Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dravecky (talk | contribs) at 20:16, 11 March 2011 (→Credits?: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to WP: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)

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

To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2010-05-05 Add nominator names to the Misplaced Pages:DYKSTATS tables. Priority 9

DYK queue status There are currently 7 filled queues – all good! v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC) Current time: 23:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 23 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.

All queues and prep areas are now empty

Yes, there is nothing in the pipeline. Considering this, plus the overall shortage of hooks, I am unilaterally increasing the update interval to 8 hours to reduce the pressure on volunteers. --Orlady (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Going to see if I can get some prep areas filled now. Miyagawa (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks as if Wikicup isn't nearly as competitive as last year, with some major contributors not participating this year. And the number of hooks appears to have dropped sharply in the last few days, so I think the switch to 8 hours is appropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely, I've never seen DYK this empty! Yazan (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, does anyone think the new QPQ rule had any influence on DYK submission? Not that I think it should go away but I'm curious if it has scared off any contributors. Agne/ 23:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It might have. But then, an article in this week's signpost noted that overall contributions to the encyclopedia have declined. Alansohn, who was contributing a couple of articles a day last year, has wound back to one or two a week, and I think the same can be said for a couple of other prolific contributors, like Cbl and Sturmvogel (correct me if I'm wrong). DYK has also been demoted on Wikicup - last year a DYK was worth 10 points, this year only 5. So my guess is that it's a combination of factors. If it's due mainly to QPQ, we haven't heard much about it here. Gatoclass (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Alansohn's output has not just dropped off -- it's shut down completely. He hasn't started any actual new articles in weeks.  :-( --Orlady (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Rhacophorus vampyrus

Rhacophorus vampyrus is suppose to be submitted as a new article and for a few months has been approved and is currently sitting for halloween this year (in 7 months). I know some may disagree (per IAR likely-And maybe they are right) but i do feel this isnt in the spirit of of a new article since it will appear on the main page nearly 10+ months after creation. I feel it should have already been placed within the queue now. Otherwise the article should be re-reviewed prior to halloween under five fold expansion criteria. Sorry but I just feel its against the spirit of telling readers on the main page its a new article. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'd suggest guidelines for the "special occasion holding" (with the obvious long-time exception of April Fools' Day):

• Nominations should be made at least 5 days before the requested date. Less than this, and it might get through, but don't count on it.
• Nominations should be made no more than 1 month before the requested date. Holding nominations longer than this would violate DYK's "newness" rule.

cmadler (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And yes, this concern also applies to Rizal Day, nominated on January 20 and being held for June 19, a five-month holding time. cmadler (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. 10 and even 6 months is excessive. If people truly want to hold off till a particular date that is several months ahead they should just keep the article in their sandbox till then. Support cmadler's suggestion of a 1 month limit (with the April Fool's Day exception). Agne/ 21:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I also support cmadler's suggestion of a one month limit (with april fools day exemption).Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I support this going forward, but am uneasy about an unwritten rule being written, and then applied retrospectively. —WFC— 20:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

We could grandfather the clause on the current nominations (posting a note below the affected current nominations to prevent new ones being added, there are two), or we could just move those two to the dyk queue now and then apply the new rule to the list, thoughts anyone? Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any harm in just moving those two into queues now. They'll still appear on DYK, so the creators/nominators won't be penalized (by missing the credit) for us holding them as long as we have. cmadler (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support moving back to main queue. Holding an article for more than a month is excessive under any circumstance, even if there is no rule, written or unwritten, against it. What's more, I fail to see any direct link between the subject of this article and Halloween – there's certainly nothing in the article creating that link. --Ohconfucius 02:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comments: I think it's alright to have semi-annual exemptions (amnesty?), one on April Fools' Day, and one on Halloween, to accept noms of articles older than the usual "5 days" maximum. The catch would be: the hook had better be very good for these special occasions. Twice a year is okay. --PFHLai (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

April Fools day exemption, yes, because it is more difficult to find the right kind of articles and carefully worded hooks that fits the project-wide theme. Halloween is not that different from other holidays such as a Christmas, New Years, Earth Day, Labor Day, etc. We can still accommodate those holidays and several other dates of significance with a 30-day/month before type grace period. Agne/ 04:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Halloween is very different in one way: we actually have someone here at DYK every year willing to put in the time and efforts to get the day's hooks organized. And it happens to be about half a year from April Fool's Day. --PFHLai (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think one month is a little too harsh of a cut off. Two months seems more reasonable and fair to me. I started writing a Christmas re-lated hook in early November this last year after visiting my local mall and already hearing Christmas music and seeing Christmas related items on the shelf. lol4meter4 (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I like a 6-week maximum. We need some "limit" here. --PFHLai (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be OK with 6 weeks, though I'd prefer 1 month. I think 2 months is too long. I'm ambivalent regarding adding a Halloween exception to the existing April Fools' Day exception, but I feel strongly that we should not have more than two such exception dates. cmadler (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I support a one-month maximum, but I'll concede to six weeks if consensus goes that way. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: The next prep set to move into the queue is prep 41 <<<< ?

That's what it says above prep 1. Marrante (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. cmadler (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Clearly a typo. Nothing to get alarmed at. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Alarmed is too strong a word, but thank you. I suspected it was a typo, but didn't know how automated things were and knowing that "just a typo" is enough to prevent one from using a password, finding a URL, etc., I thought I'd mention it and just did the <<<< just to call attention to the typo. Marrante (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This page exists solely for the purpose of the prep set count. It's as simple as it looks, one number. Then there's a moderately complex bit of template wizardry on T:DYK/Q that displays the prep areas starting with that number. cmadler (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

T:TDYK#Sonja Barend

The nominator would like this up on International Women's Day (8 March) if poss. Could somebody see that it gets into the right queue at the right time? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the nom. to the special occasion holding area. Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Dayr al-Shaykh - Second opinion

Could somebody please take a look at this nomination Dayr al-Shaykh. Reviewer (User:Mbz1) is refusing to approve it, citing POV issues. Those "issues" were discussed at the talkpage, and all the offline citations were literally copied there, but she decided to refuse the nomination. A second opinion would be appreciated, especially considering the reviewer's history of involvement in the IP area. Also, please note that the hook was specifically chosen so it wouldn't be controversial. Thanks. Yazan (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass & I have both commented at the nom that it should be kept open, as the issues remaining are small and resolvable. But it would be good if someone with no Middle East involvement got stuck into the detail on the talk page. It's an Arab village abandoned during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War; you can guess the rest. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

How did that happen?

Matthew Turner (shipbuilder), which appears at the top of Queue 3, is the same article (different hook) as the one appearing in second-to-last place in Prep 2. Yoninah (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've taken out the hook on P2. The same article was nominated twice by different contributors, and the two hooks were promoted to the prep areas on different days by the someone using the same account (, ). Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Reminder: March 8 nominations

Please remember that all the March 8 nominations for International Women's Day should go into Queue 1 and Queue 2, not the sets that are waiting in Prep areas 2 and 3. Yoninah (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Should the hook set on Q6 now be taken down and reloaded to include some of these women's biographies? --PFHLai (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bach cantata in Q6 would be more appropriate on Ash Wednesday 9 March anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've returned the hook set from Q6 to P1. The Bach cantata hook is now on T:TDYK#March 9, Ash Wednesday. --PFHLai (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's use P3 & P4 to prepare the hook sets, and load the sets for March 8th onto Q6, Q1 & Q2. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try and get those preps ready as well. Hopefully there are not too many in that special area (there are quite a lot) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that Q6 got reloaded without a single hook from the March 8 nominations for International Women's Day section. Are we ignoring IWD in Australia, NZ and the Far East? We now have 17 hooks standing by. That's enough to pack Q1 and Q2 completely. Shall we split the remaining hooks and put a few on Q6 and Q3? Q3 is not scheduled to get on MainPage till March 9th (UTC), but it will still be March 8th (local time) in the US West Coast, etc. --PFHLai (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Both Preps 3 & 4 are now packed with women's bio. Can someone review them and move them to Queues 1 & 2, please? I have to get off the computer now. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, HJ. --PFHLai (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Beverly Wolff or 5* expansion

Beverly Wolff was expanded from 23xx chars to 100xx chars, which is a lot (roughly 5* of what is expected for a new article) but not quite 5* the former article. Would someone please assist me in letting that pass? I would go a step further and try to change the rule: if the original article has a certain size, 5* seems too much and out of proportion, expanding by 7500 chars should be sufficient to qualify, imo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Current expansion 11002/2318=4.75 might be Ok to pass, but only as an exception. 11k of prose is not much; DYK expansions to 30k are quite normal (surely when sources are plenty; for some topics it is nearly impossible to find reliable sources on the internet). Materialscientist (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

11002 was an overcount. The "Selected recordings" section was an improperly-formatted list. After bulletting the list, DYKcheck counts it at 9901, which is a 4.27x expansion. cmadler (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, then we should have bulletted "Selected recordings" in the pre-expansion version, that gives 9901/2022=4.9. DYK check only gives some indication of length. Materialscientist (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I just saw this conversation. I wasn't personally asking for an exception to the rules. I just wanted to know how much more I needed to write. I just added some prose to the article, raising the total prose count to 10180. 10180/2022=5.03 expansion. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

HMS Petard (G56)

Hi, this is the first DYK nomination by User:RASAM. He expanded the article fivefold using a book which was not included in the Bibliography section provided by previous editors. I asked him to add inline citations to the article, and he did — all from the same book. Should I promote it, or wait for him to find inline citations from other books? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I see it's been DYKyes'd by Wizardman, but just a general comment on this type of situation - the rules require each paragraph to have an inline citation, they don't specify the variety of sources that must be used to achieve that. It's fine to promote an article in this situation, we can't go telling editors they have to get access to every single book in a Bibliography drawn up by someone else. (That might be worth doing at a GA review though, of course.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Strange

it looks like a Queue was not updated at the main page. Should be Queue#5 , but it is not. Am I missing something?Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You would appear to be correct. Let's see if the bot wakes up at 1900 UTC. If not, it'll have to be a manual update. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Its updated. Simply south...... 19:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it is time to mention the existence of User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors again and encourage DYK regulars to add it to their watchlist. The bot detected an error and logged it at 16:06, March 7, 2011 (UTC). The bot ran several minutes after I correct the indicated problem. --Allen3  19:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know about that page, so thanks for pointing it out! I;ve added it to my watchlist. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Expansion of copyvio

I am working on Muraqqa, which was quite long before I started. I began by adding at the top of the article, but in the process have now realized that most of the existing material was far too close paraphrases of the references cited. By the time I will have finished it will be a 5x expansion of the non-copyvio'd stuff; I have not yet finished removing the copyvios (or adding), but I only started removals after I had already added a lot. I can recreate a non-copyvio "before" version temporarily to give a diff for the nom to be checked, but I wanted to see if a nom on this basis met the rules. Thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

In my view, a total re-write of a copyvio should count as a "new article" and we should allow DYK noms of such articles to encourage editors to engage in such re-writes. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

For sure. We should allow the copy-vio text to be subtracted from the original character count, and that new number should be the basis for the expansion. The Interior (Talk) 21:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that we only allowed this for blatant (i.e., copy-paste) copyvio, simply because there is not time to conduct detailed sentence-by-sentence quality reviews of every article that is nominated. That is at least the traditional view; I haven't reviewed in a long time, though, so I don't know if that's still what people think. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios can be removed before the character count, per our Additional Rules. However, close paraphrasing is more subjective and you might want to get a second opinion before removing it. Copy-pasting of text that is in the public domain is acceptable so long as the text is encyclopedic in tone and properly wikified. Gatoclass (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt in this case. Compare for example the opening here with :

"The Ottoman palace which contained a royal workshop functioned not only as a production center for manuscripts but also for repair and conservation of the manuscripts. Ottoman patrons knew about the activity that took place around states that surrounded them such as patrons of art in the Islamic world. They were aware of how much those patrons produced, what they produced, the talent of their patrons and also amount of patronage extended by their ruler. One who has examined the historical documents attains the knowledge, that the collapse of these royal workshops was not due to the emerging trend of the conquests .

So when the cities fell, the manuscripts were simply collected and shifted to the conqueror’s library or kept in a safe place such as in a treasury. It became the responsibility of the new patron to take care of them. If need the manuscripts needed to be repaired he was responsible for taking them to the workshop. The would fill in any spaces left blank for illuminations or paintings. In any case if the books were unbound, they were taken to the conqueror so that the books are bounded according to his choice of taste .

All the members of the court, not just the Sultan took great interest in the manuscripts The aim in examining these manuscripts is to understand the diversity and the richness introduced to Ottoman painting by these acquisitions and through the additions to them by their new owners ."

- the "Manuscripts In Ottoman workshops" section. In fact the editor (who only edited this page, in 2008) has a remarkable talent for keeping most of the words but removing much of the meaning - other passages are much worse. Johnbod (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Now nominated. Johnbod (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary powers

I saw a hook on DYK that had been approved and then rejected. The article was in question was Beta_(plasma_physics). I disagreed that this article should be rejected and said so at the end of the discussion and suggested that it be reapproved. Especially as experienced editors were just giving up the debate as they couldnt be bothered to fight the process (we need to worry if it gets that bad). I came on today and found out that despite my comment the hook was deleted from the queue with this diff. I hope this is a mistake as I do not believe we can just delete a hook because we don't like the way the debate is going. I will tell 4metre4 of this debate. There are two points here.

• Is Beta_(plasma_physics) allowed on the front page in the DYK section?
• Are editors allowed to delete a section that they disagree with? No signature was required as I signed it below Victuallers (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviosly the latter is the more important issue and has little to do with the first item Victuallers (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like the nominator had already withdrawn this article (that editor is, for what it's worth, a regular contributor but also regularly has hooks challenged or rejected for poor sourcing in the articles), and there was near-unanimous agreement that the nomination was problematic. Furthermore, in keeping with the general process, the editor who removed the discussion was not one of the ones who had participated in it. I don't see anything wrong with anything that happened here.

In response to your specific question: of course an editor can't unilaterally delete a nom that had no problems (or no consensus as to whether there were problems), but if others have already tagged it and it has sat like that for a few days, or if the nominator has withdrawn it, then it's acceptable (and, in fact, necessary, unless we want years' worth of rejected noms to be left on the page) for an uninvolved editor to remove it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rjanag's analysis. Looking at the discussion, two editors expressed concerns about sourcing. While I'm not able to evaluate which technical statements do or don't need citation, the "Background" section -- approximately half of the article -- clearly falls well short of DYK's minimum 1 cite per paragraph rule of thumb. When this was pointed out, rather than adding citations or explaining why they might not be needed, the nominator simply requested that the nomination be withdrawn. Of editors involved, it appears that 5 agreed that the referencing did not rise to DYK's standard (this counts 4meter4 who removed the nomination after Maury Markowitz requested it be withdrawn) while three (two commentors, plus, presumably, the nominator) felt the referencing to be sufficient. I think 4meter4 acted in good faith to remove a nomination which several editors had expressed concern about and which the nominator had requested be withdrawn. cmadler (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I was the editor who removed it from the page here. User:Orlady and User:Yoninah had expressed concerns over the sourcing which had not been addressed in 5 days. The nominator had withdrawn the nom. User:Victuallers wanted those concerns overlooked, but after taking a look at the article myself, I agreed with Orlady and Yoninah and went ahead and removed the article. This seemed like a non-controvercial decision based on the withdrawn nom and two reviewers rejecting the hook for reasons clearly supported in the additional rules. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I am surprised by the consensus here. I have seen articles hang around for weeks because one editor said they thought they could save it. I think it would take about 10 minutes. However I see no reason to fight the consensus unless someone thinks that it is unusual to approve a hook and then have it deleted within 24 hours because someone decides they are not convinced. As I said. I am surprised that you (plural) think this is reasonable behaviour and good manners. Victuallers (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Victuallers, you didn't actually offer to save the article. You said, "Please reconsider the decision to insist on this level of referencing for an article that is in my opinion well referenced and was already approved. Some may feel that fusion physics is hard and for them we do have other articles. I would like to see this approved." Per this statement, you never indicated any intention of improving the article. You merely asked that we ignore the sourcing problems (which were legit concerns as the article failed the D2 criteria) and promote the article anyway. If you had said you would take the time to reference the article properly than I wouldn't have removed it. As it is, I considered your request to WP:IAR promote this nom and decided against it. The real question here is, why you think one objection made by yourself should able to arbitrarily overturn the DYK rules and the consensus gained through discussion by multiple editors to reject a nom. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing word in queue 6

Shouldn't the fifth hook in queue six read "...manuscript of the Septuagint?" Cheers, LittleMountain5 23:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Added. Materialscientist (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Prep 1

I'm surprised Sid Ferris was promoted to Prep 1, considering the bald URLs in the reference section. I just did a copy-edit to get rid of all the single-quote marks, but I don't have time to fix the references. Yoninah (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The article displayed at the main page now was tagged

Adoption of Ala'a Eddeen Is this how[REDACTED] readers should see the face of wikipedia?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. This is in quite bad shape. The Interior (Talk) 21:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I don't like this article much myself. It's the kind of human interest story done by media outlets from time to time which in my opinion make pretty dubious content for an encyclopedia. However, it was !voted "keep" at AFD so the community had its say in that regard.

What concerns me about what has happened here is that Passionless waited until the article hit the main page to tag it, and when Mbz removed the tags, Passionless used that as a reason to get the article pulled from the main page. If Passionless thought the article required tagging, he had plenty of time to do that before the article was promoted - slapping tags on an article just as it reaches the main page smacks very much of gaming to me. I therefore think the article should be restored. Gatoclass (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

After reading the article and its talk (with some unfortunate delay) I have restored the hook on the main page and removed the tags. I am by no means a fan or specialist in this topic (however, this makes reading easier). Articles may be tagged, but with a proper, constructive explanation of the problems, especially for the tags used. The talk page instead contains a clash between the editors. Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

After restoring the tags (not because I have an opinion on the article or had even read it, but because "articles on the main page can't be tagged" is not an appropriate reason to edit war over tags) and receiving this lovely message from Mbz1, I just want to make it clear to everone who is active at DYK: there is no Misplaced Pages policy against editing or adding tags to articles that are on the main page. (There is one exception that is not particularly relevant to this case.) Tagging articles that are linked from the main page is subject to the same expectations as tagging anything else (particularly, that tags should be accompanied by an explanation of the issues at the talk page), but being on the main page does not automatically make any DYK article except from criticism. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly articles can be tagged any time, but with an adequate explanation on the talk page, which was missing, and certainly "article is on the main page" is not a reason for tag removal. I tried to convey that to Mbz1. Materialscientist (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I withdraw my comment about WP:GAMING above as it turns out Passionless was blocked for the previous 48 hours and was unable to make any edits in that time. It appears it was just a coincidence that his block expired around the same time that the article went to the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have already said it at my talk page, and would like to repeat it here. A hook for a tagged article is rejected, and it is how it should be IMO. I compared posting tagged articles to wikipedia's Main page to going to an important reception half-dressed. What[REDACTED] readers would think about the encyclopedia that is displaying at its Main page an article that is tagged as "unenceclopedic" and "unbalanced"? Besides I did not act completely on my own. I saw how an admin removed the tags from DYK articles, and warned the user that added them.

Gato, you said Passionless did not do WP:GAMING? Maybe not, although my request to wait with tagging until the hook is taking off the main page was ignored by her and others, but she definitely demonstrated a battleground behavior. Please see her edit summary: "adding tags, how about you try and work with me instead of against this time". She also hounded my contributions that was a very low , but not surprising conduct on her part.

I believe that for the sake of wikipedia's reputation the policy about not tagging DYK articles should be added. If somebody cannot wait until DYK is over, he/she could rise the question at Main page errors section, but never tag Main page articles.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

IMHO if a article makes it through DYK with enough problems that this merits cleanup templates, then the problem is with the DYK reviewing process. I think the pressing issue is either a. incompetent reviewers at DYK or b. a bad faith tagger. I don't think there is any need for a policy about tagging articles linked to on the main page if the other relevant policies are followed. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear... rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As the "incompetent reviewer" who approved this article, I don't think the issue is DYK's review process. After looking through the article's history and talk page for stability/previous issues/clean up tags etc and seeing nothing, all I had was the AfD discussion which community consensus didn't uphold the nominator's concerns of propaganda and lack of encyclopedic material and ended as Keep. While I noted that, after reading the article, I personally felt this was a WP:BLP1E, community consensus established otherwise. With, again, the article's talk page and history showing no history of disputes or tags beyond the AfD and the week and half long DYK nom process yielding no additional concerns brought up from other editors, all that was left was to review the article based on DYK's criteria--which it passed. Agne/ 05:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No no, I did not meant to say that you were an incompetent reviewer, Agne. I was just saying that for a DYK to be templated there had to be an issue with either the reviewer or the templater. If the reviewer does his/her job there will be no need for templates to be slapped on a DYK. Even if a reviewer does due diligence on an article it doesn't ensure that an over-zealous editor won't put unneeded tags on an article, though. My point is that the existing policies that we have governing DYK are enough. Qrsdogg (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment- While I'm quite willing to extend good faith that Passionless is not WP:GAMING but the time to flag an article with clean up tags should happen before it is featured on Misplaced Pages's main page. Yes, I understand that Passion was previously serving a 48 hour block but this article was created and first nominated for DYK almost two weeks ago and sat in the DYK suggestion page throughout a full AfD (which Passion participated in over a week ago, her/himself) until it was approved and promoted to the queues a couple days ago. Looking at the article's history (which I and many other DYK reviewers routinely do while checking for stability) not a single tag was placed on the article until it was being featured on the main page. There wasn't even a talk page discussion until after the hook was already promoted to the prep areas. I don't think there should be a blanket prohibition against adding clean up tags for DYK articles, but if you're already involved with an article then you should be speaking up about issues LONG before it is being featured on the main page. It is not like DYK hooks are known for being rushed from nominations on T:TDYK to the main page in under 48 hours. There was time to have this discussion before it was featured. Agne/ 05:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well as I understand it Passionless added the tags because content he had added was reverted, so it's probably not quite as simple a situation as you suggest Agne. The bottom line is, we don't have a foolproof process for vetting articles or dealing with disputes here at DYK. I have toyed with the notion of writing a policy for dealing with these situations but have declined to do so because of instruction creep concerns and because of the difficulty in coming up with a workable process. Maybe there are some issues we need to clarify, but thankfully this sort of situation doesn't crop up too often, so we don't want to overreact either. Gatoclass (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Newly source BLP

I am not familiar with the newly sourced BLP version of DYK. Would a 2X expansion of Sydney Johnson before March 14 count?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe so as the article on March 7th, just previous to your editing, had 7 cited references. The 2x exception is intended for unsourced BLPs, not merely insufficiently sourced ones. - Dravecky (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Dravecky. The article has been sourced (not necessarily well, but that's not something we evaluate here) since November 2007. The article would need a 5x expansion to be DYK-eligible. I get a pre-expansion size of 3792 before your first edit on March 9, so right now it's only at 1.32x. cmadler (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

By the 14th it will likely be 2x 3792, but I understand the explanation. This is my first BLP expansion since discovering the rule and I wanted clarification.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Credits?

If I remember right, I nominated Le dernier sorcier with User:Voceditenore as co-author, but only the author got credited? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Your credit template was present when the hook was moved to prep, when 4meter4 moved the hook to prep 3, and when Q4 was set to be moved to the main page. Finally, and most importantly, this diff is you getting the nom credit on your talk page. - Dravecky (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists