Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:42, 10 July 2013

Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.

• WT:DYK

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

• 2011 reform proposals

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

DYK queue status There are currently 7 filled queues – all good, for now! v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 12:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC) Current time: 06:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 12 hours Last updated: 6 hours ago( verify reset purge )

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. Proposals for changing how Did You Know works were being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.

Article featured without DYK bot message/credit?

I saw that my article Gabriela Rivadeneira (Template) was promoted to a prep area this morning and just found out that it probably has already featured on the Main page. But I don't see any DYK Bot message on the article's or my Talk page. Does anyone know what happened? Thanks, Crispulop (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like the hook was added to the prep area, but the DYKmake template, which tells the bot to give proper credit for the hook, was not also added with it. The prep was promoted to the next available queue, and the bot picked it up from that queue shortly thereafter. Can an admin who knows how to fix this make sure the proper credit is given? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. No admin took care of it, so I did. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mandarax! Crispulop (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing backlogged nominations

I would like to review some of the backlogged nominations for DYK but they seem to violate the five day rule. For instance, today is July 3 and there are nominations from June 3. I would think such nominations would fail the five day rule since it's been an entire month since the nomination.

Are we to consider five days from the time of creation / expansion until today? Or are we to consider five days from the time of creation / expansion until the nomination date? If the latter is the case, that should be clearly indicated on the rules page under Misplaced Pages:Did you know#Eligibility criteria and on the nominations page under Template talk:Did you know#Backlogged?. Thank you. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Did_you_know/Onepage#New_article_nominations For yet a different version. — Maile (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, that page addresses exactly what I'm talking about. It's weird that it addresses the topic in a subtlely different way from the main rules page (e.g. it talks about 80% new in addition to five-fold expansion). I'm concerned that changes may not always propagate to the onepage page. In any case, I'm wondering if that stipulation (at the time of nomination) does in fact apply. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately...

Prep 3 contains 2 hooks related to Swami Vivekananda (and both are my articles). Please do not remove the first hook (i.e. "To The Fourth of July"). OR, following WP:IAR you can keep both the hooks/move a to next queue, because tomorrow (4 July) is Vivekananda's death anniversary and this year is is being celebrated as 150th anniversary of Vivekananda. --Tito☸Dutta 22:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Moved one to prep 1, meaning My Master will run during the daytime in India. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, you removed it from prep 1, where I had moved it after I saw that there were two Vivekananda hooks in the same prep 3 set, so there wouldn't be hooks in two sequential sets; you moved it to prep 2, where it would run on July 4 in India. Since it is the anniversary of his death, I can see that kind of exception being made. I do think it would be good to space out the promotion of other hooks currently under review when they are approved, however. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• That's what I get for writing in a hurry. Agree about runs of the Swami, since we have several more related to him and his disciples (although I note that we had Amir Hamzah on the MP twice yesterday, despite the boldlinked articles being written several days apart) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Harrias 06:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Queue 3 Queue 3

The last hook of Queue 3 has a double "that". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. --Allen3  22:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Red flag

• Prep 1 – John Rocque's Map of London, 1746 cites a blog a number of times. The blog looks serious enough, but I didn't see anyone questioning its use at nomination and review phase, and nobody has explained the credentials of Pete Rauxloh, nor why his blog is a reliable source. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 01:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, OC—I hope someone's dealing with this. I took a quick look at prep 1, to find that many of the issues discussed a few weeks ago are still popping up: carpet linking (why link a common dictionary word such as "commissioner", especially when a more specific link is adjacent?) and the burying of the DYK link in the middle of a hook. I've reworded the "colonel" hook to reposition the DYK link at the start—it wasn't hard.

  But this one is unsuitable: "... that Peter Hofmann performed the part of Siegmund first at the Opernhaus Wuppertal, two years before repeating it in the centennial Ring in Bayreuth?" So what ... Am I missing something? Aside from the lack of point to the hook, why not widen the scope so that more visitors to the main page get the gist ... "sang the part". Can "Wagner" or "Wagner's" be slipped in? Tony (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  Article: I'm unsure what this means: "The house reopened on 14 October 1956, as one of the first damaged theatres in Germany ...". Could have a number of meanings.

  "It was designed by the architect Carl Moritz (de) in a style drawing on neo-Baroque and Jugenstil. It was completed in 1907. In 1939 it was changed considerably."—What was changed considerably? The style? The building? I'm confused.

  "The opera is known for revivals of operas"—??

  "It houses mostly performances of operas"—not idiomatic English. I've pinged Gerda. This shouldn't go on the main page yet, I think. Tony (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Opernhaus Wuppertal has been pulled from prep 1 and sent back for more work. It also needs a thorough copyedit. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Answered in the nomination, with an ALT. Not mentioned there: he did not only sing the part, he acted it, and as he was trained in Decathlon, very convincing, see the film. (PS: The ping on my talk page lacked precision, no link, "bottom" not true any more, here hidden in other posts.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• The article John Rocque's Map of London, 1746—chaotic use of numbers and words: 26 inches, 24 sheets, twenty-four sheets/maps. Me, I'd use numerals, particularly as the source seems to do that. Tony (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I did it, can someone please check me as I've never done it before? Thanks, Keilana| 07:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Secondary link and DYKSTAT (or do readers understand which one is DYK article?)

Yesterday's DYK hook was ... that Swami Vivekananda (pictured) wrote To the Fourth of July on the celebration of United States' Independence and incidentally died on the same date four years later? Now, the main hook To the Fourth of July got 2669 views yesterday and the article Swami Vivekananda got 14000 views. The article gets around 5000 view everyday, so almost 9000 views came from the DYK. Now, a) will it be added in DYKSTAT? b) I have a long time doubt that a good number of readers don't understand where to click if there are multiple links in a hook. --Tito☸Dutta 08:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think, I have got an answer, people clicked on Swami Vivekananda because it was linked first in the sentence. I need to be careful from next DYK and link the DYK article at the beginning. --08:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • 1) It likely got a lot of hits because it was the anniversary of his death (not necessarily DYK), and 2) Vivekananda will not go to DYK stats as his was not the featured article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Has a recommendation now been inserted into the DYK instructions/advice about the advantage of positioning the DYK link first? Tony (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
      • They were perhaps more interested in who Swami Vivekananda was than his views on US independence, and why not? Johnbod (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Then why bother putting it up as a DYK? Tony (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that people will click on whatever link that they are the most interested in no matter where the link is positioned. SL93 (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • • I think you've just undermined the whole raison d'etre of DYK. Tony (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

How is it undermining DYK when people will, no matter what, click on whatever they find interesting? Removing all other links doesn't matter because people still won't click on that link if they are not interested in it. SL93 (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• It would be much better, then, to put a random list of "interesting" links in the DYK section of the main page—if the main aim is to provide merely "interesting" links. I thought all of the effort that goes into creation, improvement, reviewing, and adminning here was the whole point. Tony (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not even sure what the main aim is even though I participate in it. It is said that DYK is to provide interesting sourced facts that are important to a wide audience as well as to promote new content. I think that most of the hooks promoted are boring and barely any of the articles/expanded content are even new because of the backlog. SL93 (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a complete tempest in a teapot. Fourth of July was the lead hook and Swami Vivekananda was pictured, which doubtless helped drive views to the (linked) person being pictured. Also, because it was the 100th anniversary of Swami Vivekananda's death, and due to a special request, there were two different hooks about him during the 24 hours considered by the edit counter, both with secondary links to his article: one at 13:30 India time, and the Fourth of July one mentioned above, during the day in the U.S. I also doubt that the positioning in the first hook diverted a significant number of readers away from the Fourth of July article. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• After checking few more DYKs where DYK article was positioned second or third, I take back my comment. User:Crisco 1492 and User:BlueMoonset seem to be right, I forgot about Swami's death anniversary, it was featured in newspapers, news channels. So, a good number of traffic have come from there. --Tito☸Dutta 03:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

More reviews urgently needed

There is only four hours to go to the next update, there is no update ready and virtually no approved hooks left to select from at T:TDYK. We urgently need some more completed reviews, thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I just did three, you do recall there is a really decent article waiting in the wings Darkness Shines (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have thrown an update together, so there is now 9 hours or so to the next update, but the number of approved hooks is still extremely small, so anyone who can lend a helping hand will be welcome. Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I will see what I can do although I tend to not review articles about topics that I don't know much about. SL93 (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Queue has been taken care of by Gatoclass. All set for a little while. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Please also note that there are two hooks for 6 July that are ready for inclusion.--Jetstreamer  21:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Both hooks have been promoted, one in each prep. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Queue has been taken care of by Allen3. All set for eight hours (and another prep is ready for promotion). BlueMoonset (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Choosing airplane photo

The airplane image in Prep 4 is not used in the article -- a problem that was flagged by the DYK reviewer. However, the article has a nice image of the airplane that later crashed. Either (1) the image from the article needs to be swapped into the hook (changing "exampled pictured" to something like "pictured before crash") or (2) the image that used in the hook needs to be added to the article as a second image.

I almost swapped the image from the article into the hook, but held back because I suspect there might have been a reason for choosing the other image. I can't tell from the DYK review history. --Orlady (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Orlady, it's my error: I didn't see that the image was flagged despite the bold NO in the sentence. (Is there a reason we don't delete known-problematic images from DYK templates during the review so, like struck out hooks, they aren't used in error?) The image in flight is nicer to look at, but I don't see any reason why the image from the article couldn't be swapped in; it's decent enough. I don't see the point of adding an image of a different plane of that model to the article just for the sake of a DYK when we have the actual aircraft involved already in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up: I have replaced the image with the one from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Striking hooks is a relatively recent thing over the last few years. But of course essential. We should boldly delete non-acceptable images with just as much eagerness. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It's even better when reviewers can help make an unacceptable image hook into an acceptable one. ;-) Thanks to BlueMoonset for addressing this -- after my bedtime. --Orlady (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK link first: it's really not hard

Prep area 2:

... that the 1931 recreational vehicle (pictured) that Paramount used to bribe Mae West into making more movies is on display in the RV/MH Hall of Fame?

->

... that the RV/MH Hall of Fame houses the 1931 recreational vehicle (pictured) that Paramount used to bribe Mae West into making more movies?

Tony (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've only just noticed this - ping Dennis Brown? SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• The change was implemented hours ago, and the hook already promoted to Queue 3, which hits the main page in a little over seven hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Either is fine with me. The first mentions Paramount, the second is more concise. I will trust your judgement on the phrasing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Queue 2 Keimer hook needs shortening

Can the phrase "it is considered the" be deleted from the Samuel Keimer hook (with Benjamin Franklin) that's fourth in this set? The qualifier is not in the article, and makes the hook duller than it needs to be. (Using "the printer" instead of "printer" is not typical of modern American English.) The resulting hook:

• ... that printer Samuel Keimer gave Benjamin Franklin his first paying job?

I'd appreciate it if an admin could fix this before it hits the main page in a couple of hours. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you! BlueMoonset (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Crisis looming

We have two full prep areas - about 16 hours' worth - but only four approved hooks, which is not enough to assemble another prep area. QPQ reviews will not be enough; so the only source of hooks is the backlog of hooks marked "need another review". Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no crisis: just slow down this cascade. If DYK hooks and articles have been reviewed properly and are of sufficient quality, we should have no problem in allowing people in every timezone the chance to view a shift. Tony (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A lot can change in 16 hours. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how there is a crisis. Enough articles tend to get reviewed when time is close. I reviewed two of them myself and I am waiting on clarification if a source is reliable on another nomination. We would possibly have a crisis if there was around only a few hours or less until we needed enough articles. SL93 (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

We have 140 hooks total, and we've averaged under 19 new hooks a day for the last 14 completed days (through July 1): that's the average all nominated hooks, whether ultimately promoted or rejected. We're currently burning 21 promoted hooks a day. At some point, we're going to run out of hooks, even if the review rate increases, which I hope it does. Perhaps we should consider reducing the frequency to two sets a day if the newly nominated hooks don't spike upward. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Suggestions: Encourage editors to nominate other editors' articles. DYK is a peculiar process (before anyone starts bashing DYK, let me tell it is equally true for GA and other article valuation processes) the people who know and work in the process, their even most uninteresting article get promoted (of course they follow DYK criteria), but, sometimes some genuine good works are not featured which could be magnificent DYK hooks. So, taking initiatives to encourage others to nominate other editors' articles will be helpful. In WP:INNEW suggest to nominate articles at DYK from newly created article list. WiiProjects can be encourages to nominate articles at DYK. On the other hand, we need initiatives to encourage reviewers too. More nominations and more reviewers, we;ll not run out of "interesting" hooks.--Tito☸Dutta 03:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Articles in Articles for Creation get accepted each day. That would be another good place to look. SL93 (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • • User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult‎ is recommended as a place to look for articles to nominate in DYK. --Orlady (talk) 05:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • 19 in a day is rather too many, isn't it? Why not two shifts a day, moving to three when there's enough in the queue? I see only advantage in showcasing good DYKs for a little longer, given that the planet takes 24 hours to rotate. Tony (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• There are seven approved hooks right now. I boldly reduced prep areas to six. You can revert if you want, but I'm not as active as I used to be... well, I should be off for a long while, so I hope I'll be fine for a month or so. --George Ho (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Reverting... The better solution, if we do one, would be to reduce the frequency to twice daily. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) SL93's suggestions is a good one. In AFC they have a template for inviting to Teahouse. We can add one to nominate articles at DYK. I don't like the suggestion of reducing number of shifts to two per day. It'll be unfair for those hundreds of articles which got hours slot at the main page. So, it should be keep as the very final option. --Tito☸Dutta 04:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Tito, it isn't a permanent change: depending on the flow of articles into DYK, we've done as few as two sets a day (every 12 hours) and as many as four (every 6 hours), and the number of hooks per set can vary, too. I've had hooks posted for six, eight, and twelve hours, depending on the then-current frequency, and there's nothing unfair about it, just normal variation. To declare it as the "very final option" would be a significant change indeed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• I would agree that a move to two sets a day would be the best interim move, and see how things settle from there. How would main page balance work if we had two sets of eight each day? Harrias 08:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• My 2p is that we have had precedence of previously lowering the number of hooks in a set when reviews have dried up but I don't think I recall us using 2 sets a day as an option. The point I'm making is that I think that if we go with what we know works in this situation (lowering the number of hooks in a set) then we can maximize the amount hooks that can be on the front page without draining DYK of it's reviewed hooks pool. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• We went from three sets a day to two sets a day as recently as six months ago, in December 2012, and then back to three sets when WikiCup 2013 started on New Years Day and new nominations started pouring in. And that's only the most recent occasion. (We do know that it works.) As I pointed out, we have precedents for two, three, and four sets a day, in additional to raising and lowering the number of hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

We currently have only 150 nominations total. IMO it's time we went to two updates a day for a while, until both the number of noms and approvals build up a bit. Gatoclass (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well I mentioned it over at the WikiCup to see if it generates any more hooks. Miyagawa (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• And now we have only 127 nominations total, with only two queues and one prep filled. I've asked Shubinator to change to two updates a day for now, at his earliest convenience. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think Shubinator is the only one who can change the timing, but I don't remember where the timing settings are stored. Does someone else remember? It would be good to get this changed soon. --Orlady (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Found it at User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates. I reset it to a 12-hour cycle. --Orlady (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Orlady. It requires an admin to make the change, not Shubinator, so it's great you were able to do it. I'll update my request on his page to let him know you've taken care of it. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hook wording needs improvement

I reviewed Prep 2 and decided that it's ready to be moved to the queue, except that I'm dismayed by the wording of one hook. Specifically, I am bothered that the hook "... that the theft of The Weeping Woman from the National Gallery of Victoria was the theft of the most expensive work purchased by an Australian art gallery and that the crime is still unsolved?" is essentially a run-on sentence, has much too long of a link to the article title, and repeats the word "theft". Maybe we can have some fast teamwork on rewording it. One idea I've had:

• A ... that a 1986 theft from the National Gallery of Victoria stole the most expensive work purchased by an Australian art gallery -- and the crime is still unsolved? --Orlady (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

As the reviewer, I approve your suggested new wording. Do Hawkeye7 or Shirt58 need to weigh in here? — Maile (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm copying that wording into the prep area. It will go to the queue soon. --Orlady (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

No, that doesn't work. It says that the theft stole the painting, which doesn't make sense. How about: ... that in a still-unsolved crime, the most expensive work purchased by an Australian art gallery was stolen from the National Gallery of Victoria? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I edited the hook (now in Queue 6) to read "that the most expensive work purchased by an Australian art gallery was taken in a 1986 theft from the National Gallery of Victoria -- and the crime is still unsolved?" --Orlady (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Orlady, can the double hyphen in that hook please be converted to either a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash? The hyphens are definitely incorrect, and need fixing before this hits the main page in a little over 80 25 minutes. Thanks! (Any other admin can take care of this too!) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC), revised at 23:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It was replaced with a spaced extra-long em dash plus hyphen, which is always wrong. It should be a spaced en dash (my preference) or an unspaced em dash, with no hyphen at all. See WP:MDASH. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I've put in a request at Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors, and mentioned the spaced en dash only (to avoid confusion); I also gave an example of what it should look like. With luck, it will be fixed soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to fix the main page twice now, but I often find myself unable to insert the "right" kinds of dashes and quotation marks. --Orlady (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've put the non-spaced MDash. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• What would have been wrong with "... theft included ..."? Tony (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That wording wouldn't work because this particular painting was the only thing they stole. Read the article; it was a very interesting theft. --Orlady (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Zillions of successive ref tags

Hi, just trawling through the multi-DYK hook "that paleontologists have discovered the fossilized eggs of cephalopods, fishes, and reptiles, with some dinosaur eggs (pictured) being preserved with pathological shell deformities?". Dinosaur eggs has every sentence tagged in the scientific sections—like a dozen 11s one after the other. Ref tags are retrospective, and if there's no particular reason to tag more than one sentence in a row with the same source, please let's spare readers the ugly, disruptive effect. I've left a note with the main author and a copy-edit tag on the article. Tony (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• In some controversial fields that "ugly, disruptive effect" is necessary; East Europe-related ones, for instance. I doubt dinosaur eggs falls within that category, however. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'll pull the nom from the prep area. We don't want an article with a copyedit template on it on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio check (Earwig @ toolserver) on Priyanka Chopra filmography

Regarding the Priyanka Chopra filmography, it is worth noting that Copyvio check (Earwig @ toolserver) is malfunctioning on this specific article. As noted on the Village Pump, this is a bug that affects select articles. Doesn't look like it will be resolved soon, so the only alternative seems to use Dup detector from the nom template and check each of the article's 85 citations individually. Unless someone else has a suggestion. — Maile (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

One doesn't need to check every single cite, especially in an article like this where most of the cites are just to info in a table, one is hardly likely to find copyvio or plagiarism there. A spot check of one or two of the principal refs to the text body should suffice. Gatoclass (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Civil War hooks

I tried filling prep area 3, but I have a problem. I placed two Civil War hooks in the prep area because there are so few accepted hooks. Finding a hook with a picture for the first spot is a problem because the only reviewed one with a picture, that I didn't review, is another Civil War hook. I reviewed several articles so those could be promoted and one of them includes a picture. One of them could also be used to replace one of the two war hooks if needed. I didn't want to promote articles that I accepted because I figured that it wouldn't go over too well. So I'm basically asking for someone to help fill the prep if they want to. There is plenty of time. SL93 (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought that I could remove my own sections from project talk pages, but I was reverted. This was taken care of. SL93 (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For future reference, the solution is not to unpromote one of the hooks, but to move one of the two hooks to another prep, either to an empty, later one, or by swapping hooks with another prep to even out the numbers: it could be too many bios, sports hooks, music hooks, hooks from a single country, etc. Unpromoting is generally reserved for hooks that are discovered to have problems that need to be addressed; only if there is no possible swap and no prep slots open where the hook would fit should undoing a promotion be considered. (Yes, I reverted your deletion for a reason.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I never said that there was no reason for it. SL93 (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Nominations needing DYK reviewers

There are only 13 of 127 nominations approved, not even enough to fill the two empty preps, much less the four empty queues. There are always a great many older hooks that need attention, as witness those in this list. Thank you as always for your continuing assistance.

• May 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Perez (two articles)
• May 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Men's parking space
• June 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Hartland Moor
• June 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Drug barons of Colombia
• June 5: Template:Did you know nominations/C/O Sir
• June 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi Memorial Lecture
• June 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Chupkatha
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/London in the 1960s
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Hongcheon County
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Wennergren
• June 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Crime in North Korea and South Korea (two articles)
• June 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Tuya Soy
• June 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Crime in Sri Lanka
• June 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Crime in Cuba
• June 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Crime in Laos
• June 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Brattata, Jet Pilot, and Okay Hot-Shot (four articles)
• June 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Boris Nikolov (footballer)
• June 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-Muslim violence in India
• June 25: Template:Did you know nominations/John W. Dwinelle
• June 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Chicken and duck blood soup
• June 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Hinduism in Karnataka
• June 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Kate Garvey
• June 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Music of Tokelau
• June 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Marina Maljković
• June 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Animal transportation
• June 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Sophie Fedorovitch
• June 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Nancy (1775)
• June 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Palkonda Hills

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Editor closely paraphrases sources

Strike Eagle has been nominating articles with close paraphrasing issues. His articles have been promoted since June and possibly earlier. These are examples of close paraphrasing from promoted articles - (INS Chennai) and (Russian submarine K-51 Verkhoturye). The issue was pointed out to him on June 25 - Template:Did you know nominations/INS Kamorta. I reviewed a July 6 nomination with the same problem - Template:Did you know nominations/Russian submarine K-18 Karelia. SL93 (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I made some close paraphrasing in INS Kamorta and confessed to it immediately. All the rest are crap. If writing names of missile systems is considered close paraphrasing, feel free to block me indeffly. Morever if my edits are considered CF, what should this be ƬheStrikeΣagle 13:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Just do this mate replace "snoop tray" with "surface search radar" so you get "the surface search radar operates on the i band, and the sonar suite also has the hull mounted MGK-500 Skat sonar system" (I think that is the correct system). Basically do not use the nicknames, use the correct terminology. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It isn't just naming missile systems. SL93 (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting how you tried bossing me around on my talk page. It is possible to defend your work without being like that. SL93 (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It is close paraphrasing because it is more than missiles and proper nouns as anyone can see in my review. SL93 (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• • " About 100 new features were applied to the boat including installation of rocket torpedo system TVR-671RTM and addition of the RSM-54 Sineva SLBMs. in article compared to "Over 100 innovations were applied during upgrade, including installation of rocket torpedo system TVR-671RTM and SLBMs RSM-54 Sineva."
  • " It was laid down in February 1987, launched in 1988 and was commissioned in 1989 into the Soviet Navy." compared to "The submarine was laid down in February 1987 in Severodvinsk; launched in 1988; commissioned in 1989."
  • "The submarine conducted over 14 missile fires and covered more than 140,000 kn (260,000 km/h; 160,000 mph)." compared to "The sub has performed over 14 missile firings and covered more than 140,000 nautical miles."
  • "K-18 Karelia (Russian: К-18 Карелия) is a Project 667BDRM Delfin class (NATO reporting name: Delta IV) nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine currently in service with the Russian Navy." compared to "K-18 Karelia is a 2nd generation Project 667BDRM Delfin Nuclear-Powered Ballistic Missile Submarine."
    • That is more than missile names and proper nouns. SL93 (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you really think that these can't be reworded? It is simple.

• "About 100 new features were applied to the boat including installation of rocket torpedo system TVR-671RTM and addition of the RSM-54 Sineva SLBMs." turns into "The submarine had 100 new components added which includes a rocket torpedo system named TVR-671RM and SM-54 Sineva SLBMs."
• "It was laid down in February 1987, launched in 1988 and was commissioned in 1989 into the Soviet Navy." turns into "The submarine went through the keel laying process in 1987, launching in 1988 and then later being appointed in 1989 for Soviet Navy use".
• "The submarine conducted over 14 missile fires and covered more than 140,000 kn (260,000 km/h; 160,000 mph)." turns into "K-18 Karelia fired over 14 missiles and encompassed a wide range larger than 140,000 kn (260,000 km/h; 160,000 mph)."

I will give you the last one, but it is not as you say with the others. SL93 (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate any help in this matter. SL93 (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• It's pretty clear that there is close paraphrasing here. Another identical bit: "In April 2000, Vladamir Putin sailed aboard the sub" from FN1 is extended with additional information (and "sub" becomes "submarine"), but the article is the same that far in. Further, the "over 14 missile firings" sentence was paraphrased so it doesn't make sense in the article: 140,000 nautical miles is a distance traveled, while 140,000 kn (and km/h and mph) are all speeds per hour: the article currently claims that the sub can travel fast enough in an hour to go the equivalent of two-thirds of the way to the moon, which is bizarre. The article needs work to address the current instances of close paraphrasing before it can be approved for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• I had also noticed the knots/nautical miles problem, and was actually off fixing it at the same time you were writing about it here. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Agreed. Strike Eagle, there are some solvable problems with close paraphrasing here. We're not going to indef you right off the bat, but these are things you need to address, and such close paraphrasing is inappropriate for DYK. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

About the lead sentence, I've taken it from the Good Article Russian submarine K-114 Tula..so I'm not the copycat here. Morever the same pattern is used for any submarine or ship article, so IMO it's not a paraphrasing... About the commission dates issue, I tend to use the same format nowadays as it seemed better. I've used another source to write the dates and didn't even bother to look into the source from which SL93 alleges I paraphrased. It's just a mere co-incidence. I'll fix the rocket system issue if it is objectable, no problem. But I had no intention of close paraphrasing whatsoever. Making fun of me because I've mistakenly used speed instead of distance is pretty horrible and not what I expected from the established editors and sysops...please realize that there are humans on the other side too and they have feelings too... Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle 13:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't making fun of you nor did I say that you meant to close paraphrase. However, you called my concerns crap and tried demanding me to remove the close paraphrasing tags without the issues being fixed. SL93 (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't demand you to remove the tags...I only asked you to make a background check into the above mentioned K-114 GA...I didn't say you were making fun of me....no..you never did.... Thanks,

ƬheStrikeΣagle  14:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• (ec)Comment We all cock up at times, I have offered Strike to look over his next DYK and help him out should there be issues. I feel sure he has taken on board what has been said here, and will now fix the paraphrasing issues (if not already done) based on the advice given above. Shall we drop it now? Less drama is good for all Darkness Shines (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I have more to say about the talk page comment, but I will let it slide. SL93 (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Darkness, that's kind and practical of you to offer. The willingness to increase skills is of the essence here, and if Strike Eagle is willing to do that, DYK can live up to one its goals, which is to be a learning environment. Strike Eagle is being defensive, it seems to me; a few days' distance from this should make all the difference. Strike, everyone here, including me, has learnt from their role as a WPian editor, so you're not alone. Tony (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for sounding a bit too authoritative in my message in your talk....sorry! I was frustrated to see that I was accused of some co-incidences which I didn't author. Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I don't hold grudges anyway. SL93 (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Something amiss on July 5 noms

At the end of Alberto Suárez Laso, at the end of the "Nominated by" line, is {{DYKsubpage |monthyear=July 2013 |passed= |2=

It looks odd, and I opened the Laso template. Doesn't seem to be a part of that one. I can't figure it out, but maybe it's another nom that isn't showing on the page under July 5.— Maile (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. An editor removed the closing brackets for the nomination immediately following the Laso nomination. --Allen3  15:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. SL93 (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hook pull off

Template:Did you know nominations/Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University Initially they pulled off the hook mentioning "politicians lay foundation stones of new buildings all the time", did they read, the foundations stone was laid by the Prime Minister of the country — the highest designation of Ministers? And, no, Prime Misters do not lay foundations stones often. Then they added a close paraphrasing issue where sentences were rewritten. --Tito☸Dutta 21:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Tito Dutta. I'm one of the "they". Gatoclass had pulled the hook for the first issue. I was going to do an Alt hook, and immediately found in the first source the copyvio-close paraphrasing that was too close for comfort at DYK. I only read the first source, so I don't know about the others. What I find interesting, is that I ran both the Copyvio Check on the whole article, and the Dup Detector on that one source, and neither one found copyvio issues. I'm wondering if that had something to do with origin of sources, or something in the coding of the sources. Just thought it was a little odd that nothing came up. — Maile (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• DYK/Discussion pages