and more catchy or sensationalist hooks, resulting (at least three times this week that I know of) in original research and false statements (see Talk:Maroon Creek Bridge and stab wound). If we're going to put something as a "factoid" on the main page, we really should make sure it's right. If we're going to put words in a dead man's mouth, do we not have some sort of responsibility (to his surviving family and friends, for example) to get it right?

• Did you know ... that immunologist and
  AIDS advocate Robert Frascino considered himself privileged after being infected with HIV
  ?

No where is that found in the sources, it's a supposition and original research, trying too hard to be hooky, and inspired by the DYK reviewer, Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Frascino-- not wording that was originally proposed by the article writer. I wonder if his family, on reading that, considered him "privileged" to be dead? Please, let's be more careful on the mainpage to avoid original research-- if the man had said he was "privileged", it would not be plagiarism to restate that, but he did not say that. Neither is Maroon Creek Bridge the only significant remnant of rail travel on that line, as anyone who has taken a train to ski in CO will know. It's on the mainpage-- please stop stretching hooks to make them catchy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, its gone off the main page some 2 hrs ago. Materialscientist (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I was speaking generally ... as I recall, the original Billy Hathorn problem (finally) came to broader light because the same reviewer moved forward an unreviewed hook. There seems to be generally an overemphasis on catchy hooks, that is resulting in original research, and it often seems to be passed by the same reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: the sources say Marook Creek Bridge is a relic. They do not say it's the most significant, nor do they say it's the most visible. [5] Would a primer on following sources correctly help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

In its current form, the Frascino article quotes him saying he considered it a privilege to be able to care for his dying brother. That happened after he was diagnosed, and it clearly indicates he considered himself privileged, so the hook is true, albeit sneakily worded. I verified that element of the hook before I moved the hooks from the prep area to the queue. The same cited source (quote not currently in the article) also quotes him as saying "I quickly realized as an HIV-positive physician, I held a unique and privileged position. I was able to speak with the knowledge and authority of a physician specialist but also with the eyes, heart and soul of an HIV-positive patient.” If I had read all of the article's sources before approving the queue, I probably would have added that to the article, but I didn't. Regardless, the hook was not original research. --Orlady (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Orlady-- it's that "sneakily worded" business that DYK might stop striving so hard for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's beyond sneaky, that's deliberately misleading. Kevin McE (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the omission from the article of that quotation in which he actually used the word "privileged", it's clear from the article as a whole that he received his infection in much the same way that a devout Christian would receive a calling to ministry. For example, a boxed quotation in the article says, in part: "Maybe I was meant to get this disease for a purpose." --Orlady (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not the same as "privileged"; can we please review hooks for sourcing, avoiding original research and personal opinions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I just submitted my first DYK, at Template:Did you know nominations/History of the birth control movement in the United States. Could some DYK black-belt please check to make sure I've followed the process correctly, and that my submission meets the requirements? I read the instructions, but you never know. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• You did the nomination process correctly, but for a full review of the article you have to wait in line (between 3 to 10 days usually). Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll grab a newspaper to read while I'm waiting :-) --Noleander (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hope you've got a thick one; once you've finished, War and Peace may be a good start. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Seriously though, based on what I saw I wouldn't expect too many issues to be raised at the nomination. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I recently expanded one article (

Thanks for the alert regarding the Kennedy hook. I have moved it to one of the prep areas that will go to the main page on 21 October. --Orlady (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A village cannot be a railway station; it can have a railway station. Kevin McE (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"more than 48,000 graves on just 16.2 hectares (40 acres)": comparison with some London cemeteries suggests that this is by no means a densely packed cemetery: Highgate Cemetery has 53000 in 37 acres; West Norwood Cemetery is also 40 acres, but has more than 3 times as many burials as Karet Bivak at 160,000; Bunhill Fields has 10 times the density. The word just is not defensible. Kevin McE (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This cemetery is in Jakarta, not London, so it seems like you're comparing apples to oranges. The source also seems to be about crowding issues in cemeteries. Admittedly this is not the most exciting hook, but I don't see a problem with it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Further to Rjanag... The first proposed hook said that the cemetery was at capacity and burials were now being stacked. It was correctly pointed out on the nom page that stacking of burials is not unusual; also, I found that the sourcing for that statement was weak -- notably, that they were only stacking graves of people in the same family. I wrote the new hook because I was satisfied that the fact was supported by reliable sources. Different cultures have different burial practices, and it's apparent that this cemetery is densely packed in the context of burial practices in Indonesia. --Orlady (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That just suggests that it is exceptionally crowded. Comparison with other cemeteries shows that this is not the case. The impression given is misleading, and an encyclopaedia should not mislead. If there is a factual hook that can be compiled about the local perception of it being crowded, or steps being taken, that is a different matter. Kevin McE (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You've cited examples of three cemeteries (in another part of the world) that are more crowded. That doesn't mean anything; who knows how many are less crowded. Clearly there is some subjectivity in determining what constitutes "crowded", but the sources suggest the cemetery is crowded and you haven't provided any real evidence that it's not, so I don't see anything misleading here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could be surprised that the regulars here would rather defend a proposed hook than avoid misleading readers of Wikipedia's most visited page. Kevin McE (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, please don't give up-- I think you may be DYK's only hope (and I note that you work in many areas of the mainpage as well). Now, as to DYK-- this is exactly like the other recent cases-- original research. The question(s) should not be those raised here, nor the defense of another poor hook, but 1) what exactly do the sources say, 2) why isn't that text even in the article, and 3) just fix it, for gosh sakes, instead of constantly defending the status quo here. Do y'all ever consider how many very good editors have left DYK, even Wikipedia, in disgust over what goes on here? Just fix it-- we have too many reviewers trying to write sensationalist, catchy hooks, resulting too often in original research. I remember that once, just once, when a problem was found at DYK, the nominator just fixed it. It doesn't have to be that rare, and you don't have to keep causing good editors to give up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, I think cutting the "on just so many acres" is fine. I didn't include the size of the cemetery as I didn't think it was overly interesting (and to avoid using something like "just"). If they want to see how packed it is, there are two pictures there that can be used to give them an idea. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
• The point, Sandy, is that I (and apparently some of the other commenters) don't agree anything needs to be fixed. It's no wonder many people have stopped contributing to DYK when merely disagreeing with someone subjects them to rants like this where they're accused of being "defensive" and driving people away from the project. Can we all just agree to grow up and accept that there are differences of opinion without attacking one another?

  Regarding the actual content issue: In this context, it doesn't need to be the case that the cemetery is unique for the word "just" to be OK. All that "just" implies is that, from the point of view of the person saying it, "16.2" hectares is a small amount of space to put "48,000 graves" in; there's no requirement that it be uniquely small. It seems that from the point of view of the person who wrote the source this is indeed a small amount of space. Thus, I don't see anything misleading about saying "just". rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I changed the wording from "on just" to "in a space of". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

See how easy that was? [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

When it was demonstrated that 10 times the density is achieved in a manner considered perfectly socially acceptable in an affluent city like London, inclusion of judgemental words is flying in the face of evidence. It is not the place of an encyclopaedia to pass such judgements, and when the inclusion of unencyclopaedic content is proposed and flagged up, I would hope that encyclopaedic standard, rather than the text as proposed, is the defaulkt position as to what should be defended. Kevin McE (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I nominate an article a few days ago. I just renamed it to be more concise: from

Is this right? Art LaPella (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Furthermore, in the past the update bot would not issue credits from lines like {{DYKmake|Palacio de las Dueñas|Dr. Blofeld|subpage=Palacio de las Dueñas}} , but Shubinator said he fixed that. Materialscientist (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, what you did was correct. It looks like the nominator messed up the credit templates here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Why was Alicia Aberley not checked for close paraphrasing?

• Template:Did you know nominations/Alicia Aberley
• Duplication detector

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The link to ref#1 in the article is not working for me, so it's hard to see what your concern is. I just checked four other references using Duplication Detector and found no problems, although I appreciate that the first one is used to support more text than the others. Mikenorton (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

OK it's become available again and most of the matches are lists of events, e.g. "record for the 50 metres 100 metres and 200 metres breaststroke" which are pretty much factual. I would regard these examples as borderline too close paraphrasing at worst, but I'm no expert. Mikenorton (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I honestly didn't intend to do word those the same for those phrases found on hansard. I'm just not certain how to otherwise word them for she broke the world record for these events. World record can't really be reworded. The events she set them in are rather specific. Changing the order from longest to shortest isn't standard for how to list. Swimming and athletics tends to pretty consistently do shortest to longest. Just not sure how to fix that. :( --LauraHale (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of anyway to reword this either. Calling this out for close paraphrasing feels nitpicky, since there's no way around that unless we start adding modifiers or reverse the order, which doesn't work. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Wizardman. The world of sport is full of names and facts that can only reasonably be described by a rather specific string of words. I find it very hard to imagine anyone claiming copyright over a phrase like "in the 200 metres individual medley and the 50 and 100 metres freestyle" -- and even less likely any court would uphold such a claim. Running the detector can be useful, and it's worth considering its results; automatically assuming its reports are overly close paraphrases, though, wouldn't be an appropriate use of the tool. Sandy, I hope all you were suggesting was the former? -Pete (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed this nomination. Like others have said, there really isn't any other way to write those phrases because they are just the event names. - PM800 (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks ok to me as well. For future reviews, though, it would always be good to indicate that you've checked for this (i.e., something like "Length, date, and hook verified, and no copyvio problems" or something like that. If you checked it, might as well take credit for checking it :) rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel the same as Wizardman and followers. Some facts loose the very facts we should go for in rewording. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It's always curious to me when copyvio concerns are met with responses based only on wording-- copyvio occurs when structure is copied also. "There's only one way to word it" isn't the right answer in those cases. Besides, the question was, was it checked, or have we already stopped checking ?? Since there is still no directorate at DYK, when admins pass the hooks to the mainpage, do they verify that necessary checks have been done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, in calling attention to this issue, the only explanation you gave was to the results of a bot, which highlights specific word matches. If you feel there is something deeper going on here, you might find we could be persuaded -- but it's much more likely that will happen if you share your thinking with us. -Pete (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't typically use any of the copyvio detection tools (it may be the first time I have), but I saw elsewhere that this particular tool can be helpful in looking at the structure of the article around the instances of similar wording. I'm more curious that it seems that copyvio checks are no longer being done on some nominations, so I checked one. I disagree that with the entire premise that there is no other way to write this article, but since it's not a hugely egregious case, my real question is, was it checked or not? The history at DYK for many years has been that as soon as non-DYK regulars stop shining a light on plagiarism here, DYK goes back to business as usual. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm finally beginning to understand where you're coming from: you've got a

WP:POINT and this just happens to be the article you're seeking to demonstrate it on. Personally, I don't feel that's very kind to the writer, the nominator, or the reviewer of this particular article. So I'm going to disengage. If this particular instance isn't hugely egregious, I'll just watch for a discussion that doesn't unnecessarily ensnare good faith contributors in cross-fire. -Pete (talk

)

So Sandy, your original question was "How can I tell if Alicia Aberley has been checked for close paraphrasing?", because it wasn't explicitly mentioned in the review. I personally think it's helpful to specifically mention it in the review, but you would get a clearer answer if your question was clearer. Mikenorton (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Why was Alicia Aberley not checked for close paraphrasing?

Looks pretty clear to me ... still concerned about the close paraphrasing and structure, and still wonder if y'all have just stopped checking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I asked Moonriddengirl for assistance related to the plagiarism issue. Moonriddengirl did not find a problem. Is your issue that you believe there are genuine plagiarism issues in this article? If so, I would be more than happy to try to fix them, but I'm just not certain where they are based on the link you provided, which suggests possible issues. Are there other parts of the article, that upon further investigation you think warrant a deeper look at this article? (Do you have suggestions for how to fix it and can you elaborate on structural issues? I've honestly never seen structural issues cited for copyvio related complaints.) Are you singling out the reviewer of the article for not using the tool you used for not saying "I checked using this tool. It highlighted potential problems, but they do not appear to be copyvios," or are you criticising the people who moved the DYK to the holding pen for not having followed up to make sure all DYKs have been checked for potential copyright issues? I guess that is where the clarity issue comes in. --LauraHale (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No, her issue is that she has a

WP:POINT to make about DYK, but she is pissing in the wind here. For the record, as the nominator, I checked the article for copyvios, and, like everybody else here, found none. Hawkeye7 (talk

) 23:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that if you bring up the version from 10 September, that DYKcheck won't give you the character count? It gives me 1143 characters for that version compared to 4027 now. Mikenorton (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I don't quite understand what "bring up" means. I used to click on "prev" for a certain version, and then DYK check, and got a result, yellow for the prose, char count etc. When I do that now for an older version, nothing happens. It works for me for the current version only. I guess I overlook something simple? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I just tried it and it worked fine for me. Open the version from 10 September and run DYK check or prosesize.js and it'll give you the character count. If not, it's probably a problem with your browser or skin, try

clearing your cache. rʨanaɢ (talk

) 15:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on with DYKcheck, it's been playing up for the last few days (see also here), for instance it no longer gives me results when I use preview, a pain because I use it to check hook lengths in one of my sandboxes and I now have to save each version for comparison. I just clicked on prev for the 10 September version and it gave me the same character count of 1143 characters. Mikenorton (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, helped, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Today I took a clearer picture of Jubilee Library, Brighton, to replace the photo that was in the article's infobox. The old photo has also been used in Prep 1, but as it is no longer in the article I imagine it needs to be replaced by the new photo (File:Jubilee Library and Jubilee Square (from Southwest), Brighton.JPG). I haven't changed the prep area myself as it is my hook. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Image swap completed. --Allen3 ^talk 22:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If articles are not expanded 5x, they do not qualify for DYK. Some articles are large to begin with and are expanded 2-4x. Is there any way for them to appear on DYK? For example, see Childhood amnesia.

It's disappointing to the students to not be able to qualify for DYK because their article was too large when they started to qualify for DYK. If the article was sufficiently improved, more than 2x with a number of rs, can we

• IAR-ing an expansion requires consensus; some, like Conan the Barbarian acquire it. Others, like Babe Ruth Award, don't. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • There's no reason for DYK to change its criteria to satisfy a few people's assignments. Professors who are making the assignments should understand the criteria before starting a Wikipedia-based class project. Really, they shouldn't be making assignments that require students to get a DYK or GA or whatever unless they have already determined a clear list of articles that would be feasible—it's not fair for editors here to be faced with people telling them "if you don't pass this article then [I / my students] will get a bad grade". The bottom line is, people can do Wikipedia class projects without forcing existing Wikiprojects to change how they work. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • We shouldn't think of this in terms of assignments. Students are irrelevant to DYK. That said, I do think that it is unfair to treat new noms the same as expansions. Having written over 300 DYKs, I can certify that expansion is often much, much harder. We should use a size criteria: for example 5x for <100 words, 4x for under 100-250 words, and so on on, ending with 2x for large articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
      • If an article is that big already, it's more appropriate to set your sights on
        GAN rather than DYK. Improving already-developed articles is not DYK's purpose. rʨanaɢ (talk
        ) 05:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I've applied a few bugfixes to DYKcheck for the bugs mentioned here. Thanks to Bruce1ee, Maile66, and Mikenorton for bringing up the three bugs. As always, if you find a bug, let me know. (And sorry for the long delay on these three.) Shubinator (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Shubinator, it works fine on preview now. Mikenorton (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The bug I reported (yellow highlight not clearing when pressing "DYK check" a second time) is fixed now. Thanks Shubinator. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)