Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 38

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.

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

The editors who submitted the articles that received DYKs for 20:55 on 28 December 2008 did not receive DYK notifications. Their articles, however, did. Can someone please alert the editors that their work was DYK honoured? Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This may be a clue: The hooks from the previous queue #2 (assembled by myself) did not get their creator notifications handed out by the bot not did the ones from queue #4 (assembled by Gatoclass) but the ones from queue #3 (assembled by Sandstein) did! The only real difference I can see is that there were no nominator credits to be handed out for queue #3 while there were for #2 and #4. I've read User:DYKBot/credits repeatedly and can't see anything wrong in the setup. - Dravecky (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

We might be able to fix it by altering the listing then. Maybe putting all the nom credits at the top? I should probably check back through some of Borgqueen's edits, because she figured out a way to organize the credit list to make the bot work reliably, and we might need to do the same thing. Gatoclass (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just handed out another full set of creator credits for the current DYK group (the one that starts with the gaper fish) but this activity is beginning to lose both its novelty and its charm (and its unfair to the article creators). If somebody, anybody, could lure Ameliorate! back into the fold it would be much appreciated. Or, failing that, any successful diagnosis and cure for this problem with the bot would also be very much appreciated. - Dravecky (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That is shocking. I think soon you can come up with a method of creating DYks automatically also. That will dispense with this business of having to do anything by hand. You have a well oiled machine. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, huh? My method for coming up with articles for DYK is spending countless hours doing research and writing, time for which is lost when I have to perform easily-automated tasks, even if I'm just doing this on a fill-in basis while the DYK regulars are away on holiday. - Dravecky (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

An update: as an experiment, I carefully selected only self-nominated articles for the queue that just went live on the main page so there would be no nominator-only credits for the bot to post. As I hoped (and feared) all of the creator credits were posted automatically, as they should have been. I present this as a datapoint for whatever bot-savvy editor can take a look under the hood and figure out what's wrong. - Dravecky (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Could the comment strings be the problem? They were only recently added. Maybe we should also try listing the nom credits first or something. Gatoclass (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Bot is working again. Turns out the comment fields were the problem. Gatoclass (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If I was the kind of person who hugged people, I would hug you, Gatoclass. Great work. -Dravecky (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a good hard look at DYK which, in days gone by, was a relatively quiet universe. Now it is a stepping stone to an RFA on up and the joy in participation for those of us who are not seeking gifts is gone. Wikipedia:DYKBEST is especially ill considered and misleading. I just noticed its existence, as an editor is boasting of his accomplishments on this list in his RFA. This is reminiscent of the ill considered Awards Center. I suggest that Wikipedia:DYKBEST be deleted also. Please see some reasons why it is at best useless and at worst misleading. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, didn't come to DYK until after it was suggested to me during my (successful) RfA so you could just as easily claim that RfA is a stepping stone to DYK. (Oh, anecdotal evidence, how I love you.) Doing away with a chance for one tiny reward for creating new, interesting, and well-referenced content does not seem like a productive way to encourage the creation of new, interesting, and well-referenced content. - Dravecky (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I believe that you are referring to Suntag's answer to question 2 ("What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?"). His answer was:

"I'm also proud that my first GA article, Nassak Diamond previously received 20,900 hits in the six hours on the Main Page and was listed as #16 on all-time best of DYK."

Would you care to explain how this is "boasting"?!? Thanks and cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

How is this boasting? Have you read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Suntag? Read the link above some reasons why number of page hits is meaningless and so not something an individual editor can brag about. Number of hits (page views) means nothing and if this is one of an editor's greatest achievements, then that is a bad sign for Wikipedia. This same editor received his 25 DYK Medal and his 50 DYK Medal on the same day, December 29, 2008, an unhealthy preoccupation for an editor who has so much control over DYK and now wants to become an admin also. Are you aware of the Awards Center and why it was deleted? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course I have read it (how would I have gotten that quote if I hadn't...?). Seriously. Maybe he is proud that his article is on the list; I'd be proud too! Did you notice that that article is one of his two GA's as well?

Page views do mean nothing, but (a) who cares if he wants to highlight to others that one of his article did well while on DYK and (b) the same could be said of WP:MILCON, WP:CUP, the B-class rating, the C-class rating, the Start-class rating, signature collections, barnstars and userboxes. Please.

"So much control"? I doubt that. Show me diffs please.

I glanced at it; it has no bearing here. Are we handing out awards here? No. Is it a list of cool DYK's that did well? Yes.

Also, maybe he got those on the same day because someone forgot to give one out at 25. Frankly and bluntly, this point is just plain stupid.

Well, lets see. He received 58 DYKs so far in December, and as many as 14 on one day alone. I think that is why he got both medals in one day, as usually those medals are somewhat late. But in another week or two he will have 100 DYK Medal. Is that the way DYK is supposed to work? It looks like Award Collecting. Smells bad. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Just stop being pointy please...even if it is a boast (which it isn't, but hypothetically), I somehow doubt that it was intended as such. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Drop the medals. Drop the barnstars. Separate pages that you created from pages that you simply nominated. That would reduce a lot of the problems. The actual statistic for some of them are equivalent to ones that tools can produce about editing habits, but measure something a little harder. If this was treated as raw data instead of an award, that would be better. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

When a contributor becomes obsessed with the counting of Wikipedia awards and trinkets (whether their own collection or the collections of others), I assume that this is a symptom that something else is not going well in that person's life. Let's hope that I'm wrong -- and that things go better in the future for every contributor. In the meantime, though, why begrudge people their trinket collections? --Orlady (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Because it harms Wikipedia. It lowers the quality as editors are trying to wrack up awards rather than create for the joy of article writing. They go for quantity not quality. (I know, that is a forgotten aspect of Wikipedia now.) —Mattisse (Talk) 03:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this use to be a fear when it was still around. Many of the people frequenting here as of late are post that discussion so they might not know the stigma and fear behind the possibility of promotional pages like that. Just a little FYI at the scary side of things, Orlady. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the Award Center that Ottava linked. I don't think Best of DYK is even remotely comparable to that. In my opinion, the Award Center was geared to blatant individual award-collecting. Best of DYK is nothing like that. We didn't even identify the editor who created the big hit hooks originally. It was recently suggested that we add editor identification, and that's now part of the all-time page hit list, but still isn't included in the monthly lists. The Best of DYK is not geared toward individual awards and can't be compared to the now-deleted Awards Page. Cbl62 (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A person with a currently open RFA mentioned his high listing on Wikipedia:DYKBEST as one of the contributions he was most proud of. He not only runs DYK, but he supplies a large number himself, as many as 14 of his DYK's were featured in one day. He is currently, according to his RFA, coming up with a hook count bot for the trinket collectors. This is so different from the days when I would hand craft an article and carve out a hook. Now it is a DYK assembly line with placement on Wikipedia:DYKBEST a resume feature. Contributing to this sort of thing has no appeal. I think it is for the kids now like the Award Center was. Well, we can't stop Wikipedia from changing. I am convinced of that. Perhaps it is better to give the trinket collectors DYK as their place. The Award Center was deleted because it started to impact the quality of Wikipedia articles at GAN and FAC. That is why I say, let the trinket collectors have DYK. Maybe the line will be drawn there. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't see how DYKBEST could be encouraging award-seeking behavior. First of all, in most cases the creator/nominator's name isn't even attached to the hook. Secondly, in many cases the creator/nominator is not the person who made the hook that got the hits (ALTs are proposed by all kinds of people) and everyone here knows that. Thirdly, the hits the hooks get are largely determined by things outside of how good the hook/article was (such as what time of day it appeared, or other purely arbitrary factors). All in all, there's not really any point awarding someone (with adminship or in any other way) solely on the basis of their performance at DYKBEST. That doesn't mean DYKBEST is a bad thing; it's just something we do for fun. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

About the quantity over quality argument, that is why the reviewing process is there. If it's rubbish, it won't be passed will it? Articles have to verifiable, neutral and all that. If they are not, they are rejected. But I have seen very few articles that are utter rubbish during my work at DYK for the past few months. I don't think collecting awards has anything to do with it. You can get the 25 DYK medal by just nominating articles, not writing. It is given in recognition for his contributions to keep DYK running. Though I'm not sure if it's fair that people who have nominated 25 articles and people who have created/expanded 25 articles should get the same award, I'm sure it does no harm to the project in any way. Chamal ^talk 05:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Then don't give out the awards. That is the way of squashing that. Look at User:Mattisse/sand and tell me why an editor wants 58 DKYs a month and 11 per day. Do away with the awards and see if this type of behavior continues. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:MFD is that way. Seriously, see what the consensus is if it is such a concern, I don't see the current system causing that many problems. This happens all the time, a contributor finds one instance of something they disagree with and conflate that into some kind of systemic problem.--IvoShandor (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, someone creates/expands an article but doesn't nominate it. Someone else spots it, thinks it is good enough for DYK and nominates it. A reviewer decides it is good enough, it gets passed and makes it on to the main page. I don't see what's wrong with someone nominating 11 or even a 100 such articles in one day, Matisse. Awards are a way to show that someone's work is appreciated. If there's no appreciation, I'm sure there won't be many people ready to contribute to Wikipedia just for the fun of it. Whether motivated by awards, or doing it just because you like it, the contributions help improve Wikipedia. And if you're so worried about the quality of DYK, Matisse, please help us to review the articles and weed out the bad ones. I don't mean to be rude or incivil, but people are working hard here, and it doesn't help them if you say "your work is crap" without giving them some practical suggestions to correct themselves or actually helping them do it. Chamal ^talk 10:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The list of articles that have had the most hits while on the main page just shows what kind of articles get more hits and is therefore useful and I don't see a problem with it. Wikipedia:Did you know/Hall of Fame is closer to the award center mentality, since it's only there to showcase editors. You should consider taking a closer look at that one instead. - Bobet 14:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps one way to address Mattisse's concerns is to make ineligible articles and lists are basically derivative from content already on Wikipedia. I note a proclivity for very short lists, lists of Tampa Bay Rays managers, for example, or Phoenix Suns in the Hall of Fame. To use one of Suntag's, List of Gerald Ford Supreme Court nominations (a short list indeed, though well detailed). But if it can already be found on Wikipedia, maybe it shouldn't be hook eligible.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What is funny Wehwalt, is that the first paragraph of List of Tampa Bay Rays managers, which was written three days ago, is a better overview of the main article Tampa Bay Rays, than the lead section of Tampa Bay Rays itself! I think that a problem of DYK is that it encourages editors (myself included) to create new articles about marginally important topics rather than improve existing articles that are more broad (and often times, more important), in part because it is easier. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

As the person who started "Best of DYK" on my user page, I'm not sure why the list would generate such a fiery response as we've seen today from Matisse. I created it not as a competition or as a "medal" of honor, but as a useful and "fun" tool to see what kinds of hooks work best in accomplishing DYK's goal (and presumably each author's goal) of attracting readers' attention to a new article. It also serves to illustrate the types of hooks that have had success in attracting viewers, and it's not just "sex" that works. There have been very clever or interesting hooks on plants, architecturally significant structures, and interesting people that have attracted enormous page views. If attracting readers/editors is one of DYK's goals, I suggest that page views is the best (and only objective) way of measuring it. BorgQueen and I have put a lot of time into keeping it up-to-date and are happy "wasting" our spare time doing it, so I'm not sure why something as innocuous as a page view listing would engender such fire. All that said, when I moved "Best of DYK" into out of my user page, I noted on this page that we ought to try it for a month or so and see if people found it useful. It's pretty clear Matisse doesn't find it useful, but I'd be interested to know what others think. Should we keep "Best of DYK"? Cbl62 (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I always found it interesting that Byron biting into a saucer dish attracted 5000+ views. However, I could never tell if it was Byron or the saucer dish that actually did it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think if you could figure out infinite ways of incorporating Britney Spears into a hook, you could rise to the top of the page views list. It is not rocket science. Also, how may times have you clicked on an article, only to instantly ditch it as boring and unreadable. I wrote an article a few years ago that constantly gets a high traffic number, higher than the typical FA, not because it is such a wonderful article, but purely on the basis of its title and subject matter. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely Keep; anything that provides incentive is good.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 02:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:MMORPG. OK, seriously, DYK achievements don't impress me, but there's lots of stuff at WP I don't choose to get involved in. That doesn't mean that stuff shouldn't exist. Townlake (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of its name ("most popular of DYK" may be more accurate, perhaps), but the page itself is certainly worth keeping around. It's surprising how there are some rather bland hooks mixed in with the good ones. I do wonder whether the many page views of some of the articles is because the author of some other external webpage (like a blog or something) saw the hook, read the article, thought it was interesting, and then posted a link to it. Thus, page views may be dependent on outside writing/non-Main page audience as well. BuddingJournalist 03:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There is also the subject area. Sometimes articles have an individual people recognize. There is also timing. I'm sure articles that appear at, say, 8 PM EST might get a lot of USA based views, so an article about a famous US event might bring in quite a few hits. Things like that would go into the mix. I would prefer it to focus on the articles and hooks and not the authors in that regard. Its the subject that is bringing the people in. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I don't know if this is a poll or not, but as I wrote above...I don't see how DYKBEST is hurting anything, as long as people understand that it's a reflection of random stuff and not a reflection of particular users. Why get rid of it? Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The harm is that any project that attracts trinket collectors decreases quality, because the type of editor that is attracted to award collection tends to be teen age editors with little real article writing experience to offer wikipedia. That is why the Awards Center mentioned above had to be shut down. The poor quality of the production of the editors attracted to the "awards" degraded wikipedia, affecting GAN and FAC. Good article contributors are not attracted to number of hits per page that bear no relationship to anything positive for wikipedia. It is meaningless. Why offer false awards for non content? —Mattisse (Talk) 04:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Further, you have editors, such as User:Suntag, abusing the process to "collect" awards to use in his RFA, where he brags about being 16th on the "most viewed" list. See User:Mattisse/sand for insight into how he collected 58 DYKs in one month, as many as 11 in one day. This is the fox guarding the hen house. If you want to have a little awardee in group, then do not pretend it is for the greater good. It is merely the privilege stomping ground to use as a spring board for RFA. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• As far as I know, we don't give out explicit "awards" for performance at BEST. If any particular editor is abusing that page to make claims about something, that's the editor's problem and not BEST's problem. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 13:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - it's just a fun page that records some data that might be of interest to contributors. I can't see a problem. Gatoclass (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't think that, with the huge backlog of deficient articles, articles needing work, etc. that all that energy going into a "fun" page could be put to better use? Or should we forget the backlog, the reason for Wikipedia, and just have fun and collect trinkets? (Actually, I should not be so hard on you, as I am no longer willing to do that work either. And I am no longer willing to write articles or engage in heavy lifting. I am much more willing to engage in trivia like this discussion, than to work on the encyclopedia. So I understand your view.) —Mattisse (Talk) 05:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I just love it when people complain that VOLUNTEERS aren't doing it the right way. Good grief. I'll be the one to say it, because I can't be the only one thinking it, this discussion is ridiculous. If you've got an axe to grind with DYK or Wikipedia, get a blog. --IvoShandor (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)For the record this isn't aimed at anyone in particular, just everyone who disagrees with me, if my tone sounds annoyed or irked, it's because I am.--IvoShandor (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What is different about ridiculous? It is all ridiculous. Are you saying DKY is not ridiculous? Don't tell me you think any of this is serious! (Surely you know the truth! - Remember the bath houses? That was back when I though people were supposed to write real articles for Wikipedia. I admit I was deluded then. ) People "volunteer" because they have nothing else to do. Plus you get "awards" for doing nothing of importance. Much better than real life. —Mattisse (Talk) 06:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Matisse. It looks to me like you're a valuable contributor, based on the 74 DYKs and 20+ barnstars prominently featured on your user page. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with having "fun" and getting some recognition for the work we all put into Wikipedia. You may not agree with this today, but what we are collectively creating is incredibly valuable, and unprecedented in human history^{[citation needed]}... a bit dramatic but I believe it. You and we can and should be proud of Wikipedia. And it's OK to have some "fun" as we do it. Maybe you'll feel differently tomorrow. Cbl62 (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Matisse does do good work, a lot of contributors here do, it's ok to be rewarded, it's ok to get frustrated sometimes too. But the "I hate DYK bandwagon" seems to always rumble through this talk page, Suntag is a good editor, even if you don't like that one user can contribute to DYK prolifically. Awards are a nice thank you, a nice recognition, methinks. Although in real life, awards are given for nothing of importance as well, but we shan't get into a philosophical life discussion on the DYK talk page. Unless you want to. :-) Anyway, keep the DYKs coming everyone (and Matisse--don't let frustration do you in, Wikipedia has become quite valuable as an information source, and if you get that blog, let me know ;-)). --IvoShandor (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia is more like real life than previously suspected. Do you think anyone has ever tried to MFD the Nobel Prizes?--IvoShandor (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: Again, motivation. Imagine a new user seeing this list. Won't he think it would be cool to get an article on that page? I always support anything that would encourage uninvolved editors to join. BTW, I don't see the backlog is something to set ourselves on fire about. It's not like anything gets rejected just because there wasn't anyone to review it. It will eventually get reviewed and rejected or accepted according to our criteria. Besides, you can't tell people what to do can you (unless it is against our guidelines and policies of course)? You can't tell someone "hey you, what are you doing messing around with a stub? go and copy edit an article for FA". Both are useful and there are people to do both, no need to force people to do it. Chamal ^talk 10:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Rename and keep: I personally believe that calling it "BEST" is misleading. I've been working for months to build the list with Cbl62, but I don't see how those hooks (yes, hooks, not articles - they are two different things, mind you) that attracted more clicks than others can be called "best". Many factors affect the stats, including timing, media coverage, pictures of pretty faces, and a bit of luck, and it is not immune to click fraud. I've been working on the list because it did show, albeit sort of erratically, what type of topics and wordings tend to attract readers. It started as an amusing, fun tool and shouldn't be taken too seriously. We could rename it "WP:DYKSTATS" or something like that. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that "best" doesn't fit. "Stats" or "Scores" would be better, I think I would lean toward "Stats" myself. Gatoclass (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, stats is better, since more popular doesn't usually mean better. - Bobet 14:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Yes, of course it is flawed as it can never properly account for all the external factors over and above the wording of the hook which will affect the article traffic but I do think it is an interesting, sometimes puzzling (who would have thought that spiders would be so popular) and completely harmless stats page which is what it is. I would also support BorgQueen's renaming proposal, something like WP:DYKSTATS or WP:DYKCLICKS. Nancy ^talk 12:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I think it is also good to look at all links in hook - I had a triple hook on June 12, 2008 for Hillsgrove Covered Bridge, Forksville Covered Bridge, and Sonestown Covered Bridge and checked the hits for each. On a whim I also checked hits for Sullivan County, Pennsylvania (where all three are located) and it had more hits than any of the bridge articles. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the phenomenon of some other link in the hook getting more hits is common, especially for biographical hooks about people who are not well-known. I recently submitted a dual hook for articles about two of the co-discoverers of the element promethium, but Promethium got far more hits than either of the scientists. I've noticed other examples of this. In any event, DYK draws attention to otherwise obscure corners of Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep (for reasons I already stated on the talk page for Best of DYK). --Orlady (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to DYKSTATS per BorgQueen. Olaf Davis | Talk 23:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Everyone else said it best...and first! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep As per all above and also it is a nice little reference for the more successful DYK entries. Dr.K. (logos) 02:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Just harmless fun. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Might be appropriate to rename, but the concept itself is fine to help track the articles and hooks that tend to be successful. It also may add encouragement for people to write good hooks. If the ranking of one's hooks is being misused or misrepresented in an RfA or other context, that is a separate issue than whether the page itself should be kept. Rlendog (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep encourages article writing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, agreed with BQ's rename proposal - "stats" or "views" is a more accurate term than "best", although I think this page should have the more uniform title of something like Wikipedia:DYK views as opposed to the one-word, all CAPS Wikipedia:DYKVIEWS, which should serve as a shortcut. As for the page itself, I love skimming around and reading it; rather than meaning to cause awarditis, it's a harmless, fun data page to let folks take a look at what gets the most clicks, out of pure interest. From what I can tell, the majority of semi-regular DYK contributors don't view it as a "status" to be high on the list of views, and in general it's not causing problems simply as an interesting resource. Yes, the term "best" isn't really accurate (thus causing the controversy), and should simply be renamed for clarification. I agree with a lot of the reasons people have previously said, too - in short, I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with this page, and it's not causing a net negative for the community. Jamie^☆S93 15:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it may be time to increase the update frequency again, as a backlog seems to be forming. Currently there are five fully populated queues waiting in the wings, plus a collection of hook suggestions that includes at least a dozen "approved" hooks -- not counting the hooks for New Year's Eve, of which 3 appear to be approved. --Orlady (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that when you award 58 DYKs in one month (so far) to one of your own, you will have that problem of a backlog. How about introducing a whole new concept? Quality! There are already too many long, boring lists of DYKs. I checked some articles that was familiar with before they became DYKs, and No improvements had been made. This whole project needs to be reevaluated, as it is just an magnet for trinket collectors. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Backlog is not necessarily a problem. The only "problem" (if you want to call it that) is the need to periodically adjust the pace of DYK posts to be commensurate with the pace of hook production and DYK reviews. A few weeks ago we were facing a shortage of good-quality hooks, so the frequency of updates was reduced (and a few contributors got busy creating and nominating hooks for new articles, thus increasing the supply of hooks -- and rapidly increasing their collections of DYK trinkets). --Orlady (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just let User:Suntag take care of it. I confess I am no longer willing to deal with DYK as the quality has plummeted. Shortage of hooks never used to be a problem at all at DYK. But something has changed there in the last several months. It is no longer an inviting place. I have tried to get involved again at the invite of User:Politizer several times, and he has tried to interest me, but I just cannot be part of what it has become. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The "backlog" is due, in part, to having to digest a few dozen articles that had been held over for Christmas display but I'd be hesitant to speed up the rotation much since the backlog isn't that huge given that a lot of students will have to go back to class and folks off for the holidays will go back to work in a few days which will cut submissions. (And I look forward to Matisse disowning all of the shiny DYK "trinkets" on her user page and her full page of barnstars.) - Dravecky (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, no kidding. As we all know, DYK is serious business. --IvoShandor (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(IvoShandor is joking, of course!) —Mattisse (Talk) 05:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) Reply to Dravecky: Hey, that was in the days of "quality control" when it meant something to get a DYK, and many hooks were rejected. No one had the expectation that just because they submitted a hook it would be accepted. But that was then. There was no such thing as someone getting 58 DYKs in one month nor 11 in one day. But, heck, I'm no longer willing to do that kind of work any more, so go for it. I just have nothing else to do but post on pages, since I am no longer willing to actually write articles. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

So now your only stated reason for being here is to disrupt the project while not creating any content? Which one of us is kidding here? (Hint: it's certainly not me.) Now if you'll pardon me, I'm going back to actual content creation. Do come back on April 1st. - Dravecky (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup. I have become thoroughly disillusioned. No longer fooled by the "big talk" of worthiness. I know its all for the awards and trinckets. See how long you last. —Mattisse (Talk) 06:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Currently 174 on the suggestions page including New Year's hooks, given that we had 206 a few days ago it looks to me as if we are holding our own if not better ATM. Gatoclass (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall that there were 5 fully populated queues (about 40 hooks) pending at the time that there were 206 hooks on the suggestions page. --Orlady (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone counted, but even if you add in all 40 hooks to the 174, you still only get 214 - and chances are there were at least one or two updates in the slot on the day the 206 were counted. So I think we are at least holding our own ATM. Gatoclass (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I am starting to think though (and I never thought I'd be saying this) that we could actually use more than five queue pages, because we keep spilling over into the next update. But maybe that's just because it's the Christmas break and we have more people helping out than usual. Gatoclass (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think. Or increase the sourcing/MOS/English/length standards temporarily. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be in favor of increasing the sourcing standards, as the DKYs I have looked at have been impossible to figure out whether the sourcing was correct or not. The sourcing was not congregated in one place, but required reading the whole article and piecing it together, something I am personally unwilling to do for a DYK. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about the sourcing problem. But how do you impose a rule on that, other than inline citations? It would be good if there was a way to make it better. I'm against increasing any standard temporarily though. If they are increased, they should be improved for good - not just to weed out articles that would be passed under normal conditions. Chamal ^talk 06:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a requirement that sources be formatted as well? It is a lot easier to spot non-reliable sources when page titles and publishers part of the citation. A huge pet peeve of mine is seeing bare URLs in the references section. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

We already have "Unwritten" Rule D3. Art LaPella (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Never mind. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

In New Zealand it's currently 7pm Tuesday, in Honolulu it's 8am Monday - a difference of about 24 hours. If I'm not mistaken, New Year's Eve will start in New Zealand in the middle of about Queue #1, it will end in New Zealand and begin in Honolulu about 24 hours later in the middle of Queue #5, and end in Honululu in the middle of the next cycle in Queue #3.

We only have five champagne hooks, so we can probably forget about adding any to Q1 and 2, and to Q3 of the next cycle. That means, according to my admittedly rather shaky calculations, that we should add one champage hook to each of Q3, Q4, Q5, and Q1 and Q2 of the next cycle. Or alternatively, add to Q4, Q5, and Q1, Q2 and Q3 of the next cycle. Gatoclass (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• If the update frequency remains at its current 6 hours, Queue 1 will go up early on New Year's Eve, around 0315 UTC. I calculate that New Year's Eve hooks need to be inserted into the DYK queues starting with Queue 2 (if not earlier -- Queue 2 will be posted around 0915 UTC on December 31) and continuing through Queue 3 (1515 UTC on December 31) and the Next update that is currently under construction (2115 UTC on December 31). --Orlady (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is right. New Year's Day - any day - actually lasts 48 hours around the world, because there is a 24-hour time difference between one point on the map and its corresponding point on the other side of the planet. So New Year's Eve starts in New Zealand halfway through Queue #1, and will then continue for another 8 updates - Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q1, Q2, Q3 again. We only have five hooks so we should drop the ones off the end. Probably we should drop the first three, since there are a lot fewer people in NZ than in the US, and add one hook to each update beginning from Q4. That's how I calculate things anyhow. Gatoclass (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much of an association Champagne & New Years has for NZ, Aus & India (the 3 major English speaking region that will see New Years first). It is probably more worthwhile to time the hooks for the later queues covering the span for Western Europe, US & Canada where there is more strongly an association between the two. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about India, but NZ and Australia are Western countries that use champagne to celebrate events just like any other Western countries. I guess you could start from Q5, that would be about 9pm New Year's Eve in New Zealand I think. That way the hooks would continue being displayed until, I think, roughly 3am Honolulu time. Gatoclass (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess I could write some more articles in the next couple hours. :p How many would you like? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That's up to you Agne. But I think you've done a great job already :) Gatoclass (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Update: I've added 2 more Champagne related articles-Champagne riots and Autolysis (wine). That gives us 7 articles out of 8 (9?) "New Years queue". So if we skip the first 1 or 2, we should be fine for the rest of the day. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You're a Champ, Agne! (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) - Dravecky (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

New Year's Eve hooks are all in the slot now. Next time we will have to organize ourselves a bit better, it's no fun at all trying to reorganize a bunch of updates after they have already been posted to the queue. Gatoclass (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears we are past the time for the next update - has the bot not updated yet? Cirt (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've manually update the hooks, the clock, and the next queue. (Hope I didn't miss anything.) Best I can tell, the bot was stopped by a malformed {{DYKbotdo}} template since the result of your {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} entry includes the bolding you're using on your signature. If you're going to be signing these templates, you need to remove the extra formatting from your signature. - Dravecky (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay, will fix that in the future, thank you. Cirt (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Nup, nothing to do with it, you can keep signing your signature as-is Cirt :) The bots were supposed to be taken over by User:Nixeagle today and run on the Wikimedia Toolserver. As luck would have it the toolserver crashed earlier today so that never eventuated. I had turned the bots off from my end however the updates were still going through (albeit late - except when Drav beat it) because of the backup which I never switched off. I have turned them back on now but I can't leave them running as when the Toolserver comes back up the bots will run twice (once from my end, once from the toolserver) and then they will make a mess of the credits. So ... the bots will be running from my end for the next update at 17:22, I will turn them off sometime after that, but before the next next update at 23:XX. So unless the toolserver comes back up it'll have to be manual updates :( (I'll try and keep an eye on things and run the bots manually if I can). To check the Toolserver status go to toolserver.org if it has a message about the toolserver being "down for maintenance" then it's not working, otherwise they should be good to go. Of course there is the issue of the server coming back up before 17:22, in which case everyone will get the same credits twice if Nix has the bots on the server ready to go, he said they would be operable by 11AM EST but if the crash happened before that, then that won't be the case. Anyway, I'm sure it will all work out and you will all have stable bots again in no time. 125.238.97.30 (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Cirt added a Dyk credit for the article on my talk, but the article is missing a DYK tag, and also is missing from the archive. Cirt told me to contact User:Dravecky, who was in charge of adding DYK tags on the article talk, as per discussion above. Can you please help me? Is the article a DYK? Where is the article entry? I searched in the archive and nomination page by using Ctrl + F, maybe i missed it. It is recorded in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mumbai/Recognized content--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The most recent update to DYK was undertaken manually, such that there was a short lag between your item's coming off the main page and its appearing at DYKA; it is there now, though, having been on DYK here. Joe 05:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay but there was a lot to do all at once when the bot didn't automatically handle the update from queue 2. The archive has been updated and the three missing article credits from queue 1 have been given out manually. (Wacky bot behavior update: On the previous set, the bot handled the creator and nominator credits without issue but the three articles with parentheses in their names (Koni (dog) and Oil Shale (journal) were the others) did not get their talk pages updated. Weird, huh?) - Dravecky (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And again the bot handed out every credit except the article credit for Great Northern Depot (Wayzata, Minnesota) so there's something about articles with parentheses in the name that is causing the bot to skip them for article credits but not skip them for creator credits. (Oh, and of course I manually credited that article and moved the credit from the Champagne riots redirect page to the Champagne Riots article. If you tell the bot to give credit to a redirect page, it will do just that so please use more caution in choosing your article links in the hooks!) - Dravecky (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin please fix the "... that that" currently in the 2nd hook of Queue 1. Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 08:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Cirt (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have recently noticed a 'holding bay' on the current next update page. When was this started? Don't we have the Next Next Update if the need arises? » \ / (⁂ | ※) 14:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This has to do with the special theme for New Year. Cirt (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Darn, I only found out today about DYK has a limit of 5 days, and I creatd a nice article 6 days ago Nestoridae (23:29, Dec 23).... O well... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters that much because the current articles are backlogged and the dec23 lot are still on the queue. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will enter the article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, under Dec 23. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, according to Unwritten Rule D8, it's fine to submit your nom after five days, as long as there's a section under "Expiring noms" for the date you expanded/created the article. Jamie^☆S93 14:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool I now just have to wait for someone to see if it can be used. (nothing yet) -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to remind admins that we are currently back to manual updates, because the toolserver is down or something. Don't know when it will be back up, but the last update was three hours late, so please try to keep an eye on it next time to see whether or not the bot is functioning again. Gatoclass (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The toolserver is back up, though that's been the case for a while. I have no idea if we still need to wait before the bot can work... Olaf Davis (talk) 11:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot still is not working, last update had to be manually posted as well. Gatoclass (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So we'll have to convert the contents of the next queue to human readable format, post it on the template, update the clock, add it to the recent additions, credit, and clear the queue? Is that the correct process? Are we trying to do it every 8 hours, or try more frequently to lessen the backup? Royalbroil 16:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The turnover is still six hours, you can tell because the time display still works (as long as you purge it). No need to "convert the contents of the queue into human readable format", because the bot credits also happen to be set up to be easy for a human too. Just click on the "give" and "tag" fields to give out the credits.

Other than than, I think you're pretty much on the money :) Gatoclass (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's another manual update in the books. Here's hoping for a speedy recovery by our ailing bot. - Dravecky (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the bot has been taken over by User:Nixeagle, but since he's on vacation until next week I have put in a request at WP:BOTREQ to ask someone else to take a look at it in his absence. I'm afraid I've been spoiled rotten by the Bot over the last few weeks, and I don't at all fancy the idea of manually updating for a whole week! Gatoclass (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi all. I nominated a neat little article I found in the New Articles suggestion list, but am aware that the topic could be considered unsuitable for the main page. No reason why it should be, I suppose, but, you know, better safe than sorry and all that. Thoughts? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I can see we'd have people worrying about reaction if there was a photograph, but the mention of the article itself shouldn't offend anyone! Shimgray | talk | 19:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not ?! ok with me. NVO (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Terrific, I was about to point out the facebook farce but you have it - great work. I am so angry about that given some of the other material on facebook. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks everybody; that confirmed what I felt. It would indeed be disappointing if there was any negative reaction from general users, but as Casliber said, recent antics on Facebook have shown that attitudes can be slow to change! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it, why not rename this page "DYK Hall of Fame" and call it it DYKHALL or DYKFAME? "List" is really not very informative at all, and it looks a bit odd now we have "DYKSTATS" as well. Gatoclass (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. I'd say move the page to "DYK Hall of Fame" and let WP:DYKHALL, WP:DYKFAME be redirects. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've updated manually; can someone please do the credits? It is the queue 5.--BorgQueen (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I just did the credits of queue 1. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I just barely had enough time to do all of the crediting for Queue 2. Would someone please clear it. I don't know how. I have to leave. Royalbroil 00:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's another well-overdue manual update in the books. I got home and saw we were at almost 10 hours on that last set of hooks. The bot can't possibly get on line fast enough. (Yes, all credits are handed out, the archive updated, the next-up and timer reset, and all the other housekeeping stuff I know about is done, too.) - Dravecky (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of the rules for Did You Know inclusion may be hazy, but why are we including an article that is about three years old (and has been larger than a stub for more than two) on the main page? One (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering as well. My understanding is that the article must be 5 days old or younger, or has been not a stub anymore for 5 days or less. —harej // be happy 06:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the 5x expansion that counts, whether the article was originally a stub or not. This is the article before expansion, with 3263 characters, and the article now has been expanded to 20164 characters. Expansion is more than 6x, and therefore is quite eligible for DYK. Chamal ^talk 06:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't calling it 'Wikipedia's newest articles' a bit misleading, then? One (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's like the content of the article is pretty much new after so much was added. See selection criteria 1, which rejects any expansion less than 5x because of this. But any new suggestion would be welcome, if you can think of any better way to name it. Chamal ^talk 07:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A proper 5x expansion of the prose of a non-stub article is a nearly-heroic undertaking and the result is usually what amounts to a new article with a few traces of the original scattered throughout. The Super Mario Kart falls inside this expansion rule which rewards the creation of new content. - Dravecky (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't doubt that it's a heroic undertaking. One (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Man I wish there was a way this could be a pictured hook.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 08:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

All you'd need is a free image that illustrated the article and a functional time machine. This hook was on the front page in the previous set of hooks. - Dravecky (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realize it was in use already.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 09:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In the Hall of Fame page, I was wondering, what is the difference between "Creations & expansions" and "Nominations"? Thanks in advance if you answer. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 11:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If you create or expand an article, you can nominate your own hook for DYK but if somebody else notices your hard work they can nominate a hook from the article you created or expanded. You would be recognized for creating or expanding the article and they would get credit for discovering your fine work and bringing it to the attention of the world at large. - Dravecky (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Creations are new articles that you wrote from scratch, expansions are existing articles that you expanded over 5 fold (5x), and nominations are articles that you nominated without creating or expanding. Royalbroil 14:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I never knew you can nominate other users creations or 5x expansions. Nice to know. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 03:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems as if we still have some hooks from as far back as December 20. I am going to do a run through and see which ones haven't been worked on in the last three days, but can we have some reviewers focus on the expiree's for a while? » \ / (⁂ | ※) 00:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

For those who have submitted multiple DYK featured links and like userboxes, I've created a DYK userbox:

To add it to your page, paste the following code:
{{Userbox DYK|N}}
onto your userpage and change N to your number of Did Your Know articles. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You can also use:

This user has written or expanded N articles featured in the Did You Know section on the Main Page.

by adding {{User DYK|<big>N</big>}}

onto your userpage and change N to your number of Did Your Know articles. Truthanado (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have seen on user pages all sorts of claims for GA, FAC and DYK when they contributed one edit. When will this madness end? Just let everyone put all the boxes on their page claiming anything they want. Besides, remember DYK is the place where one of the "main" facilitators received 58 DYKs last month. Do you think maybe the incentives are all wrong? Does this contribute (really) to the encyclopedia? I think more energy is expended on DYK for less positive result to the encyclopedia than any other place. Bring back the Awards Center! —Mattisse (Talk) 03:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What people put on their userpages is not DYK's business. All that "advertising" is for personal satisfaction only, you don't get a special place in the community or anything like that. If anybody feels that they have done enough to claim credit for something, they are free to do so and welcome to it. That depends on the individual's preferences. For example, I don't like to nominate others' articles since it doesn't feel right to me to claim credit just for pointing out others' work, but this may look stupid to some people. I don't have a problem with that, that's their belief and this is mine. We can't expect everyone to think like we do. Everyone here contributes a lot to Wikipedia, and those contributions also depend on what they like. We are all volunteers here who work on our own areas of interest according to our own styles (as long as it is within Wikipedia policies and guidelines), and none of us are going to work according to what anyone else says (unless we are going against policy and someone points that out of course). And why do you keep dragging in that problem about one particular user? I don't know if you have a problem with him, but I fail to see how this affects the effectiveness of or contributions to DYK. Chamal ^talk 03:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I know there is nothing stopping you userbox people. It is worth noting that the latest statistics (in the Signpost) show actual (useful) contributions to Wikipedia declining since 2007. Could this be related to all this trinket collecting, and the 5x expansion of an article with junk in order to collect another DYK. Beat the record and get 59 in one month and 12 in one day! How about a userbox for Most Collected in One Day and Most Collected in One Month? —Mattisse (Talk) 04:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sure, I can make them if you like . But what's your point? DYK can't be held responsible to for the reduction in the number of contributions. Only a very small proportion of all Wikipedia editors contribute at DYK, and even if all of them are after awards (as you are saying) that would affect the overall contributions very little. Chamal ^talk 05:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am consistently amazed at the level of concern shown about what other people do. Who frackin' cares? --IvoShandor (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

How is this new infobox any better than {{User Did You Know2}}, which I started several years ago? It looks almost identical to me. Royalbroil 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got a question about the 5x expansion rule. I'm considering on getting Matt Smith (British actor) (expansion) and Eleventh Doctor (creation) to DYK in the same hook, but I'm a bit concerned about how the expansion rule works in cases such as Smith. You see, Smith had been rumoured for about 24 hours before he was cast as the Doctor to be the new Doctor, but any addition was unsourced and near-instantly reverted. Would eligibility, therefore, be based on this, or a previous version? Sceptre ^(talk) 00:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the version refers to a stable previous version. If you had reverted some lengthy vandalism, that wouldn't count against you. Similarly, I don't think unsourced rumours will count against you. If the rumours had of stayed there for a few days, you might have some issues, but you should be fine. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 00:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a stable version before the cavalcade of edits that would be the baseline for expansion but given the bajillion edits over the last 36 hours or so I'd hate to try to determine the credits for a DYK template. - Dravecky (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no real stable version, there have been good-faith improvements as well as the addition of rumours. I'd say that the expansion began on January 3, from this version. We don't have to count only Sceptre's edits, and the expansion did start then. I say base it off of the version I linked, and give extra credits where needed. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 02:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Would the awards section be counted as prose? It looks like, and was formatted during the rumour-adding frenzy as, a list. Personally, I'm counting from Timrollpickering's protection, and for all intents and purposes, it's the same as Clerks' version, just with the awards list being made semantically into a list. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a beginner here at wiki and am totally overwhelmed.

Some others helped me get Kamilo Beach into DKY, but I couldn't have done it myself.

I just made: Bridge scour

I've gotten as far as the hook:

Did you know Bridge scour is the most common cause of highway bridge failure in the United States? Catchy, huh?

Can anyone give me a suggestion or two?

Thanks.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Anna. Did you know may seem like a complicated system at first, but it is actually a very simple process. I'll nominate the article for you and show you step-by-step how to do it.

1. Head to the suggestions page, located here. Read the instructions at the top of the page to ensure that the article you wish to nominate is eligible.

2. Assuming it is, head to the section for the day the article was created, or the expansion was started. (In this case, here.)

3. Add your nomination to the top of the section, using the {{DYKsug}} template. The template itself isn't too complicated, just make sure the formatting of the hook is fine, with the article bolded and linked.

4. Watch for comments. Often an article will have a few minor issues that need to be addressed before the hook is moved to the main page. You, the creator/nominator, will be required to make the suggested adjustments. (again, nothing major)

That's it! Once your hook has been verified, it will be added to the next update page and then on to one of the queue pages. With no further issues, the hook will be on the main page not long after that. I have nominated your article for you in this case, here, but haven't had a lot of time to check the content, so there may be a few issues that you will need to watch over. You are more than welcome to nominate your next article by yourself! » \ / (⁂ | ※) 09:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It actually does seem simple now. I appreciate you taking the time to help.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Are moving gif images allowed as the picture on DYK?

The page bridge scour has moving a gif of a bridge collapsing and I am wondering if it would be appropriate.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it I guess. I don't see anything against it in the rules or unwritten rules. If the selecting admin decides it's good enough, it can be used. Chamal ^talk 12:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, I had seen that picture and was really tempted to use it. I didn't know how the image would relate to the hook, so I took the easy option and used the other image. There isn't, nor do I know of any previous rule barring GIF images. As long as its encyclopaedic, it should stay. I think audio files have even been used before, was it Frog Legs Rag? I can't quite remember. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 12:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed image. Unusual media has more of a chance of being the lead hook, simply because it offers some variety. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 12:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the sizing an issue?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Backslash_Forwardslash has already added it. Looks fine to me. Chamal ^talk 13:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

An editor raised a concern at Politizer's talk page about the linking of dates in Template:UpdatedDYK and Template:UpdatedDYKNom. Unless anybody has an issue with it, I am going to delink the dates, and try to get them to link to the relevant entry on the DYK Archive. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 13:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. No use keeping those links if they are pointing simply to the date. It'd be good if it can be changed to link to the relevant date in the archives. Chamal ^talk 13:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Based on the current archive format, it isn't possible to have it linked to an anchor. The only possible way would be to add section headings with the day, such as ====April 1, 2050====. I wouldn't mind seeing the overhaul done, but given the extent of the work that would have to be done, for little benefit, I can't see that happening. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 13:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to do it, we can start from now - no need to change the format of old archives. The template will affect new entries only. Currently the page is updated manually, so the archiver will just have to place ===='''''~~~~~'''''==== instead of *'''''~~~~~'''''. When and if the bot becomes operational again, then can we change it? Chamal ^talk 13:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with ~~~~~ is that it includes the time, which would have little connection to both the time of the update and the time the author received notification. The a more appropriate heading would be ===='''{{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}} {{{CURRENT DAY}}}, {{{CURRENT YEAR}}}'''====. Beneath that heading the hooks can be placed under a dot-point heading with the time manually added from the update. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 13:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Have changed the first two days on WP:DYKA. The page looks like it needs archiving, is that done automatically or does it have to be manual? » \ / (⁂ | ※) 00:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Templates changed to link to the days entry on WP:DYKA. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 00:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As the main page update was overdue, I moved queue 3 to the main page manually. I am not sure, though, how to reset queue 3, give credits, and other tasks. Could someone else help with that? Cbl62 (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Next update after this should be 00:44, 5 January. That's 6 hours after I moved queue 3 to the main page. Cbl62 (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reset the queue, given the credits, and incremented the queue counter. I will likely not be in front of a computer when the next update is due so if some other admin could take care of this tonight, it would be much appreciated. (We miss you, DYKadminbot!) - Dravecky (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I received a notice on my user talk page that a hook from Joshua L. Liebman was selected for the "Did you know" section on January 4. However, I don't see it on the current main page, nor in the archive from earlier today, or in the upcoming queues. Can anyone help me find it? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

With the DKYadminbot out of commission, the whole DYK array of pages must be manually every six hours and the admin that last updated the active template didn't update the archive. I've now added that set of hooks to the archive. Enjoy! - Dravecky (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

To keep us on time with the manual updates, I moved Queue 4 to the Main Page at 04:46. However, I am deficient in my knowledge re updating archives, doing credits, clearing queue 4, etc. If someone else could take care of that, I'd appreciate it. Next update should be set for 10:46. Cbl62 (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I can give credits and update the archive, but an admin will need to do the rest. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 00:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

To clear a queue, delete everything in the queue add add the statement {{User:DYKadminBot/REMOVE THIS LINE}} . You forgot to reset the clock. To do that, you need to edit [1] and follow the directions by pasting in {{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} . You did the main thing, which was to update the template. Hopefully the bot will be back soon. Royalbroil 01:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a peculiar visible interwiki link at the bottom of T:TDYK that I am unable to fix. Can someone look into it? Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the link, so either someone has fixed it or I'm just confused. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Dravecky removed the link here. That means we can no longer get to the Chinese equivalent of T:TDYK, but the link wouldn't display in the expected place anyway. Art LaPella (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder, no credits have been issued for Queue 5 which was moved to the Main Page at 06:42 (UTC) today. Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 09:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the delay but with so much else going on I got a bit behind. Here's hoping (praying, begging) that the bot comes back online soon. I've got a full day's worth of queues put together but need somebody else to do the updates for the next day or so. - Dravecky (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and for all the hard work you've been doing on this Project. --Bruce1ee^talk 09:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The kind words are appreciated. I've done the update from queue 1 but real life will definitely keep me from doing the next one in a bit over 5 hours. - Dravecky (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The archive for this page is up to Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 37, but the archive box at the top only shows up to 36. Does anyone know how to mess around with it? Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just had a look at the relevant template doc. According to this, we can't have a 3-column archive box using the "auto=long" parameter once the number of archives reaches 37. "auto=yes" should keep us going until we reach 100, but the appearance will be different. I might try that... (and good to see you here again; are you mid-holiday?) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we not manually update the next go around? It turns out the bot is operating, however for some reason it thinks it should not be doing any edits. I need to see what happens when it really is supposed to edit. I'd appreciate a delay of an hour to any human doing the DYK hooks. (This is Ameliorate's old bot) —— nixeagle 15:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That certainly sounds like a plan. I'll be so glad to see the bot working again. - Dravecky (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The bot seems to be working as far as I can figure out when I checked the contribs. Please have someone familiar with the DYK template system double check the edits of the bot. It should take queue 3 in 6 hours if all is good, if not please email me as I will likely be away from my computer. However I can trigger the bot from my blackberry. —— nixeagle 19:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The bot in question is Special:Contributions/DYKadminBot. Please verify the edits on Jan 5 are correct. If for any reason the bot is malfunctioning, please block it and tell me what is wrong. I will not be able to attend to it until tomorrow. —— nixeagle 19:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, the only issue is it can't handle the new WP:DYKA format, which I guess is a non-issue. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 00:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've manually updated since it was delayed for almost half an hour. Can anyone do the credits, please? Thanks. (It is the queue 3.) --BorgQueen (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 02:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Again from my blackberry, we might need one more manual update before we can call this a day... Depends if you guys can tolarate an hour delay on the DYK update this one time, something is wrong with the current crontab setup and I am not sure what the issue is and I cannot fix it tonight. If you guys don't mind waiting until 830 EST tomorrow, I would apprciate the chance to debug the bot at that time. If someone manually updates before then, I will have to delay until 200ish UTC to figure things out. —— nixeagle 03:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it work if we lowered the flipping interval to 1 hour less than what we want? Royalbroil 05:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm confused, does nixeagle want us to wait another 24 hours before posting the next update? It's already overdue now. Gatoclass (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Since nixeagle is offline and I don't understand his message above, I am going to update in an hour from now if there are no objections. If it means we have to do a couple of extra manual updates tomorrow, that is better I think than leaving the update for another 24 hours. Gatoclass (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If at all possible delay manual updates until past 1530 UTC. (If I am reading the update time correctly that should be the correct time for the next update if I am not reading the template update time right tell me). If you have questions post a message on my talk page as well as here as I am replying to this over a blackberry. Thanks —— nixeagle 09:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I posted the last update manually minutes before nixeagle left a message asking me not to. However, he has now asked that nobody manually update the next update as he is going to try and debug the bot after it becomes overdue. He anticipates the next update will be due around 1530 UTC, so please everyone don't manually update that one until he gives us the all clear. Gatoclass (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood. We now have a full set of queues so when the bot starts working, we'll be good to go. - Dravecky (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have confirmed that the bot *is* working as designed. As such please do not do any more manual updates, the bot will be updating the DYK appropriately. The bot may be delayed as much as 12 minutes, but it will be done within that time frame. (Example, if update is supposed to happen after 100 UTC, the bot will start its run by at least 112UTC). —— nixeagle 16:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of that, if the bot is down, or there are issues that need fixed immediately, please let me know by emailing me, (goes to my blackberry). You can email me by using the email this user diddy. —— nixeagle 16:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I just updated the main page as the old group had been up for 8-plus hours. As with the last couple times I did a manual update, I need help with credits, updating/clearing queue 1, archiving the last group, resetting the clock, and possibly also protecting the image. Anyone available to help? Cbl62 (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the image (which should be done before updating ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, and I apologize. I really need to take the time to figure out how to protect the image. The update was so far past due, I took a chance. I appreciate your help. Cbl62 (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Instructions for protecting the image are in Category:Protected main page images. It's pretty easy: if the image is in Commons, upload it locally and cascading protection takes care of the rest. The credits were done a couple of hours ago, by the way (I started doing them and reverted myself). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've manually completed the credits after it appears that the bot freaked out and left user credits multiple times. Even odder, it did it as an IP user. Another admin has blocked that IP address but this needs attention from somebody who understands the bot. - Dravecky (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This was never completed or updated: Wikipedia:FCDW/December. If anyone is interested in finishing it before 20:00 UTC tomorrow, it could run in the Signpost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we going to do this? I can get working on it if nobody's there. Chamal ^talk 06:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

See Ragesoss's query here; it's bedtime for me, if you can work on it, you should let Ragesoss know, and incorporate the info he linked there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... it looks like some people are against this, looking through some past discussions. I'll leave it alone for now, unless someone else is willing to do it? Chamal ^talk 11:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The only couple of people "against" it are dropping to be "against" all of DYK without actually wanting to work to improve anything. Feel free to finish the article for the Signpost and it will be appreciated by far more folks than the handful of drive-by negative agitators. - Dravecky (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The Signpost needs good content to show what's happening on the Wiki! Please write it. I would have finished it if I knew what happened. I don't have much time free time anymore, otherwise I'd be spending a lot more of it here. You got a great start with the background of the event. You could add how many hooks ran (or actually listing the hooks might be better). Don't worry about the detractors, they were opposed to the event happening. It already happened, so it's too late for them. You'd be reporting something that's passed. Royalbroil 12:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a little late, now that December is past? Gatoclass (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, anyone know the exact facts? I don't know any more than you do, Royalbroil (which makes me think I was stupid to say that I would do it). I just realized I can't write a proper one with the knowledge I have. It'd be good if we had Politizier and Suntag etc here, who I think were more involved in this. Chamal ^talk 12:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not too late, Gato. It seems like something that you (or BorgQueen, among many others) would good at since you usually seem to know what's going on at DYK. I started the article to help promote a Christmas DYK event, but there seemed to be too much objection to the concept to run the article. Since it did happen, it's a great topic to include in the next Signpost to record what happened. The newsletter used to be weekly, but lack of writer interest has pushed it now to more like monthly. Royalbroil 14:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Royalbroil describes exactly what I'd like to see for the Signpost: an article on how the December 25 DYK stuff actually went off. It might also include a summary of the debate over it beforehand, and the discussions in the wake of the Halloween event over whether and how such Main Page theme content should be handled. Even just a paragraph or two to add to "News and notes" would be great. If anyone wants to take a crack at it, please let me know and I can push back publishing a bit if need be. Otherwise, I plan to start publishing in about an hour.--ragesoss (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone can finish up Wikipedia:FCDW/December for next week, it would be great; it could be patterned after Halloween Dispatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone able to work on finishing this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Allrighty then, I'll have to write this myself, although I know next to nothing about DYK. Since no one else will, I hope there will be complaints about the result :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In a variety of posts during my then-pending RfA, Mattisse has claimed that my purpose of receiving 58 DYK awards in one month and "as many as 11 in one day" was to pad my award count to use in my RfA. His 05:26, 30 December 2008 post above is typical:

Further, you have editors, such as User:Suntag, abusing the process to "collect" awards to use in his RFA, where he brags about being 16th on the "most viewed" list. See User:Mattisse/sand for insight into how he collected 58 DYKs in one month, as many as 11 in one day. This is the fox guarding the hen house. If you want to have a little awardee in group, then do not pretend it is for the greater good. It is merely the privilege stomping ground to use as a spring board for RFA.[2]

The reason I posted all those hooks around 8 December 2008 was to bring the Suggestions page hook count up from 70 hooks to the 180 hook amount suggested by Gatoclass. On 6 December 2008, Orlady started a thread DYK supply pipeline slowing down?. I suggested getting more hooks from User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult.[3] Gatoclass noted in that thread that the number of hooks had slowed down.[4] In the 7 December 2008 discussion US and people hooks, Gatoclass note that there were "a total of only 72 hooks on the entire Suggestions page right now."[5] I again noted that "we can increase the noms taken from User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult. I'll try to do this later, but I gotta go."[6] At 04:26, 8 December 2008, Gatoclass notes that "we really should have a minimum of about 180 hooks to select from and a max of about 230, but instead we currently only have 70 hooks."[7] I read that and began to put together hooks from User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult in an attempt to make up for the 110 hook deficiency. About 12 hours later, I began adding hooks. As for my 11 hooks in one day, I don't see how that is a big deal, particularly since GeeJo nominated 15 DYK hooks on December 10, 2006.[8] I'm bringing this up now because Mattisse's 04:23, 4 January 2009 post -- "Beat the record and get 59 in one month and 12 in one day!"[9] -- continues to hammer away at DYK as a whole on this point even after my RFA closed on December 30th and in the face of the pending Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3. I don't feel that I did anything wrong in trying to bring the hook count from its alarming quantity of only 70 hooks on the entire Suggestions page up towards the 180 hook amount. There was a significant need for more hooks, I stated what I planned to do in response to that need, and did it. I would appreciate your comments on my actions in this matter. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 13:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've left a longer response at your talk page; I'll just say here that I agree that Suntag's actions were all to the benefit of DYK; that the criticisms raised against him for these nominations were all inappropriate and should have been responded to more quickly; and that as long as there is an atmosphere where people who try to improve the project get rewarded by being accused of "gaming the system," I will not feel comfortable participating in any project-related areas. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I have seen Suntag, you have been nothing but helpful to the encyclopedia. Your motives are of no relevance. --IvoShandor (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the contributions of Suntag and Politizer and several other folks have kept this vital project going through quite a rough patch. They are to be commended, not condemned, for their interest and their vigilance. - Dravecky (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I did notice we went from a scant 70 hooks back to an appreciable number very quickly, but I didn't realize until now who was most responsible for that. So I will take the opportunity now to say thankyou for your hard work over that time Suntag. The last thing that should be happening is for you to be getting criticized for it! Gatoclass (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above. Suntag has been a tireless contributor, and I was very distraught to see the comments being made about him/her both here and on the RFA page. I hope those comments have not discouraged you, Suntag. Cbl62 (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. I was disappointed to see Suntag getting criticism for his actions at the RfA - he certainly wasn't producing too many submissions for DYK to handle and I see absolutely no evidence of an ulterior motive. If I'd realised you were directly responding to a shortage, Suntag, I would have been more vocal at the RfA. Don't let this discourage you, please! Olaf Davis (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just as alternate advice, if you guys run into a slow patch, let me know and we can have the bot update every 8, 10 or 12 hours instead of every 6 hours. That may be a better solution, but it is up to you. :) Increasing the bot update to every 12 hours will result in half the load, increasing it to 8 hours will result in about 75% of your usual load. —— nixeagle 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That idea previously was posted 7 December 2008, where I wrote "There are two ways to fix this. First the bot should be revised to have simple parameters that let the DYK admins specify how often the bot updates. The parameter should be factors of 24, namely, every every 1 hour, every 2 hours, every 3 hours, every 4 hours, 6 hours, every 8 hours, every 12 hours, and every 24 hours. The DYK admins then can change the parameter at will to immediately affect the bot update rate. Also, we can increase the noms taken from User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult. I'll try to do this later, but I gotta go. So, later gators." I think both solutions were and are viable. Trying to maintain the Main Page update at a 6 hour interval keeps the Main Page content fresh for its readers. User:DYKadminBot/time has been used since 8 December 2008 to adjust the Main Page updates. That page was last edited 26 December 2008, so things may have changed. -- Suntag ☼ 16:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a variable User:DYKadminBot/time, its in seconds. (so if you want 8 hours you put in the result of 8*60*60 which is 28800). So 1h = 3600, 2h = 7200, 4h = 14400, 6h = 21600, 8h = 28800, and 12h = 43200.

I understand the motive to keep it updated and fresh, but when you guys are running low on submissions or reviewers (say because of the holidays) you guys should not worry about cutting back a bit :). Remember the FA is only put up once every 24 hours. —— nixeagle 16:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've updated manually; could anyone do the credits please? It is the queue 2. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Credits done. - Dravecky (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, manually updated again, and this time it is the queue 3. Any angelic helpers out there? --BorgQueen (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've done the credits too. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded fivefold the article Coalition for Freedom of Information, however, this was done subsequent to the article having been AFD'd, and the result of the discussion was that the article should be moved into another article. Now, I think this decision is untenable, and I specifically noticed that very little discussion reflected the massive overhaul which I had given to the article. Obviously the article is in its present liminal condition unsuitable for a DYK nomination, but I would like to receive a sanction for a deferred nomination once these issues have been sorted out, even if that should take several weeks. __meco (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. We have started the following new articles on January 5 and Jan. 6 :

• We Were Dancing
• The Astonished Heart
• Red Peppers
• Hands Across the Sea
• Fumed Oak
• Shadow Play
• Ways and Means
• Star Chamber

The hook could be something like "... that [naming all the articles] were presented in rotation, in groups of threes, as part of Noël Coward's 1935 play cycle Tonight at 8:30?"

However, if we list all these new articles, the hook will be too long. Any help much appreciated. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

For multiple-article hooks the 200 character "limit" is often relaxed. - Dravecky (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Unwritten" Rule C3. Art LaPella (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Can you please check the hook here to make sure that it is OK? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Heck, I'm thinking about a 13-14 article hook in the next couple of days.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 23:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just updated manually; can anyone do the credits please? It is the queue 4. Thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The credits have been completed and queue 4 reset. - Dravecky (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated, again - it is the queue 5 this time. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll do the credits » \ / (⁂ | ※) 03:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated, again - it is the queue 2 this time. Thanks in advance. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Doing. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 16:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Ruhrfisch has done it. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 16:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the edit conflicts, next time I will add doing here first Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not done the notices since the new 5 queue system started - do I need to clear the queue? If so is there a blank to paste in or directions somewhere? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we do. I've taken care of it. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was trying to save you work ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just updated manually (it was about an hour late) and done the credits. So, when is the bot coming back? - Dravecky (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

3rd hook down - what is a "MUNTION"? We mean "munition". Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Checking...Lazulilasher (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Gimmeetrow corrected it. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both! A good word though - some sort of heavy snack perhaps? Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I failed. --IvoShandor (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"Munt" was always the name for a really ugly girl where i come from. Could it be some sort of flock of them? I would hope that they shout "EARK EARK EARK!!!!" as they ran towards you as well... --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 07:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

ROFLOL wow this is my laughing day on here... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

History of the Pike Place Market, which I just forked off of Pike Place Market. I wrote most/nearly all of the history section, compared to where it was before. I'm not sure what the protocol is for something like this. User:Jmabel would get credit, too, for his work on it. Or is it just too old? rootology (C)(T) 04:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well considering that the original history section in Pike Place Market had around 3202 bytes and your new article has 21000+ bytes, I think that more than qualifies as a 5x expansion. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, precedent is that as long as the material in the nomination has been five-fold expanded it doesn't make a difference if it originated in another article. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone who can access it please fix a typo in the instructions? It should be "your hook suggestion" not "you hook suggestion". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 9 January 2009 UTC

Done – edited Template:DYKsugstrings. --Bruce1ee^talk 05:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Some of you may or may not know, Nixeagle is recreating the DYKadminBot (talk · contribs) for DYK again, but there are some oddities that need to be clarified. Can anyone clarify what function the redlink in Template talk:DYK#Queues played? It's here for reference. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That link was never active I think. It was only there because the queues were transcluded onto the suggestions page. If you look at the base queue page, for example, here, the link has changed and is working fine. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 22:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Okey, thanks for the response. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Last time I raised this topic, it got buried under a storm of other fighting. So here we go again.

I was interested in creating a list of featured content and good articles that were featured on DYK as part of their history. This list is not meant to change anything about the FAC or GAN processes, it's just intended to be a fun way for people to see what happens to DYK articles after they leave the front page—purely for hedonistic pleasure, not for any policy-affecting things. The list will be populated by making a small edit to the {{ArticleHistory}} template included on most FAs, FLs, and GAs; it will not use a bot and it will not affect how editors use the template.

I am leaving a message here to see what other DYK participants think should be included. The list will certainly include former DYKs that are current featured articles, featured lists, and good articles. Are there other forms of content that you would like to see included (for example:

• featured or good articles that have been delisted but were featured/good in the past
• former FAs that have been demoted to GA
• DYKs that have also been on ITN (if that's even possible)
• any other forms of featured content)?

If there are, let me know, and I will work with Gimmetrow (the main person in charge of maintenance of the ArticleHistory template) to make that possible. Again, I should stress that this will all happen behind the scenes and won't affect how FAC or any other review process works, and most people won't even know anything is different...so if you are here to go bring your friends in and whine about how I'm trying to usurp Wikipedia with my giant sweeping changes, you can go somewhere else. I would appreciate it if responses to this thread could be limited to constructive suggestions. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is a great idea. What is Gimmetrow (talk · contribs)'s take on it? You say above this will not use a bot, but wouldn't it use GimmeBot (talk · contribs)? I mean because if it was solely dependent on manual updates to article talk pages, it'd never fully express the accurate statistics because that is simply a ton of info to do manually. Cirt (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It will use whatever's in the ArticleHistory template. If the template has a date that the article was featured on DYK, and the |currentstatus= parameter is set to FA (for example), the transcluded template will cause the article talkpage to be included in Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured articles. I'll figure out what to do from there (maybe I can whip up something simple to count how many articles are in the category and display that number). Anyway, this way it would just depend on people accurately updating AH when their article gets promoted; it won't be perfect and there will be stuff missing, but I don't see it being used for anything important so I'm not too concerned. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I should clarify: when I say this list will be populated by "making a small edit to {{ArticleHistory}}," I mean that it will be done by making a single edit to the template code, not by editing the talk page of every article. In other words, the person (or bot) promoting the article doesn't need to do anything special; when that person does his/her normal stuff with the template, this will happen automatically, behind the scenes. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that when articles get promoted to FA, GimmeBot (talk · contribs) updates {{ArticleHistory}} with the relevant stuff, so it might be able to do that as well. Cirt (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. If this works the way I intend, GimmeBot shouldn't have to do anything different; when GimmeBot (or anyone else) updates the template, everything else will happen automatically. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds excellent to me. :) One thing I had also thought might be a good idea was to change the DYK format at {{ArticleHistory}} from its current version, to instead have the DYK date and oldid show up as a line in the history chronology of the article itself, much the same as AfDs, GA, FACs, etc. Cirt (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that would probably help with consistency. But I'll leave that sort of thing up to Gimmetrow; I'm not familiar with most of how ArticleHistory works so I don't feel comfortable messing with much outside of this one little thing. It's definitely a good idea, though. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, good point. I may raise that idea again at some point later after other requests such as this one have been addressed. Cirt (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I support everything suggested: current and former/delisted FA, GA, ITN, etc. Hopefully a bot or AWB could do this task. Royalbroil 04:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, good idea. I've seen quite a lot of DYKs reach GA, FA, FL, etc. Would be nice to list them also. — RyanCross (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Support- I think this is a good idea too. Reyk _YO! 04:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I won't support to idea from Cirt, but I will support the original idea. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 04:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> @ SRE.K.A.L.24 (talk · contribs) - No worries, I support the original suggestion from Politizer (talk · contribs), and the other we can always discuss later at some point in the future. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Update Gimmetrow has updated the template and the three categories (Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured articles, Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured lists, and Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles) are beginning to be populated. (Because of the way the servers work, the articles don't immediately go into the categories; it takes some time to crunch the numbers while the server traffic is low. An article will be immediately added to the category if you edit its talk page—even with a null edit—otherwise, it could take a moment to show up. So I think we should wait a couple days for everything to catch up before we try to garner any data from the number of articles present in these cats.)

What I'm looking for now is not so much support or opposition for doing this (as you can see, it has already been implemented anyway), but input about whether or not anything else should be included (for example, Royalbroil above suggested that former/delisted featured content, and ITN, should also be included) so that we can continue to tweak the code in {{ArticleHistory}} to make it grab all the articles we want it to grab. After that is done and the categories are populated, we can begin to think of how to go about presenting the information. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Dammit, when some important discussion comes up here, I always seem to be away. Anyway, I did raise my concerns about whether this would be practically possible earlier, but obviously it is. I support the above suggestions. All are good. Chamal ^talk 15:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Update I've given it a day or so to crunch, and here's what it looks like now: 549 GAs that have been on DYK, 113 FAs, and 68 FLs. This method of counting will always underestimate the real numbers (although I don't know by how much), so there are probably a few more floating around. Sometime in the next couple days I'll get in touch about Gimmetrow to work on also including: 1) articles that have been on ITN after DYK; 2) FAs demoted to GA; 3) former FAs; 4) former GAs; 4) former FLs. (I haven't recently heard any opposition to including these.) Politizer ^talk/_contribs 16:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've updated again; it is the queue 4 this time. Thanks a lot. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. (Any news on that darned bot?) - Dravecky (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nixeagle's still working on it. With any luck it should be up and running again soon. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done the update from queue 5, done the credits, updated the archive, reset the time, and incremented the count. It would be greatly appreciated if 1) somebody else could catch the next one since I will be away from the keyboard and 2) if as many editors as possible could carefully and throughtfully review the mass of unreviewed hooks already nominated? The more good hooks from which we can choose, the easier it is to assemble interesting queues. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I keep track of which RA archive DYK links of mine are in and it looks like a group of hooks from 2 January are missing from recent additions at the moment. The hooks are in this diff. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added the missing set to the archive. If you know of any other missing sets, please let me know so they too can be properly recorded. - Dravecky (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated again; it is the queue 1 this time. Thanks a lot. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

doing Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Notices given on article and creator talk pages, Queue 1 cleared. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My hook for Voltage doubler has had non-breaking spaces added by someone. Unfortunately there is a typo (missing ;) but I cannot correct it because it is currently in queue 2. Can someone with access get to it please? SpinningSpark 20:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. - Dravecky (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the Korean surname is not spelled as "Sin", but Shin. And I request this is taken out from Template:Did you know/Queue/2 for further discussion because it misleads the general view on him. See User_talk:Dravecky#Shin_Chang-won Thanks.--Caspian blue 23:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Caspian on both points, but I don't mind if the hook is pulled for further discussion. --Amble (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you've emphasized one point over another (a Robin Hood figure!), this wrong hook definitely should be taken out first.--Caspian blue 01:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by this. (clarified above) I said I don't mind if the hook is pulled for further discussion. What else do you want? --Amble (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

To quote Pepé Le Pew, "le sigh". This is what happens when I jump in after finding the update is more than three hours overdue (please come back, DYKadminbot!) without reading my talk page first. I'll swap out the hook in a moment for further discussion, per request, but I stand by my decision to promote the hook as it stood. Indeed, the first protest is timestamped about 20 minutes after the hook would have gone live if the bot was functional or an admin had done it one time. In any case, give me a moment to select an appropriate replacement. - Dravecky (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you (although it was featured for 20 minutes). This hook has two problems regarding the Romanization of his surname, and characterization on him. I strongly believe the affirmatory tone of "a Robin Hood figure" in the hook is misguiding readers because only "some people" thinks so while others not. Even though the former group of people dub him "Hong Gil-dong, that is mainly because his ability to escape from the police and physical appearance. I think the hook would be okay without "a Robin Hood figure", or should include "some people think".--Caspian blue 03:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dravecky. Caspian, I don't think this is the correct place for ongoing argumentation. --Amble (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Then where is the correct place for our discussion among these; WT:KOREA, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean), Talk:Sin Chang-won, you or my talk page?--Caspian blue 03:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Serious problems with the article itself should, as always, be discussed on that article's talk page. I have pulled the hook and restored it to the suggestions page for further discussion--but this is for discussion of its merits as a hook, not as an article. - Dravecky (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just updated from queue3 pretty much on schedule but I will be away from my computer the rest of the day so it's vital that some other admin update the front page in just under six hours from now, then again every six hours all day.

There are roughly 177 hooks already nominated that need to be checked and either verified or have their nominators notified of problems. That's a task that anybody can do, with a little care.

And if somebody could get that darned DYKadminbot back online, I (and my much-abused sleep schedule) would be eternally grateful. Thanks and have a good weekend. - Dravecky (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated again; it is the queue 4 this time. Thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

doing done Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In Queue 2, the word "is" should be "was" in the first hook: "that turkey bowling, protested by animal rights activists, is invented as a pastime in the aisles of a grocery store (pictured)? Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have already changed that. Art LaPella (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to give everyone a heads-up... the last set of DYKs that appeared on the Main Page from Queue 3 didn't get into RA. (I noticed it because that set included 2008 Music City Bowl, my most recent nomination.) I'm an admin, so I could do it myself, but I'll leave it to the folks who have experience in that area. :) — Dale Arnett (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added the sets of missing queues from the last couple of manual updates. Whoever does the manual updates to the template should take care to also update the archive from the most recent version of the previous set of hooks. - Dravecky (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated again; it is the queue 5 this time. Thanks a lot. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The credits are now completed. - Dravecky (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to let those who monitor this area know, the current crop of articles have not been updated with the template on their Talk page that they were on the main page. Similarly, the page creators haven't been notified yet.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 23:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have just completed the credits for queue 5. Only an admin can update the template but anybody can complete these, just for the record. - Dravecky (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Update from queue 2 completed, archive updated, timer reset, counter updated, and credits doled out. So, seriously, any word on the return of the bot? - Dravecky (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

We have 242 hooks now, I guess with the bot disabled we are slipping behind again. Time to go back onto a four-hour cycle again for a few days IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've bumped the DYK time template forward a couple of hours. Next update is about three hours away. Gatoclass (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated; it is the queue 3 this time. Thanks a lot. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. I bumped the clock forward by an hour. Would have bumped it by two hours but there are usually fewer people around to update on the weekends. Gatoclass (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And I've just done the update from queue 4 and all that that entails. It's important when updating the template to first copy the latest version of the outgoing set of queues to the archive. This has been missed several times in the last few days. (We miss you, DYKadminbot!) - Dravecky (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Any reason why he's given credit, other than being the first editor of the page? Given that the page at that time, had it been AFDed, would've been deleted (and indeed, it was redirected instead), does he get credit for the article? Sceptre ^(talk) 17:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't know who decided to add that guy to the credits, but he's not there anymore. Gatoclass (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

9:08 and 1:42 on January 6 2009 appear to be identical. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 17:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Shasta was removed from DYK with the comment " rm failed" [10]. The article is created on 4th, nominated on 4th, Prose text is: 2631 B (455 words). 2206 characters without spaces. The hook has a ref "Legends indicate that Shasta is the son of a union between Shiva and the female form of Vishnu, namely Mohini.[5]" So why was it removed? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The article entry was:

• ... that Shasta, a South Indian Hindu deity, is considered the son of Shiva and Vishnu? — New article by Taprobanus (talk). Self nom at 06:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The nominated article link was to a disambiguation page, the hook fact as nominated does not match the reference text. If these serious issues can be fixed I could have no objection to the corrected hook's re-nomination. - Dravecky (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. The article was moved in between from it's original name Sasta, which led to the error. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Have removed "two male deities" clause, which can be disputed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, after changing the name of the article from Sasta to Shasta(deity) I did not update the DYK. It totally missed my attention. Taprobanus (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say that "... that Shasta, a South Indian Hindu deity, is considered the son of Shiva and Mohini, a female form of Vishnu?" better captures the hook fact as stated and referenced. (And you might take a look at the Mohini article which states this somewhat differently.) Either way, if you haven't already done so, go ahead and renominate now that the primary issues have been resolved. - Dravecky (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Normal practice is not to simply remove nominations which are failing but to mark them with one of the {{DYK?}}, {{DYKno}}, or {{DYK?no}} templates. That makes it far easier for the nominator (or anyone else) to address the concerns and improve the article / its hook. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sion Causeway was expanded on 9th January and featured on main page on 11th January. Koradi Thermal Power Station article created on January 5 is still languishing on the nomination page, under expiring nomination section. Why some articles get first class treatment over another? --GPPande 08:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Construction of each queue of hooks requires a careful division of US and global hooks, biographical hooks versus other subjects, and a diversity of topics and hook lengths all have to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle to make this interesting for the casual reader. Have no fear—an approved hook will get promoted in due time—but a hook that fills a "hole" in a queue assembly may get jumped over yet another sports biography hook or other well-covered topic. DYK is short of reviewers at the moment, for some reason, and the more interested people who can review nominated hooks for length, dates, proper references, and compliance with the DYK rules then the easier it is to build these final queues. I have not personally reviewed the hook you mention but will take a look at it soon. - Dravecky (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Purely by coincidence, after reviewing this hook, I discovered it was just the non-US non-bio tech-oriented medium-length hook I was looking for to fill the hole in what is now queue 5. At the current rate of replacement, your queue should be on the main page in the next 24 to 36 hours.

Thanks for clarifying and review. I just learned the jigsaw puzzle theorem and appreciate the hard work of admins here to showcase a good collection. --GPPande 08:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy to be of service, although I do miss the DYKadminbot. A helpful hint to anybody reading this far: while there is a backlog of hooks we are working through as quickly as possible, the route to faster promotion for the next day or two involves hooks for biographies of women not notable for sports, animal related articles, or geographically neutral scientific or technological articles with an especially interesting hook. Those are the puzzle pieces currently in short supply. - Dravecky (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The image for queue 5 has been deleted from Commons. A new first hook and image are needed. --Orlady (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The [new] image hook has an error. Dorothy Lavinia Brown was the first African American woman to serve in the Tennessee General Assembly. There's no indication that she was the first African American of either sex to serve, but that's what the current wording indicates. The word "woman" should be inserted... --Orlady (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. - Dravecky (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And that queue is now live on the front page, credits done, archive updated, timer reset, counter incremented, laundry folded, and leftover lasagna heating in the microwave. (Yum.) - Dravecky (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

...has two artillery-related hooks, I think (naval guns are artillery). Is this a problem? If you had to move one, 12"/50 caliber Mark 8 gun has a good picture too (full disclosure: I nominated that). —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

One article is about an artillery weapon while the other is a biographical hook with a glancing mention of artillery. It would be an issue if they were consecutive but since they're on different topics, from different eras and countries, and widely spaced I don't see it as an issue. (Full disclosure: I originally assembled queue 5 but did consider this as I built it.) - Dravecky (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, never mind. :) (Full disclosure: I lol'd at your last) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm just foolish but the hook from January 5 for M134 bomblet seems to have vaporized, and it doesn't seem to be in the queues, and hasn't been on the main page. If it had to be dropped because of an abundance of nominations, that's cool too. --IvoShandor (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Bump. :-( --IvoShandor (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It happened here; looks like Wehwalt overwrote it by accident, and removed the stuff two edits later without noticing that he had deleted your nom. I suggest you re-nominate it under Jan 5 again, with the same hook and everything, and that diff as an explanation for what happened. It should be reviewed relatively quickly since Jan 5 is near the bottom. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Meh. It happens, too late now, not a big deal anyway. --IvoShandor (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I note this has been added to Queue 5 despite my objection, and without notifying me in any way. The hook that was added might or might not be true, but it is neither mentioned nor referenced in the article. As it related to two living people, we need to be extremely careful that it is reliably referenced! I have rewritten the hook so it is supported by reliable references. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I substantially rewrote the hook to address your objection at this diff, making the hook directly follow the Nov. 2008 Daily Mail article. After my revision, someone else promoted the alt hook -- not the one you had originally objected to. If you don't mind taking a look, I think the alt hook was fine, and you may want to revert your edit to the queue. Either way is OK with me. Cbl62 (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• What Daily Mail article? Where is it cited? The article cites this "fact" to a glancing mention in the Daily Record,[11] which I simply do not consider sufficiently reliable for our purposes. If someone thinks this is adequately reliable by all means revert, but be sure to edit Daily Mail to Daily Record or add the Mail article that's referenced into the article itself. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have added a reliable reference to the article relating to the 2007 Sunday Times Rich List for Scotland position, which should be enough to verify the statement that he's one of Scotland's richest men. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• The reference in the alt hook to "Daily Mail" was a typo. It should have read, "Daily Record" and was correctly referenced as such in the article. According to the Wikipedia article on the "Daily Record," it is the largest circulation daily paper in Scotland and has been around since 1895. How is the largest newspaper in Scotland "not a sufficiently reliable source for our purpose"? Is that just your opinion about the paper, or is there some objective basis for your statement?Cbl62 (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to concur with Cbl on this. The Daily Record looks like a reliable enough source to me, and I see no reason to doubt its statement about McColl. Gatoclass (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the hook to:

... that Jim McColl, the son of a butcher, became Scotland's richest man in 2007?

That is the most accurate statement we can give IMO, since we have no idea what has happened to his business in the last couple of years. Gatoclass (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no particular objection to the Daily Record itself, although sourcing material to a tabloid is never ideal -- if it had written an article about how Jim McColl became richest man in Scotland -- but this article merely has a glancing reference to him at the bottom of an unrelated article. Usually "richest person" in Britain refers to the Sunday Times Rich Lists, and other more reliable-looking sources I've found online are merely speculative items saying he will be listed by the STRL for 2008 when it is published in April. I don't think 2007 is mentioned by anyone, and I think is a misinterpretation, Gatoclass, however I'm walking away from this discussion now. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the word "reportedly" in line with your concerns. Gatoclass (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)