Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 20

message: The current DYK articles and authors haven't been tagged with the DYK templates.  I just wanted to make sure someone knew before the next update.  It might be overkill to do the reminder, but they usually go up right away, so I wanted to make sure it didn't slip someone's mind.  matt91486 21:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just doing it. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current DYK tags

message: I wonder - is it worth replacing our current template, , with ?  So instead of 

we would have 

--ALoan (Talk) 22:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we make  a subst-only template (like ) that will add  with the correct parameters? So we can do either  or  Resurgent insurgent 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Fo Sure, but you could always make a request, DYK is a pretty big part of the project surely someone could help out. IvoShandor 11:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article talk page templates

message: Can I apply to get this page on the frontpage as a new article? It is about the first woman to become a jurist in Sweden. She was also the second woman to get a doctorate in Sweden and the first one to teach at a university. She had her disputation (thesis defense) in Law exactly 110 years ago today (May 31, 1897). /Spinning Jenny
:Try here (just read the instructions at the top and then follow the format of all the others). Yomanganitalk 16:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Elsa Eschelsson

message: The current DYK for Goss v. Lopez wasn't removed from the suggestions page, I wasn't sure what the common practice was for used suggestions so I thought I would point it out here in case I was crazy. IvoShandor 11:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current DYK

message: ... still remain.  I went ahead and credited all the article talk pages, and article creators - could someone else help me out and go credit the nominators?  Smee 13:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outstanding credits... 

message: Why is () routinely substed?
If there is a good reason for that:
* Template talk:Dyktalk should say that dyktalk must be substed (at the moment it doesnt mention substing)
* All :meta:Parser functions must be removed
If there is no good reason for that:
* Bot should be started with orders to unsubst all substed dyktalk banners (or at least list made so ArticleHistory can be updated with DYK info)
* Those that subst this template should be informed not to subst them.
Personally I really dont see any reason for substing dyktalk on article talk pages. Also, this should be a obsolete template (because of the ArticleHistory). Shinhan 16:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. They should not be subst'ed. AFAIK, whenever I credit, I do not subst the dyktalk template. Other DYK updaters should take note of this, as well. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dyktalk 

message: Is there a rule on the versions of English to be used in the hook?  I drew attention in the 'Errors in the DYK' section of the main page discussion page to the current DYK that reads
"...that the Bukit Batok Memorial was built by Australian POWs to honor the war dead of the Japanese and Allies from Singapore's Battle of Bukit Timah? "
and pointed out that as the article is in Commonwealth English, then the DYK entry should be too, with '"honor" spelt "honour".  Other editors didn't seem to think this was necessary.  It just seems sloppy to me, especially as versions of English as carefully guarded/vetted elsewhere.  Is there a set rule on this? 217.155.195.19 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right, as the nom should follow the article, which should follow SIngaporean English. I don't know why other editors wouldn't agree, unless they weren't aware that English is an official language of Singapore. WP:ENGVAR doesn't explicitly say that they same should be true of DYK and other things like that, but it seems obvious to me that it should follow. I notice the article, however, consistently uses "commemorate" instead of "honour" (thus using a word spelled the same for all English varieties, which is recommended by ENGVAR); that may have been the best choice. Rigadoun  (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It probably should be in the same version of English as the article, but since we don't have standard version of English across articles it isn't really important. I can link to colour in an article and get color, but I don't suffer overmuch as a result. Mixing spelling in an article looks ugly, but between links it is really neither here nor there. (Obviously a proper name should have the correct spelling as that isn't a regional difference, it's a fixed title) Yomanganitalk 14:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Versions of English?

message: Good work Smee on creating DYK Awards for (25), (50), (100), and (200) or more contributions to DYK per the above discussion.  (For the new awards, see .) These new will encourage more participation in DYK.  Here's some more awards ideas:
#New DYKs are updated (posted) four times per every 24 hours.  Create a DYK award to be given for (2), (3), (4), (5), etc. contributions per each live Main Page DYK template update, in addition to The DYK Medal awarded for each individual contribution.
#Create a DYK award to be given to a user for providing all contributions to one live Main Page DYK template update.
-- Jreferee 17:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather stick with the DYK Awards for numeric DYK contributions, instead of daily ones for number of contributions in each update. As Smee noted, we don't want to overload DYK with a lot of awards. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's just too much to deal with and I think they would just be ignored and probably never given out, don't wanna overwhelm the volunteers now. ; ) IvoShandor 18:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yea, more awards may be too much. Maybe there is a better way to encourage such particular participation in DYK. I'll have to think about it. -- Jreferee 00:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can always simply leave positive feedback/encouragement/compliments on a user's talk page.  That is always nice to hear and most appreciated, and not done enough.  Smee 04:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional DYK award suggestions

message: I created a DYK Hall of Fame (WP:DYK/HoF) as a result of the discussion here. I think this will help encourage significant contributors to continue contributing as well as give goals towards which new and existing DYK contributors may strive. Please feel free to add to/modify the DYK Hall of Fame. -- Jreferee 17:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New DYK Hall of Fame

message: Per this Ref Desk thread, shouldn't DYK articles under consideration have a higher standard of copyediting before being considered for the front page? Are the articles associated with potential DYKs actually checked, or is it just the tag lines? Sorry if I sound snarky, I'm not trying to, just curious. Anchoress 09:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the article is very well-referenced. That's interesting about checking for referencing. References are very important, of course, but for the front page - which is often the first introduction to WP for new readers - I believe copyediting should be considered as well, since most new readers are more likely to notice typos et cetera than a dearth of references. Anchoress 09:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  If you read through the comments after some of the potential hooks at the "suggestions" page, you will see some comments about copyediting there, but mostly hooks don't make it because the articles are inadequately referenced, not sourced at all at times (hard to believe, but it happens), or just the articles are too short (minimum of 1,500 characters for DYK).  Smee 09:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main point of DYK is to encourage editors to work on new articles. Some pre-Main Page copyediting is sometimes needed, but usually when DYKs are on the Main Page, people get active and do their own copyediting or expansion on the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Nishkid64.  A reward of making it to DYK is to bring a few editors to the article you created and have them improve it towards a higher standard of copyediting. From my own DYK experience, the interested generated by DYK in an article usually is fleeting, but enought to smooth out the rough edges of the article and perhaps give ideas on new directions for the content. In the case of the rape case article, there is a lot of details that should be removed (e.g. "They monitored her breathing on the way to the hospital" doesn't further the main topic or any sub topics.) The main contributor to the well referenced article has only been with Wikipedia since March 2007 and he/she certainly is some one DYK would like to encourage. -- Jreferee 00:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And of course, if you think an article needs a copyedit you can always do it yourself, or refer it to someone who is skilled in that area in case you are not. IvoShandor 18:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the replies, everyone! Anchoress 03:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The objective of FAs is to display the best work of the community; that of DYKs is to invite others to improve the articles.         --Gurubrahma 03:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I always liked seeing that, sometimes they post here. I remember my first one, I thought it was pretty cool. Ah, the good old days. IvoShandor 09:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting 

message: Are articles that existed as start-class for a while, then got deleted, and then recreated and brought up to start-class again eligible? They're "new," but then again they're not.  is why I ask - I could give that several more paragraphs in a matter of hours, but would it be eligible for inclusion on template:did you know? Picaroon (Talk) 19:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on eligibility 

message: I'm going to get shouted at for this, but here goes.  It seems to me that recently the majority of the first articles in the DYK section are to do with US topics.  I haven't got any stats to back this up, nothing more than just a "oh, here we go again, another US article as the lead article" whenever there's been an update.  As the lead article naturally gets prominance, can the editors who update it make sure that they choose some non-US ones, please.  I know they are limited by those articles that have pix, but I've looked at the suggestions and there are always plently of non-US ones with pix. 86.142.110.168 09:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: US-centrism

message: We have two Chicago related DYKs on the next update, which can be updated at any moment. IvoShandor 16:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ummm

message: Hi there, apparently a note from an article I created (Chief Yellow Horse) appeared on the home page.  How cool!  Is there a good template for me to use so that I can remember this when I look at my user page. //Tecmobowl 17:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See . You can't see directly how it was on the Main Page, but you can see it at the transcluded template. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK on my User Page 

message: of the Frank Lloyd Wright DYKs with pictures which makes them mini-featured.  I see a similar gripe was raised in US-centrism above.  The last two pictured lead DYKs were bloody FLW.  Surely there are other DYKs with pictures available? 82.32.238.139 20:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't like Frank Lloyd Wright I guess. This is an area that Wikipedia was badly lacking in and an area I have worked hard to expand, DYK provides nice motivation for me to do a good job with my articles. I don't care about the pictures but that's nice too. I am sure the proportion is high lately because of all of the work I have done in this area but I don't think that is a reason to stop FLW DYKs from being in the top slot, but if it is a major problem then so be it. IvoShandor 21:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough already!

message: Too much Frank Lloyd Wright.  How about Sullivan?  How about Christopher Alexander?  What about a history of the Yurt?  Anything but FLW! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.89.71.11 (talk • contribs).
::Instead of complaining perhaps you could compose a series of articles about the work of Louis Sullivan or Christopher Alexander. IvoShandor 22:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not too mention I also composed articles about the Pleasant Home a work by George W. Maher, Andrew O. Anderson House by John S. Van Bergen, as well as creating and composing the article about Van Bergen himself, all three were featured in the DYK column too. I think if my articles cannot be featured in this column (unless there is a stipulation added to the DYK Rules, then I will be much less likely to compose them, I do this because I want people to know the things I find out and see, and DYK provides a nice opportunity to do just that. IvoShandor 22:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Still, Enough Already 

message: If you are putting DYK notifications () on the talk pages of articles as part of the update, from now on, please do not subst them. GimmeBot, which handles the updating of the article history, deals with the unsubst'ed template quite happily, but at the moment it necessary for somebody to update the subst'ed version manually before the bot can handle it, so it causes problems when articles get put up for peer review or featured article. I'll change the documentation appropriately. Yomanganitalk 15:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page notifications 

message: Where do I sign up for my railcard(!)? Stevebritgimp 18:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Network Railcard? -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Railcard 

message: How did this piece of unquestionably horrible, unverifiable, anti-everything propaganda end up on the main page? Does DYK read articles before allowing front page mention? Note that he version that was linked for hours was this version - I have removed the worst parts at the moment. Pranks like this are bad for Wikipedia. --User:Krator (t c) 14:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my bad. I didn't read the whole thing, but I just checked to make sure the references for the hook seemed valid. howcheng  {chat} 16:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow! All the 34 footnotes were removed from the article and the article now has no in-line citation. Really, if this was a prank, you might want to check the other contributions by Steveshelokhonov. -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Destructive creativity]] 

message: nominating articles for DYK , should be over class A ? Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 18:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, in fact given the maximum time allowed to potential articles, it's extremely unlikely that one'd be rushed through peer review quickly enough to appear ont he main page as an A-class. I believe we've had one or two GAs in the section, but they're the exceptions. Articles just have to be fairly neutral, well-referenced, original pieces of at least 1,500 characters created in the last few days (well, and be interesting enough to write a hook about). GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A few GAs, Irfan Pathan, Murali Kartik, Jack Fingleton, Bill Woodfull...Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 03:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're GAs now, but weren't when they appeared on DYK. Irfan Pathan was promoted six days after featuring, for example. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pathan was GAed two days before DYK. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 01:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks chiefs Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 15:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wondering ! 

message: OK, I think I finally figured out a way to move along the "Good" articles proposed by bot. First, I looked over all the articles proposed by the bot and sort them out into possible DYKs and those that probably would not qualify. Then, I started to nominate the good ones myself, but that was taking way too long (particularly in trying to find something interesting about the article). I finally thought of posting a notice on the talk page of those who created the articles to get them to create the nomination. Many of the editors may not know about DYK. If you look over the present "Good" articles proposed by bot list, I've posted a notice on the talk page of each article creator suggesting to them to propose their article to DYK. I think it is working as I have received a few comments back on my talk page about my requests. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a good idea. Can you mark somehow the ones that you asked the authors about, so others could help, or are you willing and able to do it all yourself? Rigadoun  (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. I am neither willing nor able to maintain the "Good" articles proposed by bot ABMS (all by myself). I added a system to use  to indicate if the author was prodded to nominate the article. That was the only image I could think of on such short notice. If you have a better one, please feel free to substitute it in. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it looks like the bot is removing the smiley faces. I'll try to fix this. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, the smiley faces were placed a few minutes before the bot updated the list. When such edits overlap, the bot may delete the original edits. Apparently, this is a rare event, so it looks like we are good to go. -- Jreferee (Talk) 04:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Good" articles proposed by bot

message: The above school seems to have been removed from the front page because it was stated that it was only a 50% expansion. As I explained in the nomination the original article, although long, was completely unusable. Virtually the whole article was copied from the Old Martinians' website and was therefore copyvio. Compare this page of the website Old Martinians' Association website (click on schools, then on La Martiniere Lucknow) with the version of the article before we started to expand it  and you will see that it has been copied word for word. The only other content on the page was some directory-style information about the school which we've had to remove. If you exclude the copyvio content you will see that the article is in effect a brand-new article and clearly meets the guidelines. Surely you want to encourage people to remove copyvio content and develop articles in this way. Could the article possibly be reinstated. Dahliarose 07:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has now been reinstated but is unfortunately no longer in the top spot and is without its picture. Would it perhaps be an idea in future to preserve the wording of the original nomination concealed on the edit page in such cases so that future misunderstandings do not arise.Dahliarose 10:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: La Martiniere Lucknow

message: I have no idea what is going on . I just moved the next update articles to the main page and when I went to do the credits found that they had already been up yesterday. It appears brownouts are making their third appearance in two days. Any reason for them to been put back on the next update page? Yomanganitalk 12:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also recently did the next update and found two articles that had been there already (thankfully I had looked to make sure before clearing the Next Update page and recognized the topics). Please remember to remove suggestions moved to Next Update. Rigadoun  (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The bot for RfA checks for duplicate votes. Perhaps someone can create a bot that checks the Template:Did_you_know/Next_update against Wikipedia:Recent_additions and flags any duplicates. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff up 

message: At :Category:Wikipedia Did you know Contributors. there presently is a speedy renaming proposal to rename :Category:Wikipedia Did you know Contributors to :Category:Wikipedia did you know contributors. To comment on this, please post at request for speedy renaming. -- Jreferee (Talk) 14:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It now is at :Category:Wikipedia Did you know contributors. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Wikipedia Did you know Contributors

message: Polish Wikipedia has recently changed its format of "DYK" and the change has been very popular with regular DYK contributors so I though I would share it with you (my apologies if it has been discussed already on English Wikipedia).  Basically instead of using the same "did you know.. that such and such" for all entries we have implemented a much more flexible format allowing for questions like "did you know.. how many", "did you know.. who has done this and that", "did you know.. why such and such thing happened" etc.  So for example instead of something like "...that Akwasi Afrifa became Lt. General and head of state of Ghana after a coup d'état, was detained after a second coup, won parliamentary elections after a third and was executed after a fourth coup?" something like "after how many coups was Akwasi Afrifa executed"? or perhaps "what military rank was held by Akwasi Afrifa, head of state of Ghana after a coup d'état, was detained after a second coup, won parliamentary elections after a third and was executed after a fourth coup?".
Another recent development is a "megaDYK" - DYK entries consisting of links to new articles only.  It obviously requires some coordination from a few contributors but the results can be quite fun - see here for 2 archived megaDYKs (in Polish only, sorry :P).  Cheers, Roo72 00:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have submitted a couple DYKs with two new articles in the hooks. I don't know how others feel about the format. I think so far consensus has proven to favor the current format but I am sure consensus can change. As said, I don't know in this case. IvoShandor 09:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried a twofer (two Eurovision entries, in fact) recently, but both articles ran on the front page with the hooks I provided in case the twofer didn't get up. If I were updating the template and there was a particularly good twofer, I'd run it, although that's quite possibly just me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't know why those weren't chosen; I like two-fers...especially since combining related articles can cut down on the number related to one topic. It'd be nice to see a three- or four-fer, but it might be tough to coordinate that many eligible articles. I prefer the "...that" format, though, because it highlights some unusual fact that few would know, instead of making you guess off the top of your head. Rigadoun  (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It appears that, in addition to Did You Know, Polish Wikipedia add Do You Know statements. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format change suggestion 

message: Would it be possible to get a bot to archive the recent additions page?  Right now I notice that it's gotten too long, and I can see why - it's fairly tedious to archive that manually. --JayHenry 04:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be nice. I just archived it and it filled up seven pages. Rigadoun  (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put in a bot request. Let's see what happens. Rigadoun  (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving of [[wikipedia:recent additions]] 

message: So yesterday, we told a ghost story on the front page of Wikipedia.  
See the Main Page error reports page and Talk:Alexander Campbell (businessman) for details, but essentially, for two and a half hours we told the world that a certain handprint on a jail cell wall kept magically reappearing, not only after being painted over but even after the wall was knocked down and rebuilt.  Neither the front-page hook nor the article itself so much as hinted that this miraculous handprint might be a fake, though it was called a hoax even in one of the sources cited to support it.
With the number of DYK items, I'm sure most of them go through with no more than a cursory check, but this can't even have gotten that.  A paranormal claim being presented as unquestioned truth should have raised a red flag for anyone who looked at it, and at least triggered a more careful review of sourcing.  How can we keep such obviously problematic material from slipping through the cracks again? —Celithemis 18:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a DYK next update process as well as a nomination page.  You, as well as any other editor, are welcome to read through the nominations as well as the associated articles.  If you have a concern over the content of an article tag it and express any concerns at T:TDYK.  You are also welcome to review the next update template and remove any to the T:TDYK page if you feel it is problmatic.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can do that, and I'm sure that others already do that from time to time, but such an ad-hoc process obviously did not prevent this embarrassment to Wikipedia from happening.  For one thing, since there's no way to tell how much scrutiny an entry has received, one entry may be reviewed by a dozen people and another by none. —Celithemis 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no formal process.  Most often a check includes a.) making sure it meets the threshold for expansion or creation in relation to the date. b.) does it have references?.  Those are the two most popular checks.  Also, it is of important to note that DYK's are not featured articles, they are from wikipedias newest articles.  I have contributed many DYK's which had problems with them fixed after being put on the front page.  DYK encourages contributions on newly created articles.  While I agree with your concerns, a formal screening process in my opinion would kind of discount in my opinion the point of DYK. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeping problematic entries off the front page 

message: A wonderful and eclectic and world-wide selection of DYKs on the main page at present with no one country dominating as has so often happened in the past, and even better, no FLW (apols to the dedicated FLW author - great effort, but it gets boring reading endless entries about the man and his works)!!!81.151.231.133 09:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are pleased that you are pleased. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, I did that update and chose things totally at random.Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 00:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not nearly as boring as it gets listening to people complain about my volunteer work. IvoShandor 21:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ah, there's lovely (to be said in a Welsh accent)

message: A current main page hook reads ...that the bestselling children's book The History of the Fairchild Family by Mary Martha Sherwood inspired the character of Pip in Charles Dickens's Great Expectations? 
The article is quite a lengthy one, and its only mention of Pip comes in a single sentence: "It even influenced the portrayal of Pip in Dickens's own Great Expectations (1860–61)." 
Putting aside the influenced/inspired distinction (which is non-trivial), I think it's a swindle for the front-page hook to promise something that the article doesn't deliver on. Intrigued by the hook, we read the whole article, only to find that it tells us not one whit about HOW Pip was influenced by it. It just makes that bare claim; substantiated, true, by a footnote, but not by any evidence. This is rather disappointing. Doops |  talk 18:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hooks are difficult to write as they should draw readers to the article but be supported by references. Per Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Selections, the hook should be "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones, as long as they don't misstate the article content. It appears that we fell short on this one. I'm sorry that you feel swindle by the hook for this article. I contacted the author of the article in hopes that he can use the reference to expand on the hook point in the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the source says much more than that (I can't find the article at the moment - it is lost in my stacks of papers). I will look in the coming days. I do agree with Doops, though. That is why I thought that the other two "hooks" that I suggested were better - they both focused on The History of the Fairchild Family being one of the most popular children's books of the nineteenth century. I felt that that fact was much more relevant to the article than the Dickens fact, which, frankly, is a throw-away that I added only because readers go "oh, Dickens, I know him" whereas they do not (generally) know Sherwood. (Thanks for reading the article, though, Doops; I'm sorry you were disappointed by it. I'm afraid that there just isn't much scholarship on Sherwood or this book.) Awadewit | talk 01:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for responding. This hook was indeed very 'hooky' and I agree that that's good; but it promised more than the article could deliver. If I were writing the hook for this article it would be something like this: ...that later editions of The History of the Fairchild Family, one of the most popular children's books of the Victorian era, omitted such grisly details as the gibbet which so impressed the Fairchild children.  (OK, that's a bit long; but that sort of thing, anyway.) Cheers, Doops |  talk 04:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good one. I am new to DYK (I've been here a week or so), so hopefully my suggestions will improve over time. Awadewit | talk 06:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  swindle 

message: Think again! The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day. -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Think no one's looking?

message: There's a new set of "Good" articles proposed by bot. Anyone else interested in sorting them and placing a note on the creators pages suggesting that they nominate the article for DYK? As much as I enjoy giving people good news, it would help to have some assistance in dealing with the bot's continuous posts. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jreferee, this is something I'd be happy to help with when I have the time.  What, exactly, is the process?  You go to the article's creator and encourage him or her to nominate?  Do you have some sort of form greeting that you use that explains how you found the article and how they can nominate it? --JayHenry 14:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I've been working on the process for the past few days via trial and error. for "Good" articles proposed by bot instructions, see instructions. Basically, I open up all the newly proposed articles at one time (using the right click button on each article), look to see which ones have enough text and decent footnotes (usually at least four or more footnotes), and write down the names on a piece of paper. I then separate them into two lists - discards and ones to be prompted. I then post the prompt on the talk page. There are some more steps, but that's basically it. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I went through and did it for the July 5th articles.  It took a rather long time, but some of the articles were quite good and I think it's a great way to encourage relatively new editors (who, I noticed, do a lot of the articles that GoodBot picks up).  It's definitely something I'm happy to continue to help with (and let me know if you think I should've suggested an article I didn't and vice-versa.) --JayHenry 03:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually right click each of the articles to open in a new tab, take a quick look at the article to see its length and number of footnotes. If it's descent, I write down the name on a piece of paper and move on to the next article. I may have 30 to 60 articles open at one time and my screening takes about five seconds for each article. I then copy the entire list into Microsoft word. I then use my handwritten list to electronically sort them into two piles: those to get notices and discards. I then create a notice for each user in one Microsoft word article, right click each user talk page button so as to open all the talk pages at once, then I copy, paste, close, copy, paste, close the correct notice onto each talk page.  Also, don't be too picky about the article. The 5-day DYK nomination process is for helping editors improve the article to meet DYK standards. If the article has enough text and the footnotes show some effort to use multiple sources or one source really well, then that user should receive a notice for that article. Thanks for the help!-- Jreferee (Talk) 03:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, I see.  I spent a little more time than that actually reading through all the ones that weren't lists.  But you're right, it's DYK and the whole purpose is to help improve new articles.  Next time I'll be less picky! --JayHenry 05:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Good" articles proposed by bot follow-up

message: I did not update the first entry/image when I did the 19:40 update, because I have concerns over :Image:Fernando Amorsolo 1a.jpg. The image is licensed as being in the public domain, but it is a detail of a work of art for an artist who died in 1970. None of the public domain tags for art seem to cover this use, and I didn't want to have an image with possibly copyright issues on the front page. What do others think about this? Would someone like to update the image/first entry with something else?-Andrew c [talk] 19:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I just skipped to the next image up on the Suggestions list. I have left Fernando at the top of the Next update, but I'm going to remove the image. If someone wants to clear up the image license, that'd be great. Here is the PUI listing.-Andrew c [talk] 21:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bases for the free use tag is "Personal Collection of Printed Images." If User:Rodsan18 owns the original :Image:Fernando Amorsolo 1a.jpg, then he/she needs to send free use permission to the Wikimedia Communications committee. If he merely owns one of many existing prints of the image, then it is very unlikely that the copyright for the original image came with his/her particular copy and a free use tag may be inappropriate. For DYK purposes, until somebody with access to OTRS comes along and tag the article or image with  providing evidence of the received email and clearing the status of the item in question, the image should not be posted on the main page by DYK. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comment. For a bit I was worried I was being a bit too nit picky, but you reiterated a number of my concerns I was mulling over. Hopefully it can be cleared up. It looks like a fair use rationale + copyright license are shaping up at the image page. I was cringed a little when the PUI discussion suggested using the Free Art License.-Andrew c [talk] 21:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Fernando Amorsolo 1a.jpg and 6 July 2007 19:40 update  

message: I repeat that the versorium was not the world first electrical device by over two millenia. Why would we archive an error?--Ioscius (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That the baghdad battery was an electrical device is still heavily disputed. There is no dispute over the electrical nature of the versorium. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 14:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  versorium 

message: Is there any guideline for how long to leave expired noms on the suggestions page? It's pretty long at the moment, but I'm not sure if there's a specific policy. 
Also, related to the recently unselected USS Lamons (see under July 6), I was going to comment that it may not have been chosen because while he's right about the PD usage, it said in the suggestions that articles with new (not PD) content are preferred, but then I couldn't find it myself. Was that removed (possibly replaced with the comment about good citations)? Rigadoun  (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expired noms and PD material