Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 17

message: (retrieved from Blnguyen's talk page)
:Hmm...for some reason the DYK articles seem to be getting worse and worse. I think Irfan Pathan is a good article but in the last couple of days ive seen a bunch of stubs get on. Its sad to note that some of us spend time writing articles like Mangalkavya while we could merely get away with a Var (poetry). In this instance, I wouldnt even complain if u, geejo and nish pick ur own DYK's. At least u guys make good picks. Look into the stubs thing though, if something is going to show up on the main page, it might as well look like a B class article.Bakaman 04:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have different concerns, mine is that DYK is for new articles, or ones very recently expanded from stubs. The point of DYK has never, afaik, been to showcase "good" articles, but to inspire editors to start new ones. Deizio talk 14:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should discuss on DYK page itself.Bakaman 18:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it was 5kb before the expansion, and was 29kb afterwards. So effectively it was 80%+ new content, so the article was mostly new and I threw out most of the 5kb that was already there so even more than 80%. Personally I don't mind having expansions of non-stubs if the vast majority of the article is new, and in this case it is, as the article is effectively "new". I decided to use the Christmas lack of supply to see how it would be received....Personally, I would say that 80%+ new articles should be allowed even if the 20% old stuff is already non-stub, as it is a proportional thing... Let's see what people think. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 05:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion orginally from User talk:Blnguyen Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 05:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Out of my 14 DYK's in the last two weeks, two of them were expansions. One of them, I expanded from a two-sentence stub to around 8KB of material. Another, Fred A. Hartley, Jr. was around 3KB, but I expanded it to 11KB and added 21 references. I personally think that we should be more careful in our DYK selection. Watch out for referencing, length and other stuff like that. I've seen some DYK's make it that really didn't qualify. Nishkid64 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of largish stubs, eg [[Irfan Pathan]] 

message: I think this works great. I find it much easier to know that things are going to work well and can do the actual update much more quickly when I am in update mode. Also, the credits section, while taking a bit of time to construct, makes crediting easier, especially if you use javascript functions like I (and nishkid, who is now using mine) do. So I think we should move this from experimental process to new standard practice. Anyone disagree? ++Larbot - run by User:Lar -  t/c 03:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just voicing my support: This is an excellent program, and it's a definite success for DYK. It makes things so much easier, and it lets non-admins and admins alike to work together to pick appropriate DYK's for the Main Page. Nishkid64 19:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was worried when I first went ahead and created the trial that it would end up just increasing bureaucracy, but it seems to have worked fairly well. I guess it may be time to think about getting rid of the big yellow box. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 21:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not get rid of the box... it's nice and big and bold. I'd just edit it to say this IS the process many use and remove the experiment bit. Kudos to all who helped refine this. ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I did that. Revert me if sussed about it. ++Lar: t/c 23:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Did you know/Next update]]... an experiment that has succeeded? 

message: I changed out the picture from a plane flown by Alejandro Maclean to that of Rosersberg Palace.  The image of the palace directly illustrates the palace, while the image of the plane neither directly illustrates the biographical subject (specifically is not his portrait), nor the hook ("Matador").  Comments? — ERcheck (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's a perfectly acceptable change. If it's not the focus, then it really shouldn't be the picture. There was a similar problem with :Image:Laurel1.jpg appearing on DYK when it had no direct relevance to the subject. Nishkid64 04:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed out picture for next update 

message: Please note that user:Deepujoseph is pushing stupid DYK entries to move up the ladder. One of his recent entries featured is utterly wrong. See the following discussions.
Did you Know?
  Malayalam_type
Stop_your_prank
Also note that he had the person who pointed out his blunder banned as a sock of a well-known troll by another admin. The ban came without any checkuser confirmation and was based solely on external information known only to Deepujoseph and the banning admin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.88.135.117 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 10 January 2007  (UTC)
:Stupid may not be the best term to use here. ++Lar: t/c 02:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plz note that these accusations are most probably coming from a banned troll.Bakaman 03:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably Kuntan.  He's a known troll -- Samir धर्म 03:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Deepujoseph]] pushing stupidity 

message: Misunderstandings about evolution seems to have been selected for listing on the main page at the same time that its editors were discussing the possibility of deleting or moving the page because of concerns about its scope and NPOV. I recommend that it be replaced on the main page with great haste. -Silence 00:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, removed and replaced. Thanks. Nishkid64 00:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Did you know" article simultaneously under AfD and on main page 

message: When we are adding the template 'An entry from ... appeared...' to article's talk page, it would be nice to list the hook (as it appeared on the main page), too, don't you think so?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add hook to the talk 

message: There has been some talk about changing the DYK template.  I thought the design on my user page could be of interest as an example of another direction it might go.
 House of Scandal 09:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the current DYK talk message, but I do like the overall look of this new template. It would be great to incorporate the previous DYK talkpage message and the actual DYK seen on the Main Page. Nishkid64 15:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: How much extra effort, in terms of cutting and pasting the DYK entries, will this involve? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DYK template

message: For the Chroogomphus DYK, I suggested:
"...that the pine spike (pictured), an edible mushroom found in pine forests, is now thought by many scientists to be a parasite on certain other mushrooms with which it grows?"
What ended up:
"......that Chroogomphus (pictured) is an edible mushroom that grows as a parasite in pine forests?''
I know it should probably have been shorter, but the above statement doesn't even mean anything. "A parasite in pine forests?" What the heck is that? Peter G Werner 05:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm - I see what you mean.  I have added "...on other fungi..." Clearer? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chroogomphus]] – boy, that got mangled! 

message: Please could I remind updating admins to archive the updates, and also to check whether he previous DYKs have been archived - I have had to go back and put a couple of old ones in the archive over the last couple of days. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: It may be a bit late now, and I don't feel so strongly about it to change them, but some of the articles on the current update page are not ideal.  Some are a trifle short (Hassmyra Runestone, GWR Charles Tayleur locomotives, Bombing of Rome in World War II) and some are a bit too old (Hassmyra Runestone was largely created on 5 January not 7 January; Don Moye has not been edited since it was created on 5 January). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...I agree with you on Hassmyra and GWR being too short. The Rome bombing article seems decent, to say the least. Anyway, Next Update editors please look at article histories before adding to T:DYK/N! Sometimes people get confused as to what the date is supposed to be written as, so they may post at the DYKT much later than they created the article. Nishkid64 00:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates

message: I just noticed that Jarlabanke Runestones is listed on its talk page as having been a DYK on 11 January, 2006, that is, yesterday. Yeah, I know, I have trouble getting the year right for the first three months or so myself, but it does throw off the recordkeeping. Badbilltucker 21:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, fixed. It appears Blnguyen is still in 2006 mode, hehe. Nishkid64 00:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is 2007, right? 

message: I created a new template to use on talk pages of articles that have been on the Main dyk. It's
:
I kept seeing all that coding on the talk pages, and thought, "Geezly, there's gotta be an easier way." There's a (very brief) explanation of it's use on the talk page, but I made it simple; didn't need to be complicated. Should anyone want to tweak or enhance any part of it, please feel free. I'm sure there's improvements of all sorts that can be made to it about which I've not thought. This was just a quickie, if you will.  :) --Ebyabe 03:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You realise that updaters don't type up the code themselves each time, right? We just paste  onto each of the talk pages. We don't even have to fill in the date fields ourselves if we're feeling lazy, they're updated in the nowiki'd area at the bottom of the Suggestions page every day automagically. Control-C, Control-V x5, done. Maybe I'm missing something; does  have some advantage over  I'm not seeing? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 06:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It did seem like there should be a template like that which already existed, but I couldn't find one. Color me embarrassed. Live and learn, doncha know. :( --Ebyabe 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A template that might be of help 

message: Sorry but since when has it been possible for someone to think "nah, I don't find that interesting" and thus prevent an item appearing on DYK?  An objection stating "this is obvious" is not acceptable.  The user in question did not respond to my reply (inability to do so is not valid as we're talking about a time-scaled process here) and I have no doubt whatsoever that the hook would gain a lot of interest from readers.  That's the point, isn't it?  How can including a link to a good new article be a bad thing?  violet/riga (t) 02:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not reverting back anymore, but can you please use a different hook? (tell me if you like my suggestion) My only concern was the hook from the start, and I even told you that I would approve any change that would make it more appealing. Nishkid64 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say again though, I see no problem with the hook - I've written and seen enough of them to know what works. violet/riga (t) 02:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I remember you objecting to some being boring, and it wasn't put up there. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a better memory than me, then, as I can't recall a single instance of that.  Even if I did think that a hook needed changing I always suggested an alternative and didn't skip over an item merely because of my own interests.  violet/riga (t) 02:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be nice, guys.  Blnguyen and violet/riga, both of you write some of the finest DYK articles we've featured, and it's not good to see you arguing over this.  We've discussed the self picking of noms twice before (to my recollection) and the consensus has always been that it's discouraged.  That being said, I enjoyed reading toy safety, which looks like another of violet/riga's gems-in-the-making.  It would make a great DYK feature and probably would benefit from the exposure.  I saw nothing wrong with the hook myself, but I've often been criticized for bland DYK hooks -- Samir धर्म 04:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peacock terms make good noms.Bakaman 02:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! If we can provide a cite in the article for them, that is. Normally these are to be avoided in the encyclopedia proper, but the DYK box is, to put it bluntly, a sort of advertisment. We want to, within certain bounds, trumpet why the article is worthy of a closer look by the readers who turn up on the main page (in the hopes that they will read, be educated, and contribute improvements... which makes the article better, and broadens our base of editors). ++Lar: t/c 19:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I object so nerr" 

message: Does anyone recall any Nigeria-related DYK entries? I've only been active in this area for a little under a month, so the only two Nigerian DYK entries that I know of are Bayajidda and Iya Abubakar, both of which already at Portal:Nigeria/Did you know (the page I intend to list them at). I'd be much obliged if anyone could point me to any Nigeria-related articles that have been DYK's before - I can hunt down the actual entry from there based on timestamps. Thanks. Picaroon 02:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: African DYKs in general are rare. The guys that are active in African content seem to be  and  and . They might be the most useful. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course BrianSmithson, who always brings good stuff on Cameroon. — mark ✎ 09:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone recall any Nigeria-related DYK entries? 

message: The main article body says it's a National Park Service Photograph, but upon checking the Image page itself, there are no tags nor links to "verify" the status if it's PD or Free License. What gives? Thought the rules says the image must be PD or Free Lic, or it doesn't go on?--293.xx.xxx.xx 21:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is listed as PD at commons: :commons:Image:Sharps-Island-Light.jpg. It has been uploaded here temporarily while it is on the main page and the tags didn't make it across. --Cherry blossom tree 21:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Sharps-Island-Light.jpg]] Copyright tag 

message: On the front page, the following appears:
that in the 1950s, civil rights activist Virginia Foster Durr published the names and telephone numbers of women who attended Ku Klux Klan meetings? 
But when you go to the link it says that the Ku Klux Klan published the info on people that came to her meeting.  In short, it got it backwards.
Merrily 01:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper place to report such things is WP:ERRORS. After seeing the error there, I fixed up the DYK entry, and also expanded the article (it shouldn't have made it; it was 2.1 KB) so it would qualify for DYK standards. Nishkid64 02:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: ...that in the 1950s the civil rights activist Virginia Foster Durr kept records of women who attended Ku Klux Klan meetings, and then published their name and telephone numbers causing them to receive harrassing calls?
Sorry. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Do You Know tag 

message: For an awf'lu long time, I at least (and possibly many others) have been subst'ing in the notice templates on article tallk, and user talk pages. Substing has advantages, vandal resistance ,resistance to change and so forth. But see Wikipedia:Talk_page_templates#Small_option. There is a movement afoot to have templates commonly used on article talk pages take this "small" parameter to reduce clutter. So... should we change our notice templates to take the parameter? (at least  already has it... but I think the editor page template  doesn't. Adding it does no harm, so I think I shall.) And should we stop subst'ing? Heck maybe everyone else already did stop subst'ing and I missed it? ++Lar: t/c 06:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the normal size better. If an article talk page has a lot of tags in the future, then it would be appropriate to make all the templates smaller. Nishkid64 18:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about rhe initial state we leave the box (as small vs large), it's about making sure that if an article ends up with a lot of templates (and some do), that the people who are frequenters there can change the DYK template to small size. We certianly can and should leave it normal to start with... after all we may be leaving the very first message there, or maybe second (after the project it's in or whatever). My point is that when we subst, we make it hard to change to small size without a fiar bit of work. So I have changed my automation to not subst on article talk pages at least, and suggest that others also not subst. A larger project would be to go back to older articles and "unsubst" them. I am thinking about automation to try to do that but it's a bit daunting for me at my current level of expertise. Hope that clarifies. ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification templates and substing of same 

message: Lately, there's been some alterations in the crediting style. Just to inform new DYK updaters, the crediting should be done as follows:
*Gordon Canfield - Jan 17, self-nom by 
If you have a collaborative credit, then do:
*Gordon Canfield - Jan 17, self-nom by  and 
If you're doing a DYK that was nominated, do the following:
*Gordon Canfield - Jan 17, article by , nom by 
Thanks! Nishkid64 21:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just remember, it's , not . GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 03:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crediting at DYK/N 

message: Misner space space appeared in yesterdays DYN. When this was brough to the attention of Maths, we found that the there were big problems with the article and its definition might be competly inaccurate. Its kind of worrying that articles like this which have not had time for the community to check get such high profile coverage. Is there anything which can be done to prevent reoccurance of this sort of problem. --Salix alba (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the idea is that DYK entries are new articles.  We have to hope that contributors don't make mistakes, and that someone who knows something about the topic reviews the article within the 5 days or so that they typically sit on the suggestions page and picks up any errors.  I'm not sure there is any way for us to guarantee that articles, particularly new ones, are completely accurate. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only real way to prevent it happening is for experts to check the nomination page beforehand. The people updating the pages can't be expected to be authorities in every subject, and I don't expect people are going to continuely check the noms on the off-chance that something in their area comes up, so we are going to see this sort of thing happening occasionally. The damage can be minimised if the mistakes are reported at WP:ERRORS: we can then replace or correct the offending article's entry in DYK. Yomanganitalk 12:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One possibility is that relevant wiki project be informed, we do occasionally get notices posted on the project talk page when featured articles are going to appear on the main page. --Salix alba (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps fifteen or more articles are suggested every day. Alerting a Wikiproject about each one would be a lot of work, in 99% of cases for no benefit. Also, in many cases the relevant Wikiproject would be no more qualified to spot errors than anyone else. --Cherry blossom tree 20:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One easy thing which would help the maths project would be if the DYN candidate template placed the articles in a category. We have a bot which generates Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity which is a page many of us look at regularly, if the articles were categorised then we could easily modify the bot to include it in the list. --Salix alba (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No template is placed on the article until it actually appears on the main page, which is possibly too late. I suppose it might be possible to add a template when the article is nominated (possibly could be done by bot?) and then add parameters if it appears on the main page, but I don't know if this would work on a technical level. You should probably start a new section if you're interested in pursuing this. --Cherry blossom tree 20:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: But what if the entire DYK article is deemed to have errors and subsequently is deleted?  How do we prevent the situation that presently is going on here? I think a deleted DYK article makes Wikipedia look bad on some level.-- Jreferee 00:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misner space 

message: There is discussion here that could use some input from a DYK administrator or two.  For example, can the DYK rules be bent for the April Fools Main Page (e.g. use an article of well greater than 1,000 characters or an article more than five days old?).  If they cannot be bent, does creating a new article on user space now (e.g. in January or February) and waiting to within five days before April 1st to move the article to mainspace so that the article can be used on the April Fools Mail Page DYK violate the spirit of the DYK rules?  Is it permissible to reduce an article by removing copyrighted material so that the article becomes a stub and eligible for DYK if expanded properly?  There are other DYK issues raised at different places on this page.  It is the requirement that the DYK posts appear on April 1st that is creating the difficulty.  Any input you can provide would be most appreciated. -- Jreferee 00:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lack of information on how the DYK April Fools Mail Page 2006 came about.  These April 1st DYKs should be developed in less public place than DYK nom space to help keep secret the surprise.  There probably should be some approval and agreed upon cooperation from those running the DYK main page section.  April Fools Mail Page 2007 needs some guidance on the mechanics of getting its DYK content to appear on April 1, 2007.  Also, it would be great if at least one of the DYK administrators agreed to be a point person for the DYK aspect of this project.  Please respond here.  Thanks. -- Jreferee 16:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to bending the rules for a day. There's no great art to getting the content on the main page come the day - that isn't really an issue. I do think you're vastly over-estimating both the need for absolute secrecy and the number of people who read the DYK nominations page, though. --Cherry blossom tree 20:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Lar - I added your name to the AFMP 2007 project as a mainpage administrator coordinator. Thank you for volunteering! -- Jreferee 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Lar, if you need any help with managing the DYK section for April 1, let me know. I'll add my name as a second DYK-AMFP coordinator, but I'm just doing so, in case you need some assistance or something (which I most likely doubt). Nishkid64 15:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Forgot to say... need people's thinkiing on that, are people OK with a lockdown for the whole day and suspension of normal process? it would be via automation, we'd get the entries all ready to go, everything protected, and they would switch over automatically at midnite UTC, just like Featured article etc do...  Discuss here and if we really need to, start a new thread downwards? ++Lar: t/c 15:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine by me, although we'll have to make sure the clock is set correctly for the next refresh: we don't want a normal update 5 mins before the switch over at midnight, just because that is the way the refresh time worked out (not that there are enough of us updating for that to be a problem). Yomanganitalk 16:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: April Fools Mail Page DYK

message: Craignethan Castle has just been moved to the Next update page (for January 21, 2007). I wonder whether or not this article is eligible.  See its history .  I was created on January 1, 2006.  
* 2006, January 4: 163 words (783 characters, w/o spaces); 
* 2007, January 12: 643 words, 3246 characters — qualifies as major expansion (~ 5x)
* 2007, January 15: 1333 words, 6578 characters — about doubled
The major expansion (5x) occurred on the 12th.  Is this article still eligible? — ERcheck (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no, feel free to move it back and comment that way when you put it back (this is why leaveing the tagline alone instead of reformatting it sometimes is a good idea, you preserve the orginal datestamp without having to muck about in the history). if something is in /N it's not Sancrosanct! It's just Suggested. Unsuggest it, just explain why. ++Lar: t/c 16:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eligible? 

message: There have been a few edits recently to Next update in which the editor is moving from the newest nominations rather than the oldest, about to expire nominations.  To be sure that articles get a chance for consideration, Next updates should be done from the "bottom up" (oldest first). — ERcheck (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! Especially when we are backlogged, let's make sure we do this. Do we need to extra super double bold this in the guidelines? It's already in there.. :) ++Lar: t/c 16:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we do need to bold it, capitalize it, emphasize it.  There are some cases, when for balance, we might need to reach forward by a day; but, I think if we find that someone has put something on Next update days ahead, then it should be put back — and perhaps, inform the updater that we need to consider the oldest before they expire. — ERcheck (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflicted)It's best to confront the user(s) and yell at them. Then wag your finger at them. Seriously, just inform these user(s) of what they're doing. Nishkid64 01:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates taken from newest noms 

message: Just today someone changed my nomination from "...that Hortus deliciarum was a medieval illuminated encyclopedia created to teach young novices about everything, including the torments of hell? " to "...that Hortus deliciarum (pictured) was a medieval illuminated encyclopedia created to teach about the torments of hell?" In my view this is a vastly different statement, and the one which was on the main page for a while was simply not true. I understand the need sometimes to edit noms to make them fit, but it would be lovely if that hadn't happened. I'm not sure what the answer is, perhaps noms could be copyedited before they're put on the template, and put up for the nominator's review somehow? Thanks, Mak (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the process of rewriting the noms on the nominations page is a good practice. The nominator then gets a chance to look at what changes have been made before it gets pushed to a page that they may not be able to edit (which is where DYK differs from editing article pages where we can be bold). I agree noms don't need to be long, but we shouldn't put brevity before clarity. While the new hook in this didn't say "only"  the implication was that that was its main purpose. Yomanganitalk 16:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: House of Scandal, I strongly disagree that what was on the main page was accurate. "Created to teach about the torments of hell" implies that, well, the purpose of the encyclopedia was only to teach about hell, which is very far from the truth. I understand the need for clarity and concision, and I don't mind my work being edited, as long as it is not made to be false. The problem is not that the work was edited, it was that it was edited at the same time as it was put on the main page, so that there was no opportunity for discussion between the editing and a very public viewing of that editing. The nomination was on the nominations page for quite a few days prior to being used. I think it would have been better if a suggestion for a shorter hook was made during that time period. I already see this being done, I would just suggest that people keep it in mind. I agree very much that complicating the DYK process should be avoided, and I think that it's a testament to the editors involved that it has remained so streamlined. Thank you all for your work. Mak (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing nominations