Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Error reports

Please do not post error reports for specific template versions here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you.

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

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

DYK Deletion sorting

In my ongoing review of DYK archives, I discovered that DYK Main Page articles are being deleted without input from DYK. I have posted a request to WikiProject Deletion sorting to have a deletion sorting page created for DYK. Many other projects have their own deletion sorting for articles of interest to their project (see, e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender), and there is no reason why DYK should sit back and not provide input to AfD concerning DYK articles. If our judgment is wrong and the article is not a valid article, we then would need to change our practice to prevent such articles from appearing on the Main Page. If our judgment is correct, then deleting the article without DYK input would not put Wikipedia or DYK in the best light, particularly since such an article was on the Main Page and held out as one of Wikipedia's best new articles. -- Jreferee t/c 16:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How many former DYK entries end up being deleted? I suspect they are few and far between. -- !! ?? 18:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think someone did a relatively brief analysis of how many got deleted a few months ago and the total was in the single figures, even when those which got merged into other articles were added. Of course, it might've increased dramatically since then. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree this would in theory be useful, especially as exposure on the main page does increase the risk someone will later take the article to AfD. However, the way deletion sorting works, someone would have to notice that the article had been on DYK to list it (there's no automation), and it wouldn't be apparent from the AfD itself, so I'm not sure how it would work in practice. Espresso Addict 06:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There is not a whole lot of DYK articles that get listed at AfD. If WikiProject Deletion sorting does not find that there are enough AfD listings to warrant their crating and maintaining a DYK Deletion sorting page, I can easily create one as a DYK subpage. Deletion sorting is not automatic and requires manual input. Once the DYK Deletion sorting page is up an running, any of the regular DYK members can list relevant AfDs and DRV. I'm currently working with Rick Block to provide tables for the DYK archives that may be used for a variety of purposes (see, e.g. Wikipedia:Recent_additions_146/History). Once the new tables are complete (a very long term project), a bot can keep track of the DYK articles and provide DYK with notice of any AfDs, redirects, and other similar changes. -- Jreferee t/c 14:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The delsort project has typically required that proposals for new lists are accompanied with justification in the way of examples of Afd's that would have landed on the proposed list, if it had of existed. I dont think we need to stall this request in that way, but it would still be handy to see a list of past Afds that would have been caught, if that data has already been compiled, even if it is a bit old.

The delsort project will soon be able to automatically populate the delsort lists based on talk page tags, which will mean we can cater for specific needs like this. See User:Ceyockey/Notifying WikiProjects of Deletion Proposals for more details. John Vandenberg 16:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

We recently had Human chemistry and Human molecule come through and get deleted (as original research/fringe science/hoax). DYKs don't get nominated very often once they've gotten through the DYK process (very few red links in the archives). What happens more frequently is they get nominated while they're still on the T:TDYK page. I don't know any recent examples off the top of my head. I know I nominated Marilyn Monroe pornographic film from T:TDYK. Of course, that's a bit trickier as there's no talk page tag for nominees... somebody would have to check the whatlinkshere. --JayHenry 17:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Before anyone troops off to redelete human molecule, it's probably not what you think :P GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't find Gavin Kaysen anywhere.

err. Well, I know where Kaysen is, but I mean that I got a note, on my page, saying that my nomination of some info on Kaysen had been included in DYK?. I like to post the hook next to the notification, but for the life of me, I can't see any record of it actually being used. It's not on the recent additions page, though another entry from me a few days ago is there. A look through the history of the page 'coming up next' page doesn't actually seem to contain it (and while the note was posted to my page, it wasn't put on the article page; I did that myself later when I saw it hadn't been added). Did it actually get used, or did it get lost in an edit? If it was used, can anyone point me at *where* it got used, so I can get the hook that was decided upon? Thanks, --Thespian 04:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect time?

We may want to semi-protect, or even full protect Template:Did you know/Next update/Time. An anon just recent the counter even though there wasn't an update. I've reverted it, but it made me think that there is no reason for non-admins to have access to that page, assuming that the admin that does the update also resets the clock (which I've noticed some admins not doing). Anyway, just thought I'd bring it up to see what others thought.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. How often does a non-admin do it for the updater? I know I've seen it when someone has forgotten to reset it. Maybe a reminder should be added on T:DYK/N, which includes reminders about protecting the image and archiving. Rigadoun (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for now, since there haven't really been any sensible updates to it by anons for a while. No real opinion on full protection - there hasn't been much of a problem with registered users fiddling around with it when they weren't supposed to so far, but updates to it are usually done by the updating admin. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought the idea was to allow non-admins to get involved in the process... but, hey, if the DYK subpages are going to be locked down to admins only (yes, I know this is only the time template) then perhaps some admins could pull their fingers out - the last update was over 17 hours ago. -- !! ?? 17:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's only T:DYK that's locked to non-admins. You and I can still edit the time clock. The problem is that it's actually been 17 hours since an admin updated and the next update is ready to go. --JayHenry 18:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it has actually been more than 17 hours since the last update twice in a row now - are the admins on strike? -- !! ?? 11:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't update yesterday when the clock was 15 because next update wasn't ready. I just updated now, however I don't have time to thank the users. Since anyone can thank users (non-admins) it would be nice if someone could help be out because I'm leaving my computer now to go out. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 12:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It is largely a thankless task. It would be nice if some of the people complaining in the WP:ANI section mentioned below did something to help out. -- !! ?? 12:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I know. It's rotten. There should be a rule that admins who submit stuff should be obliged to help. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Polylerus

I think someone should officially notice that the abovenamed editor has gotten 30 articles on the DYK section. John Carter 20:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Anonymous Dissident/List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs should be a good place to write his name in.Bakaman 00:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Added. [1].Bakaman 01:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK discussion at WP:AN

A discussion about DYK has been started at the Administrators noticeboard. -- Jreferee t/c 22:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Family Guy DYK MoS errors

In the current DYK, the episode titles "Blind Ambition" and "The Cleveland–Loretta Quagmire" should be in quotes, not italicized. Also, note that the name of the episode is "The Cleveland–Loretta Quagmire" and not "Cleveland Loretta Quagmire" (addition of a "The" and an en dash between "Cleveland" and "Loretta"). Robert K S 19:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Things like this should be posted to WP:ERRORS. I've copied this comment there and with luck it will be fixed. Rigadoun (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

BLP

There have apparently been 3 DYK items removed from the main page template in recent days due to WP:BLP issues. It has been suggested on ANI that the current screening process is inadequate... I think further discussion should occur here. --W.marsh 15:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

While I wouldn't classify the removed DYK as "controversial", I know that the current atmosphere involving BLPs is rather tense and cautious. Overall I think the DYK process works fine but it may be worthwhile to explore having a separate section for BLP noms or some tag to add to the nomination that will flag it for extra scrutiny. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 15:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There were a few issues with the DYK that was removed 1) a rather salacious factiod was picked out - and one that had pretty ropey sourcing. Now, it may turn out to be true, but that's not the point. The point is that we can't take the risk that one of these times it will turn out to be libelous. The structural problem is that DKY's are recently created articles (thus not hada lot of time for scrutiny) they are then nominated (often by the creator) and listed. Now it may be that they are checked over the 5 days, but we can't be sure that will alway happen. Indeed in this case, it obviously hadn't. That means one failure to check by the lister, and we've got a problem. 2) I actually removed further negative material from the article that violated BLP. Linking an article from the mainpage that may contain other unchecked libels isn't great either. 3) Is it really fair to pick one possibly embarrassing fact from someone's life and feature it? That's what tabloids do!

Let's not wait until this becomes a problem. Let's increase our safeguarding. I'd actually like us t say that we don't feature negative or possibly embarrassing factiods about living individuals on the mainpage - period. That would be a nice clear rule - find another fact please. If that's viewed as two strong, then we shoudl insist that all factiods about living individuals are "signed off" by an uninvolved and experienced editor before listing by the lister. In signing off, the editor would certify "I have checked the factoid is fair and strongly sourced, and that the article itself complies with WP:BLP." The lister would then double check before listing. That would work. But, as I say, easier would be to say "no potentially negative/embarrassing factoids about living individuals" - that prevents both the BLP issue and the ethical problem of featuring some tabloidesque gossip about some not-very-well-known individual.--Doc^g 16:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's very agreeable to expect extra "check ups" on BLP articles but I'm sure not how well a hard and fast rule on not "negative/embarrassing factoids" would work. For one thing, the idea of "embarrassing" can clearly be subjective. Case in point with today's DYK. While you (and possibly others) view the Rocky Horror/Drag factoid as "potentially embarrassing", myself (and possibly others) would not see it that way. Obviously its presence in the article should (like everything else) depending on the quality of the sourcing behind it. As for negative comments, while we are certainly not a tabloid we are not meant to be censored. Of course in the case of BLPs the negative comments are kept within reason, WP:NPOV and the relevant guideline. Ultimately that should be the same guiding criteria behind DYK tidbits. If its well sourced and in compliance in the article with the necessary guidelines then it should be an acceptable candidate. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit confict)I was the one who added the last entry that sparked the discussion on the admin noticeboard. I'm sorry about this, I guess I didn't check the references thoroughly enough. For me, this isn't a BLP issue, but a general accuracy and WP:RS issue. I think we generally need to improve the way we screen suggestions, whether they're controversial (what's controversial, salacious, or embarassing about having acted in a drag show anyway?) or not. Two proposals come to my mind. The first is having each entry checked at least once by someone other than the nominator and the article creator. Two editors (I think it was Awadewit and Espresso Adict) tried to implement this a few months back, but noone really jumped on. I think it might be worth only adding entries to the main page that have actually been checked and seconded by someone. The other solution that comes to my mind is requiring nominators to name the source of the fact when adding a suggestion, if the source is a book, preferrably with the exact page number. Both solutions would require quite a bit of effort on the part of the DYK editors and the ultimate solution can only be to have more damn admins and experienced editors help out.--Carabinieri 16:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't want to overkill with a time consuming solution. I'd suggest that we need to focus on information about living individuals (just as BLP does). That's where the real damage could be done by inaccuracy.--Doc^g 16:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Having inaccurate or poorly referenced facts on the main page sucks, whether they're about living people, dead people, or non-human subjects.--Carabinieri 16:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

True...... but ultimately that should be the responsibility of the article's editors without the need for "hand holding" by the admin. BLPs are, again, a special situation that would warrant extra scrutiny but I think WP:ERRORS and the 5-day period suffices for everything else. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

We treat BLP differently for a reason. Innacuracies are bad, and make Wikipedia look bad. But bad info on individuals can be really harmful. We have no evidence of any generalprobelm with DYK's accuracy (doubtless there's been mistakes, but no harm) we do have evidence of BLP problems. So, lets get the BLP DYKs prperly safeguarded before we have a really issue. If the safeguarding we put in place works, and if problems arrise with non-BLPs, we can consider a more general solution later. Fix what's broken, leave the rest.--Doc^g 17:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

← Wot Doc said. It's an easy fix, just don't include ngative hooks about living people and quickly scan the article for red-flag words. No big deal, unless we choose to make it one. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have a problem with adding this to the guidelines? Some things might still slip through but this should help. ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Are User:Doc glasgow and User:JzG planning to stick around indefinitely to tell us when articles (some written by admins - see above) meet their standards? If not, please would ythey define "negative", and provide a list of red-flag words, so we know when those standards are being transgressed. FWIW, I struggle to see the problem with the proposed hook for Rose Dugdale. What is this "real issue" of which you speak?

Or perhaps we should just go the whole hog and prohibit articles on living people, like the ODNB does. Who needs an article on Queen Elizabeth II anyway. -- !! ?? 18:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I think Doc and JzG are asking DYK regulars to keep this in mind. I've modified the guidelines: [2] to try to do that. That's my best shot but of course it's subject to revision and discussion. ++Lar: t/c 18:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would rather have discussed the issue for a bit longer first to reach some kind of consensus on the nature of the problem and how to resolve it, before we started editing the guidelines. Which articles have been perceived as problems recently?

• A hook for Rose Dugdale on the suggestions page is said to be "wholly negative" because it mentions an art theft and a terrorist bombing from a helicopter (both of which are well sourced - she pleaded "proudly and incorruptibly guilty", for goodness sake).
• The hook for Paul Oscar was pulled today (I guess the sourcing is not very good, but I struggle to see how it is in any way offensive to say that someone has played Frank-N-Furter and appeared in drag shows)
• Kazi Salahuddin was pulled on 5 November, due to RS concerns (not a BLP issue, I think)
• Buddy Caldwell was pulled on 2 November due to "election neutrality concerns" (whatever they are)
• Dave Teo and Agustin Dovalina, III were also pulled in quick succession on 2 November (I think I can see why)

Have I missed any in the last week? Which of these is a grave problem?

Anyway, User:Lar's formulation seems pretty inoffensive - so no doubt others will now want to beef it up. We certainly must keep WP:BLP in mind - no doubt the editors of the articles which have been pulled or criticised recently were doing so already - but I still wonder how to tell when an article is "excessivly negative" or "certain words and usages ... might give offense". Is the aim here to avoid upsetting the subject of an article, or to write something an article is NPOV and well-sourced? -- !! ?? 18:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the Buddy Caldwell article, I think the removal would've been because he was/is a current candidate in an election, and there was nothing about his opponent hanging around, so it could be interpreted by those with a sufficiently conspiracist view that Wikipedia was endorsing Caldwell over anyone else. It seems a bit tenuous to me, but I'm not American and thus haven't grown up with the political system there and any equal-time regulations like that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea of banning "negative" facts from DYK is ridiculous and a violation of WP:NPOV. Further, introducing such a policy as a reaction to someone's participation in drag shows being mentioned on DYK is just plain homophobic crap. What the hell is "negative/embarassing" about drag shows?! It would be completely POV to not include "negative/embarassing" facts about people and would lead to ridiculous discussions about whether certain facts are "negative/embarassing". Let's talk about how we can make DYK more accurate, rather than how to WP:CENSOR it.--Carabinieri 17:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the criterion should be verifiability, not positive content. With regard to that, updating folks should check that the hook is cited (I think, given BLP, it's reasonable to demand an inline citation for the fact in the hook) from a reliable source (the latter was apparently the problem with the hook in question). That's also more enforceable, as it's less open to debate whether a hook is cited from a reliable source than if it is negative or embarrassing. It's also most in the spirit of BLP and Wikipedia policy in general. Rigadoun (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the best solution to this problem would be a more systematic way of checking referencing, neutrality, etc of nominations. Like I said before, two editors tried to implement such a system a few months ago, but noone joined them. I'm gonna give this another try and hope I'll get some support. The system is really simple: you just have to read the nominated articles for those criteria and either voice any concerns on T:TDYK or leave a note endorsing the nom there. This won't increase the effort that has to go into DYK by much, since the proposals should be checked during the waiting period anyway, but will give us some assurance that each hook is in fact checked thoroughly before it goes on the main page.--Carabinieri 21:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Determining article size

Is there an easy way to determine an article's size in kb?--Appraiser 16:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

These days, it is recorded in the history tab - for example, before this edit, this page was 25,303 bytes. -- !! ?? 16:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Doh! Thanks.--Appraiser 16:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Easy is a relative term. The article history tab reports the size of each revision of an article less than several months old (when the new feature was enabled) but does not distinguish between readable text, images, references, templates, and other formatting information. Scripts such as User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js are able to distinguish between readable text and other information in an articles source, but commonly report information in integer kilobytes. For checking compliance with the 1500 bytes limit in the current DYK guidelines, a common method is to copy the readable text from a borderline article into a text editor/word processor on your computer and determine the size either through an editor feature or by saving the readable text to disk and checking the size of the saved file. --Allen3 ^talk 16:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sure, I should have mentioned that DYK usually looks at the number of characters of readable text in the body (lead section and text sections, excluding references, infoboxes, formatting, etc). The number given in the history is usually significantly greater from that. -- !! ?? 17:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Two last-minute alt hooks for DYKNU ;-)

(Two items that were on the copy of the page I loaded but are now moved to Next Update)

...that according to the book The World Without Us radioactive waste, bronze statues, and Mount Rushmore will be the longest lasting evidence of human presence on Earth?

• ALT: ...that the longest lasting evidence of human presence on Earth will be radioactive waste, bronze statues, and Mount Rushmore, according to the book The World Without Us?

...that 10TP was a Polish tank design, which advanced the Polish armor programme but came too late to provide the Polish Army with tanks of sufficient number and quality before the German invasion of Poland in 1939?

• ALT: ...that Poland developed a new tank from 1928 to 1939, only to be invaded by Germany before it could enter mass-production?

— Komusou ^talk @ 23:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK userbox

What would you guys think a proposal to change the image to Image:Symbol question.svg? I thought it might go along more in the theme of the GA and FA userboxes. GlassCobra 22:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• I went ahead and implemented GlassCobra (talk · contribs)'s suggestion. If anyone disagrees, feel free to state that here, or go ahead and revert my change for the time being. Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC).

Archiving to portals

Are we still archiving into relevant portals, as discussed at WP:DYK#Archiving? If so, can there be a better explanation of how to do this? The few I checked didn't seem to have been edited recently by DYK regulars, and don't necessarily follow our usual format. Rigadoun (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody does it I think. Some portals, like Bangladesh, West Bengal and Karnataka have regular contributors and they just do it themselves. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Portal Karnataka DYK Archive - Portal:Karnataka/Did_you_know/List_of_Featured_DYKs_related_to_Karnataka - KNM ^Talk 00:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Editors who frequently nominate their own articles

Should this issue be addressed, and has it been already? I have noticed that some seemingly-vain editors will continually nominate their own articles in order to gain prominence on the main page. This is quite disturbing to see on Wikipedia. Frankly, many of the factoids mentioned in DYK are uninteresting, and I partially blame this on editors who will create an article for the sake of its creation only, and will often nearly plagiarize other websites online to do so. Now, I know many of you will want an exact example of this, but I must choose not to do so in order to avoid unfair allegations of "not assuming good faith," etc. But I do ask that the DYK community think of this and see who among you are doing this. - Cyborg Ninja 09:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"plagiarize other websites online" - what do you mean by that? Copyright problems should keep a page from being featured on DYK. --W.marsh 15:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK wouldn't work without self-noms.--Carabinieri 13:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Other editors who see an uninteresting hook should feel free to say "this is uninteresting, got anything better to say?", and in practise I see admins doing this every so often. It's hard because what's "interesting" is different to every user. If you're really disturbed by self-noms, I guess you could canvass various WikiProjects every week and ask them to nominate the best new articles which fall under their scope, maybe that would produce enough volume to increase the proportion of articles nominated by people other than their creators and improve the quality of third-party review. cab (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a self-nominator but I wouldn't characterized my reason for doing so as vanity-at least not personal vanity. It's more of an effort to get wine related articles on the front page and introduce more people to Wikipedia's usefulness as a wine-related resource on the web. When we are competing with Encyclowine, Vinismo and to a smaller extent Citizendum, getting as much "coverage" of our wine articles and the Wine Project can be a huge benefit in further developing content. Plus I just like writing articles. :) However I fully understand that what will strike a wine geek as interesting may not tickle everyone's fancy so I appreciate critiques or suggestions for any hooks that I nominate. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The English language is ubiquitous. Remember Chinese kids learn the language in high school and southwest of there is India. It is an official language in many African countries. Hooks that aren't "interesting" to one person may be thought provoking to another. All that needs to be enforced is brevity, falsifiability, and article length requirements.Bakaman 00:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A future article

I'm new to this (DYK that is, not Wikipedia) and i have recently created an article on Clyde Fastlink. Are future proposed developments allowed in here and if so, would Clyde Fastlink pass? I suppose it is a self-nom. Simply south 13:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as it's an acceptable Wikipedia article, it's okay for DYK as long as it meets the other requirements (length, recently created, etc.) In this case, the article should avoid being just speculation. It looks a bit short though. But the place to nominate it is T:TDYK --W.marsh 15:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I'm worried that you are put off by the discussion above. Don't be. I have nominated your article. Its currently too short at 1345 characters ... it needs to be at least 1500 characters. Some image would be good but they must be copyright free. You have two days!! Good luck. Victuallers 19:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• DYK...that Clyde Fastlink is a planned $42m dedicated bus service which is a pre-requisite of Glasgow's proposed light rail system? by Simply south nom by Victuallers 19:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry i changed things at the very last 45 minutes or less but after rereading the info, i realised i had got my wording wrong as it seems to be an interim service although it seems certain parts of it, particularly the segregated part (split from traffic) will be used for the tram system. Simply south (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's alright. It didn't go on the main page, so no damage was done.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

John Cartier

This is my first time trying this so I hope I got it right...

• DYK...that John Cartier, Governor of Bengal during the 1770 famine, was eulogized by Edmund Burke? Self nom by Hemlock Martinis 19:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but wikt:eulogy is an unusual word. Maybe Anglo irish statesman Edmund Burke ... mAde a wikt:eulogy which ....

Oh and you also have to break the 1500 character limit. (excluding refs and everything but real text) Victuallers 20:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added the following nomination ...

• DYK...that John Cartier was eulogized by Edmund Burke for his Governorship of Bengal despite losing a third of the population during the 1770 famine? by Hemlock Martinis nom by Victuallers 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Is eulogy really that unusual a word? Asking the people around me at the moment, they all knew what it meant. Of course, this small sample may be skewed somewhat by the fact that I'm sitting in a library :P GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing, I wouldn't worry about it. Note you can also link to WP's eulogy, which is not a great article (pretty much a dicdef), but will serve the purposes here. Rigadoun (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth I

I've added artists of the Tudor court for the next update, with a portrait of Elizabeth I as the suggested (and very nice) image. However, I've noticed that tomorrow's main page for this day in history features a portrait of Elizabeth I, since it is the date on which she began her reign. Should we (1) stick with the choice and have two images of Elizabeth I side-by-side on the main page, or (2)choose a portrait of another person to illustrate the article, or (3) select a different article altogether to feature with an image? ---- EncycloPetey (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wedginald

I was the one who created this article, and Zzyzx11 kindly agreed to let it jump the line to appear on the main page before its time. This has to do with current event issues that are explained in the article. To other admins: please don't replace it, many thanks! Panichappy (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Err repeating?

Hi, I'm new here but aren't almost all the ones in the queue to be posted already posted? Just saying... Benjiboi —Preceding comment was added at 22:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"Padding" the main page

Regarding things like [3]:

I hope we're not into the business of allowing hooks to grow fat and replete with unnecessary detail just in order to pad the Main Page. We could do that better by adding more items to the template. That said almost all hooks need trimming from the version submitted at T:DYKT because most article writers/nominators can't decide what's the most crucial interesting detail and rely on people who know better to trim down their hooks for them. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. "...that, among the medieval cathedrals of England, Winchester Cathedral (pictured) is the longest medieval church in the world?" doesn't even make sense. 86.44.4.103 (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the length of the hooks isn't that we are trying to pad the main page. Often, hooks have to be kind of long to be interesting. For example: you removed "(completed in 1515)" from the following hook:

• ...that the earliest Portuguese description of Malaysia, Tomé Pires's Suma Oriental (completed in 1515), lay unpublished and presumed lost in an archive until 1944?

I think the part in parentheses is actually necessary for the hook to be interesting because it shows that this description was lost for 4 centuries. I think the hooks should generally be trimmed while proposed at T:TDYK since it's pretty annoying to nominate an entry and then have it shortened beyond recognition to the point that it isn't at all "hooky".--Carabinieri (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not really an example of anything except a mistake. In its defense, it still made sense. 86.44.4.103 (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Then how about the following:

• ...that as his last words before succumbing to wounds caused by an assassination by political rivals, Arpiar Arpiarian, who is considered the founder of realism in modern Armenian literature, uttered the words "I am Armenian"?

was shortened to:

• ...that Arpiar Arpiarian was assassinated, and his last words were: "I am Armenian"?

And:

• ...that Indologist Burton Stein was known for questioning the existence of the Chola Dynasty as an empire, referring to it as a "segmentary state"?

became

• ...that Indologist Burton Stein was known for questioning the existence of the Chola Dynasty as an empire?

And there are more. Look, I appreciate the work Awyong is doing, especially as far as fixing mistakes on DYK is concerned. But I think trimming these hooks so radically, often just makes them boring. I don't see any harm in hooks giving some interesting details, even if they're not necessary for people to understand the hooks.--Carabinieri (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Number of hooks?

It seems like the number of hooks that make it to the main page at a time is generally more than the recommended 5-8. Should we adjust the max at Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Formatting ? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

The main reason why there are sometime more than 8 hooks is that we are trying to re-balance the main page (see the above discussion). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, and that's fine, I was just curious if Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Formatting should be adjusted to reflect changing Main Page tendencies. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

6-10 better reflects reality imho. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK -- context checking

This DYK, its since passed into archives but some issues in general should be part of the check on DYKs

• ...that the female kob (pictured) (and over 200 other mammals) display homosexual behavior including oral sex, genital stimulation, and urolagnia?

The issues;

1. the DYK grab is in relation to the sexual practices of female kob not the target article List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior
2. by rewording List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior, to display homosexual behavior it has removed the context from mammals only to homosexual behavior in general.
3. the source of the grab was from an image in the article not from the article text as such doesnt support, explain or expand on the grab.

Recommend that WP:DYK#Preparations Eligible items include that the grab must be written in context of the article and based on the article text. to help avoid a repeat of this situation. note that I have removed and urolagnia from the dyk grab in the archive. Gnangarra 15:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This particular hook was changed several times while it was on DYK, including one after a post on WP:ERRORS: [4] [5] [6] [7] I noticed that Wikipedia:Recent additions currently only has the first version and does not reflect the final version before DYK was updated with new hooks. Also, the nominator of that particular hook was complaining about some of the changes, see User talk:Benjiboi#Censorship. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

To sum up, the hook was eventually modified to read:

• ...that more than 200 species of mammals (male kob pictured) display homosexual behavior including oral sex, genital stimulation, and urolagnia?[8]

This addressed Gnangarra's concerns about the original hook but they were not changed on Wikipedia:Recent additions to. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This brings up another issue: I have noticed that when admins correct errors on a hook after it has been placed on the DYK template, they do not correct the same hook on the Wikipedia:Recent additions. Remember that under the current DYK rules, the new updates on DYK are immediately posted on Wikipedia:Recent additions. It is not the type of situation where old items are archived only after they have been removed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The original hook was perfectly fine. These hooks have two purposes: to make the main page a little more interesting and to get people to read newly created articles. This particular hook fulfills both.

1. "the DYK grab is in relation to the sexual practices of female kob not the target article List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior" Isn't a cob a mammal?
2. "by rewording List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior, to display homosexual behavior it has removed the context from mammals only to homosexual behavior in general." No, it hasn't. It doesn't matter which words are linked. I've nominated hooks with only the word "is" linked. Sometimes that's the only way it works.
3. "the source of the grab was from an image in the article not from the article text as such doesnt support, explain or expand on the grab." The fact was in an image caption and was referenced. What more do you want? Obviously, the hook can't always summarize the article, since that would, in many cases, be completely boring. --Carabinieri (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of DYK is also to attract more content to new articles, the hook needs also to be relevent to the article in this case it took a term and made it synonymous with something that it isnt. For something that gets displayed on the main page it needs to be factual and not just sensationalist Gnangarra 00:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is about mammals that display homosexual behavior. The hook gave one example of such a mammal and said it displays homosexual behavior. How is that taking a term and making it synonymous with something that it isnt?--Carabinieri (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Urolagnia isnt a homosexual behavior yet the wording implied it was. When you go to the article it discusses it as a heterosexual act both by text and by imagary. Gnangarra 04:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Intercourse, oral sex and yes, Urolagnia are homosexual behaviors when those partaking are of the same sex. I welcome youre reworking all sexual behavior articles to reflect that gays and lesbians as well as animals take part. Benjiboi 22:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe all the concerns have been addressed but if not please let me know. Benjiboi 21:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There has to be a little bit more fact checking.

It seems that some fact checking and verification is getting lost in the process. Azad Hind Stamps‎ hook was factually inaccurate compared to the one available reference that it did list (i.e. The Indian Postal Authorities considering them stamps rather than their inclusion into a book about India's Independence produced by the Indian Postal System) and now Anti-submarine boom net might have a major verification problem due to one image on the article page. All in the span of less than two days!! Is DYK sacrificing some quality control over pumping out the DYK's to the front page? How many other hooks have had problems that weren't caught before? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Carlsberg papyrus which appeared yesterday seems to be confused at best (and the hook was nonsensical as a result), but I think the purpose of the DYK section is, at least in part, to pick up on just such issues. A corrected one letter typo, that didn't appear in the hook anyway, is hardly a major issue. Or are you referring to how close the text is to the text shown in the photo, which isn't quoted as a reference even though a sizeable amount of the article is lifted nearly wholesale? Andplus (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• No, what I was wondering is why it's named on an "Offical" Plaque as one thing, when the article says something else. But if you feel the article is a possible copyright violation, then by all means raise the red flag. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I made two proposals on how to improve DYK's fact checking. Both were ignored. Apparently putting bullshit on the main page is only a problem when it concerns living people. It seems to me that most DYK helpers are unwilling to help improve the accuracy standard.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth I found the entire process a bit confusing from where to post, what to post and what format to put things in; then what to do from there to monitor things. It seems to me several things could be done to simplify the process and thus possibly encourage more newbies to assist. It might also make sense to have an intermediate holding pen for items that have been vetted or add some demarcation that an item has been fact-checked; I would favor something that indicated that the current update was full (and come up with guidelines of what full means - presumably 1200-1500 characters). This might help sort the work load into more readily recognized areas where people could help; the next update needs items or is full; these items need to be fact checked, etc. I found it frustrating to spend so much time copy editing one of my entries down to the 200 characters requested only to have an admin come along and chop off the bulk of it as "fat" after the process had vetted it and no further revisions seemed to be needed. If you wanted 100 characters I could have done that and would have little expectation otherwise. Benjiboi 01:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the case (not specifically to you Benjiboi), I think that DYK now needs a serious overhaul.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the perfect fool but i know if I had problems figuring it out (and it took several tries) then others simply gave up altogether and that's not the intent as far as I can tell. If the goal is to find and highlight some of the best new articles wp has to offer then go from 5 to 10 days and increase the vetting process, the editing of hooks and so forth. Shoot for quality not quantity and be honest about that. In this way we aren't encouraging good hooky articles to be written but fostering an environment to better writing not accolades for creationism alone. Also per the "explain urolagnia" verses watersports provide more insight as to non-r-rated content. I'm well used to queerphobic and sexphobic policies, at least be clear about it. Benjiboi 07:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Query

I'm a little confused about why Boydell Shakespeare Gallery was not chosen as a DYK. While initially John Boydell was nominated and hadn't been expanded enough, I know that the Gallery should have counted and I made this clear. Did I anger the DYK gods somehow? This is a good little article and it would have been nice to see it on the main page. I'm sure the nominator, User:Rupert Clayton, will be a bit disappointed as well. Awadewit | talk 05:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It expired. That happens when people don't update the template on time. I just had to throw eight things on there (and I normally don't do DYK, but I made an exception as it was twelve hours past updating). You'd think with all the names on the template talk, who say they update DYK, you'd think one of them would have noticed. But don't feel bad, one of my DYKs expired too, and unless the template isn't updated immediately after my update, the article I Am Not Homer is going to expire as well. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 18:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I know it expired (I'm familiar with DYK), but all of the other expired noms had problems with them - this one did not. It seems like a deliberate slight, frankly. Awadewit | talk 18:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

When I updated the template, the I Am Not Homer slight wasn't intentional, I sincerely forgot it was there and I thought I had grabbed all of the November 20 ones that didn't have problems. You know what I think it may have been? People may have just grabbed ones that didn't have any comments, assuming those were okay, and saw that the Boydell one had comments and just walked past it, even though the comments were all by you and good ones, not ones that would have ruled it out for DYK. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 21:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would seem it is not possible to update DYK as frequently as intended. Until there are more editors willing or capable of updating, perhaps there should be only one DYK template per day, eh? :) Blasphemy, I know. Awadewit | talk 08:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh? How would that help? So more articles can expire and you won't imagine yours singled out? ;)Andplus (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, so there won't be this desperate feeling of always being behind. Perhaps some sort of selection process will have to be implemented? (horror of horrors). I think it is pretty clear that the current process doesn't work. I worked on DYK for a while, but I felt this constant pressure to be updating and there were petty spats over nothing, so I quit. Something either needs to be automated if we want updates every 4-6 hours and we take the errors we get or we have to have many fewer updates, I think, until we have more editors. Awadewit | talk 12:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Cache

Why does Template talk:Did you know start out with the words, "After you update the template, please click this link to purge the main page cache, so the update is shown to everyone."? The misnamed talk page (the real talking occurs here) is updated ten times more often than the template (referring to Template:Did you know). And why would anyone updating the template look at the top talk page instruction but not at the template instructions? My guess is that newbies adding a new hook to the so-called talk page, mistakenly click the main page cache purge link regularly, which is presumably a Bad Thing or there wouldn't be a cache at all. Art LaPella (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin updating

I've not been doing the DYK updates for quite some time. Recently, there has been a long time lag and I've had requests on my talk page to do the update. When I've gone to the Next update, it has either already been done, was in process, or this last time, there were two of us working on it. Fortunately, this most recent time, the other admin started after I'd repaired the image and protected it. I checked back on the Main page one more time and saw it had already been updated.

In order to avoid edit conflicts during admin updating of DYK, I suggested the following:

1. Protect the page to admin edits only so suggestion are not added while the update is being done.
2. Have a place on the DYK/Next update page for the updating admin to indicate that the update is in progress.

The protection and update-in-progress can be removed when all credits are complete.

Comments? — ERcheck (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Breaking the rules?

Many of the next update DYK are expired. The expired ones don't seem exceptional. We should develop a consensus to whether we should expand the 5 day old rule or when we should make exceptions.

DYK is often late. This reduces the opportunity for people, many of whom have worked hard to write new articles.

Are there any thoughts to increasing the number of days to 7. This would smooth out days that fewer people write. It would increase review for accuracy. Some hooks have errors. Perhaps a "submission within 4 days" and putting it on the next update within 7. The current system allows hooks to be added on day 5, too late for review! Increasing to 7 days would also give more chances for old hooks to appear.

In the interim, I propose that the old hooks that don't qualify should be placed here. If allowed later, they should be grandfathered in and added one per day (so as not to crowd out the contemporary hooks). Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• ...that when asked what U.S. Democratic presidential candidate he would vote for if forced, conservative Republican candidate Tom Tancredo (pictured) caused surprise by naming liberal Barack Obama?

• ...that Frank Rennie joined the New Zealand Army at age 16, to prove to himself 20 months in hospital hadn't crippled him, and went on to become Colonel?

• ...that the 17th-century English stage play The English Moor by Richard Brome is noteworthy in its use of blackface make-up? Struck out because being moved to next update

• ...that in the 1659 English play The English Moor, noted for its use of blackface make-up, one main character implies that Blacks and Whites are created equal by God? (I think the uploaded alt would sell short the salient point that attracted me most, so this was a last-minute less esoteric. — Komusou ^talk @ 17:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

• ...that American federal judge James Alger Fee ruled in 1942 that Minoru Yasui lost his U.S. citizenship after Yasui had worked for the Japanese consulate until the attack on Pearl Harbor?

• The English Moor, November 18, Ugajin (talk · contribs), nominated by Komusou (talk · contribs), hook by 74.13.131.237
• Frank Rennie - O.Duke (talk · contribs), nom Majorly (talk · contribs)
• James Alger Fee - Aboutmovies (talk · contribs)
• Tom Tancredo presidential campaign, 2008 - Southern Texas (talk · contribs)

IMO, nominations posted at Template talk: Did you know by the 5 day "deadline" should be used. It's not the fault of the nominees that admins can't/don't update DYK every 6 hours as per guidelines and clear the "backlogs" on a timely manner. Hooks with problems should not be used till the errors are fixed. In this case, a few days of grace period might be good. --74.14.22.113 (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is very reasonable. I'd say to wait for some more responses. If agreeable, then it's possible that these expired noms should be exempted and placed in the next update slowly. This would show that nobody is attacking these 4 old noms but that discussion is needed. Let's wait 2-3 days then (if adding them) add them one per day except on days that DYK is extremely late. According to the IP user, we should disregard the 5 day limit as long as hooks are submitted on time.

How about giving one hook slot to a good but expired nom? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If we wait to use these, or only use them one at a time, these hooks will go from being expired to being very expired. Besides it's been de facto consensus to use hooks that are expired by a few days anyways for a long time.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent because long proposal follows) I had left a note about an alt hook to the User talk:74.14.18.193 IP (unlogged admin?) who had uploaded my expired "English Moor" nom, and was directed to this discussion by Mrs.EasterBunny. (I took the liberty to insert my alt hook comment in the list above, BTW ;-)

As for the issue you discuss, it seems to me that whatever unwritten rule is currently used (and probably not understood the same by all DYK admins) would be better off shared and explicited a bit. Just to get it started and vizualize it, here's a guideline draft:

• Unexpired noms: DYK admins manage them to keep things running, but any editor can also select and upload *one* hook per "Next update" plate as long as:
  1. You are not the writer or nominator (and do not act on their behalf).
  2. You have reasonably checked the hook and article passed DYK standards for length, sourcing, and accuracy.
  3. You read and follow the upload procedure (keeping date and attributions at Next Update, then removing the whole nom from Suggestions).
• Expired noms: only DYK admins can upload them, at their discretion. Those few days worth are kept:
  • As a buffer reserve of hooks in case there is a shortage, or the need for a short hook, or for a non-U.S. hook for balance, etc.
  • As a way of salvaging some recently expired good hooks that were left unselected or temporarily blocked for reasons now fixed, such as missing length or sourcing, temporary AFD or merge, contested claims now fixed, DYK update rate too slow, etc.

This is mostly based on what I have seen and understood of current practices, plus what is already said at DYK. I think any similar text would make things clear for all and set all DYK admins on the same page. — Komusou ^talk @ 17:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Above rules sound reasonable BUT in practice will cause problems. I have often see the DYK past due (red clock) and NO next updates were there. If only one move to the next update were permitted, then it would further create backlog. My own guideline is to add one if there are many hours left but to add all of them if there's less than an hour left.

I think (may be wrong) that one of the noms above was put on the next update by the nominator. If so, that's not the best thing to do.

I'll add one of the four on hold noms every few hours. That will deplete the list in a day or two. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• The suggested " *one* hook " thing was intended to apply exclusively to the case of non-admin editors invited by current rules to upload hooks too if they wish so – not to regular DYK admins filling the plate, and not for the handling of expired hooks, so that shouldn't be a problem. (And if needed, an exception could be mentioned for crimson-red late updates.)
• This was because the current Wikipedia:Did you know rules invite "any editor" to upload hooks if he wish so, but there are no specific info to avoid conflict of interest, or to avoid one such editor filling the Next Update with an unbalanced list (too long, too U.S./UK-centric, too much bios, etc.) The idea was to have the draft keep this current open invitation to all, but spell out reasonable limits. A non-DYK person uploading a single hook per rotation can't wreck the thing or cause too much trouble. (Also, the " *one* hook " wording was just to get started the idea, it could as well be "one or two max" or whatever.) — Komusou ^talk @ 18:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Breaking the rules too much?

I was reviewing the recent noms and found one that slipped past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Alabama_Drydock_and_Shipbuilding_Company&action=history

This was not expanded 5 fold. Not even 2-fold. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don;t know that it means the rules are being deliberately broken. More likely it means that participants are just not being careful to check up on the nominations before adding them to the Next Update. I've caught myself a couple of times on that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I notified the editor who submitted it and also said they could remove the message after reading it so as not to create embarrassment. We're here to encourage article writing, not scold people. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My 0.02, but one problem I imagine on Suggestions is that nothing indicates if a nom has already been vetted by 0, 1, or 10 admins – only problems are reported, not OK things. On a related note, I have tried to help this on the topic of images (I have been several times guilty of listing an image, only to find out later is was only fair-use) by tagging them visibly:

(pictured PDomain) or (pictured Commons)

This makes it clear the pic has been checked for status, and also the bold tag make it easy for the Next Update admin to see and remove it. This is something any admin checking a picture could do too, so as to tell the others it's been done. (Of course, the admin about to commit a Next Update to Main Page would still have to run a last check on the final picture, but 99% of the time things should have assuredly been cleared at the Suggestions level, with no picture initially overlooked, and no job re-done in vain by 10 persons.)

As for how to extend this to the other main points (1500 prose or 5x, sourced), I guess each admin verifying a nom could add something right under the first hook (and before any alts) such as:

• DYK-ADMIN: 1896 prose OK, sources OK. -- Signature

Such clear tag should store information while preventing well-meaning editors from adding the tag themselves (mistakenly believing that it is up to them to have it like the other noms around, in monkey-see-monkey-do fashion.) Later, a little template could be used for it. That sort of things. — Komusou ^talk @ 19:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)