Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 47#No stubs

I've just received credit for Edward Riou as part of a dual DYK hook I submitted, but HMS Amazon (1799), the second part, seems to have been omitted, both in the credits on my talkpage, and on the article talkpages themselves. Amazon is bolded as included in the 'new article' DYK mainpage section. Is this just a bot error, as this is not the first time this has happened? Benea (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

:Oh this has happened before I'll go check it out, the credits are somewhere out there.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 00:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

::Figured it out, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know/Queue/1&oldid=295507609 here], the second article wasn't listed in the credit section, I'll go do the credit stuff.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 00:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Thought it must be something simple like that. Thanks for the speedy response! Benea (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

{{T:TDYK|Cunt (video game)|This hook}} caught my attention:

• ... that players in the Flash game Cunt take control of a penis that shoots semen at an enemy vagina?

I personally don't have strong feelings either way, but I know in the past some things like this have been kept off the main page. Does anyone have any thoughts here—either about the hook itself (i.e., if it can be feature-able with a different hook, and with the title piped so that "cunt" isn't on the main page), or about the article in general (i.e., maybe some people might think this can't be featured no matter what the hook is). We all know that WP is not censored, but we also all know that the main page is more sensitive than regular article space. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:If that article isn't appropiate then how did this image get on the main page and how did this article with a picture get on a main page, I feel that it's fine.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 02:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

::The first is at least in good taste, which this video game certainly is not (not anything wrong with that, it's just the choice they made when they created it). And neither one of those photos or associated hooks used what many people consider one of the dirtiest words in this language. And cleavage is far, far less raunchy than penises and vaginas.

::And OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:::I personally am not bothered by the idea of featuring either the above hook or the article on the front page, but if you think it might cause a stir I guess you could always start a thread at AN/I and see what people think. Gatoclass (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Personally I could live without it on main page - the boobs linked above seem in a different class altogether. If you don't get many comments here, ANI might be the place to go. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:Giants27 - your two examples don't really translate to this hook. The Cleavage one was an official title of a nationally recognised event, which would've been covered in the media 'tits and all'. Cleavage, and indeed the other image, are not necessarily obscene or inappropriate - more cheeky than anything. This flash game refers explicitly to intercourse in a crude and immature manner. Sexual topics on the Main Page typically haven't boded well, and this is too inappropriate to be deemed Main Page-able. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

::I agree. :Wikipedia is not censored, but we don't need to publicize other people's attempts to generate shock value either.--Kubigula (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:::If the topic is notable, then disqualifying it merely on the grounds that the subject matter might offend someone sounds very much like censorship to me. If we start discriminating on that basis, where does it end? Gatoclass (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

::::I oppose censoring the article, but I also oppose promoting it on the mainpage. What goes on the mainpage is a matter of editorial judgment - it's an opportunity to advance Wikipedia's goals and give exposure to deserving articles. If this were a great little article or an important subject, then I might see sufficient value in promoting that to outweigh the certain contraversy. As it is, it's a start/stub article on a low importance flash video game.--Kubigula (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::So, because it only qualifies as only a stub or start-class at low-importance right now disqualifies this as DYK? I thought nearly all articles were like this when brought here. MuZemike 07:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Gatoclass - Sex on the Main Page has come up frequently, yet I haven't seen a similar amount of negativity directed at another topic region. Invoking the 'censorship argument' to protect an article called Cunt is pointless, as this is very clearly outside the realms of appropriateness. If it were the Cerne Abbas giant, I would be inclined to say otherwise but really, Cunt? \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

::::"Cunt" is a four-letter word, nothing more. What's the big deal about that?

::::I do think there are some hooks which could legitimately be kept off the front page. For example, the hook that ended up getting Bedford desysopped was seen by some as sexist. But there is nothing intrinsically sexist about this hook - it's just a straightforward description of the game, that's all. Now the game itself might arguably be seen as sexist, or misogynist, but that's not the same thing. As long as the topic is notable, and written about in an encyclopedic manner, then I'd be reluctant to keep it off the front page just because the language or the subject itself might be seen as tasteless or vulgar. Gatoclass (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::The thing is, the current hook in question, as well as those is those discussion previously linked, were/are much worse than the one that got me gangraped. If Wikipedia was consistent, this current hook and others wouldn't be seen as acceptable. It is all the matter of who objects and what kind of friends they have. To this day I will defend that hook that got me gangraped.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 14:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the reasons have been more or less summarised above, but in short, no, this is certainly not appropriate for the main page. It's certainly an interesting topic to read about elsewhere, but no. Just no. Recognizance (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:I fully support the DYK nomination. I have no idea what the objections are; I see absolutely no policy reason to disallow it. I will be extremely disappointed if this is censored.  Chzz  ►  08:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

::Just because Wikipedia isn't censored, that doesn't mean we should promote a shock site whose very name is intended to offend. I should think it's a matter of common sense. Recognizance (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) Can everyone please refrain from calling "censorship", in both this and future discussions? We go through this song and dance every time an issue like this is discussed, and every time the arguments are the same—someone says "WP is not censored", someone else says "the main page is different." Backslash Forwardslash already gave some helpful links to past discussions where people said essentially the same things, and the fact that they're coming up again suggests to me that everyone has forgotten. I had hoped to ward off this song & dance by stating in my first message "We all know that WP is not censored, but we also all know that the main page is more sensitive than regular article space", but it doesn't seem to have worked. In any case, though, the "censorship" card does not further any discussion, it just makes people upset, there's nothing constructive at all. Let's please stay on topic and not rehash the same pointless argument we have had three or four times already this year.
(For what it's worth, I am also of the opinion that the main page should not be "censored", but that it is more sensitive than article space and special judgment needs to be exercised in what we put there, since many readers see the Main Page as how Wikipedia "wants" to present itself. I don't believe any article should be "censored" because all articles should have their chance to exist somewhere in mainspace even if they're somewhat "offensive", but at the same time some of them may not be appropriate for showing off to the world and boasting about via DYK. That is the same stance that has been taken towards some articles by Raul, whom we all know will not put Jenna Jameson or a pooping seagull on the main page.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:My 2 cents. Cunt isn't just a four letter word, it's wikt:cunt a derogatory term for female genitalia or women - the word itself implies sexism. I use it all the time, but in my opinion it isn't appropriate for the main page. I don't think this is about censorship, the existence of the article is proof of the lack of censorship, it's an editorial judgement about its appropriateness (sp?) on the front page — it would be a pretty rapid lesson in Wikipedia is not censored for a random passerby. I've realised this is not about censorship but about taste: there was a proposed hook a few weeks back about a test pilot who died in a crash which spread wreakage far and wide. It was felt disrespectful to use that fact as the hook, and I believe this is a similar situaton. I looked at the other discussions \ / provided but couldn't work out what the consensus/outcome was, could \ / or Rjanang summarise please? And my word what a boring game. Nice soundtrack though..! Bigger digger (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

::I don't remember all the details, but Miki Mizuasa was featured (I thought with a hook that didn't mention her sex change, but I guess not--it looks like the original hook was the one used), and as for the Cerne Abbas giant it was run with this image; as far as I know, neither one caused any dramaz (although, to be honest, I never thought either of those were too offensive anyway; they are certainly in a whole different league than this one). It appears Human-goat sexual intercourse was not featured, although I wasn't on Wikipedia yet when that happened so I wasn't party to that discussion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Fair enough, so was it resolved by DYKers, a posting at WP:AN/WP:VP, by the posting admin or some other reason? I think the appearance of the word cunt on the front page is more likely to provoke upset than a chalk man, a transexual and (just) a bit of animal-loving... Bigger digger (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

::::I think they were all pretty self-contained and involved mostly DYK people (but I remember Raul came in and commented on the Cerne Abbas giant). And yeah, I agree that this hook is quite different from the ones discussed in the past. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::I led the charge against that article as I felt the topic was unencyclopedic. In fact I'm kind of suprised to see it hasn't been deleted yet. The article is basically just a random collection of google hits mentioning sex with goats. Gatoclass (talk) 06:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• comment I actually came here looking for something else, and happened to notice this thread. I personally would be strongly against this being on the front page. I know all about "censorship" and the fact that we are not; however, I think there is something to be said for common sense and the integrity of the site via the main page. I guess we don't care what our detractors have to say, but perhaps we should, and I think this is fuel to a fire that is best kept small. IMHO. — Ched :  ?  15:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Three thoughts

1. Raul654 has OK'ed the Main Page appearance of the Featured Article Gropecunt Lane (though he has not yet scheduled it). See here for the discussion.
2. I think that if this article were to appear on the Main Page as a DYK we would want to make sure it is as good as possible. Currently refs 1 and 5 seem to be blogs, which are not generally reliable sources. I do not write about video / computer games, so these may be OK sources, but I would feel better if someone who writes about such games could check the sources.
3. I think the problem with having the word cunt on the main page in DYK is that it becomes unavoidable. While Wikipedia is not censored, most things people would find objectionable have to be actively sought / searched for, and as such are also avoidable. I assume the Main Page is the starting point for most users and as such everyone who views the Main Page in the 6 hours this would be up as a DYK would see it. I know the same objection could be made for Gropecunt Lane (above), but there the same potentially offensive word is part of a larger word and as such is slightly less visible and perhaps less objectionable. There is a difference between having uncensored information on any topic freely available for those who search for it, and this. Just my attempt to state why I think the Main Page is seen as different. Hope this helps the discussion, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:::The objection is not just to the word "cunt" in the title of this article, but to the general content as well. It would be easy to write a hook without the word "cunt", using pipes, but it would still be controversial.

:::As for your third point, about why the MP is different...yes, I agree entirely, and that is the point I tried to make in my first message on this thread, and the point that has been made every single time this debate comes up. The fact that it's had to be rehashed again here is very frustrating to me, as most of the people involved in this discussion have heard it time and time again. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wholly inappropriate for the Main Page. We have similar restrictions for featured images and even, to an extent, today's featured article. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:Are these restrictions part of the policies and guidelines? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::No, not the written rules. WP:NOTCENSORED in particular is the name of a consensus that bears little resemblance to its written form. If all you knew is that "Wikipedia is not censored", you would have no idea if the Wikipedia jigsaw logo could be replaced with a nude, nor if it meant primarily sexual issues, nor would you know what routine reverts might be considered "censorship". Art LaPella (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Well then, it seems to be a bit of a grey area doesn't it? Perhaps the wider community should be encouraged to create some sort of guideline regarding front page content.

:::Personally, I think this is a storm in a teacup - if a spotty 14-year-old wants to google "cunt", he is going to see far cruder material than anything he is likely to find on wikipedia. My main concern is that if we start censoring material simply on the basis that it might offend someone, it creates a precedent that may cause problems later. Where exactly do we draw the line? Gatoclass (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Gato, it's not about what you can find out there on the WWW. It's about whether the word cunt is suitable for use on the front page. I use the word with my (male) friends but I wouldn't use it at a family gathering - that context is important. I don't know what attitude the NYT, the WashP or the BBC take to the word in their articles, but I'm sure you would never come across the word on the front page due to issues of taste which I flagged before. These are the standards the front page should be aiming for, and it's often the first port of call for anyone (any age, any gender, any sex) to wikipedia, who deserves not to be offended unduly just so the 14 year-old gets a laugh. I think the majority are against this but if you feel strongly you should obviously post it elsewhere for comment/opinion. Bigger digger (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::Well I don't actually feel that strongly about this particular article because it is, after all, just about a silly flash game someone invented for laughs. It's more the principle I'm concerned about. There is never going to be a consensus on what constitutes offensive material, because people are offended by different things. So if we start banning articles based purely on the fact that someone might find them offensive, where do we stop? That's the issue that concerns me. Gatoclass (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::Gato, I think the concern is not to much about protecting the little ones, but about protecting Wikipedia's reputation. There are things that are wholly appropriate for us to have as articles, but we don't necessarily want to go pounding our chest and showing them off to the world. I think it's pretty much the same reason we don't allow stubs or crappy articles on DYK: they exist on Wikipedia (in fact, they are the majority of articles on WP), but we don't want to display them and make people think "this is Wikipedia". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about this article, but WP is not censored, so let it appear on the main page. Of the whole conversation, the troubling part was whether or not the article is using reliable sources. Although we're not censored, we should make sure that anything controversial has impeccable sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that it occurs to me, I would also like to know what exactly it is that is being objected to here. Is it the word "cunt", specifically? Does that mean we would also have to ban submissions like Cunt (album) or Cunt (novel) if they turned up? Or is it the overtly sexual nature of the game itself that is the problem? It might help if someone could clarify that. Gatoclass (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

:Personally, it is a combination of all of those things. If the article was just called 'Cunt', I would be able to let it go. If it was only sexual, I may find issue, but I wouldn't feel as strongly. But this particular hook is both explicitly sexual, remarkably immature, and profane and represents an article with very dubious sourcing and 47 characters over the absolute minimum. There are just too many issues with this one for me. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Echoing \ /: it's not just the word (because a hook could be written that doesn't use the word), it's just general inappropriateness. When I started this discussion I was neutral, but now I'm definitely leaning away from promoting this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::So - we have lots of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and no policy reasoning whatsoever. Conversely, we have reasoned arguments supported by policy, such as WP:NOTCENSORED. If people wish to discuss and change policy, then there are other places for this. What is the reason for the delay here?  Chzz  ►  08:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::Characterizing your opponents arguments as bunk and your own as "reasoned" and "supported by policy" is not very convincing when you're the one doing it. If someone came in from outside and said you were so reasoned, then maybe...but of course you think your arguments are reasoned. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

:::NOTCENSORED is not really applicable to the Main Page - this is about editorial restraint and appropriateness. This isn't a matter of not liking an article, it's the fact it has just scraped in through the CSD guidelines, is extremely likely to cause offense and is wholly immature and innappropriate to place on a page which represents this entire site. We wouldn't put pornography on the Main Page, or explicit pictures of autopsies because we aren't censored, so why are we putting this hook on there? \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Thank you for sharing your opinions - but I see no place on Wikipedia where your ideas have been agreed upon by consensus. If you believe that such a policy of censorship is required for the front page, then please discuss your suggestion on the appropriate forum.  Chzz  ►  09:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::I'm not basing it on a policy, I'm applying common sense. There hasn't been a need to create a policy for it because it is generally the exception to the rule. (WP:IAR :P) I'd be very surprised if I needed to draft a policy page in order to keep an image like (NSFW) this image or this one (NSFW) from the Main Page. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::You must work in a very odd workplace, if they have policies prohibiting the viewing of pictures of soiled nappies :-)

::::::Your argument seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I see here that other people do not have the same objections to the DYK; hence, as with all things, we can discuss it and try to reach a consensus. I am trying to stick to policy-backed argument. I see no policy argument to disallow this on the front page, and if you choose to IAR to prevent it, then I will object. If I see a consensus to prevent the horror of that particular juxtaposition of 4 letters from offending, then I will of course abide by the community decision.  Chzz  ►  11:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::With all these discussions we've seem to have had now over main page censorship, I think we very much do need to set this in stone at WP:CENSORED to avoid future ad hoc et ad nauseam debates whenever something objectionable next turns up on the main page. A line very much needs to be drawn if we are to consistently censor any such content on the main page, as right now the only real basis on which content is removed is on claims of "common sense", "editorial restraint", "appropriateness", etc., which are all completely subjective and therefore likely to ignite discussion.

:::::::Just to clarify, I don't actually support any removal of content from the main page on such bases as those stated, I'm just saying that if we establish a consensus to remove content from the MP on grounds of censorship, then we need to draw a line to do so and not just decide things on a subjective basis. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::I agree that something needs to be done to pre-empt repeating this argument forever. I left a message yesterday at Wikipedia talk:NOT#WP:NOTCENSORED and the main page, but so far few editors have taken notice (a discussion about addresses seems to have stolen my thunder). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what we decide in this discussion about the rules, censorship, and whatnot, I believe it has become clear that, if there is not specifically consensus against promoting the hook that started this, there is clearly no consensus for promoting it. Enough editors in good standing (Ruhrfisch, Juliancolton, Backslash Forwardslash, Recognizance, MZMcbride, Ched Davis... as well as some editors I don't know as well, Kubigula and Bigger Digger—not to imply you're not in "good standing", I'm just less familiar with you) have objected that I don't think it will be possible to promote. Yes, I know other editors in good standing have supported promoting (Gatoclass, Haipa Doragon, Giants, Chzz, and Peregrine Fisher), but it's clear to me that at best there is no consensus, and at worst there is consensus against. By all means feel free to continue discussing censorship and other issues, but as for this specific article I do not see it getting promoted (and even if we extend the discussion to the VP, ask Raul to comment, or do any other things that we have done in similar discussions in the past, I imagine the consensus will not shift), so if it's all the same I will probably BOLDly remove the nomination within the next 24 hours since it's not going to succeed anyway. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::Well actually, I wouldn't describe myself as in favour of promotion exactly - I'm just wary of the precedent that will be set by turning it down simply on the basis that somebody might be offended by it. Once we have opened that door, arguably it's going to be more difficult to resist such arguments next time we have a hook that someone happens to find offensive. Gatoclass (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

:I agree - in case I was not clear enough above I am against featuring it. Re the comments above the last, we are not talking about "removing" anything from anywhere, but choosing not to feature it on the MP, where no policy gives any article the right to be. I'm not sure a policy addition is needed or desirable - each case is probably best discussed individually, though it might be helpful if a reference list of DYK precedent cases like this could be set up - I'm sure I recall others apart from those mentioned above (not all on sexual grounds). Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::I disagree, and I do not support your proposal to remove the nomination when no consensus exists.  Chzz  ►  18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

:::It's clear that it's not passing. You can unilaterally add 16px all you want, but that won't change things and it'll be little more than edit warring. I don't care if there's consensus for changing NOTCENSORED or not, but what is clear already is there is not consensus to promote the hook, or to do anything for that matter. If you want to force the DYK project to feature this, feel free to go to the Village Pump or wherever else you want and bring some people in to tell us why we should promote the article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::::I no more unilaterally added 16px than you unilaterally added 18px. Why should I need to raise this at the pump, any more than you should? I do not want to force anything. If you want to force the nomination to be removed, then you are of course "free to go to the Village Pump or wherever else you want and bring some people in to tell us why we should not promote the article" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chzz (talk • contribs)

:::::I'm not forcing anything. I raised a question here, consensus become clear, I went to the nom and stated the obvious (that it would never pass. If consensus had been in favor of promoting the nom, I wouldn't have rejected it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Latecomer to the debate (as usual), but I feel the need to echo something that User:Rjanag touched on.

The arguments at work here seem to be a generic "Use common sense" argument vs. a policy argument (i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOTCENSORED). Assuming good faith all around, I have to side with those declining to feature this article on the Main Page. Our best arguments backing up the un-censorship of Wikipedia has been along the lines of "If someone looks up the penis or hog-tie bondage article, they should reasonably expect a picture of those things for a full encyclopedic treatment of the topic". This clearly does not apply for the Main Page, since a user would not reasonably expect to view objectionable content. While "I don't like it" is clearly a bad argument, it is similar to the argument I will use: Including this hook on the Main Page would be detrimental to Wikipedia's image, and have no substantive positive effects.

Moving away from policy, the "common sense" side seems to have a better case. The Main Page is the most visible on Wikipedia, and is meant to draw people in, new readers and editors alike. I agree that its dangerous to draw a line anywhere with regards to "morality" and related topics. However, a way around this is to treat all articles on a case-by-case basis, instead of drawing some arbitrary line or blindly following some policy or guideline. In this case, the potential negative impact on Wikipedia outweighs any arguments for transparency and equality.

In contrast to the general content, WP:DYK is a way to promote new material at Wikipedia. As such, it should be a place where "common sense" rules, and not where policy binds us to prominently feature material which will without a doubt portray the site in a negative light. The question that should always be asked is this: "Will my action improve Wikipedia?" In this case, it would not. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 19:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

:Very well said. To promote this article on the main page would be remarkably irresponsible of us. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::For the exact same reasons, I want to see this go ahead. As the main page is so visible, it is the ideal forum for demonstrating that Wikipedia is not swayed by petty censorship, and represents articles regardless of personal prejudices. If the article is blocked, then I believe that it will be detrimental to Wikipedia's image, because it will show the world that we are making judgments about censorship - about what is and is not permissible. By putting this on the front-page, without fuss, we would demonstrate how neutral we are. Hence I honestly believe that it is in the best interests of the project to approve this suggestion. If we start to arbitrarily remove things without policy-based consensus, then we are moving away from our core values. Who are we to judge what is and is not offensive? Our duty is to report verifiable encyclopaedic material without forming any kind of opinion. I remain as neutral as I can possibly be, and therefore I judge the nomination in the same way as I would any other article. I see no reason whatsoever to reject it.  Chzz  ►  01:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

:::This isn't an article on the US government, Muhammad or the Chinese dictatorship, where WP:NOTCENSORED was meant to be applied. This hardly qualifies as scandalous or devious on the censorship scale. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just a note - don't forget that Bedford was desysopped for a hook making it to the main page on a similar theme. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Actually, he was desysopped for a number of things, including wheel warring over the hook, leaving denigrating edit summaries, and also for some off-wiki commentary as I recall. Gatoclass (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Okay, okay, the desysop in retrospect did look inevitable. However, the one hook seemed to be the straw that broke the camel's back, especially with the backlash over sexism. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

::Thanks Ottava, I'll look forward to an admin volunteering to promote it then! I had a proper look at WP:NOTCENSORED and nowhere does it suggest not nominating something to the main page is censorship. On a similar note to \ /, I think its use here might be a Fallacy of quoting out of context. I would particularly highlight the final sentence there: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." If we consider the mainpage as an article (which is probably a fallacy I've created for this argument!) is the omission of this hook likely to make the mainpage less informative, relevant or accurate? I think we need to let this one go; there is no precedent here — we will discuss each potentially controversial hook here on its own merits. People might want to refute my argument, which is fine, but really if any editor wants to get this on the main page they should go and seek some non-DYK opinion now. Bigger digger (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm reading an argument that the reason for keeping a DYK hook off the front page as being "IDONTLIKEIT". For me personally, that is not the case at all. We are not talking about an AFD, we're talking about the image that Wikipedia portrays to the viewers as its Primary introduction to the site. One thing crossed my mind, if you're an editor, and your 8-year old daughter needs to write a book report, and you are going to introduce her to where you work. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page). Is this something you want her to see as a reflection of your contributions to the society? I'd like to think that for the most part my time spent here is an effort to build an encyclopedia. Something with integrity, class, honor, dignity, and a touch of professionalism. I simply feel that if we're going to "talk the talk" about how wonderful wikipedia.org is ... then we need to "walk the walk", and put our best foot forward. — Ched :  ?  07:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• After looking at the article, viewing the sources used to establish notability, and looking at Wikipedia:Notability (web), I'm not even sure how well this article would fare at an AfD. Just saying — Ched :  ?  08:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

::Ched, are you happy for the 8 year old to be able to click 'random article' and see List of sex positions, Ejaculation, Prince Albert piercing or Bondage (BDSM) - or whatever you personally find 'inappropriate'?

::If we have integrity, if we are to be professional, then we need to remain true to our core values.  Chzz  ►  09:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

47px Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. We do not decide what is wrong and what is right. We make no judgements. This is a pillar; this is a core value, and this is why I feel so strongly about what might seem a trivial issue. Once we begin to judge what is and is not appropriate, we open a hideous can of worms. Is it right to show a nude on the front page? A semi-nude; a portrait nude; a porn-star; an article about bondage; an article about the word cunt; an article about the human penis; an article about breasts; an article about masturbation? I expect many of you reading this will have your own opinions on this, and that's fine - but those opinions should not affect your approval or disapproval, because we strive to be neutral, unbiased, objective and encyclopaedic. This is not a matter of common sense - clearly, there are differences of opinion. My own common sense tells me that freedom of expression is an essential part of the project, and that it is detrimental to the project to start making censorship judgement calls.  Chzz  ►  09:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

:::That applies to article content, not to the running of Wikipedia. We make judgments all the time - AfD, BLP etc.--Kubigula (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just a closing note as I drop the stick here. First Chzz, I think you know how much I value your input, and appreciate all the help you have and do give me here. I'm honestly sorry that I have to disagree with you on this one. In a way, I kind of feel like I'm betraying my teacher here. It's just that if I'm helping an 8-year old once I get to our main page, then I'm not clicking on the random link. I'm going to be showing her how to find that "Winnie the Pooh, (or whatever) story. I'm not even saying that the article itself doesn't belong in Wikipedia, it's just that I don't think it belongs on the front page. Others may say it more eloquently, but I just don't believe it is the type of image we want to display at our front door. I'd imagine my view of this particular DYK have been expressed adequately by now, so I'll return you to your regularly scheduled programming. Cheers to all (no matter the final outcome), and happy editing. ;) — Ched :  ?  14:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Could somebody explain which, if any, of the sources for this article are reliable? They look like blogs. If that's true, should the article be at AFD rather than DYK? Gimmetrow 01:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

::I checked a couple of sources, and while they are little known websites, they appear to have editorial oversight and independence from the subject. So I don't think it's correct to describe them as "blogs". Gatoclass (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

:*Blogs are just a filing system that has increasingly been adopted by numerous sites, the old "all blogs = personal blog = John Doe's diary" line of thought is extremely out of date. The format favours regular postings to keep things fresh and has categories to aid searches for related articles, is it any wonder that it's a widely used format. Rock Paper Shotgun is run by four well-known games journalists, and is no less reliable than IGN or GameSpot. Play This Thing is the review frontend for Manifesto Games, the founder Costikyan can easily be considered an expert in the subject, and both he and the site's #2 Dugan (quoted in the article) have been approached to speak about indie games (I believe both were quoted in Edge magazine, which again is extremely reputable). Derek Yu is a celebrated indie developer (much like McMillen has increasingly become over the last year), again relevant to the subject area. PopMatters' [http://www.popmatters.com/pm/about distribution] goes beyond some backwater site, Kotaku is a funded site with paid contributors which has been around for five years - in the context of a flash game I see zero issues with them as sources. In short: I wouldn't have created the article if I didn't think the sources were up to it. Someoneanother 17:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

::*This debate looks to have wound down, but since the item is still sitting in the queue, I will add my two cents, which is just to say i agree with JulianColton, Ched, RunningonBrains et al. This shouldn't be on the mainpage - that would not advance WP. We are doing all we need to do against censorship by allowing the article to exist and not judging it based on personal views, but rather solely on criteria such as reliable sources, notabilty etc. regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag asked me to weigh in here. I think this is a bit over the top, and shouldn't be on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

:I agree. When I schedule the POTD, I go by what might be visible on the front page of a major newspaper. This certainly wouldn't be (at least with this wording). howcheng {chat} 06:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If an article has been at DYK before several years ago, and I were to expand it 5x, would it be acceptable to be at DYK again? The article in question is David Clyde, which I plan to expand to a GA-quality article sometime this month. It was put on DYK back when apparently citation requirements were looser, and the article can certainly be greatly improved upon. If it still would not qualify despite the changes in the past years then that's fine, but if it's allowed, then I'll at least try to get it put up. Wizardman 04:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

:I don't see an issue as long as the expansion means it genuinely is a different article.  Skomorokh  04:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::Sorry Wiz, but if you mean it's been promoted to DYK once already, our policy is that it can't be featured a second time. Gatoclass (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

:::It's additional rule D1. There seems to be a consensus against re-featuring content, which I suppose is fair enough - an article could be new, DYK'ed, five times expanded and then DYK'ed again within a week. Good luck with the GA drive though!

:::On a related note, if Wizardman hadn't notified us and removed the DYK template how would we know it had been nominated before? Or is this a game-able loop hole we can't really do much about? I know I don't check the talk page history of an article when reviewing and it would be easy enough to hide the fact it had been removed with a misleading edit summary and then burying it with plenty of "talk". Bigger digger (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::::WP:BEANS. Let's hope this thread is archived quickly :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Does DYKcheck take care of this or does the same problem affect that too? Chamal ^talk 13:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::I doubt DYKcheck can take account of such factors. I use it for determining article length, but for determining expansion length I think you need to check the history page. Gatoclass (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::Oh wait, you mean does it check to see whether the article has previously been DYK'ed? I think it does, but only by checking the talk page, so if someone has removed the original DYK credit, it would probably return an incorrect result. But I think you'd have to ask Shubinator to get a definitive answer. Gatoclass (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, DYKcheck looks for the DYK template on the talk page (and the ITN one too). Although it would be theoretically possible for the script to check every revision of the talk page, it would take a ridiculously long time if the talk page had a real history. Articles previously at ITN or DYK have not been knowingly featured on DYK again. However, with my work with DYKHousekeepingBot, I've run across a few articles that have appeared at DYK twice. Some weren't the same article (for example, the first article was merged with the second, creating a redirect, which the bot followed), but Cloudland Canyon State Park is a clear example of the exact same article appearing at DYK twice. Oh, and the script does do expansion checks, although occasionally it gives false negatives. Shubinator (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::the script does do expansion checks, although occasionally it gives false negatives

::::::::Yeah I know it does, but the fact that it "occasionally gives false negatives" is why I feel obliged to check the history manually :) Gatoclass (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::It can't give false positives though, so you could only manually check if it says "not expanded" :) Shubinator (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::How can you be sure it doesn't give false positives? What if a user himself deletes material and then rewrites the article to give a x5 expansion from the reduced count? Does your program check for such occurrences? I have my doubts that a program could reliably make such checks. Gatoclass (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::No, the script doesn't check for that. However, the first revision it checks is the "halfway" edit, or 250 edits ago, whichever is smaller. In other words, at least half of the edits to the page would have to be the user's edits for the user to dodge the script this way. A quick glance at the history would catch this. Shubinator (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

<--Gato, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=295566717&oldid=295563172 this edit], and maybe start a new section so that this doesn't hang around so long? ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up here, but I need this issue resolved, as I've become too involved to resolve it myself. The hook suggestion for aces and eights (blackjack) is about to be dropped in terms of date, but the issue surrounding the hook has been addressed for days now (the initial hook exceeded 200 characters) with at least three to four other hooks being provided, but no rereview has occured with this suggestion. I wish to ask if someone can rereview this article's suggestions before it's dropped without a second look, or if it can be put on hold until a review has been made. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

:Unless I missed something, as long as the hook isn't 16pxed then it will hang around until it's DYKyesed. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to look at it and/or tell me I'm wrong! Bigger digger (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

::Bigger digger is right according to A2. Art LaPella (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Indeed, workable hooks under active discussion do not age out.--Dravecky (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

::::OK, thanks for clearing the misunderstanding, everyone! Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The automated crediting for the hooks on the main page right now were done wrong. I got a message on my talk page about it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Royalbroil&diff=295960813&oldid=295922097]. I don't have time to address the problem, I have to leave. Would someone please address? At least the first 3 hooks were done wrong. Thanks! Royalbroil 12:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

:How were they done wrong? The Bot has followed the DYKmake credits just as it should. If it's credited the wrong people, that's because someone screwed up the DYKmake credits. Gatoclass (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

::Okay, they're fixed. It was only the first three. Either someone did them manually and got them mixed up, or something very strange happened with DYKmake. But the bot did exactly what it was supposed to do. Gatoclass (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Thanks, Gato! I anticipated that the bot was right and the credit templates were done wrong. Royalbroil 22:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Does "No stubs" still have a consensus, or is this a good front for fighting instruction creep? If the purpose is to prevent readers from seeing stub tags, the rule should be more like "If there is a stub tag, remove it (if the article qualifies for Did You Know, then it presumably is no longer a stub)." If the purpose is to make the article longer, it was made obsolete years ago when enforcement of the 1,500 character limit became routine.

If an article is disqualified by the 1,500 rule then it doesn't matter if it is doubly disqualified by the stub rule. If it's over 1,500, then Wikipedia:Stub says "articles may still be stubs even if they are a few paragraphs long..." but I've never seen an article disqualified for that reason. So when a 1,500+ article gets the objection "No stubs", the reaction is never "Oh my gosh! I need to add more prose so it won't be a stub!" It's always "Oops, I forgot to remove the tag."

"No stubs" sounds like a way to make articles longer, but in practice it just makes people jump through the bureaucratic hoop of removing the tag. That hoop is a distraction from anything else the author might be doing, including making the article longer. So the net result of "No stubs" is to make the article shorter. Art LaPella (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

:I agree, and I've always found it silly. If an article really is a stub, we can already fail it by pointing out that it's not long enough. As you pointed out, the vast majority of "18px Article is tagged as a stub" cases are where someone just forgot to remove the tag after expanding, and really we can just remove it on our own without all the fanfare. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think an article on a large subject can still be a stub at 1500, but how many such large subjects still don't have non-stub articles I don't know. I did Ancient Roman pottery from scratch in the last year, & I think that would still have been a stub if it were only 1500 long. The question is do we want such articles on DYK, & I for one can't see why not. On the other hand the current set-up does have the advantage of prompting people to remove many un-needed stub tags that would otherwise get left. Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

::I believe I addressed both points: If the pottery article were only 1500 long and were marked as a stub, would it be disqualified? The stub article says that's possible, but I can't remember that ever happening; the tag is always removed. Or if the purpose is only "prompting people to remove many un-needed stub tabs", then the rule should be more like "If there is a stub tag, remove it ...", or perhaps more responsive to Johnbod's example "If there is a stub tag, it can ordinarily be removed if the article is long enough for DYK." Art LaPella (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

:::I changed it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Did_you_know&diff=296458065&oldid=296241210] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Additional_rules&diff=296458488&oldid=292130862] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Article_length&diff=prev&oldid=296458903] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Did_you_know/You_knew_this&diff=prev&oldid=296459238] Art LaPella (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The DYK update of 13 June that included Lauritz Sand seems to be missing from the WP:Recent additions. Did someone forget to update the archive? Manxruler (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

:The bot doesn't auto-archive anymore so it has to be done manually. So probably it just means no-one's gotten around to updating the archive yet. There's nothing to stop you doing it of course if you'd like to help out :) Gatoclass (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

::Ah, cool. How do I go about doing that? I've never done that before. Manxruler (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

:::The way you do it is by going to the T:DYK history page, grabbing a copy of the latest version of the update in question (the one before the update which superseded it), and copying it to the archive page. By "copy of the last version", I mean everything between the and comments, including the picture and its accompanying code.

:::One further point - we don't archive the current update until it's been superseded by a new set of hooks, because updates are subject to corrections while they are on the front page.

:::Anyhow, you can find further details on the archive page itself. Hope that helps :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Thanks, Gato. I'll look into that someday when I have some spare time on my hands. Manxruler (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI that {{T:TDYK|List of pre-Stonewall LGBT actions in the United States|this}} hook for June 28th is on T:TDYK right now. I don't have a problem with it, just thought I should leave a note. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi all,

I was active here a while ago and am again from time to time. I generally think about writing more hooks if I feel there is a relative dearth and less if there is an abundance or backlog. Problem is, it can be hard to tell what the situation is. Is it worth having some sort of barometer at the top of the suggestions page (and that I can transclude to my user page?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

:There's a list of the number of hooks and the number of hooks currently verified on the T:DYK/Q page, if that helps. Gatoclass (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

::Thanks for that - most helpful :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not one to complain about receiving DYK messages, but today's message wrongly credited as creator of Eryngium racemosum. I checked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know/Queue/3&action=edit&oldid=297046732 Queue 3], and I was correctly listed as nominator only. But as said I later "became" a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Punkmorten&diff=297229805&oldid=297219955 creator]. Just saying. Punkmorten (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:That appears to be a common problem that really needs to be fixed.--Giants27 (t|c) 21:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

::Image:Yes check.svgY Fixed.--Giants27 (t|c) 21:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The hook currently in prep area 1 (7pm EST) that reads "...that Thomas Bertie was one of three future admirals serving together on HMS Seahorse in 1773, the others being Horatio Nelson and Thomas Troubridge?" should probably read "...that Thomas Bertie was one of three future admirals that served together..." Historical things should always use past tense. Sorry if I'm just being a grammar nut. Parsecboy (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:I agree that it sounds better than "serving".--Giants27 (t|c) 23:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

::Agreed, I just switched the wording. Btw, in the future, you can always tweak hooks in the prep areas yourself, especially for less controversial grammar fixes like this. :-) Jamie^☆S93 23:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Haha, I thought you meant the next update queue since you mentioned 7PM, but the hooks currently in prep1 won't make the main page until about 4:35 AM EST, Saturday and the prep1 and prep2 areas like Jamie said are fully editable by non-admins.--Giants27 (t|c) 23:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Oh, I'm an admin, so I could fix those in the queues. I'm just not a regular around here and didn't want to step on any toes :) Parsecboy (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::Actually, it's grammatically incorrect to refer to human beings as "that", because they are subjects, not objects. I have therefore changed "that" to "who". Gatoclass (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::The consensus seems to be either "that" or "who". [http://books.google.com/books?id=FuTmIp56KIEC&pg=RA1-PA73&dq=grammar+%22that+or+who%22&lr=&ei=Qh47SsLuHZ-OkASSzIy6BQ] [http://books.google.com/books?id=QikpFToF0pMC&pg=PA25&dq=grammar+%22that+or+who%22&lr=&ei=Qh47SsLuHZ-OkASSzIy6BQ] [http://books.google.com/books?id=ygyFbU8h4BUC&pg=PA75&dq=grammar+%22that+or+who%22&lr=&ei=Qh47SsLuHZ-OkASSzIy6BQ] [http://books.google.com/books?id=WysO9Sje9hQC&pg=PA85&dq=grammar+%22who+or+that%22&lr=&ei=GCI7SqqRLI6WkQTb-pi6BQ] [http://books.google.com/books?id=DfhTgaLPQjcC&pg=PA17&dq=grammar+%22who+or+that%22&lr=&ei=GCI7SqqRLI6WkQTb-pi6BQ] Art LaPella (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::I disagree with you on the interpretation of those sources :)

:::::::Some of them indicate that "who" and "that" are interchangeable, but also say that "who" is preferred by many people. Others say "that" is acceptable when referring to an unidentified person ("the man that I marry") but not when referring to a particular individual - which is the case in the above hook. Gatoclass (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::*The first link just says "that" or "who", regardless.

::::::::*The second link says "some overzealous grammar instructors" prefer "who", but I said the consensus, not everybody.

::::::::*In the third link, which must be where you got the word "marry", it recommends either "that", "who", or "whom" in that same top paragraph.

::::::::*In the fourth link, "that served together" is a restrictive clause; not just any three admirals, but the three who served together. That's why there aren't any commas around "who served together", which would be needed for a non-restrictive clause.

::::::::*The fifth link says "Corporal Powder, who..." but "the pilots, who..." or "...that...", which probably resembles the admirals more closely than Corporal Powder does.

::::::::*Maybe my Google search criteria were biased, but I don't see how I misinterpreted those particular sources. Art LaPella (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::I don't really want to get into a wrangle with you about grammatical minutiae, but I will simply note that the last source states that "that" should not be used when the persons are identified, as they are in this hook. Gatoclass (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::[http://www.englishrules.com/writing/2006/who-versus-that.php This] may be a little helpful. Sorry, Gato. Colloquialism seems to win out over strict grammar. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The times for Chicago should be 4:35 and 10:35, because of DST. -- SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

:This is for the Queues. -- SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

::The next update is due at 14:35 UTC, and Chicago is on CST, which is -5 UTC, so 14:35 UTC - 5 hours = 9:35 Chicago time. Shubinator (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Yeah it's right, I work off of that one and I know that the next update is due at 10:35 AM EST.--Giants27 (c|s) 12:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

::::The next update is 13:35 UTC, not 14:35 UTC. I'm 100% sure for proposed times are right, since I used my computer clock. -- SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know&diff=297514779&oldid=297482444 previous update] (at the time) was at 8:35 UTC, so the next update was at 8:35 UTC + 6 hours = 14:35 UTC. Shubinator (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

{{Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes}}

It says 09:35 on this chart, not 08:35. -- SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

:I still don't see what's wrong with it, the latest update happended at 4:35 PM EST meaning in Chicago it happened at 3:35 PM so then +6 =9:35.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

::Oh I get it now, you've got it backwards you're talking about CST while Shubinator is talking about UTC, it's still right however.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Let me clarify. Shubinator said that the last update was on 8:35 UTC. The chart says 9:35 UTC. -- SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

::::No, the chart says 9:35 PM not UTC.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::That's what I said! Shubinator said last update was 14:35, 14:35 = 2:35. The chart says 3:35, which means that the chart should say 2:35 and 8:35 for the last updates for London. -- SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

:Currently, the next update is for 0235 UTC. Chicago time on the table is 9:35PM, which is 0235 - 5. -5 is Chicago's Daylight Saving Time. London is 3:35 am, which is +1 because they are on daylight saving time. It's right. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

::Ok, now I get it...Laugh out loud. Sorry for wasting your time and frustration, guys. Just trying to make sure the time is right. Would be nice if the table had a UTC column for the people like me who would think that London is always UTC 0. -- SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

:::I'd hope it is easier for people to understand what UTC is, rather than looking at London. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Huh? You'd hope it is easier for people to understand what UTC is, then wouldn't you put a UTC column on the table above? -- SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::Did you read the template documentation? Is says there when Daylight Savings Time is relevant, and for when it isn't, there is (UTC) next to London. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Polish article...wordy..."forced to consider" would suffice

:Please see WP:ERRORS.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

::Off the front page now, but in retrospect, I think I would agree. Gatoclass (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Why has this not been updated since yesterday? I thought it was updated every 5 hours. Simply south (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

:The bot that used to update hasn't done it for a while, so now it's completely manual so clearly someone hasn't gotten to it yet.--Giants27 (c|s) 15:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

::I've updated it with the latest sets. Remember than any autoconfirmed user can archive DYK sets. Shubinator (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been a while since DYKSTATS has been given a good update. I've been working on it since yesterday and will continue as time permits. Anyone who wants to help is welcome. I think DYKSTATS is one of the best ways to demonstrate the vitality of DYK in drawing attention to diverse and sometimes neglected topics. Here's a short chart showing DYK hooks in June (so far) that have attracted at least 10,000 page views. Cbl62 (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I usually check how many hits my article got, a day or two after it was on the MP, and add it to DYKSTATS myself if it was over 5,000 (ie, once). I assume a lot of DYK regulars do this, but non-regulars probably don't know they can. Maybe we can update the DYK award bauble with a sentence or two saying "after 24 hours have passed, you are welcome to check how many hits your article got _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

:I agree with Rjanag it would be a nice addition to the DYK notice thing.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know if i should raise this at all, and I haven't raised it with the editor in question, candlewicke. I don't mean to be uncivil towards him/her, I just don't really know how to raise this query, and I am happy for candlewicke to jump in here.

Candlewicke has provided a host of recent DYK noms, mostly relating to Irish radio /TV / music. These have included David Carradine is a Bounty Hunter Whos Robotic Arm Hates Your Crotch, How Am I Supposed to Kill You If You Have All the Guns?, Fight Like Apes and the Mystery of the Golden Medallion, Aine Lawlor, Cathal Mac Coille, John Murray (broadcaster), Fight Like Apes, Mary Wilson (broadcaster), Rachael English, The Meaning of Life (TV series), and Dublin Women's Mini Marathon. I've read a few of these articles, and have been monitoring the feedback at T:DYK, and there just seems to be a kind of range of problems with these articles and the nominations. It isn't any one particular thing. For some of them, there seem to be issues of notability that aren't necessarily getting articulated; for others it's the wierd hooks, sometimes relying on unusual stuff like what the parents of a band member thought about their son's music. With others, the original article seems not as well prepared as most DYKs and/or could possibly be merged into something broader. There seems to be such an avalanche of nominations I'm wondering whether we're not addressing all these issues simply because there seem to be so many at once. I've probably reviewed over a hundred DYK noms in recent months and this cluster is raising more problems than average. My suggestion to candlewicke would probably be to say write fewer articles and spend more time on them, and try for hooks that aren't so cryptic (the David Carradine one is an obvious example). On the other hand, candlewicke is an experienced editor (certainly more so than me). So I'd like other editors' views. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:I haven't looked at these individual entries, but some of Candlewicke's articles do tend to be a bit light on content. That doesn't mean however that they don't meet DYK requirements - there are a great many DYK submissions that are thin on content but meet the requirements, and I see no reason why we should single out Candlewicke for attention just because he is a freqent contributor.

:The hooks are another issue - if a hook is problematic, a more appropriate hook should be found. But that alone wouldn't be a reason to start disqualifying articles. Gatoclass (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

::I agree with Gatoclass on this one, if it passes the requirements (and isn't a copyvio and such) then it's fine, however a hook is key but like mentioned it shouldn't be used to disqualify articles instead the more discussion that occurs the better because then more hooks can be found and the best one available can be used. And I know some of my DYKs in, the, past have been content light but they still got the six hours because they qualified.--Giants27 (t|c) 01:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:::This most recent batch has been troubling because the articles haven't supported the hooks, the hooks have not been about the subjects, the hook text is in random trivia improperly inserted into the article, and/or is one random opinion about something tangentially related to the subject. This is a problem with multiple DYK nominations at the moment and I'm hopeful that focused attention by multiple reviewers can clean this up a bit. - Dravecky (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:AfDs are a viable option and can be performed before the article is listed or after the article is listed. If it is deleted, just drop a note here for a record of it happening. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• AfD for one of the articles can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cathal_Mac_Coille here]. Others should be listed. There are serious problems with lack of notability, non-reliable sources, and original research. These should never have been passed. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed that this has happened but Ottava has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Candlewicke&diff=297975449&oldid=297952795 just informed me of this discussion]. I have only tried to reply to each issue raised and solve it in the best possible way - however, I am confused as to why Ottava is using a reference against me in that AfD despite it being added only after I was specifically asked for it by a reviewer (I cannot remember who, perhaps they do). I have not regularly subjected to questions over my edits outside DYK - matters like this have never come up at GA or ITN so I don't know why there are so many difficulties over sources, paraphrasing, etc. both here and now. I have noticed that several other users, including admins it seems, are also experiencing difficulties around this time, so I find mention of me alone a little strange. However, there must be some specific difficulty with me alone as that is what is being raised here. The trouble is that it is a different problem on each occasion and some of the problems are contradicting each other (I've never been told how a link which is closely paraphrased one day can be original research the other day - how does one solve that?), some are agreeing and with others there is disagreement so I'm not sure how to respond but I do my best to satisfy all issues. The "weird stuff" again is something which is suddenly a problem but so too is a hook that is too boring. I accept that the articles may not be perfect (but then I've never tried to make them all FAs, that would be a big ask if I can't do the simple thing without provoking comment), many of those mentioned above have been nominated by me and contributed to by another; indeed I am most disappointed for him as he has been great with some of these articles and does not deserve to be dragged down in this way with me. It might be better for me to not contribute here any further, it is not very fun anymore and when there is no enjoyment there seems little point when it is not my job and I'm not submitting DYKs due to any struggle for survival. I am sorry for all this bother, none of it is intended. --candle•wicke 20:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

:I was the person who started this thread, and i should respond. I didn't want to bother you with something if it wasn't an issue in the eyes of other editors - hence the way I ended my post: "candlewicke is an experienced editor (certainly more so than me). So I'd like other editors' views". There seemed to be a range of views: Gatoclass and Giants were pretty much saying that sure, there might be issues, but lots of articles start out this way, and we should just stick to applying DYK rules and improving things where we can. Dravecky and Ottava were more critical, but even then, Dravecky's overall response was "I'm hopeful that focused attention by multiple reviewers can clean this up a bit" - in other words, the onus is on all of us, not particularly on the nominator (yourself), to do our best with the material and to improve new WP entries. I was fairly comfortable with that. At the same time as raising the (non) issue, I was continuing to work positively on your noms: see for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=296491974 this] (which I forgot to sign at the time). And about the same time as I was querying some of your noms, I got tripped up in pretty much the same way as some of yours did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=296875341&oldid=296875234 here], and i thought that was fine - it made sure I improved my accuracy. Anyway, I definitely did not want to offend or disappoint you or other editors. I hope you'll stick around doing more DYK noms. I'll copy to your talk page too. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

::Candlewicke seems to be upset due to a couple of posts Ottava has left at his page regarding his "bad articles" that are about to be put up "for AFD".

::I think it should be made clear at this point that no-one but Ottava has proposed putting Candlewicke's articles "up for AFD." Moreover, I for one have certainly not described Candlewicke's articles as "bad". This seems to be just another example of Ottava creating needless wikidrama. Gatoclass (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

:::I am sorry if I misread anything or contributed to anything disruptive. Ottava informed me that you had all been discussing me all week over here and that he was intending to delete nominate a series of my "bad articles" based on the opinions of everyone here. I later realised that Ottava had come to this conclusion himself but have not been able to work out why. I am not even fully certain if I am doing wrong right now as I am still a bit confused about things Ottava is saying about me and anyone who happens to leave messages on my talk page but when I find out if I am I will try to right any wrongs. --candle•wicke 21:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We have 195 nominated hooks but only 19 approved ones. We have five empty queues and two empty prep areas. We had six empty queues but I just cobbled one together out of what little has been reviewed. So DYK needs urgent attention from article reviewers and queue builders or in a few hours we'll be back to six empty queues and DYK skids to a halt. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

:Looks like Gatoclass is filling another queue, I'll go try to review some (I noticed that the 16th is practically empty in terms on verified hooks).--Giants27 (c|s) 16:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

::Well, you guys could try, you know, checking them yourselves and putting them in the prep area if they work instead of waiting around for someone to put a check on them. Let's not be lazy, please. Wizardman 16:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

:::I've had to do that a few times myself when looking for bio hooks.--Giants27 (c|s) 17:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

::::While we're at it, let's reduce the number of hooks to about 6 again, shall we? For now, there's no need to require a higher level when we don't many approved hooks for those updates. This would only be temporary, but I might move a hook or two from prep 1 to prep 2, since it looks full enough now. Jamie^☆S93 17:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::Nevermind, Gatoclass kept the prep 1 update to 7 hooks, and just moved to the queue. Jamie^☆S93 17:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::I personally think we should leave it at 6 for longer than temporary because not only is it easier to read but it also takes away less verified hooks making more available for more filled queues. So instead of 1-3 queues with 8, then we can have 4-6 with 6.--Giants27 (c|s) 17:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::The reason we have eight hooks is because otherwise we would end up having to dump hooks simply because there wouldn't be room for them, and no-one wants to do that. I agree that six hooks is probably the ideal number, but the reality is that we get more than 24 eligible hooks every 24 hours. Gatoclass (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::(edit conflict) Me too. After we continued the 6-hook rate for a while, I got used to it and found it much more readable. I only said "temporary" because this would have to be a consensus change. Also, DYK fluctuates by the week, sometimes lacking verified nominations, and other times backlogged with a good amount of approved hooks (sometimes rare). So, a "norm" is not easy to attain with this system, although I think that 7 hooks might not be a bad default, rather than 8, which pushes the standard of easy readability. Also, recently we seem to have been occasionally back and forth between 8 and 6, so 7 may be worth a try. Jamie^☆S93 17:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

:::I've been checking hooks and had to promote a couple I'd checked myself just to fill the queue. (We're woefully short on approved non-sports non-US bio hooks, for example.) I've also been trying to move along some of the more problematic hooks and was hoping, at the very least, that some other folks could pick off the low-hanging fruit of easy to approve hooks to keep us going. Thanks to Gatoclass and anybody else who jumped in (or will jump in now) to assist. - Dravecky (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

::::I've also been doing some of the older noms. Awadewit (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I notice Jamie has restored the six-hook notice. It won't hurt to do a few six-hook updates, but the number of hooks over the last few weeks has been steady or climbing while we've done 8 hooks per update, which means that sticking to 6 for any length of time is going to create a backlog, which in turn just means more work down the road for someone. Gatoclass (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

:Is there anything I can do? Do approved hooks need to be moved to the Prep Area? --candle•wicke 21:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

::Will verify a few hooks now. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

:::@Candlewicke: basically anything really whether you do what Wizardman suggests above, verify and wait or move hooks to the prep area.--Giants27 (c|s) 21:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

::::I have verified several (only one had a problem of being a blog) so hopefully that will go some way to at least sorting out the emergency "panic" situation. That was enjoyable; I may do more later if no other issues distract me. --candle•wicke 22:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The original hook for the article Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center, which has been the subject of extensive discussion on T:TDYK and is one of many articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict that have been under DYK consideration, was promoted as is for inclusion on the main page. I firmly believe that we should do everything we can to get appropriate articles approved for DYK and I have no objection at all to approving this for DYK. In a corresponding situation in which the article never appeared, I valiantly tried to get the Palestinian Land Laws article approved for DYK, and persistently offered a thoroughly-sourced compromise hook as a means to reach consensus. I think that the hook that had been proposed here by User:Ynhockey regarding the center's role in treating cases of the Jerusalem Syndrome is relevant to the article and represents an appropriate middle ground to move ahead. The article remains unchanged on Wikipedia and all of the material regarding the site's history is there. We have a few choices here: 1) all hooks go ahead, regardless of controversy; 2) no controversial hooks are approved; and 3) we work to find acceptable hooks that reach consensus for controversial articles. Option 1 is a recipe for disaster. Option 2 gives any editor (or side in an argument) veto power over articles they don't like. Option 3 is the Wikipedia way. Whatever we choose, it should be applied consistently for all articles. An alternative hook for this article and a similar approach for other controversial articles should be the solution here. Alansohn (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

:This is a sticky situation, no matter how many hooks are proposed either side is going to say that it doesn't show them in the right way, even when it's completely sourced. I say let it go on the Main Page, it's fully sourced yeah sure it's kind of negative but the whole situation is so like I said, if it qualifies and isn't too sexual (see above) then let it go.--Giants27 (c|s) 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

::I did suggest that perhaps an alternative hook be found, but several neutral editors disagreed and said they felt the original hook was fine, which is why the hook has been chosen (and by another neutral editor, I might add). The debate about "Palestinian land laws", on the other hand, wasn't merely about the hook showing one side in an unflattering light, it was about the accuracy of the hook and the neutrality of the article itself. So it was a quite different situation. Gatoclass (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

:::In both cases, I offered and suggested alternative hooks that address the subject in neutral fashion and that were backed by reliable and verifiable sources. In the case of Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center the suggestion was ignored and the original hook was used. In the case of Palestinian Land Laws, the neutral and properly sourced suggestion I offered was ignored and the article disappeared off the DYK candidate queue. The inconsistency applied here is a matter that must be addressed, and one for which I have already suggested a remedy in which mutually-agreeable hooks are used in controversial subjects. The decision to push this hook as-is with no consensus for the original hook and a clear, viable and interesting alternative hook rejected is probelmatic, at best. Alansohn (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

::::There is no inconsistency Alansohn. As I said, the problem with Palestinian Land Laws was not just the hook but also the article itself, it was finally failed because the article was considered to be POV.

::::As for your comment about consensus for hooks, we have no established method of resolving such issues but I would be wary of any "solution" to the problem that involved giving effective veto power to one or another interested party, for obvious reasons.

::::In this case, we have had a number of neutral users with no involvement with the I/P conflict consider the arguments put by both sides and come to the conclusion that the original hook was okay. I'm inclined to the view that allowing uninvolved parties to decide these issues is probably as good a means as any of resolving them. Gatoclass (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::Although I can't imagine "neutral users with no involvement with the I/P conflict" that are aware of politics at all, I don't know which of Alansohn's 3 options I prefer. My POV differs from the POV of the personality type attracted to journalism, so to me, balance would mean we wouldn't harp on the massacre and the death march without mentioning why they couldn't just live together as neighbors. That's an example of why I've learned to avoid tasks like "In The News" that would require me to guess what political whim is driving the Wikipedia consensus at the moment, and that's an example of why I don't trust Wikipedia for politics in the same way I trust it for science. Art LaPella (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• The article continues to be extremely unbalanced. The hospital has received a huge amount of press, been written up in books in many languages, and appears regularly in professional literature because of its role in treating Jerusalem syndrome Yet the article is almost entirely about Deir Yassin. Surely it ought to be improved and balanced before it appears on DYK.Historicist (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

:I must confess I found the hook a bit long and clumsy, and I really don't think that either the article or the pic are good enough to warrant the lead spot. So as a compromise, I've trimmed the hook a bit and moved a new article to the lead spot. Gatoclass (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

July 1st is the opening day for the Canadian Football League along with it being Canada Day and I was planning to get some hooks ready for it but I'm not sure whether there should be a special holding area for it or not. Thoughts?--Giants27 (c|s) 19:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

:Sounds fine to me. I've generally used the special holding area for any hooks that are meant for a certain day, no matter how important or international it is. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

::Canada Day? Why not? If Saint Patrick's Day and July 4 in the United States are acceptable... --candle•wicke 19:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Created special holding area.--Giants27 (c|s) 20:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

:File:Loonie reverse view.png

:::: Brent Townsend, the artist who designed the Loonie (pictured) and the Polar Bear on the Toonie would be a good DYK expansion for anyone interested in Canada Day. Cbl62 (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::Posted a comment here so that way someone who knows more about the artist people and painters can do it because I wouldn't know where to start. :)--Giants27 (c|s) 02:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know&curid=482254&diff=298760137&oldid=298758561] --NE2 15:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

:Yeah for some reason the bot does that when ever there are ,000.--Giants27 (c|s) 16:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

::I would think it's the $1... --NE2 21:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Yes, it's the dollar sign. The bot operator knows of the problem, but he hasn't been around lately. Shubinator (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Could we use a template as a workaround? Something like {{$}}1 so that the bot renders it correctly? I seem to remember {{`}} is for a similar reason, but I could be mistaken. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::An interesting idea, but I don't think it'll work as planned. The bot is written in PHP, and PHP variables start with $, so the bot thinks it's a variable, and the dollar sign doesn't show up. What might work better is bypassing the dollar sign completely by hardcoding it with html like so: &#36; gives $. Shubinator (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::How about {{dollarsign}}? \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Yeah, that would work too. Shubinator (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::Created. {{dollarsign}} produces {{dollarsign}}. Won't be too hard to implement - only the moving admin needs to use it. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)