Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 77: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:02, 7 January 2012

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

←

Misbehaving template

Help! After moving the hook to the prep area, I closed Template:Did you know nominations/Carex bigelowii in the usual fashion, but the contents of the template disappeared. I haven't found the problem. --Orlady (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The edit history looks strange. I would not be surprised if a comment was not closed right and now the content is considered "comment", but don't know where to look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it. ~~I think you forgot to do |passed=yes.~~Actually that's not it, I'm not sure what happened. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes edits just go wonky on Wikipedia or its sister projects, but a further edit (of any kind) corrects the problem. It's a rare happenstance, but I've been around long enough to see it happen at least half a dozen times. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes like to work on puzzles, so I thought I'd take a look at this. I discovered exactly what must have happened. When you were preparing to do |passed=yes, you deleted the comment from:

|passed=

but you probably had a mouse slip and also accidentally deleted the next line:

|2=

Doing so produces exactly the same result as you encountered. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's entirely credible. On at least one occasion I accidentally removed the "2=" parameter (or caught myself before removing it), but fixed things before saving the changes. It's credible that I failed to notice one such "mouse slip." --Orlady (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Production line again.....

Ok folks, moved the last prep to teh queue and began loading Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. I have to do some other stuff for a bit but meant to begin checking some of the older ones for paraphrasing as a few are ready to be checked - opnions on ~~Gholhak Garden~~, ~~Red goats of Kingston~~, Helmut Damerius, Ryan Taylor (American football), Fancy Dress Festival, Aboakyer festival and Margaret Anne Staggers can all be reviewed for resolution of paraphrasing concerns. And strike thru here when examined Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, someone could review ~~1804 Haiti Massacre~~. It's been over 9 days since I (as nominator) addressed the issues with that article.

As for Casliber's list:

Fancy Dress Festival and Aboakyer festival (a pair of related articles) are still both in need of rewriting to address too-close wording. It's still less than 48 hours since I did the initial review of Fancy Dress Festival, and the creator has not been active since my review. I just now reviewed Aboakyer festival after the article creator followed up on Nikkimaria's comments; unfortunately, the issues are not resolved. It appears that the article creator is going to need help with these. The good news is that the sources are amazingly interesting -- both articles have wonderful possibilities.
Red goats of Kingston hasn't been touched since 6 December. (There has been no effort to respond to the review issues.) --Orlady (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Gah, my free time keeps evaporating - I pause before archiving some of those older ones thinking maybe there is an opportunity to educate/collaborate with new editors. I'll try to look later...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Gholhak Garden (q1)

This is a British diplomatic compound, so surely British ENGVAR is appropriate, so it has been at the centre of diplomatic controversy. Kevin McE (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yikes! well spotted...now done...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes/No, now prep2

Probably I don't understand, and wonder what. I see something bold "the most spectacular [marriage] proposal I've ever seen", am curious, see it link not to a proposal but an episode which is going to show a proposal, - I think this is misleading, at least, also looking in an unknown future, - I try to avoid that. Good advertisement, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As a note for the above, the earlier prep 2 loader moved what he loaded to prep 1 which is where this hook is now. SL93 (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

An unattributed quote in the first person looks unprofessional: the most spectacular that who has ever seen? Kevin McE (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I added attribution to the hook, which is now at Queue 2. --Orlady (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Orlady. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's now on the Main page: "... that what Matthew Morrison calls "the most spectacular [marriage] proposal I've ever seen" is scheduled to occur on Glee in January 2012?", bolding a proposal, but linking to an episode. I would prefer "... that what Matthew Morrison calls "the most spectacular [marriage] proposal I've ever seen" is scheduled to occur on Glee in January 2012?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I briefly considered changing it (the main page has another 1.5 hours to run), but since the article is about this one episode and the plot of the episode apparently is mostly the marriage proposal, I think the current version is just fine. --Orlady (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I won't argue for the remaining short while, but the article's talk has more expression of the view that it's advertisement, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Templates choked on title with "/" in it

Tech note: The templates had trouble parsing the nom for Yes/No. The nomination page, Template:Did you know nominations/Yes/No, ended up linked on the prep area page as Template:Did you know nominations/No. I haven't checked to see if the credits were affected. --Orlady (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw a credit which looks good and leads to the nom correctly, but the nom is not even mentioned on the talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Mandarax fixed the talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I probably should have mentioned that earlier: when I first made the nomination, the links that the template page originally gave me were as Orlady shows above. I imagine that the parser simply looks for the final slash, and takes the title from what appears after that, which would be a problem in this case. What I did at the time was hand-edited the template string offered before inserting it on the DYK template talk page under December 14, but didn't think to check the prep area to see whether the problem showed up again there. Sorry about that! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a problem with the parser, it was a problem with my own code in the editnotice that gives you the string to transclude on T:TDYK. I fixed it there. I'm not sure why there was a problem in the prep area, as {{DYKmake|Yes/No|BlueMoonset}} should create the correct output. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It was in prep with {{DYKmake|Yes/No|BlueMoonset|subpage=No}}. "subpage=No" got added automatically because the {{NewDYKnomination}} template checks to see if the {{{article}}} from the nomination (in this case, Yes/No), matches the {{SUBPAGENAME}} of the nomination page, which in this case was just No. That's how the MW parser works, but I think I can change something to get around it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Should be fine now. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Now all of the DYK nomination templates on the noms page are broken. The "Review or comment" links go to the article editing page, not the nom template. Also, the nom templates no longer have a link back to the main noms page. --Orlady (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, just noticed this - I just cut and pasted the template subpage into the searchbox for the time being but something is obviously up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I edited Template:DYK nompage links so the noms page templates work again, but I may have broken something else.... --Orlady (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew this would break the current noms, but I went ahead and did it because I think it's unavoidable. As far as I know, the only options are 1) make the change now, and just manually go through and fix all the noms that are on T:TDYK (that would just involve opening the nom page, editing, and replacing nompage=something with nompage=Template:Did you know nominations/something); or 2) not making the change, and just accepting the fact that the rare nominations with "/" in the title will get messed up.

For now, I reverted {{DYK nompage links}} to the version before I made the change. I probably will not have computer access for most of the rest of the day so don't wait on me to make changes; once you guys make a decision what to do, I think the information I left above should be enough to do it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I went ahead and reverted that stuff for now. It's going to take more work than I have time to do right now, and the issue is not urgent (I doubt there will be anymore "/" nominations soon, and even if there are the problem is easily fixable after they're nominated). rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed four nominations which were made while {{NewDYKnomination}} was altered: Vigilant Firehouse (Washington, D.C.), Buchnera americana, Alexander Finta, and Tourism in Laos. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I made User:Rjanag/SUBPAGENAMES, which is like {{SUBPAGENAME}} but will work the way we want it to in situations like the one above. It will only be useful for titles with one slash, though (e.g., Yes/No; it wouldn't help a nomination for an article called Yes/No/Maybe), and making the template big enough to handle lots more slashes is unfeasible. Other ways to make the nomination process work smoothly for article titles like this are also not easy. Given that articles with titles like this are so rare, and it's quite easy to clean up the errors after nominating, I think the best course of action is just not to try to fix this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

EEEK! I've filled Queue 5, and have set up Prep 1, but that still leaves 5 empty queue slots, 3 vacant prep areas, 2 hours to go, and a partridge in a pear tree. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas hooks

I've noticed we currently have only 11 Christmas hooks. A few more would be nice, but I'd like to remind updaters that Christmas hooks are spread across the entire 24 hours of Christmas UTC, which with an eight-hour cycle means roughly 4 Christmas hooks per update. Whoever puts the updates for this day together, please also try to remember that for the non-Christmas hooks, we at least want uplifting, positive or topical hooks where possible, we don't want hooks about tragedies, wars etc.

Just out of interest, I notice that the number of hooks in an update has recently been increased from six to seven. I really don't know why since there are only about 150 hooks in total at T:TDYK. Gatoclass (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I see someone has just moved a twelfth, which is the one I had finished reviewing less than a hour before, meaning we have a dozen now. That appears to be it on the nominations page, unless the December 10 "GRB 101225A(Christmas burst)" article should be approved despite the newness issue. (One way or another, that article should acquire a marking of some kind; it's been over ten days since the last comment there.) BlueMoonset (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding: I see that the Christmas burst article has just now been moved into the special Christmas section, but should it have been? I thought only articles that were approved (even though subsequent issues may be uncovered) could be moved into the special holding areas like Christmas. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any such rule and it's not how I approach it. I think it's helpful to have all the Christmas hooks in one place so updaters can clearly see how many hooks they have - leaving them all over the page is not an option IMO. It does mean though, that there are one or two hooks in the Christmas/y sections that need priority review.

Update: I have now moved some additional hooks into the Christmas sections after combing through the suggestions page, so there are now 13 Christmas hooks and three "Christmasy" hooks to make a total of 16. Some of these hooks still need review however. Gatoclass (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict, saying about the same:) There was a time when special occasion hooks were nominated in the section, then a time when they were nominated normally and moved, which I think is better and now easily done (the move, I mean, now that we have the templates). But more for Christmas - they need exception-making anyway as late (I made one yesterday), I suggest let's keep an eye on nominations popping up there, that's easier to see than anywhere in the noms. In assembling the sets, keep in mind that Christmas starts in countries like Germany on Christmas Eve (2 hooks 24 December) and continues on 26 December. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but special occasion days are done in UTC time. It doesn't matter if Christmas starts earlier some place and ends later someplace else. Christmas Day hooks are confined to Christmas Day UTC time, the same way other special occasion days are treated. Gatoclass (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. All I meant to say was that in case there are too many hooks for Dec 25 some might still work the next day. BWV 63 is not one of them, because for 26 December Bach produced a different one (but I was too lazy this year to cover it),

In years past spill over into other dates has traditionally been done primarily as a means of handling all the qualified hooks. That is not a concern this year as three updates of six hooks (the rate we have been normally operating at in recent weeks) is sufficient to allow the entire supply of Christmas hooks to run on a single day with a handful of non-holiday hooks filling in the gaps. That being said, I have no objections to the Christmas hooks currently scheduled for Christmas eve and would have no problems with a good Christmasy image being placed in the first update on Boxing day. --Allen3 ^talk 13:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the queues and prep areas (and current front page) now have seven hooks, not six. Which will just mean a few more non-holiday hooks filling in the gaps at this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

QUERY: If we're grouping the Christmas noms together to make them more visible, then why have some of them not been reviewed at all? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll try review the unreviewed one this eve. The Interior (Talk) 22:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

As December 25th is always, by some margin, the day of the year with the lowest viewing figures, is there a case for reducing the number of updates just for the day, and using extra noms on the 24th or 26th? Letting the updaters open their presents etc? Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

IMHO we are better off staying at the current 3 sets/day. There are a good number of interesting X-mas related images and reducing to 2 updates not only means an admin needs to adjust the update frequency (not difficult but potentially inconvenient as the change can not be scheduled in advance) but one less image that can appear on Christmas day. --Allen3 ^talk 23:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Karol Hubert Rostworowski, now on the Main page

The lead hook on Karol Hubert Rostworowski mentions filicide, I don't find that in the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The story refered to has a son killed by his parents, and so it is about filicide, although it seems to be a case of the deliberate use of unusual terms when clearer one would suffice (a common "feature" hereabouts).

What concerns me more is that the hook claims to be "in the words of Nobel laureate Czesław Miłosz", and then paraphrases him. Kevin McE (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I may be blind but don't see "a son killed by his parents" either, only "the murder for money", which is not the same. I think the hook should match the article, or the other way round. "In the words" is nonsense because he spoke Polish, how about "according to"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking again, I found it in the plot - but not in the summary, which still has an unexplained link to the biblical figure. I think the article should see an English writer copy-edit before it appears, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The hook and the article require some native English speaker, "in the words" should be "according to" at best, and the most provoking link of the hook doesn't appear in the article, the lead says "who is remembered for his visions of totalitarianism and a misguided effort to control fate" - I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

How (or where) to re-add a hook?

Earlier today a hook of mine was removed from the prep area it had been added to (diff). However, as it was passed and removed from T:TDYK, I'm not really sure how to re-add it. I've addressed the concern noted in the edit summary (not that I was actually alerted to it in any way, however), as can be seen here. Should I re-nominate the article again on T:TDYK, or is there a way of simply re-inserting it into the prep queue? I'm just concerned about it ending up getting lost in the shuffle and ignored as it's currently not listed anywhere it could be found without actively looking for it, and is then unlikely to be noticed by anyone preparing the queue. GRAPPLE X 15:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You can complete the steps at T:TDYK#How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue. It looks like whoever removed the hook from prep didn't follow those instructions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll get on that now. GRAPPLE X 17:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It would probably make sense for such instructions to be visible from the queue. Kevin McE (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Q3 > Q2 or Q1

Why are hooks in Q3 so much longer than those in Q2 or Q1? If the DYK hooks go on the main page as queued, the layout on the main page will be off after each update. --69.157.46.77 (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The length of an update when it reaches can be deceptive as the reader's browser setting help determine the exact location of each line break. That being said, Q2 had three short hooks while Q3 was composed entirely of longer hooks. I have swapped hooks between Q2 and Q3 to help reduce the differences in length. --Allen3 ^talk 00:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, but now Q2 has two hooks about US baseball pitchers. That seems weird. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Krampus for Christmas? now in Q5

I am surprised to see - now in prep2 - Krampus as a lead picture on Christmas Day. Several reasons: 1) develish creature isn't what I would expect, 2) "his day", as the article states, is 5 December, St. Nicholas (also mentioned) has nothing to do with Christmas, the whole hook should go a different day, imo. 3) I would prefer to see a pic of the church in Halle instead (hook 2nd in prep3), an article which two editors improved greatly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"St. Nicholas has nothing to do with Christmas": I certainly would not have expected that from someone whose specialism seems to revolve around central European culture. Kevin McE (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

St Nicholas is celebrated 6 December in Central Europe, ask the Dutch, that's their day of giving presents. "Santa" - forgive me - has nothing to do with that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

MAJOR OBJECTION TO KRAMPUS. It's now in a queue! HUH! I totally agree with Gerda here. And let's see, Allen3 destroyed a prep set I made with a beautiful horse pic in the lead because it would have appeared on Christmas rather than letting it slide one day but it's okay to have a devil creature appear on Christmas? IS THIS FOR REAL?!?!? Is the person that promoted that on drugs? And people wonder why wiki is so messed up and has a lousy laughinng stock rep out in the real world. If we're going to put Christmas hooks up on Christmas, lets do it, not make things up willy nilly.PumpkinSky talk 11:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

From the article: "According to legend, Krampus accompanies Saint Nicholas during the Christmas season, warning and punishing bad children, in contrast to St. Nicholas, who gives gifts to good children." -- Not exactly "making things up willy-nilly". Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I still strongly object I do not think this nor the image are appropriate at all. PumpkinSky talk 12:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Read the article which may be another example of an overly simplified lead (see "visions of totalitarism" above), you read there with some precision, still in the lead: "during the first week of December, particularly on the evening of 5 December". That should not be summarized to "during the Christmas season", and should not appear at all on 25 December, if you ask me. Also: WP should not support the myth that Santa has anything to do with St Nicholas, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps (although I seem to remember that St Nicholas was a bit of an inspiration [although not the entire foundation for Santa Claus, of course]). I think the outrage over Krampus is cultural as well; if we were to write about how the Japanese eat KFC as their "traditional Christmas meal", how would other editors take it? Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say (don't understand outrage) "don't write on Krampus". I said don't write on Krampus on 25 December as if their was a connection to Christmas. Place him 26 December or wherever, once "he" missed 5 December. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I was addressing Pumpkin, actually. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I also see another issue with the picture: let alone that it is plastic-era/death-metal-inspired kitsch supporting something that is supposedly age-old, but what does it actually stand for? Was it on display somewhere? was it a mask worn during a festival? It looks to me like it's an annoying case of someone's very modern idea about what Krampus should look like, that now shapes wikipedia's entire perspective on how Krampus was imagined by the traditional community that spawned him. Dahn (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Support that as well, please let's drop the picture any date, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Aboslutely, the photo is god awful and totally inappropriate for Christmas. I don't object to the article at DYK, but it should be on another day with a different photo.PumpkinSky talk 13:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've moved it back to prep for now, I agree it's not appropriate for Christmas Day. But I must say I'm pretty disappointed in some of the other choices too. Bombings? Assassinations? Earthquakes? It seems that whoever put these updates together totally ignored my reminder to avoid such hooks for the Christmas updates. I might see if I can swap a few more around before they go to the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reacting! Could you perhaps swap the pic of the opera singer to a different day and have a picture accent on Bach's Christmas cantata, as nominated? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Another vote for the Bach Christmas cantata picture, which is of the church article featured in the hook. It's a nicer picture, and the article is more clearly related to Christmas, making it more appropriate to head the list. The opera singer could be swapped to a different day or run on this one without the picture, as seems best. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the suggestion :) Gatoclass (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the earthquake, if I'm not mistaken it happened on the 25th. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought of pulling that one but decided to leave it for now since it apparently occurred in a remote area. I guess the date makes it topical, but I'm still not convinced it should be there. However, I've left it there for now as I didn't find any other hooks on T:TDYK that stood out as suitable replacements. Gatoclass (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't my suggestion to keep it until the 25th but nobody died in it, in fact hardly anyone noticed it, so not a disaster, but it can be kept to whenever as far as I'm concerned. Mikenorton (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've now promoted some new hooks to get rid of some of the more objectionable ones. Gatoclass (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Go Gatoclass! PumpkinSky talk 14:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Well folks, you've disappointed a few people in the Interior household this Christmas. Members of the extended family had helped with research and followed the nomination process with glee. I planned on expanding Krampus after User:Miyagawa placed this list of Christmas-related stubs on DYK at the end of November. A lot of effort was put into expanding this specifically for the Christmas queues. I am truly baffled by the arguments that this is not an appropriate hook, or that it is not Christmas related. We should pull Gemiler Island as well if St. Nicholas is insufficiently connected with the season. The Krampus is part of less-sanitized holiday tradition, I'm sure our readers would be interested. Very disappointed in the decision making here. (This discussion happened during the night in my timezone.) Sigh. The Interior (Talk) 15:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that two DYK regulars (Victuallars and Orlady) approved this for Christmas. The Interior (Talk) 15:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It will still be topical if it's run on Boxing Day, and it will be much less likely to freak out kids or parents, or devout Christians. If there is more support for running it on Christmas Day, I guess we could reconsider, but I for one would be opposed to running it as a lead hook. It might be okay as the last, or "quirky" hook in an update, but if there's a consensus to run it as such, it will have to be done without my participation as I'm just about to log off. Gatoclass (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, it would have been most topical during the first week of December, as the article correctly states. And what about the quality of the picture which has been described as "plastic-era/death-metal-inspired kitsch" (above, not by me) and which seems to suit Halloween best? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Do what you feel best, folks. I'm not going to spend my Christmas Eve arguing on Wikipedia. Happy holidays everyone. The Interior (Talk) 16:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Interior-at least you/Krampus had a discussion, I've been the victim of the opposite multiple times. PumpkinSky talk 16:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Bach cantatas 63 133

Sorry to make things complicated, but: Bach composed a cantata for Christmas Day, BWV 63, that - if you ask me - should appear prominently with a picture of the church on THAT day. He composed a different cantata, BWV 133, for 27 December, which should - if you ask me - appear THAT day, they celebrated Christmas for three days in Bach's time. At present we have both on 25 Dec, no pic. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Also see above, I realize only now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That's in a prep now. Would be good to get it in queue 5 or Q6. PumpkinSky talk 14:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

We have an obvious shortage of Christmas Day hooks this year, and I very much doubt anyone will make the December 27th association. The hook's association with Christmas however, is clear. I should add that the update currently in prep #3 will eventually be displayed on Christmas Day when it is moved to the queue. So I think the hooks are fine where they are. Gatoclass (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

If you think so. We had complaints about too many hooks about same topic in too close succession before, and two Bach cantatas one day looks to me like that. The article for BWV 133 says Third Day of Christmas twice and 27 December twice. But I am quite happy with the change for the other one, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Another year, I would say fine, let's keep it for the 27th. But IMO that hook is really needed for Christmas Day, since we have such a shortage of Christmas hooks, or even Christmas-related hooks, this year. And if it's run on Christmas Day, that's a good excuse for making it the lead hook :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't get that, but perhaps don't have to ... - the one for Christmas day is the lead hook, designed for that in collaboration, all fine now. It's the other one which you seem to need extra, ok, 27 comes before 25, no problem, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Correction needed on Main Page hook

It's been brought to my attention that the tree referred to in the first hook is the National Christmas Tree, not the White House Christmas tree. The New York Times articles used in the articles apparently misidentified the tree, see the discussion at Talk:1996 United States federal budget. It should be replaced with:

... that President Bill Clinton said he would personally pay the bill to keep the National Christmas Tree (pictured) lit during the government shutdown resulting from disagreements on the 1996 federal budget?

Sorry about that! Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Changed the hook, but not the picture, because improvement is marginal, IMO Materialscientist (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is that the original image was the White House tree, while the new image is the National tree? Harrias ^talk 22:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, changed the image. Materialscientist (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Credits for Liebfrauenkirche

In Template:Did you know nominations/Christen, ätzet diesen Tag, BWV 63 I nominated the pictured church later. I miss the credits for it, for Taksen and Bermicourt, did I make a mistake? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

No. you didn't make a mistake; you added the correct credit templates. The credits were accidentally omitted when it was moved to Prep. I've put the {{dyktalk}} on the article's talk page and issued credits to you, Taksen and Bermicourt. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sandström and his piece

Template:Did you know nominations/Jan Sandström (composer) was made for the composer, but changed to one about his piece Es ist ein Ros entsprungen. Now the composer is credited, not the piece. Should we clean that up? In this case I had not changed the credit info, and perhaps it doesn't matter? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Caption or alt caption?

Here, I changed a caption to an alt caption. Sighted people can see what's visible in the picture – well, after clicking to enlarge the picture they can. So detailed descriptions of visible details seem intended for the blind in an alt caption. In this edit, I considered making the same change from a caption to an alt caption. Almost all English speakers know what belongs in a Christmas nativity scene, so why are we listing them all for those who can see them?

So are these oversights? Is it a change in philosophy about captions? Art LaPella (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The alt images policy and "requirement" for FAC collapsed in confusion a year or so ago because someone apparently with expert knowledge came along and said the recommendations as to what say in alt captions were all completely wrong. Nothing seems to have changed since. Alt or not, these captions are not seen by ordinary viewers, and course the contents of a nativity scene are variable - this one does not include the Three Magi, as many do. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

There shouldn't even be an |alt= parameter used anymore. See Template:NewDYKnomination/guide. The template generates a |caption= parameter which generates both the tooltip and the alt-text. Further information at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_68#Image_alts. I think we also reached a consensus somewhere that this caption no longer needs to be a detailed description, just a very simple description (it doesn't seem to be in that particular discussion I linked, though). rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyway the short answer is, there is no need to specify alt-text, because both the caption (also known as the tooltip or the rollover text) and the alt-text should be the same for DYK images, and both should be short and simple (one sentence or phrase) descriptions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Help with nomination?

I was wondering if someone could help with nominating this article to DYK? I left the specifics here. Not to criticise but the new system Wikipedia uses seems very complicated. I can fill in the name but the template I'm suppose to use is locked. Do I just add a suggestion directly to the main page like before? 71.184.32.202 (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Done rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, looks like you got helped.) Well, this article was created 17 December and is older than 5 days, that's what I can easily see. If you can claim a 5* expansion within the last 5 days it might still work. I think the process to nominate is well explained, just follow the instructions to create a nomination and keep track of it. You can ask for help if something is unclear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it requires WP:AUTOCONFIRMed status to create the needed subpage for the nomination, an access level only registered users can gain. I see that Rjanag has added additional information to the instrucitons to address this problem.[1] --Allen3 ^talk 14:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

loading prep areas

Hi all, all preps are now empty (bar me beginning prep 1 with a nice image one)...but I have to do some RL chores (and write a few DYKs it seems), so load away. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll do a couple. The reason I stopped doing it has not been very active recently. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Just did one. PumpkinSky talk 03:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

K, that's two. Wow Pumpkin, that was fast. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Is an editor who has trouble with his own DYKs qualified to review others?

I am familiar with an editor who has been submitting DYKs for many years, but still has trouble with certain aspects of MoS, and proper formatting of references. I noticed that on his recent DYK nom he has been asked by the reviewer to help out review other DYKs, and it made me wonder: should we really require such "help" from editors who are clearly not familiar enough with our requirements to even finish (without help) their own noms? The way I see it, it doesn't matter if an editor has been submitting DYKs for 3 years and has several dozen; if they still have problems with their own articles they should not be required to review others (because we obviously cannot trust them to do a good review). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

To whom are you referring? It's rather difficult to make a judgement without that information. Gatoclass (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The nomination in question would seem to be the one on December 18: "Karlino oil eruption". Additionally, the editor in question is requesting a new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

IMO, we are long overdue for a discussion of whether the QPQ-review experiment is working, and whether the requirement needs to be modified or even discarded.
When QPQ was proposed, one of the reasons why I supported the requirement was my hope that by reviewing noms, certain unskilled submitters would learn about DYK and become more adept with their own noms. At the time, I was particularly thinking of Billy Hathorn as someone who could benefit from the experience of reviewing other people's noms. I also thought that newbie reviewers would not necessarily be expected to take full responsibility for review of a single hook nom, but some newbies might instead get full QPQ credit for partial reviews -- for example, reporting that an article is too short for DYK criteria, but not also investigating the overall quality of the article or the sourcing of the hook fact.
At this point, I think the experiment has been a partial success. It has increased the pool of capable DYK reviewers, it has reduced the workload on any individual reviewer, and it prevents a repetition of the situation where one reviewer was running the entire DYK process. Unfortunately, however, it is clear that it failed to convert Billy Hathorn into a competent DYK reviewer and contributor, and there are a few other contributors who have thoroughly demonstrated that they cannot review noms. The QPQ requirement even has discouraged some contributors from participating in DYK, and there is some suspicion that a few people are getting someone else to nominate their work so that they can avoid QPQ. Also, there is no good system for overseeing the QPQ requirement (sometimes we notice that a self-nominator is a veteran who hasn't been doing reviews, but often this has been overlooked) or for providing mentoring for newbie reviewers or providing quality control on the review work done by inexperienced reviewers. There's not even a particularly good system for communicating the requirement -- not everybody understands the meaning of the review instructions that say "QPQ – if the nominator has more than five DYK credits and is nominating their own article, they must review another article".
It seems to me that everyone who has more than 5 DYKs should be required to try reviewing, but reviewers should be encouraged to flag their reviews with a symbol that identifies them as "apprentice reviewers" whose work needs to be checked by an experienced reviewer -- and who should be given feedback on their reviews. We might even need to exempt some contributors from QPQ if it becomes clear that they are hopeless. I've been trying to think of other assignments they could be given to help out with DYK, but I can't think of anything. --Orlady (talk) 03:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's spelt out clearly and explicitly that reviewers can do bits and pieces of the necessary review (checking page size and expansion, or simply giving just the hook itself a thumbs-up), then troubled reviewers can be pointed down that route, gradually gaining a modicum of experience by learning one thing at a time. Alternatively, reviewers who aren't really capable of reviewing the whole article properly can be directed to simply review the hook - with a basic checklist of tasks like "search the article to ensure the hook is present", "correct any mistakes in the hook" and "verify the hook is a suitable length and sounds interesting enough" to let them do just that. A review symbol to be used instead of the various ticks and crosses to indicate that only the hook has been reviewed would then let someone scanning the page know that they can finish off the review. It would, in effect, be a bit like WP:GAN's "second opinion" option, where reviewers can ask for help if they need it, flagging the review as requiring another editor to finish up. (EDIT: I quite like File:Candidato-Artículo bueno-blue.svg for this purpose, although perhaps it would serve best in another colour to distance itself from the regular ticks). GRAPPLE X 03:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

As at Wikipedia:Did you know/Proofreading, although that page hasn't been kept up to date. Art LaPella (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As a new reviewer, I like the idea of mentoring: it would have helped a lot when I ran into new issues. I also like the idea of their being a flag that new reviewers could put on their reviews so their work could be checked and any suggestions be made, since rules and precedents are not always intuitive or easily found. My first six reviews were done this month, and without QPQ, I'd never have started—I was perfectly happy to let all five "freebies" be used and would have been happier with ten. For that matter, I'd probably let reviewing slide now if the requirement were taken away, since working on articles I'm interested in is far more compelling than on other articles. (Though maybe not entirely: I've already covered my next four DYK submissions.)

(Adding:) I think a different symbol from Grapple X's check mark would be needed for Orlady's new reviewer flag, since it's a different purpose: I'm more interested in one that would, in effect, be a call button for an experienced reviewer to make a determination, solve a problem, or just check the work done. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed numerous articles since the QPQ requirement came in, and I still hate it. I'm not sure how many people still active at DYK share my main reason: I am happy to copyedit articles, make suggestions for hooks, and so on, but I am not here to judge others' work and that's what a review is. In addition, done right, it's a boatload of work. More than once, I've been examining an article and its sources only to find when I was ready to write up my review that someone else had come in and checkmarked it. Experience has borne out that helping out in other ways is not accepted as a substitute - in fact one's nomination is looked at askance if one hasn't already done the QPQ review and put it into the template, although with only 5 days I often don't have time for the extra task. A partial review just leads to the nomination languishing; I think we really do need the "ready for re-review" symbol previously discussed or the "Please check and finish this review" symbol discussed above, but it's also simply natural - especially since a lot of us realize a careful review takes a lot of time - to stay away from nominations that have accrued comments on the assumption that someone is still working on reviewing them or still discussing with the nominator. And yes, some people respond to the requirement by giving a very cursory review, for whatever reason. That's led to articles having to be yanked out of preps and queues, or having to be copyedited for major writing problems shortly before or even after they go up on the Main Page. (I don't have the impression the latter, at least, was such a major problem when the reviewers were self-selected for the task.) My vote is to scrap QPQ and return to the "Please consider reviewing an article" statement we used to have. It has indeed driven people off and I don't think it can be made to work. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Very good point about a reviewer discovering that their work is down the drain because someone else was just a little quicker in posting review results. That's a general problem with the system: no way to announce the intention to review an article. Would a 24-hour "reserve" be possible? BlueMoonset (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, borrowing a WP:GAN convention - post a blank review first, signed and timestamped, which will allow you to work on a more thorough job for a while without worrying about it being "poached" out from under you. I believe there are some table-based review templates which were required at one point, and should still be extant now to simply add unfilled to dib a nom to review. GRAPPLE X 07:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a simple solution would be to make a first comment to a nomination "I am going to review this now" in the nomination, and overwrite that by the actual review. - As for QPQ, I like it, don't see it as "judging" - now that we got rid of the templates - but as a collaboration to improve quality. I would not even call it mentoring, because in many instances I felt that I as the reviewer was learning. It's more than 100 articles in 2011 which I would not have read without it, and all interesting, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have no idea whether anyone else shares my concern about being required to judge articles, and it's none of my business, either :-) The thing is, if you find something wrong, like a copyvio or a misinterpretation of sources, it becomes instantly clear that it is a judgment. And near here there's a thread about someone who went running to two noticeboards because they found the DYK process too hard, when in fact the review of their article was revealing sourcing and referencing problems. Problems are problems, and checking for them is an assessment. ... Also, as I said, I do read (and fix up) DYK articles anyway. I started off as a WikiGnome and still do a lot of that. Many of us do, and although there have been suggestions that other helping out could be substituted for QPQ, it just doesn't work - it doesn't fit in the template and isn't accepted as an alternate. (And maybe it shouldn't be - one of the problems is that reviewing takes so long, done right. For one thing, minor fixes to the article (typos, moving a ref to what it supports, section header capitalization . . . ) are IMO part of a good review. I don't want to crticize those who do an extremely rapid review and give a checkmark, but not very competent reviews are the problem this section started with. My point is that there are other reasons QPQ is problematic that interact with that one. (On at least one occasion I've found a problem with an article only to find it had already been passed. Conversely, I've had articles either held up interminably by a reviewer for reasons I either can't understand or consider misguided (unsatisfiable stylistic concerns about the hook, for example - I'm not talking about claims I plagiarized or didn't have adequate refs or anything) or, as recently, the hook has been massively and IMO wrongly altered in prep (that example also stripped out the "... that") and gone to the Main Page in that mutilated fashion because the issue was not raised at the nomination page where it could be discussed and dealt with. What's happened is that a second layer of judgment has been added to the first because QPQ reviewers are not trusted to make correct judgments as to whether it's ready. This is not a good system for efficiency, accuracy, or collaborative trust.

The suggestions of a blank review or a simple statement, "I am going to review this" are interesting but I don't think they're fair to others. I never know whether I'm going to have a long enough block of time that morning/afternoon/evening - for one thing there's no way to know how long it will take in a particular case. Also I've tried "Here's some of the review, out of time" and someone else sailed in and checkmarked it (ignoring the problem I'd already raised.) These are really problems arising out of forcing us all to be examiners. People have differing grading styles - as well as standards. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong about "I will review", I meant to place that there right when I start the review, which can take some time, and yes it happened that I took some time and did what I thought was a thorough review including ce to the article, only to find out someone else had approved it in the meantime. I personally don't go for articles which promise an easy and fast review, but for statements I want to see on the Main page. Some are easy, some are not. - I agree that there are different styles and standards, sometimes a second reviewer might be good, but where to find that one if it's not even possible to get a first review? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Number of nominations

Only 139 noms left at T:TDYK currently. IMO, it's time we started thinking about switching to a 12-hour cycle again. Gatoclass (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Remind me, what cycle are we on at the moment? Prioryman (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Eight hours. Gatoclass (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

New nominations have not been coming in at a rate that will sustain the current run rate so it is probably time to think about returning to 12 hour updates with sets of 7 hooks (14 hooks/day instead of the current 18 hooks/day). Looking at the currently built preps, there are a number of sets built with strong regional affinity that would be disrupted if we change the schedule before their appearance on the Main page. As a result I would recommend we run the currently prepared sets and the set still to be built in prep 4 under the current schedule and have the switch become effective with the 00:00 29 December (UTC) update. --Allen3 ^talk 13:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The WikiCup starts up again on 1 January, and they have rescinded the halving of points for DYK that was in effect for 2011, so I expect there will be an appreciable increase in nominations in about a week's time. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I vote for keeping it the same, at 8 hours. This WikiCup thing, if I understand it's goal and methods, will undoubtedly cause a spike in noms. PumpkinSky talk 16:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

January 1st is a week, or about 150 hooks away on an 8-hour cycle. With only 139 noms currently at T:TDYK, I think updaters could well find themselves short of appropriate reviewed hooks over the next few days. I will defer to the regular updaters of course, but if I was still putting together updates, I know I would be getting nervous about retaining the 8-hour cycle at this point. Gatoclass (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Those statistics don't tally. January 1st is about 6 days away. At the current rate of 18 hooks per day, that's 108 hooks needed for the next 6 days. We have that right now, and there's no reason to think submissions will suddenly stop over those coming 6 days. New hooks should continue to come in, albeit at a reduced holiday rate. This happens each year, and once the holidays are over, the noms submission rate picks up again. Some of the reduction is a result of the holidays, some is a result of contributors giving their time to other end-of-the-year cleanup efforts (like the on-going effort to clear the GA noms backlog), and some is the saving up of work for the WikiCup. I wouldn't panic unless the number of noms in the queue dropped much lower. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I predict that we'll do fine with 18 hooks per day. EncycloPetey makes several good points. In addition, although editing is slow on Christmas and the days running up to it, editing tends to pick up a bit when schools/universities are out on holiday (i.e., the next several days). Further, the 3 hooks queued for New Year's Day aren't included in the count on the queue page. --Orlady (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with keeping it at 8 hour rotations - we can revisit if there is a drought. Hmm, maybe time to write some.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

One of the 3 for 1 January mentioned above is not reviewed yet. I can't do it, because I wrote it. I didn't move it there but it think it can wait there now, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Q1

Grand Palace

Claim of over three thousand inhabitants seems to be synthesis: article states that "the population of the Inner Court numbered nearly 3,000 inhabitants": a dose of WP:SYNTH or assumption about residents of the outer court seems to have been applied to reach the current blurb. Kevin McE (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Right - I can see two solutions - change "over" to "around" in the hook, or substitute a new hook "ALT...that the Grand Palace sits on 218,400 square metres (2,351,000 sq ft) of land? I'm going to bed soon so will let other folks decide overnight. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I just changed the existing hook to "several thousand". Gatoclass (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"Several thousand" seems even less supported by the article than "over three thousand": If there are three tea cups on the table, I would not call that several. Kevin McE (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

And to think, when "Do Right Woman, Do Right Man" was on the main page someone changed "a couple or several weeks" to just "several", claiming they were the same thing... Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You might not call it "several", but the dictionary does. Webster's says it's "more than two and fewer than many". BlueMoonset (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sadia Sheikh

Every single English language source cited in the article places the word honour (note spelling in accordance with Pakistani English, the most relevant ENGVAR) in inverted commas: to do otherwise is to appear to accept unquestioningly that it is a matter of honour. Kevin McE (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

agree/done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Gender diverse

MoS would have us render words as words in italics, not in inverted commas: sex and/or gender diverse rather than "sex and/or gender diverse". Kevin McE (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

agree/done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Mont Albert (Q2)

By definition, migratory animals do not have one home, and presumably can travel beyond the boundaries of human designated territories. Kevin McE (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

still can be "a" home I'd have thought -one at each end of the trip. Would you like an indefinite article added? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That would help, yes. Kevin McE (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

done now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Newbs would like to be involved with DYK, driven away by labyrinthine nature of the process

See [2]. Just thought you all should know. It may be nice to make this place friendlier to the newbs. --Jayron32 04:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you meant this paragraph and this paragraph. Art LaPella (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It might help if we had members who would volunteer to assist the newbs with adding nominations. However, I do not mean in the usual Wikipedia way of having a list somewhere that newbs must hunt for, and that grows ever longer as it accumulates a list of inactive former participants. I suggest that right under each date header, there appear a volunteer's name (with link) and an offer to help any submissions get started for that date. This keeps the offers visible, current, and usable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it must be pretty daunting for a noob. Someone was starting work on a nomination Wizard, which looked quite promising to me, but it appears that no further work has been done on it since it was first proposed above. Maybe someone else can help complete it? I'd give it a go myself, but unfortunately I haven't much time to devote to Wikipedia right now. Gatoclass (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The guy complaining there wasn't frustrated by the nomination process (he got through the template without any problems), he was complaining about the DYK requirements (his nom was rejected for not meeting the criteria, not for any problems with the template). Which means the problem is not the process of creating a nomination, and the solution is not some wizard (as I said in the last discussion of that, the process in place now is already basically a wizard).

For what it's worth, I have little desire to waste my time and bend over backwards trying to 'improve' the nomination process for a few people who just want to complain that it's 'hard' and can't even be bothered to explain specifically what part of it they find difficult. Given that the instructions for nomination are very clear (if people would actually bother to read them), I don't see what more they want. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The nom is actually still open. His submission has / had numerous issues which violated Wikipedia core policies, not just a DYK problem. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Rjanag, Wizards can coexist happily with regular processes, the two are not mutually exclusive. Some people find Wizards easier to use the first few times, until they gain the confidence to drop them in favour of something quicker and more straightforward. Panyd's proposed Wizard does not compromise the work you have done to improve the regular nomination process, at all in my view. Some people find Wizards easier to use, and some do not. There's no reason why we should not cater to both. Gatoclass (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. As I said at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_76#Straw Poll on potential technical developments (in the stricken-out part of my comment--stricken out because I didn't realize the poll in that section was about something other than the wizard), I don't think some DYK nomination wizard would hurt anything. I just also don't see how it will really solve any problems, and I don't think we should be expecting complaints to magically disappear if a wizard is made. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not expecting complaints to magically disappear :) However, the existence of a Wizard may benefit the project by encouraging more users to participate. Can't hurt to try in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

William Perry (Q3)

Ranks, unless they are part of a person's title (and in this sentence, it is not), should not be capitalised. Kevin McE (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Legislative Assembly of Nunavut

As with army ranks above: being a member of something is only to be capitalised when it is part of a title. Kevin McE (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Original work (part of "New" article requirement list)

Gatoglass has posted a change to the New requirements, section e), that changes the wording to allow free data source, when it had previously been prohibited. Nikkimaria reverted with the statement, "er, no. that's a huge policy change and needs discussion; previous version is well over a year old". Gatoglass then reverted Nikkimaria's reversion, with the statement "No, Nikkimaria, the version you reverted to has only been extant a few weeks. My edit simply made established practice regarding PD sources explicit. Please do not revert again without discussion at WT:DYK, thanks." Hence, this discussion section.

As early as September 28, 2009, the following text was included on the Wikipedia:Did you know page: "Try to pick articles that are original to Wikipedia (not inclusions of free data sources) and interesting to a wide audience." That's over two years of a prohibition. I've done spot-checks, and the "new" slightly revised wording—though with the phrase "(not inclusions of free data sources)" remaining unchanged—was introduced a few months ago in September. It seems to me that, pending discussion of Gatoglass's significant proposed change, we should restore the wording that's been in place for 27 months, which I'll be doing as soon as I finish posting this new section. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but since I have been contributing to this project far longer than you, I am hardly likely to need an explanation of what longstanding consensus consists of at this page.

For the record, the longstanding consensus version has been as follows:

Try to select articles that are original to Wikipedia (not inclusions of free data sources) and interesting to a wide audience.

A couple of months ago, Rjanag - possibly unintentionally, as his edit summary indicates - altered the above to the following:

Nominations should be original work (not inclusions of free data sources) and should be interesting to a wide audience. [3]

As you can see from the diff above, Rjanag dropped the crucial qualifier Try to which completely changes the meaning of the clause, from a preference for original text to a requirement for it. This is clearly a major change to established practice here at DYK, which obviously cannot be made without adequate discussion. I for one will state at the outset that if any such discussion is to be had, I will be strongly opposing any attempt to alter the longstanding consensus regarding use of free data sources. In my view there could be no reasonable justification for such a prohibition in articles submitted to DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know you have been contributing longer than I have. As has Nikkimaria. And I did notice the change from "try to" to "should be". Your first edit tonight, however, did not restore the "long-standing consensus", but completely rewrote the section and then claimed that Rjanag's change had been "extant a few weeks" rather than over three months as had been the case. In that new version of yours, the preference for original text is only given after a long sentence stating that inclusions from free data sources are acceptable, which practically buries it. To my eye, that's very far indeed from the spirit of the consensus you're invoking. (Addition about 15 minutes later: I just realized that you originally jettisoned the "interesting to a wide audience" clause. Why?)

I should also point out that at least one such discussion has already taken place: the following discussion in Archive 75 on the text you changed, from last month, which is here. It was easy enough to find as I was typing my reply. Make of it—including whether it is indeed "adequate"—as you will, but the summary consensus there appears to be opposed to the inclusion of chunks of material from free data sources. BlueMoonset (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I am in favour of separating anything about 'originality' from 'interestingness' (if that's a word) as they do not naturally go together. We are discussing the use of PD sources here and I think that the current wording is OK - our aim, in my view, should be to strongly discourage articles containing large chunks of verbatim text from PD sources reaching the mainpage. The 'try' part of the rule allows sufficient leeway on a case-by-case basis, although there may be better alternative wordings for this. Mikenorton (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for finding that recent discussion on the topic BlueMoon. As I said in an earlier discussion, the time I have to devote to Wikipedia is currently limited and I'm afraid I didn't have the time to go combing through archives looking for earlier discussions. With regard to said discussion however, it seemed to me that many users had a position which was closer to mine than to the wording added by Rjanag, but we had a number of users who rejected a particular rewording as potentially causing more problems, a position with which I also tend to agree.

My position on reuse of public domain text for DYK is the same it has always been: it's perfectly acceptable provided the text is fully wikified and formatted, the writing style is consistent and appropriate to an encyclopedia, and the information is reasonably up to date, or updated with additional sources. Attempting to set a particular percentage of PD text that is acceptable to DYK is indeed just adding to reviewer difficulty, the obvious solution is to have no set percentage. This is the standard for en.wiki itself, and if its good enough for the project as a whole, there is no reason to impose a (purportedly) "better" standard here. Even GA doesn't impose such a rule; why on earth should we?

With regard to the argument that PD text should be disallowed because it is not "new" per the DYK requirement, historically the only "newness" requirement has been that the article or the majority of text in it be new to Wikipedia, not "new" as in original. Gatoclass (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, although it's a separate issue, BlueMoonset asked why in my initial edit I dropped the phrase "should be interesting to a wide audience". My response is that in practice there has never been any such requirement imposed on nominations, the only requirement with regard to interest is that the hook must highlight an unusual or interesting fact. So I think this phrase serves no purpose and should be dropped. Gatoclass (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Per this discussion last month, it appears that consensus is that the inclusion of some PD material is fine, although an article copied entirely from other sources (even if the license is acceptable) is not good for DYK. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Though I disagree with MikeNorton's comment above that articles created from PD sources be "strongly discouraged", I can accept the notion that original text might be the preferred option, with reviewers, for example, being given the option of disqualifying a PD-based article if its overall quality is unimpressive. I also agree with him however, that this element of "leeway", currently reliant on the "Try to ... " phrase, is not well expressed and open to misinterpretation. I will give the issue some thought and see if I can come up over the next day or two with an alternative phraseology that meets all concerns. Gatoclass (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass, suggesting that this edit restored "longstanding position on pd sources" is disingenuous; it is merely your interpretation, and in fact says something quite different from what you call the "longstanding consensus version". You should have initiated discussion as soon as I reverted you, not attempted to continue to change the page. As for the part about "interesting", you're welcome to move that, but I would object to eliminating it entirely without further discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC) After edit conflict: I'm glad to see you are willing to consider alternatives, but those too will require discussion rather than unilateral imposition. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that my initial edit was probably excessively WP:BOLD; quite frankly I was irritated by what appeared to be a major unilateral change, but decided instead of reverting straight back to the previous rather inadequate phraseology, that I would take a shot at correcting it on the spot. It didn't work out but it did at least lead to this discussion, where hopefully we can find a better solution :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

How long one has been contributing to Wikipedia is not necessarily correlated with ... well, anything. Gatoclass, please stop edit warring and gain consensus for your change to long-standing text before you re-add it. I do not support your version, do support the long-standing current version, and don't think DYK should be encouraging the kind of serial cut-and-paste editing for which it's best known. With the exception of one editor who checks, DYK is broadly unable to correctly detect copyvio and close paraphrasing or to educate new editors in how to correctly paraphrase, and there is no reason to change the instructions here in ways that will encourage more of DYK's history of serial plagiarism. Cutting-and-pasting PD text does not teach editors how to rephrase sources in their own words, leads to the kinds of problems we've seen here in the past, and considering the shortness of reliable reviewers at DYK, there is no need to highlight non-original, cut-and-paste public domain text on the main page-- it's not even our work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC) PS No one is taking away two-thirds of your DYKs and your "months of hard work" copying PD text; we just no longer need to highlight cut-and-paste on the mainpage, and since you have a pony in this race (defending two-thirds of your past DYKs), please stop edit warring to include your preferred version. As the discussion I linked above shows, consensus has been against this practice at DYK (defending most vocally by *you*, per your DANFS PD cut-and-paste articles) since at least 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it's helpful to escalate this to another discussion of plagiarism, since it's clear from the previous discussion (linked by 2 editors above) that not everyone is making the distinction between copyvio (doesn't arise with public domain text so long as there is clear attribution) and plagiarism. However, as I made clear in the straw poll earlier, I do make that distinction. DYK does have a higher standard than the encyclopedia as a whole: not all new articles (that are worthy of remaining in the encyclopedia) have an automatic right to appear in the Did You Know section. One of the respects in which that standard is higher and IMO should be is that wording taken from elsewhere does not count toward the length requirement for the article or for expansion. We have always stated and enforced this for new articles expanded from sections in other articles and for lengthy quotations; in my view wording taken from PD sources is analogous. On the other hand if an article is sourced to PD sources, that's neither here nor there - reliable sources are reliable sources whatever their format, age, or legal licensing. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You miss the point: cutting and pasting doesn't teach editors how to correctly represent sources, and that has been a long-standing problem at DYK. We don't need to highlight work on the mainpage which is not original, as that mentality leads to plagiarism, too close paraphrasing, copyvio, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree that contributors who are inclined to republish PD material often also engage in plagiarism and copyvio. Ironically, the nomination discussion that precipitated Gatoclass' changes to the rules concerned an article that I had flagged as a concern when I saw that several paragraphs had come verbatim from a U.S. government (PD) source, and more thorough examination revealed that other large chunks of the article were verbatim borrowings from non-PD sources. --Orlady (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it more likely that editors who engage in plagiarism and copyvio will cut and paste from any source indiscriminately, as appears to have occurred here. There's no reason to suppose this is somehow due to DYK rules. If he doesn't pay any attention to core policy like WP:COPYVIO, I think it highly unlikely he's been paying much attention to ours. Gatoclass (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) DYK exists as a means of rewarding editors, even noobs, for new content creation, and for highlighting the wide range of topics being written about by Wikipedians. It's not intended as a creative writing course. As for copyvio and plagiarism, I agree they are serious issues, not only for DYK but for Wikipedia in general, FAC included, but that's not the issue to hand. Gatoclass (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

And BTW Sandy, I do not have "a pony in the race" as you claim, there is no suggestion that my numerous early DYKs dependent on DANFS are under any sort of threat. However, as a member of WP:SHIPS, a project that has generated a huge number of articles entirely or largely reliant on a government PD source, I feel I do have a sensitivity to this issue that some other Wikipedians may not share. There are, in fact, some pretty good reasons for copying good PD sources verbatim, including the possibility of misinterpreting the text and introducing inadvertent errors, not to mention the Herculean task of attempting to rewrite the entire DANFS database. Yes, re-use of PD text, like anything else, can be overdone, but it has also made for some major contributions to this project and will I'm sure continue to do so. Gatoclass (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for early review

Could someone do review Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Christina Tiahara soon, if possible? There are two relevant dates coming up in less than a week, and at the current rate it's doubtful that someone would get to it on time unless I asked. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look this evening if no one gets to it before me. The Interior (Talk) 23:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hidden text

Editing one of the preps a moment ago, I noticed some hidden text that appears to be deprecated. For convenience: " STOP! BEFORE YOU ADD A NEW ITEM, PLEASE READ THESE NOTES:

This is NOT a general trivia section.
This section is only for items that have been listed on "NEW PAGES" in the last 120 hours
The title of the new article should be BOLD and placed on TOP as the FIRST ITEM.
Generally limited to eight items, but whatever the case – just make sure it fits whatever else is on the page at that time. Use your common sense.
NO STUBS (moreover, try to find new articles that are 1,500+ bytes in size)
Try to pick articles that are ORIGINAL to Wikipedia (not 1911 or other data sources) and that are INTERESTING.
The "Did you know?" fact must be mentioned in the article.
Images should be sized to 100px or SMALLER.
Do not use fair-use images. Instead, find a related free image (PD, GFDL, CC etc.) as an alternative."

I suggest removing most if not all of that text, leaving perhaps the third and second-last points. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed... heck, that text must be older than JB's singing career. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Done as there was no opposition towards it. Let's hope people are resetting preps manually, not with their own copy saved offline ;) --Pgallert (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Admins, please be prepared to perform manual updates

DYKUpdateBot missed the last update, and it was performed manually. Unfortunately, botmeister Shubinator is without Toolserver access until about January 8, so admins should check whether the bot has updated at scheduled times, and be prepared to do manual updates if necessary. (Note that, due to the late manual update, the next one is scheduled for about two hours later than usual.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

We have 126 noms (22 approved), thus suggestion: change to 12-hr cycle synchronized to 00:00 UTC. This will help with manual updates (fewer updates, and I should normally cover them all, with 8-hr cycle I can't cover one). Materialscientist (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I went bold and implemented my proposal. Materialscientist (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

HUH? I see non consensus for this, certainly not in the above thread on this; nor is it supported by math. This needs undone post haste, the 12 hour updates that is. And why is there no backup on tools for shubinator?PumpkinSky talk 10:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an emergency (holiday) solution, because the bot is down, and neither the bot nor Shubinator is replaceable :-). Ten days don't drastically change the flow of nominations on the T:TDYK page, and I hope the bot will be back then. I am fine with changing back to 8 hrs, provided there is an admin who can cover the 17:00 UTC update through the next 10 days. Materialscientist (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A backup for Shub should be found. There are plenty of hooks to get to Jan 1, which has its own hooks, and then the competition will start with lots of hooks. I'd do the updates but I don't want to be an admin. Can I get the rights just to do the updates? HEHE PumpkinSky talk 11:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

To make things worse, one hook for 1 January still did not get a review, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That's resolved, thanks, Mikenorton, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

← I don't know if somebody did something, or if the bot just woke up on its own, but it did successfully perform the last two updates. Still, we should be alert in case it starts malfunctioning again. Orlady has reset the interval to eight hours. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Shubinator has recovery code that detects when a scheduled update fails to occur and attempts to restart the bot. This code is most likely what has happened. --Allen3 ^talk 21:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK or DYL? (Did You Laugh)

Buchnera americana is the second article in 3 days that was simply dreadful in parts. Something's wrong in DenmYrK. The first article (as I remember a hurricane) had boats disassembling themselves and stranded fuel tanks and buoys sailing about searching for things. This article asserts that 'sessile' plants are notable and flowers are attractive. Gasp!

In months past, DYK articles were frustrating to me because of the obvious remaining misspellings. But now laughable facts and tortured thesauruses? 24.28.17.231 (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Boats searching for people on boats. Mrah. Boats didn't disassemble themselves; the storm dismantled them. HurricaneFan 25 — 19:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Buchnera americana looks like it was a student project. It's a mistake to assume that students understand the subject matter they are studying! --Orlady (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

24.28.17.231, I'm sure your jokes are very witty, but it's hard for anyone to know what you're unhappy about if you don't cite the specific wording/sentences/hooks that you find problematic. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I was speed reading/multitasking that day, so apologise for Buchnera americana. Still it got a reader interacting with writers, which is something. Have given it a bit of a once-over but am busy IRL today. He put specifics on talk page which I've fixed some of. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, reader interaction with wreiters is one of the best reasons for DYK to exist. And the improvements in that Buchnera article are evident. (But I did enjoy the laughs I got from passages like "endangered plant that is commonly found"...) --Orlady (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

head cold....

Have been uploading prep 1, but have to go and do RL chores. Started to look at John Crockett but I have a bit of a head cold, so gave up. Anyone is welcome to finish off prep 1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Lawang Sewu double hook (Prep 1)

Is there a way to avoid repeating "Lawang Sewu" in the hook? Both of my originals were deliberately phrased to avoid the repetition. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

How about: ... that Lawang Sewu: Kuntilanak's Vengeance was described by a critic as "truly 'raping' an icon of Semarang"? —Bruce1ee^talk 08:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good, but aren't we not supposed to put links in direct quotes? Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been done before, have a look at WP:DYKA, for example the Gadzhimurat Kamalov hook here and the Wildwood hook here. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of MOS:QUOTE, where it says to try and avoid linking in quotes. Mind you, I'd much rather have that then repetition. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 WikiCup

I'm just dropping a note to let you all know that the 2012 WikiCup will be beginning tomorrow. The WikiCup is a fun competition open to anyone which awards the production of quality audited content on Wikipedia; points are awarded for working on featured content, good articles and topics, did you know and in the news, as well as for performing good article reviews. Signups are still open, and will remain open until February; if you're interested in participating, please sign up. Over 70 Wikipedians have already signed up to participate in 2012's competition, while last year's saw over double that number taking part. If you're interested in following the WikiCup, but not participating, feel free to sign up at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send to receive our monthly newsletters. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page, or ask away at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, where a judge, competitor or watcher will be able to help you. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

@@ Line 421: / Line 421: @@
 Have been uploading prep 1, but have to go and do RL chores. Started to look at [[Template:Did you know nominations/John Crockett (frontiersman)|John Crockett]] but I have a bit of a head cold, so gave up. Anyone is welcome to finish off prep 1. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 21:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
+== Lawang Sewu double hook (Prep 1) ==
+Is there a way to avoid repeating "Lawang Sewu" in the hook? Both of my originals were deliberately phrased to avoid the repetition. [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 07:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
+:How about: ... that '''''[[Lawang Sewu: Dendam Kuntilanak|Lawang Sewu: Kuntilanak's Vengeance]]'''''  was described by a critic as "truly 'raping' '''[[Lawang Sewu|an icon]]''' of Semarang"? —[[User:Bruce1ee|Bruce1ee]]<sup>[[User talk:Bruce1ee|''talk'']]</sup> 08:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
+:*That sounds good, but aren't we not supposed to put links in direct quotes? [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 08:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
+::*It's been done before, have a look at [[WP:DYKA]], for example the Gadzhimurat Kamalov hook [[Wikipedia:Recent additions#24 December 2011|here]] and the Wildwood hook [[Wikipedia:Recent additions#18 December 2011|here]]. —[[User:Bruce1ee|Bruce1ee]]<sup>[[User talk:Bruce1ee|''talk'']]</sup> 08:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
+:::*I was thinking of [[MOS:QUOTE]], where it says to try and avoid linking in quotes. Mind you, I'd much rather have that then repetition. [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 09:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
+== 2012 WikiCup ==
+I'm just dropping a note to let you all know that the '''[[Wikipedia:WikiCup|2012 WikiCup]]''' will be beginning tomorrow. The WikiCup is a fun competition open to anyone which awards the production of quality audited content on Wikipedia; points are awarded for working on featured content, good articles and topics, did you know and in the news, as well as for performing good article reviews. [[Wikipedia:WikiCup/2012 signups|Signups]] are still open, and will remain open until February; if you're interested in participating, please sign up. Over 70 Wikipedians have already signed up to participate in 2012's competition, while last year's saw over double that number taking part. If you're interested in following the WikiCup, but not participating, feel free to sign up at [[Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send]] to receive our monthly newsletters. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page, or ask away at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup]], where a judge, competitor or watcher will be able to help you. Thanks! [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 00:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)