Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:55, 4 December 2013

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

• WT:DYK

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

• 2011 reform proposals

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

DYK queue status There are currently 5 filled queues – all good, for now! v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Current time: 19:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 19 hours ago( verify reset purge )

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

New rule proposal

It seems that there should be some sort of rule regarding commercial subjects. I have nominated books on their release dates, tv shows for their premier dates, movies for their premier dates and albums on their release dates at DYK. Each time there has been all kinds of confusion on what is appropriate. In most cases after timeconsuming debate, I have been able to convince people that if the hook is not promotional of the subject it is appropriate. Most recently, the hook did not run on the desired date due to this concern. Can I or someone else write a rule so that we can refer to it in the future?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the special occasion holding area is one of three Nominations subsections, I added a special occasion subsection to Misplaced Pages:Did you know. The top of that page notes: "The DYK section publicizes new or expanded articles after an informal review. This publicity rewards editors for their contributions." The factors I listed in the special occasion subsection generally are based on that. The one reading "bringing additional publicity to the new or expanded article is more important than the additional publicity brought to the article subject" is meant to address your concern above. Obviously, the text can be modified. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That rule does not really address the issue that has concerned reviewers and will not lessen the time wasted arguing about timely non-promotional hooks on commercial subjects. The guidance that is needed is something about how timeliness of the date request is an important element of the date request section and in cases where the subject is commercial in nature the reviewer is suppose to guide against hooks that are promotional, but not just commercial hooks that are timely. The confusion that I repeatedly have to expend energy explaining to reviewers is that reviewers think a timely commercial hook is prima facia promotional even if it does not present content that promotes the commercial content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger - It may be that reviewers in the past focused on the hook itself since there were rules for promotional hooks but no rules by which to additionally deal with the special occasion date request. Now that there is something on the Misplaced Pages:Did you know page that addresses special occasion date requests, nominators should be able focus more on whether an admin should list an approved hook on the date requested rather than mixing that with the separate hook review performed under Misplaced Pages:Did you know#The hook. I added to the section to address your concerns. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Both items 2 and 3 in this section are now more a point of confusion than anything else. WTF does "whether the editor's contribution merits additional reward" (item 2) have to do with evaluating a hook. What is the additional reward that is being considered. Is having a DYK on the main page considered a reward and having it on a special day an extra reward. I have never even heard this logic in a DYK review and I have been involved in over 1000 of them. Reward? That word needs to be struck from the rule. We don't promote hooks as a reward as far as I know. Item 3 is stated in a way that is likely to lead to more time consuming debate rather than give timesaving guidance. The whole addition is written as if to preserve the right to have muddling timewasting debate on the same issues over and over. What we need is a statement that we evaluate whether the hook is promotional of the subject. That is always what the debate is about.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Evaluating whether the hook is promotional of the subject is covered by "The hook should be neutral" listed under Misplaced Pages:Did you know#The hook. Whether an admin should list the neutral/non-promotional hook on the date requested is what the special occasion section addresses. If a business etc. is running an advertising campaign to coincide with their special event, it is in Misplaced Pages's interest to not have its Main Page be made part of that external advertising campaign through a timed non-promotional hook posting on the Main Page. I revised old factor two to read "whether the editor's contribution merits listing the hook on the special occasion date" and then removed it. The present factor two is for editors like yourself so that your special date request should ordinarily be granted. That editor's 'contribution merits additional reward' information was there as of your 19:38, 15 November 2013 post above, so what's with the above WTF comment four days later? -- Jreferee (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You speak as if you feel that being neutral and non-promotional are the same thing. The problem is that inexperienced reviewers feel that if a hook mentions a commercial item it is promotional. Let's take as an example a very simple statement about a commercial item. Let's suppose a fictional song is going to be released commercially and the commercial version of the song is twelve minutes long. This is an extremely long single and a hook could say something like. "...that "song X" has a listed running time of 12 minutes and 22 seconds, making it the longest single Famous Records (or Famous Band) has ever distributed for airplay." That is an NPOV hook. It is an objective statement of fact. It does not even mention the fact that there is an impending release date for the single or a current ad campaign for its release. However, since the subject is a commercial product many reviewers would say this is promotional. Since it is not publicizing the impending release or current ad campaign it is not promotional (or at least the majority of my DYK reviewers have agreed on this type of subject that it is merely an intriguing fact about a record). Your statement above "If a business etc. is running an advertising campaign to coincide with their special event, it is in Misplaced Pages's interest to not have its Main Page be made part of that external advertising campaign through a timed non-promotional hook posting on the Main Page." is true but the majority of DYK reviewers in my experience have felt a hook like the one above is not making the main page "part of that external advertising campaign", which is where the rub is here. It took you four days to respond to this discussion, what is wrong with me taking four days to correct you?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

T - I'm sorry it took me four days to respond to the discussion. (Feel free to ping me in the future.) Listing on the special occasion date is a way to get additional click throughs from the Main Page to the article so that more people read the article (and people reading what Misplaced Pages publishes is the point of writing an encyclopedia). Editors such as yourself should not be having the problems you mentioned getting your special occasion hook on the Main Page since your goal is to get more people to read the nominated article. I thought reviewing "whether the editor's contribution merits listing the hook on the special occasion date" would be able to help you out, but realized it does not address the promotional issue directly. Writing rule language to cover all situation is not easy and will improve over time as DYK reviewers address future special occasion request. I feel that a hook being neutral and non-promotional essentially are the same thing. Since new-reviewers are not treating it as the same, I added language in the special occasion section to address it. If the special occasion section needs additional/different language, please let me know. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee, the phrase "mentioning the commercial item or business on the Main Page through the hook is not promotional of that item or business" is moving in the right direction. I would add the phrase "in and of itself", "prima facia", or "per se". Furthermore, I would encourage you to remove discussion about rewarding WP with date requests. Timely hooks are a service to WP and not the editors. They make WP look good not the editors.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger - Revised and trimmed some more. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee, I would change "in and of itself is not promotional of that item or business" to "is not promotional in and of itself", but that is really still going to be confusing. First this should be in a section called date requests rather than special occasion because not all date requests are for special occasions. Also, reviewers like to say, I am failing this for WP:DYK 3b or WP:DYKSG D4. Having this extra prose off in the corner somewhere is not really going to be helpful. What would be most help for us to have a set of itemized items of consideration for date requests formatted in a sort of bullet listed format like most of the other rules that are easy for reviewers to cite.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger - I made some changes. That phrase may read better as "is not, by itself, promotional of that item or business." The items can be cited as WP:DYK DR1, WP:DYK DR2, etc. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee I don't understand 2. 3 & 4 seem redundant.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger - I revised 2. 4. only covers commercial items or business subjects + promotional. 3. is a more general statement for all subjects + non-neutral. -- Jreferee (talk) 08:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee Since I don't understand rule 2 please provide a sample fictional hook that would violate 2. Also, provide an example that would violate 3 that is not already covered by the standard NPOV rule WP:DYK EC4.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger - Rule 3 and 4 are not so much for reviewers to cite, but a way to lessen confusion on what is and is not appropriate to help focus the discussion on whether an admin should list a hook on the date requested. Rule 3 is more of a catch all. Rule 2 is a measure by which reviewers can indicted whether an admin should list a hook on the date requested. Without rule 2, that would leave a situation where an admin should list a hook on the date requested if the hook is not promotional of the subject. That would not allow reviewers to take into account the effect of listing a hook on the Main Page on the date requested. If you have an alternate wording to Rule 2, please post. I think the Date requests section is a reasonable framework that reviewers can apply. In applying it, it will be improved like all the other sections. There has been no input to this change to Misplaced Pages:Did you know other than you and myself. It may be worth it to open a new thread at the bottom of this page to receive additional input. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee, I now see what 2 is saying. It is saying we hope to expose Subject X rather than promote Subject X. The tone of the listed items differs greatly from the rest of the page. Let's try this. 1. Change "The editor's contribution" to "article". Reconsider my fictional hook above "...that "song X" has a listed running time of 12 minutes and 22 seconds, making it the longest single Famous Records (or Famous Band) has ever distributed for airplay." Then reexamine rule 2. I don't see how rule 2 will help to avert lots of timewasting back and forth on hooks like this. The may even preserve the right to argue about hooks like this. You still have not explained item 3 in any way that helps me understand an example of how it would apply. Please show me an example of how it would apply. Rule 4 "For hooks that mention a commercial item or a business where the nominator requests that the hook be listed to coincide with a requested date, mentioning the commercial item or business on the Main Page through the hook is not promotional in and of itself of that item or business." is way to long. Try "For hooks that mention a commercial item or a business where the nominator requests that the hook be listed to coincide with a requested date, mentioning the commercial item or business on the Main Page through the hook is not promotional in and of itself of that item or business."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger I made more revisions. For Rule 2, is the hook reviewer aware of something outside of Misplaced Pages to promote the subject on the requested date? In addition to that, there may be a variety of other circumstances that the reviewer needs to consider when indicating whether an admin should list the hook on the date requested. Some people maintain the position that paid editing is OK. Most do not. What standard is the hook reviewer to apply in that situation? There likely is a variety of other situation. Even if the hook is neutral and non-promotional, does listing the hook on the date requested primarily bring attention to the article. Even if listing the hook on the date requested brings attention to the article subject, that is fine as long as listing the hook on the date requested primarily bring attention to the article and secondarily brings attention to the article subject. If listing the hook on the date requested primarily bring attention to the article subject and secondarily brings attention to the article itself, then it should not be listed on the requested date, but can be listed outside of that date if the hook meets the general hook requirements. WP:COI provides a similar balance consideration is "advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages." As for examples, please provide a link to the discussion where the hook did not run on the desired date due and other hook requested dates you know of and we can run through each of the rules to see how they apply to those past situations and revise accordingly. -- Jreferee (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee Why is this written as if only admins move hooks to the prep areas? You should probably remove admin references. example 1 is the last controversial date request. This one was passively denied. Do you need me to provide a bunch of other examples?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger I made the revision. Yes, the example helps a lot, please provide a bunch of other examples, particularly the ones with detailed discussion on a date request (whether approved or not approved). The concern in example 1 above was the giving the appearance that someone is using Misplaced Pages's MainPage for "frontpage advertising" to promote commercial products, esp. on the first day the product is available for purchase. There probably is no way to overcome that since the person reading the main page likely won't be aware of how DYK operates. However, if an editor not connected with DYK would read the front page and then come to DYK and make such a complaint, the reply to such a complaint is to link to the nomination discussion and let them see for themselves that the issue was already considered now that the rules list a date request consideration separate from the hook consideration. Also, the new requested date section should help with deciding to move such hooks to the main page on the date requested. It's obvious that the main purpose of saving the hook for the November 5 (album release date) was to bring attention to the new or expanded article rather than the article subject. Muboshgu agreed with you. There was a discussion (so no need for a discussion on WT:DYK as requested on the bottom of Template:Did you know nominations/The Marshall Mathers LP 2). The date requested discussion did not stand out on the nomination page because it was not separately considered. I revised Rule 2 some what. -- Jreferee (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure how easy it is going to be to dig these up. Here is one about a movie on its release date: Template:Did you know nominations/In a World.... More to come.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is one about a book on its release date: Template:Did you know nominations/The Litigators.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

IIRC, I tried to make a late date request for the debut of this documentary on the talk page and it got ignored. Template:Did you know nominations/Benji (2012 film).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee, I have dug from my 500th DYK about 2 years ago to present. Will it really benefit us if I keep digging?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I think in some cases the date request element of the discussion occurred on the article talk or at DYK talk (like the first example above). I don't think I will find them all looking through the DYK discussion pages. I think there was one regarding my Tony nominees last summer on the DYK talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That looks to be enough examples. From Template:Did you know nominations/In a World...: "timing articles to coincide with commercial releases of movies, recordings, books, etc.: it feels too much like advertising, I'd let this one run whenever it gets picked", see F10 (linking to WP:NOTADVERTISING, "run several days after the premiere or before then, otherwise it would be too easy to level claims of advertising at DYK," "consensus seems to be that having something on the main page when it is in the news (even when it is about a popular culture topic) is not advertising in and of itself." From Template:Did you know nominations/The Litigators: "will look like an advertisement if it gets featured on the front page" (Original hook read "that The Litigators is the upcoming John Grisham novel ...), "As long as there isn't much emphasis on the newness, it seems okay to me" (hook then was changed), "Getting there, but too much emphasis on the date" (All timing references were removed from hook and Alt5 approved). -- Jreferee (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger - I made more revisions. From the above, it looks like the main concern is the appearance or giving perception of using the Main Page for advertising, especially on the first day the item is available for purchase, which we discussed above. There are 12,000,000 daily Main Page views, and you can't make everyone happy. However, consensus is that having something on the main page when it is in the news (even when it is about a popular culture topic) is not promotion of the item in and of itself. The hook probably should not include language that increases a likelihood of a Main Page reader's perception of the hook being promotional. For example, if the article is about a something new that is going to be introduced to people on a particular date, then having a timing reference in the hook (such as "upcoming", "released on October 25") relative to that introduction date may raise reviewer concern that Main Page readers might perceive the hook is on the Main Page to bring attention to the article subject and level claims of advertising at DYK. I changed rule DR2 to read "The hook should not put emphasis on a commercial release date of the article subject." -- Jreferee (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I am going to have to dig for the stuff about the Tony Awards from last summer. I wanted hooks about best play/musical and best actor/actress nominees to run at the time the Tony Awards was being broadcast nationally. I will dig through the DYK talk pages and find those threads. There were two or three, IIRC. I'll get back to you later.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Having reviewed Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_93, I see that I misremembered the issues on that date.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, going from memory, there was a discussion about whether the now-deleted former main image of Lucky Guy (play) (of Tom Hanks) should be used on the main page at the time the 67th Tony Awards were being broadcast. I can't find that discussion right now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Jreferee although I can't find the discussion, can you comment on whether using an image of Tom Hanks as the lead image would count as promoting a television show.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
      • TonyTheTiger - I was away out of town. I found Lucky Guy DYK nom, DYK 67th Tony Awards date request 5 May 2013 , DYK 67th Tony Awards date request 6 May 2013, DYK Notice and File:Tom Hanks 2012.jpg. I did not see anything in those discussions about concern over using the image on the Main page. From the other date requested discussions, the main DYK concern with a requested date seems to be a likelihood that an editor may level claims of advertising at DYK. Pieces of a hook by themselves may not increase that likelihood but the collective of the hook might. Whether an image of Tom Hanks as the lead image would count as promoting a television show over promoting the Misplaced Pages article would depend on context. However, the main issue seems to be the likelihood that an editor may level claims of advertising/promoting the television show at DYK for using an image of Tom Hanks as the lead image. That also depends on context. -- Jreferee (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Since you are an admin, can you temporarily undelete the Hanks file at issue and look for discussions referencing it?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
          • File:Tom Hanks 2012.jpg was a commons file that was deleted at commons per "Removal of files added by User:Tom Sorensen: Impersonator account operated by Category:Sockpuppets of Chace Watson." and then F2 Misplaced Pages deleted three days later. The Misplaced Pages What links here shows discussions referencing it. The deleted page only contained {{db-noimage}} {{DYKfile|10 June|2013|type=image}}. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Raise the minimum length of DYK articles

I've noticed that 1500 characters (the current minimum readable prose count) is really not enough. 1500 characters is barely two or three good paragraphs, in other words, kind of a stub. See User:King jakob c 2/1500 characters of readable prose if you don't believe me. Thus, I propose that the minimum length be raised to 2000 or 2500 characters, but I suppose all currently proposed hooks can be grandfathered in if this proposal is accepted. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 17:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Support raising length threshold to 2000 characters

Support raising length threshold to 2500 characters

• This is what I'd personally recommend. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 17:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I think the "quality over quantity" opposes are actually taking the opposite view -- they're assuming that the quantity of brevity=quality and that somehow more in-depth coverage =/= quality. It is a valid point that most new users don't write larger articles and thus would be "turned off" but, then again, most new editors don't write articles that comply with the litany of "unwritten rules" that DYKs have to comply with either. And we're kidding ourselves if we think DYK is still being used as a recruiting tool for new users. That boat started to pass us a couple years back with the rule creep and the GA invasion has only further pushed DYK away from its original ideals of rewarding new users for producing new content. The fact is that most DYKs are written by experience users and experience users should be able to write a fully referenced and well developed article on a topic of at least 2500 characters. Agne/ 16:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Support raising length threshold to some other amount (please specify)

• Perhaps we can formally state in the rules that a more richly developed article is very much preferred as the lead hook. Each hook set should at least start with a couple of strong candidates, so as to give people something to read after clicking the bolded links on DYK. And we don't want readers from MainPage to think that any article can cut the mustard. 1500 characters is a minimum cut-off to get onto DYK, but a higher standard, may be 3000 characters, is needed for an article to get to the picture slot, maybe 2500 is acceptable/tolerable if the picture is really nice, imho. --PFHLai (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

• 1500 characters can definitely be a non-stub article. Raising the limit will just encourage article bloat. Succinct, clear writing is something we should encourage not discourage. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• IronGargoyle said that well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with IronGargoyle, in that it would not only encourage waffling in articles; but it would also put new editors off, just looking at the new pages feed, not one relatively recent page would qualify for DYK; it may not sound like a massive increase, but it is still 30%/60% more than currently. Matty.007 19:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• This is not a problem that needs solving. The current number is fine. But what is hard is getting the 5 times expansion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• It isn't broken, don't try to fix it. Manxruler (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• I don't see anything wrong with the current length. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 20:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• There are issues with DYK that need to be addressed, but I don't think this is one of them. Also, concur with IronGargoyle's comment. Gamaliel (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per others. But I would support adjusting the 5x rule for articles that are already relatively long, by adding a chars/words/bytesize element (eg say x5 or the addition of 15,000 characters). Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose a new topic can be adequately introduced in 1500 characters. Think of how many print encyclopedia entries are less than 1500 characters. We are quite spoiled by the depth that many articles achieve online.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – quality over quantity. It's better to have 1,500 characters of solid writing than adding an extra 1,000 characters just to meet the new minimum. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - The example of 1500 given by the OP fills the screen of my tablet nicely without scrolling and so is a good size for internet use. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and so we prefer a terse, summary style. Less is more. Warden (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - 1500 is sufficient, plus there are several topics that are entitled to an article but because of limited sources it is a struggle to get them to 1500 as it is. Raising the threshold takes a lot of articles out of the chance to be seen on DYK and this is unfair in my view, especially for the new editors for whom DYK is initially intended for. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I've written what I think are some pretty Damn good start-class articles in the range of 1700-2000 characters. Sometimes you can't reach 2500 on a newly notable subject within 5 days of creation. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - IronGargoyle sums it up well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, the key is quality, not quantity of text. 1500 is well enough. --Soman (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - 1500 characters of well written prose is worth more than 3000 of bloat. Not to mention that making the minimum 2500 characters would, effectively, block most lists from DYK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• @Crisco 1492: An exception could be made for lists. I assume that DYK reviewers will identify people who are gaming the system and stuffing hundreds of extra characters of prose into articles. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 23:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• That would still make the rules much more complicated than they need to be. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose It ain't broke, so why try to fix it? Edwardx (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I would be inclined to support this. I would also support to reduce the criteria for expansion to four-fold, with a minimum length. The articles that are expanded often cover more notable topics than new articles, and much of the old stuff tend to be rooted out in the expansion because it may be a mess, unsourced or similar. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I would have supported this once but I'm not sure now. What I probably would support would be a reduction in the expansion requirement - I think x5 is way too much for larger articles, I think x3 is more than enough beyond a certain article size, I'm just not sure where exactly to set the limit. Gatoclass (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Prep 2 ready to go. Any admins around to load this set on queue, please? --PFHLai (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Reduce to two sets for Thanskgiving weekend?

We are having overdues lately. The fact that we have 200+ nominations and 15+ verified doesn't affect how slow the project is getting. Shall we lower to two sets per day until things pack up tremendously? --George Ho (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Or 6 hooks per set? Need to make sure there are some wordy hooks in each shorter set. --PFHLai (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

A Boy was Born

A Boy was Born is meant for Christmas but is in Prep 3! (Also it will be expanded, and there's a pending move request.) Please return, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted promotion and moved it to Dec 25. --George Ho (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Failed joint nomination

• DYK nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Slave-making ant; Trophobiosis
• Background: I created the article Slave-making ant based on multiple open access articles, and the nom failed because my article did not have attribution templates (which has been fixed since) and it did not have enough original material. I have no problem with this, but the other article (Trophobiosis) was expanded from scratch by Kevmin and was rejected because of my mistakes. I messed up and feel terrible about it, but Kevmin did not do anything wrong.
• Question: can the Trophobiosis article be renominated (without the Slave-making article)?

jonkerz ♠talk 17:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why not. There's nothing wrong with Trophobiosis as far as I can see. -Zanhe (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Shall I renominate Trophobiosis for Nov 11th then?--Kevmin § 03:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, just link to this thread in the comment section of the nomination template, so the reviewer will see why it's nominated "late". -Zanhe (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Prep 4 ready to go. Any admins around to review and load this set on queue, please? --PFHLai (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Prep 1

The last hook in the set, Template:Did you know nominations/Eduard Pernkopf, is 208 characters long. Yoninah (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

As we have temporarily reduced from 7 to 6 hooks per set and half the set is composed of hooks with 101 or fewer characters, this one hook being a few characters over the normal limit is not a real problem. --Allen3  02:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Why has the number of hooks been reduced to six when there are over 200 nominations including some 35 current approvals? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Nikkimaria is probably the best person to answer your question as she is the one who implemented the change to the prep areas (, , , ). My best guess is that the change was made due to a comment at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know#Reduce to two sets for Thanskgiving weekend?. The title for that discussion is also the reason I believe the change is meant to be short-term. --Allen3  13:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry; I didn't see that in my review. Iselilja (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Can article be in DYK twice?

Template:Did you know nominations/Rose (Doctor Who) has been nominated. The article has already appear in DYK. Is this allowed? Beerest 2 talk 21:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such prohibition, but perhaps there should be if the DYK appearance is recent, like within the last year. Since this one peared way back in 2005, I don't see any harm in a second appearance. Gamaliel (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I probably should have asked here, but I could see nothing in the rules about it. I think the article was in DYK in 2005, so a fair time ago. Thanks, Matty.007 21:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Supplementary rule D1 would say not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Can we just change the rule? These rules were created before it was decided that GA articles would appear on DYK. Perhaps we can get a consensus for allowing a second appearance once a reasonably long time has passed. Gamaliel (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I would support a rule change. Do you think we should start a RfC, or just propose it? Thanks, Matty.007 21:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• I probably would oppose such a change to the rules. The fact that GAs have been allowed has already opened up enough new possibilities for articles; we don't need to start recycling DYKs as we clearly aren't running out of any. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 21:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• I also oppose any changes. The rule we have is simple and doesn't need a change, if it's been on DYK once, it cannot again. Plus GA has already been bulldozed (albeit democratically) onto DYK, this is another unnessecary change because we could end up with a situation of an article having 3 DYKs for being made, expanded and then made a GA. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose any rule changes per Taylor and C of E. The new GAs→DYK rule was instituted to allow articles that were too big to be 5× expanded to still have the chance to appear on the main page. Allowing multiple DYK appearances for a single article will lead to gaming and promotion not seen since the Gibraltarpedia fiasco, since this would allow a DYK in at least 3 stages: (1) 1,500 characters (creation); (2) 7,500 characters (5× expansion); and (3) Promotion to GA. No thanks. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Wouldn't a lengthy time period in between appearances prevent such gaming? It's been eight years since the above article appeared on the front page. I doubt anyone is playing the long game with DYK. Gamaliel (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• I still don't see any good justification to recycle. DYK is clearly not running low on articles. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 23:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• A lengthy time period in between doesn't prevent promotion. One crosses the line of advertising by placing an article up more than once. That's why DYK rule 1E prevents articles that appeared on ITN to appear on DYK, regardless how much time has elapsed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose changing the rules, per Bloom6132. Manxruler (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• How about if there had to be a time gap, say of three years? Thanks, Matty.007 08:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• See my comment above regarding ITN→DYK. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Good idea ! We need more hooks. Having a few dozens of approved hooks on T:TDYK does not mean we have a lot. Quite often, approved hooks with good picture potential are left for future sets. Each hook set needs variety. Once a hook about a church is taken, the other approved hooks about churches cannot be used till the next set. Ditto for skyscrapers, snails, fungus, ships, films, ... And there really should be more than 3 or 4 biographies per set. Also, hook set builders are not supposed to pick hooks reviewed by him/herself. Even if we disregard time zone concerns, there are not really that many approved hooks to choose from these days. So, if there is a way to increase the number of noms without compromising quality (must be both 5x expansion and GA!), let's do it. I think 5 years of moratorium is long enough. We also need reviewers. Let's make the nominators of such candidates do 5 reviews. --PFHLai (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• No we don't. We only need more reviewers because there are enough being nominated, it is just a lack of reviewers that gives the illusion that there aren't enough hooks when there are enough. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support I think articles should be eligible for DYK every time they have a 5x expansion. An article that appears at 1500 characters should be eligible a second time if it 7500 characters and a 7500 character DYK should be eligible at 37500. In each case, another 5x expansion presents mostly new content. Maybe there should also be a 4 year rule that 2nd and 3rd appearances have to wait a certain amount of time. This would encourage editors to keep developing articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• No. This is just getting needlessly complicated. We don't need all these extra rules - once is enough. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits}

• Oppose. As much as I would love another Doctor Who DYK, and as much as I would love to be able to re-post some of my old DYKs, this is a bad idea. Once on the main page as a bold link is a simple and straightforward rule and one we should stick with. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Each article gets its one chance to shine on the main page through DYK or ITN, and that's plenty. When the GA expansion came through, it was made clear by the proposers that the only change was that this additional eligibility was only for articles that hadn't previously qualified. We don't allow new 5x expansions of very old DYKs to count; why should we move the goalposts now to allow a special exception for GAs? It makes a mockery of the very recent consensus that GAs should be subject to all other DYK requirements, except for five-day creation or expansion. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per BlueMoonset. Hawkeye7 (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Tim Yap in Prep 2

Where in the article does it say "Lost in Yonkers"? --192.75.165.28 (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't. This should be pulled from Prep. — Maile (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I pulled it from the prep area, since we seem to be short-handed this holiday weekend. I've never pulled a hook from prep before, so I'm hoping someone will check that I did it correctly. — Maile (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• The nominator left a message on my talk page that they added "Lost in Yonkers" to the text. And another editor added the nomination to a different prep area . Two inline sources at the end of that lengthy sentence, both of which come up "Page Not Found" when I tried to pull them up. I am pulling it once again. The hook needs to be reviewed again on the nom template before it goes into another prep. — Maile (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Stats

Hi, was my addition to the DYK stats page correct? Thanks, Matty.007 09:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is because it doesn't take account the average daily views, which appears to be roughly 10,000 for each of these articles or 20k per article over two days. At least, it used to be that average daily views were taken into account, I don't know if that's still the case. Gatoclass (talk) 09:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I subtracted the mean of the day before and the day after for each article, as per rule 3. Thanks, Matty.007 09:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I didn't check your sums thoroughly enough. I'm not sure if it's right as I'm not familiar with the standard algorithm, but at first glance it looks okay. Gatoclass (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Matty.007 10:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Dayana Kirillova in Prep 1

Is it possible to slightly change the hook about Dayana Kirillova (in preparation area 1). Cause the hook will be on the main page later than I initially expected.
These are the changes:

1. Add the word "today" to the hook. I think it makes the sentence more clear for readers cause it is already November 30 everywhere.
2. (Maybe) "is representing" is better cause at somewhere around 19:00 UTC she will already finish her song. First I thought about changing "will represent" to "has represented" as soon as he finishes her song but there will be voting going on for another hour, and possibly a winner reprise...

The hook would become "... that 11-year-old Dayana Kirillova (pictured) is representing Russia in the 2013 Junior Eurovision Song Contest in Kiev today, on November 30?". I think, it is better like this.
Also: I will be watching the contest and if you let me, I can change "will represent" or "has represented" either when she finishes her song or when the contest ends. Tell me when it would be appropriate to make the change (after she finishes her song or after the contest ends?). --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the hook as requested. I don't think it will need to be updated to "has represented" however as "is representing ... today" will IMO be accurate enough regardless. Gatoclass (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK Freies Volk

Just a heads up for anyone qualified to review sourcing in the German language. Template:Did you know nominations/Freies Volk seems to be fine, but some of the sourcing, including the hook sourcing, is in the German language. I felt this particular one would be best passed if someone fluent in the language had a look at the hook sourcing. Thanks for your time. — Maile (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Question re tools in the nomination template

Two of the tools in the nomination template are "External links" and "Disambig links", both of which check the article not the hook on the template. Since nobody mentions those two items in a review, I'm guessing nobody runs a check. My question: What practical purpose do they serve, and does a nomination get rejected if a nominator doen't take care of a dab or an external link with a suspicious connection? — Maile (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK late

It's five hours late - IMO might as well wait a couple more hours and it will be more or less aligned with the usual update time. Gatoclass (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It turns out that DYKupdatebot ignores comment code, so the update got executed anyway. Gatoclass (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, DYKUpdateBot's "parser" was hand-written, so markup like comments sometimes doesn't work the way you'd expect. Ideally it would use MediaWiki's parse engine, but the API wasn't flexible enough to support that before (and I believe it still isn't). You can control next update timing through Template:Did you know/Next update/Time. Shubinator (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not going to play with that as I don't want to screw anything up. You are welcome to align the next update to the usual time if you want though. Gatoclass (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think I fixed it :) Gatoclass (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination with a forward slash causes display error

I have just added Template:Did you know nominations/LS3/5A to the template talk page, but clicking on the 'review' button takes me to a page marked "5A". What to do? -- Ohc  09:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The most recent list has disappeared from this page, so I've compiled a new set of 39 nominations that need reviewing. At the moment, we have 198 total nominations, of which only 33 are approved. Thank you as always for your reviews.

• October 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Greater Poland Civil War
• October 30: Template:Did you know nominations/FTC v. Actavis, Inc.
• October 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Homologous Chromosome
• October 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Dobrilovina Monastery
• November 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Koller's sickle
• November 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Violence against doctors in China
• November 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth (BioShock)
• November 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Abdi Warsame
• November 9: Template:Did you know nominations/By the Grace of God (song)
• November 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Sifting and winnowing
• November 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Water-gas shift reaction
• November 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Captodative effect
• November 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Physical organic chemistry
• November 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Käty van der Mije-Nicolau
• November 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Mohan Singh Bisht
• November 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Polyergus rufescens
• November 15: Template:Did you know nominations/AWE
• November 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Since (film)
• November 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Osvaldo Civile
• November 15: Template:Did you know nominations/HNoMS Brand (1898)
• November 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Wealth Partaking Scheme
• November 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Turtling (sailing)
• November 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Convolutional neural network
• November 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Lesser grison
• November 17: Template:Did you know nominations/St. Wenceslas Church (Vršovice)
• November 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Going Left Right
• November 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Free school movement
• November 18: Template:Did you know nominations/William Lok
• November 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Disconfirmed expectancy
• November 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Jai Bhagwan Aggarwal
• November 18: Template:Did you know nominations/High pressure terranes along the Bangong-Nujiang Suture Zone
• November 18: Template:Did you know nominations/London Buses route 414
• November 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Exhortation to the Greeks
• November 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Corruption in Poland
• November 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Social inertia
• November 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Williams-Thomas
• November 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Youth in the Czech Republic
• November 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Egypt at the 2012 Summer Olympics
• November 20: Template:Did you know nominations/James A. Krumhansl
• November 20: Template:Did you know nominations/ATV: Quad Frenzy

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

About "old" articles and expansions

I have been working with an old GA that was aprox. 30,000b (with adequate reference formatting) and now sits at 90,000b. All of the added content is "new" to the article and taken from several new books (it is now sourced by twice as many books as it did before the overhaul), none of it was taken from other Misplaced Pages articles. Could this be considered as an exception to the rule based on the 3x expansion? - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

From what I know, we usually wouldn't apply IAR to any expansion less than 4×. And the GA→DYK rule works only for new GA within 5 days of promotion. However, given the impressively comprehensive expansion you made, you could try getting it to Featured Article status, then TFA it so that it'll still be featured on the Main Page. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Laura Hale revisited

Slightly over a year ago, I proposed to ban User:Laura Hale from DYK because of a string of low-quality or incorrect nominations. The proposal was not accepted, but the closer stated "FYI, I have closed the discussion there as "no topic ban", but suggested that LauraHale might want to read and reflect upon the comments made (particularly by those who opposed a topic ban but could see problems with her articles); I also anticipated that DYK reviewers would in the meantime be extra-careful when looking at any nominated article of hers, in light of the issues raised. BencherliteTalk 22:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)" (Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 87#Banning Laura Hale from DYK?

Seeing a DYK of her, I became curious at the current state of affairs. I'm sad to say that I was too late to prevent it from being on the main page. This was yesterday posted on the main page, for hundreds of thousands of people to see:

• "... that 2006 Spanish Paralympic alpine skier Daniel Caverzaschi was ranked 20th in the world in wheelchair tennis in October 2013?"

The problem is that Daniel Caverzaschi never was a Spanish Paralympic alpine skier, not in 2006 and not in any other year. The fact that he was only twelve years old at the time of the 2006 Paralympics might have been a clue to this. The source for this claim, , doesn't make this claim, it discussed (Google translate) "Ramón Homs, Turin 2006 Paralympic and Caverzachi Daniel, one of the young Spanish securities in this sport and in tennis wheelchair." Homs participated in 2006, Caverzachi is a young talent... This isn't hard to find, but one needs to take some care in writing and researching articles of course. I don't get why User:Seattle didn't see this in the review either...

I hope that further review of other Laura Hale DYKs won't show the same problems, but it is disheartening to see that a ban proposal and one year haven't made any difference apparently, and that DYK is still not functioning as it should. Fram (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I admit that I made a mistake because of a bad Google translation. I have tried to be as diligent as possible to insure I make very few mistakes of this kind. Problems of potentially misunderstanding a source is why we have a review process though, to try to correct any unintentional insertions of non-factual information. It's also why DYK requires articles to be fully sourced. --LauraHale (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised that his age didn't alert you to a need to check up on your translation, particularly as (e.g.) the long interview (in English) didn't mention his double claim to fame, which would be a point of interest for an interviewer. The Paralympic results page is another handy way of checking such things. The primary failure here is by you, not the reviewer. You must be more careful when using sources in a language that you do not understand. Bencherlite 14:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• older and wiser, i hope. google translate botches translations and it's unwise to use it .especially if it's for translatin more than single words, and don't use it all if ye r life depends on it. -- Ohc 

• I've seen some real horrors with Google translate. European Championships was chronically translated as UEFA. Archer was frequently translated as goalkeeper. My Spanish is good enough that I can pick up most facts, and know where there are issues. (Tios can mean aunt and uncle, or uncles. Hence, relative because source did not specify which one it was.) I also hangout in #wikimedia-es and #wikinews-es a lot asking for clarification on Spanish I do not understand. I also have access to native speakers that assist me when I ask. Plus, learning Spanish. Just sometimes things slip through and yeah, continual effort to improve. (Luckily, Misplaced Pages is a wiki anyone can edit and perfection is not required...) --LauraHale (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• DYK/Discussion pages