Wikipedia talk:Did you know

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

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 Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.

Pulled hook

As a result of WP:ERRORS and serious concerns over the attribution of claims (i.e. "is said to have been...." by whom?), I've pulled this hook:

" ... that the peal of bells in St John the Evangelist's Church, Kirkham is said to have been the first to be rung in a Catholic church in England since the Reformation?"

For further information, check the error report diff here. Once resolved, there should be no problem re-adding it to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

What's the protocol for this? Do we reopen the nomination? Gamaliel (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the hook was on the main page for under an hour, we typically give another chance. (If it had been up for much of its scheduled run, then probably not.) I've reopened the nomination template with a note that a new hook will be needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

And please inform the nominator and various reviewers and admin who posted it to the queue that they are required to undertake more rigorous reviews to prevent this kind of thing slipping onto the main page seemingly undetected. Today alone we've had to "fix" three DYK hooks and pull one, all of which had made it to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I had a quick look at the "next" queue, and found a few issues. Seriously guys, it's getting real now, if we have to correct/update/fix/pull three or four hooks from each queue, you're going to lose the main page area. Slow down your updates, focus on review quality, do something about this mess. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Good job EEng didn't take his analogy any further. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't need me for that. In this edit [1]] someone's been talking about "common scat". EEng (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

lol. Fly me to the moon... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

An ALT 1 hook has now been suggested, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

We are now at ALT 5. When does this get re-added to a queue? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I really don't understand all the procedures around here, but someone will show up who knows what to do. I'm glad this got worked out. EEng (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

...so, five six days on, does it now need to be re-nominated? by the original nominator? re-reviewed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I've figured this out. It's still on the giant concatenated discussion page, and it has the magic green tick, so it's just a matter of someone picking it for use in a prep set. Unfortunately I don't know how to do this and would rather not learn -- I prefer to just stand on the sidelines and nag, as you know. EEng (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC) P.S. If I wanted to engage you on an utterly unrelated topic in the next few weeks, would you be gamely intrigued?

Probably shocked and offended in equal measure. But yes. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Good. Goooooood. My plan is working puhhhhrfectly. <rubs hands menacingly, laughs diabolically> In the meantime, did you see Harry Elkins Widener Memorial Library? You of all people will appreciate the footnotes. EEng (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Goodness me, could they not all go in a separate (larger) article? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is kinda what I want to talk over with you, because I sense you're the kind of person who appreciates this kind of ancillary material. Please sleep on this a few days (though you needn't be asleep the whole time) and let's talk about it in calmer times. EEng (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe too much "kind"-ness in the foregoing. EEng (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

...ooo, we don't want that, do we. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I've learned how to promote hooks now, and I thought "Oh goody, I'll promote St. Martin's church", but this one has an image and that's still out of my competence. Sorry. EEng (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Prep 1

One hook suggests (arguable) that a sailor's corpse was scattered in a dinghy and a few lifebuoys ... though I don't believe that is what is meant.

Prep 1

US consistency

I'm no expert but out of the four hooks currently sitting there, two mention the United States, one as U.S., the other simply as US. I would imagine "United States" to be preferable, but if not, surely consistency in a set of hooks is desirable? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

"busiest border crossing"

I also have a question about the "busiest border crossing in the world". One of the two references is from 2010 so I just Googled the hook to check and found another single reference in this article which said that, on June 20, 2014, "southern Texas" has the busiest border crossing in the country (i.e. in the US, U.S. or whatever). If its the busiest in the US, and the busiest in the world is the one in the US, presumably Southern Texas has it? Or which source of reference do you believe? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I see the reference you cite refers to a "spike" in border crossings and says the south Texas one is "now" the busiest border crossing in the world. This suggests that it is very recent and possibly temporary. I'll think about alternate wording and look for more authoritative sources. --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about the text in the article claiming the building and the border crossing to be "symbolic", that's not borne out in any refs I've read about the building and its location. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we should scrap this AGF entirely. I reviewed this, the source didn't load, but I was on a PC I don't use regularly, and thought "well, two people have double-checked the source, I'll just add a note". I'm thinking from now on I should throw AGF out of the window and just verify everything myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

That's why the idea of multiple reviews per hook is a good one. You get diversity, readers using different browsers, different access rights, difference ideas as to what makes a hook interesting. Right now DYK isn't really getting any of that right. P.S. I got a dead link too, I wonder if anyone checked the references, and if so, and discovered a dead link, considered archived links? Who knows....? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I did a few google searches around the theme of "united states custom house" "50 feet" and didn't find anything, but I know from experience at AfD and elsewhere that claiming "can't find anything in a quick google search" can backfire on you and make you look a wally. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The source is the NRHP nomination form, and it appears that all NRHP nomination forms are currently unavailable. I just searched for half a dozen of them and got the same answer every time: "This website is currently unavailable." The "50 foot from the border" information is definitely there in the nomination form, where several of us saw it (the article's author and me, the nominator). Hopefully the website will come back up in the next day or two? Meanwhile I have proposed changing the other wording to "one of the busiest border crossings in the world," since the recent surge in border crossings in Texas may have changed things. --MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Luckily the author of the article had a cached version of the nomination form! I put it into the article as a substitution for the online version, since the online link is currently unavailable. The cached version is here, and the "50 foot from the border" information is on page 2, in the very first sentence of the nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Rose rosette virus

If the virus is so significant, why isn't it linked to anything? Also, the article says "almost two-thirds" while the hook says "at least two-thirds", while the reference says "about two-thirds". Come on guys, this is simple stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

look like its linked now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It's linked, but the hook and the article and the reference don't say the same thing. Weird. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

What part doesn't match? I think I checked the hook through to the source -- I don't attempt to check the whole article for accuracy, of course. Is it something about the description of the virus? EEng (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It's the "almost" vs "at least" vs "about". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I missed that angle. As with he 25000 and Roosevelt (see elsewhere near here) these kinds of things are readily interpreted by the reader as approximate or estimates. Especially since we're talking about dead roses, not dead people, we can say "2/3" when maybe the source says "almost 2/3". If in doubt I always say "some 2/3" which is a short, neat way of telegraphing uncertainty. EEng (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, the real point here is that "at least 2/3" is not the same as "almost 2/3". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

We shoulda just said 2/3. Again, this is why hooks should just be pulled, not patched. There are too many details to fix on the fly with confidence. EEng (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Soccer kick

The only source in the article referencing the "fact" that a "soccer kick" can cause injury is from a website called "MMAJunkie" and features an interview with someone who says "we’re just lucky no one has been seriously injured yet". So, in reality, it hasn't caused injury, and if it has then the hook should be changed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

And per a recent hook change by experienced veteran DYK admin User:Victuallers (here), we shouldn't be allowing humour on the main page DYKs, or Easter egg style links, unless its 1 April, and as most people will read a soccer kick as being related to association football, not MMA, the hook needs serious clarification as well as correction. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You're being POINTY, TRM, and it doesn't help. And you know I'm with you on most things. EEng (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Let it slide: mirroring helps Victuallers (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

As usual, V, I have no idea what you're talking about. EEng (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a little revenge strike for me applying Victuallers' own flawed logic and pointy outburst to other hooks which he perhaps overlooked or missed or just didn't apply his own flawed logic to. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Prep 2

Swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi

Were the heads invited or did they actually attend? The hook says one thing, the lead says another. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Approved hook said "invited", sources I checked said "invited" - so I left it invited. They may have also attended but I don't know. EEng (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

So we leave a hook to disagree with the lead of the article it links to? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing, BTW, that what might be going on is that the event hadn't happened when the nom was made. Anyway, by far the most important thing is that the hook be ironclad, traced straight through to the source, because they appear on MP and just must not be wrong. But as to the article, I have the somewhat radical idea that we should be very up front that they are works in progress, even to the point of putting a template on them, beginning with their DYK MP appearance, saying, "Like all WP articles, this one is a work in progress, may be incomplete, contain errors, blah blah, click here to help!"

Yes, someone should make the article consistent but from what I recall there's no contradiction -- all the heads were invited is a true statement, and maybe that they all came is a true statement too. But that they all were invited is a true statement. EEng (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Different question: I see almost nothing on the image in stamp size, - can it be cropped? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Only because it's you, I created a cropped version, and changed the prep to use it. However, there are some formalities only an admin can carry out e.g. protecting the image, and I'm not certain the flickr source carries the right license for the original image -- can an admin run all that down? EEng (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Taylor Glockner

Minor point, but why are we linking to an iPad variation of the reference? While we're talking about it, our own article on The Courier-Mail states that it's a tabloid newspaper, and it's this, and this only, which is referencing the claim of the hook. I tend to avoid using tabloid references from the UK, e.g. The Sun or The Mirror as they are widely recognised as failing our reliable sources policy. What makes this Australian rag any different from the UK red-tops? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be a RS. Mobile vs desktop fmt shouldn't worry us for DYK purposes. EEng (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Since when did tabloid newspapers become reliable sources? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, Mr. Man, you were posting queries at such a furious pace I was having difficulty processing them all, and some things fell on the floor. Here, for example, I somehow only saw the iPad point. I'm usually better than that but there's been some strain recently. But it would be better in future if youd concentrate on e.g. the RS point, and skip e.g. the iPad point. EEng (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Two issues for the price of one. Still, if DYK posted fewer hooks per second, we'd have fewer errors per second to comment upon. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Present tense

"that the Philadelphia 76ers are moving their headquarters and practice facilities " apparently they are moving. It appears, from the article at least, that this move won't be happening until 2016, so can we make the hook at least accurate in so far as "the 76ers will move to ... in June 2016" or similar? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

changed to future tense, though present tense is in use for near-future verbs in spoken English....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it's a nuance of English that we use "are moving". That can imply to other non-English speakers that it's happening now. It isn't, it's happening in the future. Thanks for the fix. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not a question of how far in the future per se. The real problem is CRYSTALBALL. We can say where the next Olympics "will" be held because that's almost certain to happen. A team's announcement 10 days ago about a planned move, no matter how confidently stated, is hardly certain. EEng (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Roosevelt's popularity

The source suggests that it was an "estimated" 25,000, not a cast-iron "25,000", so the hook and the article need to reflect that reality. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

estimated added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you on this, TRM. MOS:LARGENUM provides that large round numbers are expected to be interpreted by the reader as approximate. We don't have to sweat this in a hook. EEng (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the point is that there are only people having a guess at the numbers, it's not like a modern football match where we can round the large numbers with confidence that what we're rounding wasn't just an estimate in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Worst in the world

"...that in 1941 the judge Heber Hart wrote that..." well actually the article refers to a work by Hart that was published in 1941, not written in that year. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless there was a very large delay between the manuscript and the publication, it's usual to elide the two chronologically, taking the publication date as controlling. For one thing, regardless of how many drafts something goes through, there's that last moment when the galleys are approved (in the old days) or the writer clicks SEND (nowadays), and that's sort of the final "writing". EEng (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your first sentence, so the blurb needs to say it was published that year. Otherwise we're just taking a punt that it was written in the same year. Guessing. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Right first time, RM: wrote is wrong (or deeply misleading at best). The original—and still current—wording is thought, which is entirely correct. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at this Google search for wrote in 1941 to see how wrong you are. [2]. I suspect The Rambling Man has thought better of this by now. EEng (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

So lazy thought is commonplace on the internet? What a shocking surprise! We know that he thought about it in 1941, and if we are sure about that, then we may as well stick with what we know, and not what will mislead. - SchroCat (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Eric Morecambe, anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's a similar search restricted to 19th-century books, so no lazy internet usage. [3] Or does the [4] Report of the Committee of Council on Education - 1858-9 - Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty go in your lazy usage column as well? Really, how long will you continue embarrassing yourself? EEng (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not embarrassing myself at all. This is, at one level, a stylistic difference, and that's just one factor. I've already asked you a couple if times to not move into the realms of incivility, and yet you still keep personalising this: again, please stop. - SchroCat (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Bottom line is that once again the hook is incorrect. Or at best, badly sourced. Now then, move along all you kids, you're giving me a headache. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Cervix

This hook has a qualifier (to whit: "the relatively small lower part of the uterus in adult women"). Is there a reason why this specific hook needs a qualifying sentence (after all, cervix is linked, that's the point, right?) when, for instance, "that the Philadelphia 76ers" isn't qualified with "American basketball team"? Also, it may be just me but "is during childhood twice the size of the body of the uterus" seems to be missing some commas before and after "during childhood". And sadly repeats "uterus" in a single sentence. Not good at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You have something against multiple uteruses, you misogynist? EEng (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Umm, shouldn't that be "uteri".... ?--MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed a pregnant question. Either uteruses or uteri -- they're identical twins. EEng (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I attempted to fix the grammar with this edit. Yoninah (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Queue 5

SAS

According to long-time contributor User:Victuallers, hooks like "that the SAS is based in Australia?" should be discouraged unless it's April Fool's Day or similar, because of course this is misleading to our reader. Is this a trick hook or are such hooks allowed and Victuallers has mis-interpreted the current DYK approach to such things? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm not getting the reference. To me SAS is a statistical package. Assuming we get past that... V has been extremely pointy, angry, and childish recently, but we shouldn't be pointy back. A hook that makes the reader look twice because of a double meaning or something is fine. But again I don't know what the joke is here. EEng (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The nominator explained that SAS is most commonly associated with Britain's Special Air Service. Brits who see that "SAS is based in Australia" will do a double-take. Unfortunately, the hook was placed in a queue that just hit the main page in the middle of the night in London. Yoninah (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

See, I don't see anything wrong with that. People go "What...?" and click. You tricked them into learning something. If you don't want to learn anything new and interesting, don't look at DYK. EEng (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it's gone down really well. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, we can't please both the UK and the Australians at the same time... 1,350 views in the 40 minutes it was up yesterday. Thanks, Matty.007 16:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

What, someone pulled it from the Main Page after 40 minutes? Yoninah (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No, unless I'm seeing something wrong it went the whole distance. I'm actually troubled by this on-MP change: [5]. I think it's perfectly appropriate to remind readers of the way the Nazis used euphemisms, as long as we distance ourselves by putting them in quotes. We wouldn't hesitate to have a hook refer to "the final solution" if there was good reason (in quotes in the hook, and with great care of course). EEng (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

And you complain about merging too many things. That hook was discussed at ANI and our Lord-Saviour-Arbcom stopped by to help out. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for that. It was up yesterday, but view stats are only available a day later, so given that the article was up this morning, today's vieww stats aren't available yet. Sorry for my communication error. Thanks, Matty.007 17:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Teams in and lived in

One hook says: "teams in Detroit and Cleveland, and later lived in Mexico City as a fugitive from embezzlement charges?". As the Detroit and Cleveland links point at sports teams, would there be an objection to saying that the teams were "from" Detroit &c to avoid the awkwardness of thinking that we'd be clicking on a geographical location, even though Mexico City (oddly) isn't linked? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

All good points, and arguments for all hooks waiting 48 hours in prep, as I keep proposing. But it's on MP now, and not an error per se, so I don't feel like pursuing it. EEng (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Off topic for this thread, but I think it's worth considering hiving off this page into a separate Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Errors (for want of a better phrase) so that problems with entries in prep and queue can be reported, leaving this talk page for discussing the process. EEng's proposal has been buried amongst these reports. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, we could open a discussion of starting a /Errors page, but it would get buried amongst all the error reports. Seriously, though, since right now I'm the Bogeyman maybe you could lead an effort to revive those discussions. Also, I have to spend some time making up for lost time in one of my own nominations, due to the idiot seven-day rule. [6] EEng (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Happy to help with a pre-main page ERRORS page. Frankly the instructions are confusing in any case, and DYK's odd use of templates rather than mainspace stuff is mega-bizarre and off-putting right from the start so any clear instructions on how to report concerns with hooks not yet on the main page should be helpful. As there are so many, we ought to dedicate a new page, to avoid cluttering up any of the others, to which EEng has alluded. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Prep 3

Baring bare things

"duties of bearing a son bared their breasts" reads really poorly, suggest a revision to stop the odd repeat of bearing and bearing in such quick succession with different meanings. Maybe "exposed"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Changed bear-->produce EEng (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Exposed sounds best to me. (Can you be accused of decent exposure I wonder?) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:43, 23 June 2014 (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) 11:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Is death quirky?

In Prep 4, ... that right after Frederick Federici sang the last note as Mephistopheles in Gounod's Faust, descending through a trap door to hell, he died? - by what standard is that "quirky"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly dramatic. Yoninah (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Operatic, in fact. I was going to suggest

... that opera singer F F descended to hell before he died?

EEng (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem with it personally, but that probably wouldn't go down too well here. Thanks, Matty.007 17:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with the hook, which I suggested myself, but with the quirky position in the set. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Queue times

Will the times for the queues to appear on the Main Page ever be accurate again? Lately it's been difficult to assemble a set when you don't know if it will be delayed, or exactly what time it will appear in each time zone. Yoninah (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps just slow all the queues down to when is most appropriate to update DYK, i.e. once all the hooks have been double/triple checked, rather than rushing them through based on a robot timer telling you to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Used to be, we didn't worry about the time of day when a hook/queue was going to appear. (Although we did worry about timing for holidays and other special dates.) It was just luck that determined whether a hook appeared when the geographic region it was most focused on was mostly awake or mostly asleep. The idea that article creators can demand that a hook's appearance be timed to coincide with a particular time of day just makes it all the more difficult to administer DYK. --Orlady (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well it's only difficult because there seems to be an insistence to rush DYK along a lot, why not stick with one set of hooks per day, like all the other parts of the main page (apart from ITN which may shift a little over a day, depending on stories and such)? What makes DYK need to continually push, push, push? I've had nominations that have featured on the main page which I never got a chance to see, six hours and bang, it was gone. Pointless. I see no harm at all in sloooowing it all down, especially in view of the recent embarrassing oversights, to one set a day. Can you give me one good reason why we shouldn't re-boot DYK to one good set of 6 to 10 hooks per day? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Support TRM's proposal. DYK primarily justifies itself by saying "[MP] publicity rewards editors for their contributions." Six hours really isn't a long time to bask in the glory and being pulled (as opposed to receiving MP space with an improved article after a tough review) is no reward at all. Furius (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the deal is that -- consistent with the goal of encouraging new Wikipedia content and new Wikipedia contributors -- DYK tries to feature every nominated item that is determined to meet the eligibility criteria. We've been pretty tolerant (in order to encourage newbies, etc.); I recall only one contributor ever being banned from DYK. The production rate of new nominations -- and of approved nominations -- on the noms page is what determines the number of items that get included on the main page. In my memory, the number of hooks displayed in one 24-hour period has varied between about 12 (two daily sets of six hooks) and 36 (4 daily sets of 9 hooks).

Throttling down the number of hooks presumably would require either (1) only publishing the best nominations (for example, only those that have zero problems at the time of nomination) or (2) developing subjective or arbitrary criteria to use as a basis for rejecting some nominations that are otherwise fully acceptable.

A major difficulty with the first option is that the best nominations tend to come from experienced and productive contributors -- people who at any given topic are usually concentrating on one narrow-interest topical area. Thus, we would end up running hooks on the same short list of narrow-interest topics over and over again. (We have those repetitive topics now, but since each hook runs for only 8 hours daily, the repetition is less obvious.) Users would never see hooks from newbies, contributors with limited English, and other contributors who need a lot of coaching and assistance; hooks about under-represented topics like politics in sub-Saharan Africa might never appear.

The second option would inevitably lead to acrimonious debate that does not contribute anything to improving Wikipedia. We already have the people who want to focus on the kinds of hooks that get the most hits (e.g., anything related to sex), people who insist that no one cares about [fill in name of topic here], people who insist that their own hooks are the most deserving of attention, etc., etc. Unlike ITN, we wouldn't be able to use metrics like current news interest to justify our decisions. That's not a happy prospect -- I'd far rather spend my time in trying to improve articles than in arguing about the relative significance of submarines vs. weevils vs. listed buildings in England (or whatever). --Orlady (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No acrimonious debate needed, just straight voting. A rough outline:

• Nominated hooks go on a list. Every day every editor has N hook-votes to give out as he pleases (including more than one to a single hook?).
• Each day the 7 hooks with the most votes have made the grade.

• A hook stays in the running for a few days, accumulating votes (maybe with some kind of time decay) but after a while it's dropped from the running.

• Over the next 30 days -- no hurry -- the article is reviewed and improved as necessary, and when it's ready it goes on MP. (Actually, if it were up to me DYK would just include GAs only, not this inexplicable "new content" conceit, but that's a different debate.)
• By running only 7 really good hooks per day, there's real quality control. (Or maybe the biggest vote-getters stay on MP 24 hours, others rotate in for shorter periods.)

EEng (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• That's a big enough change that it would need an RFC, at least. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I'm just pointing out that determining which proposed hooks should actually be used is once place where raw, Darwinian voting makes complete sense. We want to run hooks people like? Then ask people what they like. EEng (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2014 (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 #2 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) 20:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

CHILL OUT BOT. If it's late, it's late. Stop harassing these people. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot hate self. DYKUpdateBot kill self with petril. Belle (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a bot. It has no emotions.--Skr15081997 (talk) 04:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• <flatstare> Ah, right... yeah, that was totally the joke. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Mr. Bot look at the top of the page and say "Hi, Honey".--Skr15081997 (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• EEng read thread and say, "Huh?" EEng (talk) 04:59, 24 June 2014 (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) 06:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Are hooks no longer required to be interesting?

From the current crop: "that footballer Pavel Mareš played for the Czech Republic at UEFA Euro 2004". Really? Is this actually interesting at all? Or are we going to get a series of "footballer X played for Y at Z" articles flooding DYK now? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not kidding -- one hook was "that people sometimes put indoor furniture on their screened porches" EEng (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

.. porches can be quite fascinating, especially against a nice screen. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Lets see: DYK hooks are supposed to be

1. Accurate
2. Referenced
3. Reasonably grammatical
4. Under 200 characters
5. Interesting
6. Scheduled on time

What we have here is a hook that fulfills five of the six (there may be more I missed). Considering how far behind DYK has been for the past few weeks, how many hooks have had concerns about accuracy, how many heated emotions have been posted to this talk page recently, how long the article was in prep and queue before being promoted, how that article is buried among several others of considerably more interest (and thus not the focus), and how many DYK regulars appear to have just given up or reduced their involvement because their best efforts just aren't enough for critics... I say it might be better to wait until things are better here before bringing minor complaints. Of course, if you want to suggest "interesting" alternatives for upcoming hooks, be my guest. It's just that complaining about every little thing kinda makes the more important complaints seem more trivial. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, there are bigger fish to fry, but really I had thought that after accuracy, the hooks needed to actually be hooks, i.e. hooky, to hook in a reader, not just plain dull. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Paris, Tennessee ... home of DYK gold. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Having a higher "interestingness quotient" overall would be one side effect of reducing the daily hook count. Face it -- some articles just don't have anything hookworthy. EEng (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'd put "interestingness" as 4th most important (accuracy and referencing are definitely #1 and 2, and grammar is fairly important), but yes it could easily have been better written.

EEng, a major issue with "interestingness" is that it is subjective. Something like the hook TRM has taken issue with is probably universally considered "not hooky", but there are many in the grey area. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's subjective. So let interested editors vote on which ones they like, and run the top vote-getters. See #justvote. EEng (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No, because then we would suit only the taste of those who are eager to vote. I don't think I would have been able to interest them in Bach cantatas. Please let's keep serving the interests of minorities and less popular topics also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Trust me, I completely agree that's an important goal. But that doesn't mean we have to throw up our hands and exercise no discrimination at all. You're right that voting only reflects the taste of those who vote. But then, the current process only reflects the taste of those who nominate, including a lot of really, really dull hooks that don't succeed in raising interest in anything at all. It's like the Special Olympics -- everyone gets an award! A statistical investigation of hook clickthroughs and what seems to make them vary would be fascinating -- if someone wants to go through the trouble of dumping the raw data I'd happily carry one out. EEng (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Is that like looking for ten pences at a Salvation Army jumble sale? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 said it all. Interesting or not, it is an opinion. You have to run things and keep them alive. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Late to this: I don't think that hooks have ever been required to be interesting, - it certainly adds if they are, but it will always be subjective (as stated above), - something can be a revelation for me and completely boring for someone else, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Perhaps we shouldn't call it "Did you know...." because that tends to make people think you're about to say something interesting. Perhaps it should be "Factoids from recently created or updated articles" and drop the "Did you know.... ?" bit. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

To you, "did you know?" seems to mean something other than a simple question which can be answered by yes or no. My answer to the hook which started this thread would be "no". The answer to if I would be interested to know that fact would also be "no" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hooks should be required to be as interesting as possible. Sometimes the article topic is dry and does not lend itself to a catchy hook, sometimes the article creator can't think of a good one, and neither one should prevent the article from appearing in DYK assuming it fulfills the other criteria. When I review I try to, whenever possible, prompt the creator to come up with more interesting hooks or suggest them myself. We can encourage everyone to do the same thing, even on articles that someone else is reviewing. Gamaliel (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Preps ...

are in reasonable shape, but since I filled them (mostly) myself I don't plan to promote them to queue unless absolutely necessary. Could another admin handle the job when the time comes? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Prep 4

It seems to me that "consumption" shouldn't be in quotes; it makes it look like a joke or something. Wouldn't it be better to just call it tuberculosis, and take the quotes out of the article, too? Yoninah (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's meant to be "hooky". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's the wording of that time and gave it a pipe link, - I don't think we need the quote marks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Gerda's right. With consumption blue-linked, that's hooky enough. Yoninah (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Did someone mention Hooky Street? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Errors

Moving the most important part of this page, the discussions about problems and errors, to a subpage Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Errors (only because there are so many of them nowadays?) seems like a poor decision to me, so I reverted it. It at least needs discussion before such a rather crucial measure is being taken. Fram (talk) 11:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Looked quite a logical move to me, regardless of how many there are at the moment. In fact, I thought it was a good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

We did discuss this, but the conversation got buried in Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Errors#Teams in and lived in - in a nutshell the reports are drowning out actual discussions (such as EEng's proposal to keep preps fixed for a time). As long as instructions are clear what to do and where to do (and I'm not saying they can't be improved), this should be a net benefit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hiding problems on a subpage is rarely a net positive. The fact that these reports currently drown other discussions is evidence of the enormity of the issue. Fram (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I used precedent as set by Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors (where WP:ERRORS goes) - best to be consistent. Similarly, I would imagine most regulars would use a shortcut or a link. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea. They aren't hidden on a subpage, they are on a dedicated page where they can get the attention they need without being lost amongst general conversation (it's all spin). Belle (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so before this conversation gets buried (!), are there any further objections to splitting off errors? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If I may say I think this question might be deferred until the question in the next section below (holding noms open for a final 48 hrs or whatever) is resolved. That might moot this idea, good as it is for the current situation. EEng (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I object to splitting off errors. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't really objecting, but I don't think it will be necessary if the proposal of the next thread goes through. EEng (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yet another proposal from EEng

I think the problem is that so many hooks undergo continued discussion after the nom is closed and the hook is placed in prep, so that there's no natural home for that continued discussion -- thus it ends up here. The reason there's so much discussion after closure is that only two people (nom and editor) are formally required to be involved at all prior to closure (and the nom might do no more than nominate!), and then it goes to prep. Suddenly all eyes are on it, and the real discussion begins!

So here's a new proposal:

Withdrawn in favor of a better idea -- see #Wait.21_EEng_has_another_idea.21

That once a nom receives the green tick, it not go to prep until another 48[let's discuss exact time later]] hours have (has?) passed. This way, grammar hawks and fact-fussers will have a chance to comment on the nom page, keeping discussion centralized there, before things end up in prep where serious problems can only be addressed as "pulls". I really, really think this will help a lot, and it's way better than my earlier idea of holding assembled prep sets for a fixed time. Maybe we can have a new pale-green tick to represent the waiting stage -- and that template should emit some text that can be searched for, so these "waiting" noms are easily found. Support, obviously. EEng (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Support - will give time for comments and other issues. No different to AfD process except shorter time frame, approvals to prep will have more chance of consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Support - if only for the grammar hawks and fact fussers. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC) ...of which you are one -- don't deny it. EEng (talk) Oppose - this will only add more red tape and make it harder to build sets, while any improvement in quality control would in all likelihood be minimal. Gatoclass (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Support - it will definitely improve the situation, it will only make the first few sets harder to build, and will reduce the chances of errors creeping through to the main page. Why this insistence on rushing things through? It will always end in tears, (or in this case, numerous hook pulls and ERRORS reports). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Comment - I think this is a good idea, but support needs to come from those who will be building the prep areas; it's lovely that all the pedants (and I use that as a term of affection for my fellow nit-pickers. Love you. Big kiss.) think it is a good idea, but without buy-in from the logistics division it will be dead on its arse/ass. Belle (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Ideally, yes. But in practice, not necessarily. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Big kiss back. Of course we want buy-in from everyone if possible, but I don't see why the preppies have any special insight on this. We're just telling them (and I'm one too now!) they need to skip anything that hasn't passed the 48-hour mark. If there's a technical problem it should be pointed out, but I can't really see what that could be, except maybe something about how the mysterious scoreboard of still-open noms works. BTW this may mean a drop in MP output for the first 48 hours, but not as much as one might think -- there seem to be a lot of old apporoved noms that for some reason no one has bothered to send to prep, so these can finally be squeezed dry. EEng (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC) I thought moving to prep was an admin job. Fair enough. Belle (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Ideally, yes. But in practice, not necessarily. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC) You forgot to say "Support". EEng (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC) No I didn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC) I think he meant me. Support Belle (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Actually, I did mean TRM, but turns out he did. And you have too. Soon the world will he ours!!! Hahahaha! EEng (talk) Yes Belle - my concern is that this will just add to the existing workload of updaters, which will mean yet another discouragement to participation here. That is the last thing that is needed at DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC) There's no rush to post things on Wikipedia, the last thing needed at DYK is the continuation of the propagation of poor, incorrect, embarrassing hooks that get all the way to the main page in the mad rush to satisfy the DYKUpdateBot... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC) I don't see why it should make things more difficult (though you are right that we shouldn't be discouraging participation I don't see that waiting is a complication likely to do that) Belle (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Because on top of everything else, you are now expecting updaters to calculate the time every hook has been on the nom page before promoting it. It is also going to mean more hooks languishing on the nom page for updaters to have to sort through when looking for eligible noms. Updating is a tough enough job as it is, a rule like this will certainly discourage me from building updates and I doubt I will be alone in that. BTW, has anyone done an analysis of how long pulled hooks have been on the nom page before being promoted? Maybe you should do that before making a proposal such as this. Gatoclass (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Is it not possible for somebody (not me, but somebody with a bit of technical expertise) to make a page which lists the noms that are ready to move to prep (where the green tick icon has been on the nom for 48 hours)? That would make the creation of preps easier than it is now. Belle (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Of course it is, just as the DYKUpdateBot calculates when it needs feeding, and the ITN timer tells us when the last story was added. It's simple coding and can be easily implemented. It's certainly no reason to oppose this proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Simple coding? It may be straightforward, that doesn't mean it's trivial. There are a very finite number of folks with the requisite technical skills helping at DYK to implement this for you. DYKUpdateBot may not have feelings, but after you and others have repeatedly insulted my code, I'm less inclined to spend hours on a new bot. Lack of manpower is definitely a reason to oppose a plan. Shubinator (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Sigh... I, for one, think the coding works marvelously, and that this talk page has gotten too toxic recently to support constructive collaboration... but I guess I'm in the minority. Shub, thank you for all of your work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Support. Gamaliel (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC) I support the idea of letting things sit on a nom page/prep area for a little to get some reviewing time. I don't know if 48 hours is too much or not.--¿3family6 contribs 14:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Let's agree to see first if there's support for some waiting period, and if so, then decide how long. EEng (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Question - How many of these grammar hawks et al. actually read the nom page? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Thus the followon point I made in my OP: we need an easy way to find noms that have passed the one-editor review, but haven't gone to prep. Right now just trying to page through the giant concatenated page of nominations is dizzying. Part of my goal here is to make it socially acceptable for a random editor to add to the end of a nom discussion, "In case it helps, I checked this hook through to the sources and it looks OK to me." Right now I have the feeling that if I did that, certain people would immediately say, "And what makes you think we need you to check?" EEng (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Excuse me, EEng, your ignorance of DYK is showing. There is an easy way to find noms that have been ticked as "approved". If you had built prep areas (instead of pontificating about the character flaws of those who do), you might have discovered by now. On the Queue page under the heading Current number of hooks on the nominations page, you will find at table with by-date listing of numbers of nominations and numbers of approved nominations. Currently there are 238 noms, of which 54 are approved (this includes noms that have been the subject of lengthy discussion prior to approval, as well as those that were simply ticked "OK" by one user). Click on the date to see the noms for that date. The various colored icons are used to allow volunteers to quickly skim to find hooks that are approved, as well as hooks flagged as having problems or as being ready for new review following action to correct issues identified earlier. In my experience the system is pretty easy to use. My biggest complaint has been that when the DYKHousekeepingBot stops working, the table on the queue page doesn't get updated. --Orlady (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC) You think that is easy and are worried that this proposal will make things more difficult? We must be matter and anti-matter versions of each other (You shouldn't agree with this or it will ruin my hypothesis.) Belle (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Support. I support strongly to raise concerns on the nominations page, - once in prep it's late. I support to try this, and we can do that without extra red tape, if prep builders simply watch for the date and don't take things approved just before, in cases of only one reviewer. I think a discussion with several people involved which finally comes to a conclusion is a different story. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Comment - having just checked the first dozen or so pulled hooks, it seems most of them were on the nom page way longer than 48 hours before being promoted. On that basis, it would appear, as I said above, that a rule like this would achieve very little apart from adding considerably to the workload/aggravation of updaters. Gatoclass (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Well, your first point has merit, but your second none at all. It's trivial to code up something that tells an updater that a nom has been sitting there for 48 hours. No workload increase, no aggravation gained. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC) This sort of code isn't trivial, and there's definitely a workload increase for whoever maintains the code. Developers are not slaves. Shubinator (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC) I thnk that's because the giant concatenated page of noms is too hard to parse, and the social acceptability of injecting oneself into a nom, short of pointing out a serious problem, is marginal right now. See my response to Crisco, a few posts up from here. BTW, if this goes well and is eventually formalized a bit more, this might make it easier, not harder, for the person assembling the prep. We might eventually be able to dispense with giving that person responsibility for rechecking the hook and its sources. Right now there seems to be an implied responsibility to do that, but one which is very unevenly discharged. EEng (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "A pale green tick"... this is rather similar to what happened with the "ready for rereview" ticks... those still wait weeks for a second reviewer, or for the reviewer to come back. Ticks don't work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC) I think it might if the tick meant it was listed on a separate page. One of the problems now with looking through the hooks on the nomination page is volume. I sometimes correct the hooks in the latest nominations, but later in the process there can be 5 or 6 ALT suggestions that all need some attention and by the time they get to prep the hooks can have been reworked again or replaced an ALT that hasn't been checked over by the nit-pickers (I like that more than hawks; nit pickers provide a grooming service, hawks eat your young). Belle (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC) No doubt someone knows how to make derivative subpages listing selected noms and so on, but that will take time. Right now I'd be happy for an intermediate tick that emits text that can be searched for. Right now enormous amounts of time are spent unpromoting, posting to TDYK, etc etc, and it's driving everyone crazy. All that will be saved, along with the goodwill now being lost when hooks from "closed" noms are pulled for problems that could and should have been caught before closure. Once it's clear it's working some template wizard can whip up some code. But such an investment of time shouldn't be made until we have some experience with the general idea. EEng (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC) The Rambling Man says it is trivial to code that, so don't go putting him off. Belle (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC) It's already coded, e.g. {{ITN update}}. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Arbitrary break (to reduce edit conflicts) #1 Comment There is nothing implicitly wrong with this proposal but I agree with Gatoclass that it just causes problems for the builders. Every error we can find before a hook is approved is brilliant. Everyone that we find after it is approved is a failure of the process. By all means lets leave nominations for 48 hours to allow eyes to look at them, but building a meta-review process will I think take everyone's eye off the main process .... and everytime we "pull" a hook we create another review and we potentially annoy and confuse the original nominator, the author and the people involved in the real approval process. Lets just remember that the hook is ephemeral, we are meant to be improving the articles and the editors. We are spending too much time tweaking a hook. Lets work out how to improve the creation of DYK articles and improving them .... oh, and the hook Victuallers (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC) After the initial 48 hour (or whatever) delay, there's no "problems for the builders" who simply look at an indicator which automatically tells them if an article has been sitting there long enough. This is software, it's trivial to code a timer. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Read on .... if the builders only had to build then that would be great. But they are checking reviews and answering witch hunts into why they failed to spot that it was the wrong type of engineering strut (etc) in a hook and facing the problem of having their work and themselves rubbished. Will the software you describe help?Victuallers (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC) There's no witch hunt. The large number of pulls from prep show that some prep builders, at least, aren't checking the reviews. No one's naming names, but we're trying to relieve them of that responsibility by moving more eyes upstream (weird an image though that is). And there's some evidence, at least, that careful checking is having a salutary effect already [7]. EEng (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC) The proposal is only trying to address the problem having to rework hooks in the prep areas and queues. It can't help you deal with existing problems caused by other people's attitudes (though it might cut down on the number of witch hunts by getting more eyes on the hooks before they come to the attention of the witch finders). Belle (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Yes, in the short run it will probably make noms discussions longer, increase the frequency of ALTs being proposed, etc., and to some that may be an annoyance; but another short-term effect will reduction of MP pulls, Q pulls, prep pulls, and the godawful mess on this very Talk that those create. And in the long run (actually mid-term, I think) it should reduce the need for reworking of hooks and so on even in the nom discussions, because examples of what is and isn't acceptable will become more visible and reviewers will be educated more effectively. Let me quote from a nom I linked just two posts up: I do not see neutrality, copyright or plagiarism issues, and everything is well cited. To keep [name of well-known fact-hawk modestly redacted]' happy I'd recommend ALT 1, as the source does not say "private" as is stated in the first hook Can anyone really say that it's not a good thing to help reviewers think in those terms i.e. "How will this hook stand up to the scrutiny of others?" EEng (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC) I guess I'm once again unsurprised by the pushback on anything that seeks to reform DYK by those veterans who still seem to think there's no problem here. The bizarre and mad rush to shove whatever we've got onto the DYK section of the main page will continue to embarrass and upset people unless something is done. The first step is to systematically slow the process down and allow more time to reflect on the impact of crap hooks, offensive phrasing, poor grammar, inconsistency, bad links, inadequate referencing, all of which has struck DYK in the past week alone. This proposal offers that first step. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC) See, Victuallers, you didn't have to worry about the rubbishing letting up. TRM, be nice or I'll punch you or kiss you (whichever you think would be worse; see my user page for terms and conditions). Belle (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC) I have to agree, TRM. Truth and Justice are ascendant here, so no need to offend people unnecessarily just now. We can offend people unnecessarily later. EEng (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Sorry, you'll have to clarify the point where I offended people. I just told it as it is. Or am I simply wrong when I count the pulled hooks, the ANI threads, etc? No, perhaps I'm wrong and DYK is just fine and dandy and all these mistakes on the main page of the sixth most visited website in the universe are just fine and dandy too. Keep up the great work DYK veterans who don't even see a problem, at some point the plug will be pulled on DYK, just as it was on Featured sounds, we're closer than ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Arbitrary break (to reduce edit conflicts) #2 Support I don't see the harm, and it doesn't have to affect the number or lengths of hooks, nor even slow down the process in the long term. It will be somewhat disruptive to DYK for a couple of weeks, but I think the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term bot angst. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Oppose In principle this is a fine idea, but (as others have already noted) in practice it would only add to the challenges faced by the volunteers who often struggle to find a good mix of hooks when building a prep area (and often end up "unapproving" several hooks in the process). Furthermore, many hooks already sit on the noms for a very long time after being reviewed, but that waiting period has not ensured quality. It is useful to note that several of the hooks that were severely criticized in recent days immediately after they were moved to prep areas had sat on the noms page for days -- even weeks -- after being "approved". If the vultures who have been swooping in to remove hooks from prep areas while they are being built would actually spend time perusing the nominations page, a lot of aggravation could be avoided. --Orlady (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Not vultures, but hawks (as in eagle-eyes, to mix the metaphor) The reasons pulled hooks sit around a lot are mixed. Mostly it's because no one seems to know how to get pulled hooks back in the workflow with certainty. This proposal reduces that problem by shaking out more problems before the pull stage. Sometimes it's just sulking on the part of nominators and reviewers who expected an easy ride, and/or those with high tolerance for main-page embarrassment of WP. Not sure what effect this proposal will have on this small but vocal minority. The idea that this proposal burdens prep builders is addressed above -- see #easiernotharder. The idea that the long "sits" that already occur, for some noms, between approval and going to prep, predicts that this proposal won't help, is addressed above -- see #whydelaynowislittlehelp. EEng (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Mostly it's because no one seems to know how to get pulled hooks back in the workflow with certainty. There are plenty of people who know how, and there are instructions on the T:TDYK page, as was pointed out to you only the other day. If someone isn't sure, they but need to ask on this very page, and we're happy to explain the process. The standard promotion reversion with an added note on the nomination template, coupled with a quick note on the nominator's page, does the trick. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Support On a technical note something like the prod functionality could be used so that the tick calculates its own time and places the article into the prep area. Agathoclea (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC) To automatically promote after 48 hours is to lose the doublecheck of hook and article that occurs at the time of promotion by the person promoting the hook. This seems to me to be counter to everything this proposal is attempting to do by adding more time to check (though it doesn't do anything to actually ensure any additional checking is done in that time). BlueMoonset (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Comment Perhaps we should push for reviewers to double check-nominations, which is what the core issue seems to be? The question is, how do we do that?--¿3family6 contribs 18:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC) That idea was already lost in the words, the idea that DYK should operate like pretty much most of the rest of Wikipedia, i.e. by a consensus-driven review process. The vets didn't like it, the idea's on hold for me at the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Oppose This is micromanagement, contrary to WP:CREEP. We should continue to rely upon the good sense and discretion of the volunteers who perform this thankless task. In my experience of many DYKs, I have only once been surprised by the speed with which a nomination was promoted and that wasn't really a problem. There's no justification for a change, especially when you consider that the GA process only requires one reviewer to promote. KISS. Andrew (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Yep, keeping it simple has really worked lately, with frequent pulls and trips to AN/I to discuss some of the more disgusting hooks sanctioned by the simple process. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC) GAs aren't required to be nominated before they're likely to be ready, when they're just 7 days old, they aren't under an inexplicable push to get them through the process quickly, they aren't by design meant to be created by inexperience editors, and they don't go straight to MP. EEng (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC) DYK is, by design, intended for new content and, by showcasing the work of novice editors, performs a valuable service in encouraging them. If their work is imperfect, then this is only natural. As Wikipedia is a work-in-progress which depends upon collaboration and input from its readership, it is good to have a section of this sort on the main page. The vexatious complaints about errors fail to understand this that is a proper part of our process. Attempting to make the main page immaculate and totally error-free is a quixotic goal based upon the Nirvana fallacy. We should not allow such perfectionism to unduly hamper the work which is reasonably satisfactory overall. Andrew (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC) It would be instructive for you to demonstrate how many DYKs are actually from novice editors rather than simply claim it to be a "valuable service". Anecdotally (and Wikicup wise) that is utterly incorrect and has no bearing in reality. No-one said we were trying to make the main page perfect, just free from obvious and hideously offensive errors of judgement, as demonstrated by DYK several times over the past few weeks. For "reasonably satisfactory" read "shambolic". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Oppose per WP:NOTBURO. More regulations and requirements will drive people away from the process, so I think this will have the opposite effect the proposers are intending. If you want more eyes (I've always thought the preps and queues were kind of hidden), how about transcluding them to the top of WT:DYK? IronGargoyle (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Actually, the whole template thing with DYK drives a lot of people away, it's so confusing from the very start. Then the process is overly complex to get something nominated. However, this proposal doesn't affect nominators at all. People working the back end of the process will need to be educated, as is always the way when things change, but it sounds like all the opposition here is "we can't change because we'll scare our volunteers away". Okay, well how about "let's stay the same and wait for DYK to be shut down because it's such an embarrassment, a perennial visitor to ERRORS and frequent flyer at ANI because the hooks are wrong/badly sourced/offensive". That'd be better than changing the process a little to make it more robust, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Oppose because we already do this anyway. No need to make yet another rule. I like IronGargoyle's idea, though. --Jakob (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC) No, we don't "already do this anyway". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Yes, we do. Approved nominations often wait for days before entering the prep areas. For example: green tick, entered prep. Total time elapsed: 11 days. --Jakob (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC) I address that point above-- see #whydelaynowislittlehelp.. Part of the motivation here is to make sure there's a minimum time "with many eyes on", but a lot of it is simply making it what I call "socially acceptable" / encouraged to jump in and either tweak, critique, or double-check a nom. The doublechecking is important. Right now I think people don't hesitate to point out a serious error, or to make a friendly tweak of the hook, but what they don't do is say, "In case you care, I also checked the hook back to the source and all looks good." The reason this matters is that when someone goes to make a prep set, there's an assumption that no news is good news in the nom -- if there are no complaints I guess all is OK with this nom. But really it usually means no one but the reviewer (and let's face it, in general we can't be sure of their competence) has looked at all. And since someone who does check usually remains silent, there's no way to tell. We have enough hawks here that, if it was made easy for them to come in after the review and stamp the nom, "I've doublechecked", then that would become commonplace. Prep-builders would come to expect that, and if they don't see it they would either do the check themselves, or just pass over that nom for another day until someone else does a doublecheck. I guess I'm foreseeing this as a way to transition to either a doublecheck by a smaller, more experienced group, or maybe a consensus approach like AfD. I didn't see it this way when I first posted this morning but it's come to me over the hours. EEng (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC) No, we don't. Re-read the proposal. It isn't currently mandated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC) But it happens whether or not we mandate it, so why bother making a rule? --Jakob (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC) So it happens every time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Hooks never or almost never get moved to prep instantly after approval. --Jakob (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Comment. It just took me one hour to assemble Prep 1. More than half of that time was spent flagging already approved nominations for hook, citation, and other problems. I agree with Orlady that this kind of double-checking and un-approving is not in the job description of a prep builder, and it is certainly not the prep builder's job to get into the kishkes of an article and decide if it's telling the truth or not. On the one hand, I like EEng's proposal to have some kind of holding queue in which approved hooks can be dissected and re-reviewed, but on the other hand, I'm wondering who's going to spend their time touching up those hooks? EEng and TRM? As of this post, we have 182 unapproved hooks on the nomination page. IMO it's far better for our experienced reviewers to spend their time fixing up and approving nominated articles than to eagle-eye or nit-pick through a holding queue. Yoninah (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Actually, I think that double-checking the review is part of the job of the person who builds the prep area. There's never been an expectation that the prep-builder will do a complete re-review of every nomination, but I think it's important to do things like (1) checking to see whether the reviewer identified the criteria they assessed (and included everything), (2) looking for obvious problems with the article (cleanup templates, lack of footnotes, too short, bare-url references, wording of a style that screams "possible copyvio", etc.), and (3) making sure that the hook is written in coherent understandable English (something that many QPQ reviewers don't seem to bother with -- apparently there is a theory that reviewers must defer to the judgment of the nominator). That's not a complete list, of course, and if the reviewer or article creator is relatively new to DYK or someone whom I know to have a poor quality record as a reviewer, or if any of these checks turns up possible problems, I do a more thorough evaluation. --Orlady (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC) You don't have to ask who will dissect and rereview -- that's already happening, as seen right here on this page. The purpose of this proposal is to get that dissection off this page and into the nom pages where it belongs, and to have it happen before the nom page turns bluish with the message "This discussion is closed." Now,as to the 182 open noms... I'm either gratified, or amazed, or both, that no one so far has pointed out that the very first open nom, at the top of the giant noms page, was made by me, and it's older than the next oldest nom by maybe 10 days. If you read through it you'll believe me when I say that it was the experience of making that nom (along with two others I made at about the same time) that clued me in to how much is wrong around here. I am also gratified that no one's used that nom to concoct some kind of "this is EEng's revenge" narrative, because that's not true either. Anyway, I have to go to dinner now, but I absolutely promise to get whipping that article into shape tonight. Of course, the sooner everyone agrees with everything I propose here, the more time I'll have for that. So get agreeing. EEng (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC) So are we to understand that the true motive for your personal vendetta against DYK is a desire for revenge because this nomination of yours has fared poorly?!?!? You nominated another contributor's work. That's a good thing to do. However, sooner or later everyone nominates the work of other users discovers during the review process that the article wasn't as good as it first appeared -- for example, there might be a copyvio or a misrepresentation of sources. When serious issues arise and the article creator isn't around to help resolve them, it's common for the third-party nominator to abandon the nomination. Welcome to the club of sadder-but-wiser DYK nominators (many of us are members)! --Orlady (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Huh? I just said I am also gratified that no one's used that nom to concoct some kind of "this is EEng's revenge" narrative, because that's not true either -- and somehow you interpret that as a confession that I'm pursuing some kind of revenge. Do you get everything backwards? What I've experienced on that article, which you seem to recognize as a common experience, is just one more way that DYK asks of various people that they do something they're not well-positioned to do -- in this case, nominators are expected to continue development of an article on a subject they may know little about. This requirement that new articles be nominated at the precise moment they're least likely to pass muster is just one of DYK's many through-the-lookingglass features. EEng (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Your protestations didn't convince me. Instead, your comment "the experience of making that nom ... clued me in to how much is wrong around here" is a pretty good indication that your campaign of harassment against DYK is in fact related to a personal grudge against DYK. As for the specifics of your complaint, DYK doesn't require anybody to do anything. It was your choice to nominate that article. It wasn't your fault that people found problems with it. If anything, your problem lies with the subject matter. The single most important "rule" in DYK is validation of the hook fact. Hooks about research in fields like psychology and education often get challenged during review because it is difficult to make valid factual statements about research findings -- many aspects of these fields seem to be highly subjective, and it seems like findings are often contradicted by other researchers' work. When a hook is approved, it's usually after a long process -- like what happened with Template:Did you know nominations/Carleton Washburne (where another reviewer and I ended up essentially rewriting the article -- as reviewers who didn't get "credit" -- so it would pass). --Orlady (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Can you please get off it with this insane idea of a campaign of harassment? You sound completely crazy. Obviously when I say DYK "requires" people to do things they're ill-suited to, I mean they're required to do so if they desire to participate. Just because no one has a gun to their head doesn't mean the rules and procedures shouldn't be subject to scrutiny, according to the standard of whether they tend to achieve what we want to achieve (though in the case of DYK, that last doesn't seem well defined, which is part of the problem). I really don't care whether I convince you, who in a nom discussion defended confusing Britain with England in a hook by saying that "the law of Britain is basically the law of England", as if you had any idea what you were talking about. If your comment about hooks in psychology is meant to be related to the Gleason nom, then as usual you have the wrong end of the stick, since the hook has never been at issue in that nom to even the slightest extent. EEng (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Oppose one of the problems now is there is a rather nebulous responsibility after the first tick is given - sometimes the assembler to prep checks (but not if in a hurry), sometimes the admin who moves them to the queue (but not if in a hurry). Adding an arbitrary time period won't help. The best would be that the assembler to prep has the responsibility of double checking the hook s/he is moving up to prep and it is a firm line. OR it is the admin that moves to the queue. Or we have two sets of preps, one doubleticked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC) switched to tentative support - look, if people are keen, I am willing to give it a go, though not sure it will help. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Oppose per Gatoclass, Belle, Orlady, Andrew Davidson, IronGargoyle, Jakec, and Crisco 1492. Also, there was a question above about DYK bringing in novice editors. I was pulled in by DYK. Without DYK, I likely would have made a few edits and carried on with other things. With DYK, I expanded an article and got it on the Main Page. I continued to tweak it until the article eventually became a Featured Article. I stuck around at Wikipedia, eventually becoming an administrator and contributing technical support to DYK. Yes, DYK does bring in new editors. Shubinator (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Um, except Belle was a Support. As for new editors and so on, how is that impacted by asking that there be a short wait between initial review of a hook and its MP appearance, so more experienced editors can take a look, and problems (or potential problems) can be addressed before a pull from prep or Q is required. EEng (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Yes, Belle supported. But the corresponding text raises valid concerns: 1. On new editors, I was primarily responding to this. I agree with Gatoclass though that this proposal would impact editor engagement: 2. Shubinator (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC) My comment was pointing out a potential obstacle and was made in the hope that the prep builders would get on board and the obstacle would not materialise. Belle (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Oppose - Many times hooks only come to people's attention because they are about to reach the main page. In my experience, few of the "hawks" glide over the ripe fields of T:TDYK, instead preferring to pick out weak members of the flock once they've reached the narrow pass of WP:DYKQ. This new proposal won't change that. And yes, DYK does draw new editors... myself included. I've progressed quite a bit since my first DYK three years ago. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Huh? The whole point of this is to make it possible for the sharp-eyed to more easily spot problems before noms are closed. EEng (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Which still leaves the weak and strong members of the flock wandering a very large field. Painting a bullseye on the sheep (sorry, just watched How to Train Your Dragon 2) might make it a bit more visible, but still leaves a very wide range to cover. Now, if we had a bot which, say, was able to recognize approval ticks and automatically transclude approved nominations onto another page (narrowing the field, like the approach to a pass), that would make it easier for both queue builders and any Accipiter facticus or Accipiter grammaticae floating around. I'd support a proposal like that, although admittedly it would (as with this proposal) require some investment of time from a bot builder.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Oppose – the idea that a 48 hours delay after approval is going to magically fix even some of the issues is a dubious one unless, as Crisco notes, there was a way of putting them front and center as needing further examination. And the more of these places people have to check, the less likely it gets done: how many pages will we need to monitor on a regular basis, and at what point do people decide it's not worth checking yet another page? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC) But you're making my point. The proposal makes it easier to identify hooks that have passed initial review but not gone to prep, while the discussion is still open on the giant nom page. It makes it unnecessary to monitor both the Q/prep page AND the giant nom page, and keeps all discussion of the hook on its nom page, period. EEng (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Oppose As Orlady states, this may appear to be a good idea in theory. However, the available evidence suggests that in practice, a 48-hour delay will not have the intended effect. I was also pulled further into editing by DYK, and have become a better editor through the collaboration and scrutiny that it entails. We have to strike a balance between encouraging and rewarding editors, especially newer ones, for their contributions, and achieving perfect articles and hooks. And I suspect that our users worry more about articles generally, than they do about any passing flaws on the front page. Edwardx (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - It seems to me imposing a waiting period on promotion from the prep to queue would be more likely to increase quality than a waiting time on promotion to prep. That said, coding to signal out items (different background color perhaps) based on their tick status might be helpful. If there is support for such a thing (irregardless of the wait time decision) I would be willing to provide the coding.

Another possibility would be a bot that sorts hooks based on approval tick date and encourage people to promote from that list rather than than main one (since nominations are transluded individually it wouldn't add any work or have any risk of causing confusion). Seems that would be useful regardless of a waiting period or not - it would allow those wishing to check hooks before promotion a chance to do so more easily and would facilitate the work of prep builders by blocking out the "noise" of unapproved hooks. I don't really see any down side of doing this. I may bolding start working on the coding later today. The worst that could happen is no one will use it, I'd think, resulting in nothing worse than a bit of wasted time on my part. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• @ThaddeusB: How hard would it be to get the addition of the green tick to add the nomination to a category and make a page that listed out all the noms that were in that category but hadn't been moved to prep? That's basically all the fact and grammar checkers are after and it would make it easier on the prep builders too. Belle (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

  Thinking out loud, the {{DYKtick}} template could easily add the category, but a bot would have to remove it when appropriate (when a new tick was added or it was promoted). In other words, it would be roughly the same amount of coding as the extra subpage idea, but without the benefit of the time ordering. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  If the "moved to prep" template added another category could a page not list "everything in category A that is not in category B", or is that just as much work/impossible? (No clue how these things work. Like that wasn't obvious.) Belle (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  The magic words built into the wiki syntax don't include the ability to check for category membership, so anything more complicated that added a page to a category has to be done with a bot. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You may recall that a while ago I proposed a waiting period before preps go into q, but that didn't fly. And later I realized that the bigger problem was that noms get closed when the hook goes to prep, but then there's no venue for the discussion that so often happens. I was trying to solve that with the 48-hours-before-going-to-prep idea.

But you've given me an even better idea, I think. How about this:

Wait! EEng has another idea!

[Continuing from TB's post in prior section...]

• Leave the nomination page open when moving to prep.

• Just add a mention on the nom page that it's gone to prep.

• The nom page stays open when prep goes to queue.
• The nom page stays open when the queue goes to MP.
• Close the nom when MP appearance is over.

That's it. No waiting periods. (We could still add those later.) Hawks can work from the preps.

• If someone spots a problem in prep, just remove it from prep, and go back to the nom page (still open) and explain.

• This isn't a "pull". No need for these to be listed in "/Removed" since the nom page activity is notice enough. (Even the editor promoting to prep will have this on his watchlist, since he noted on the nom page when he promoted to prep.)

• Same if there's a problem noticed in Q (though only an admin can do that). Just remove it from the Q set and explain on the nom page (still open).
• I'm not sure what /Removed would even be for anymore -- maybe only for MP pulls?

The important thing is the nom page remains open for the duration of the hook's lifecycle, most importantly during its time in prep or Q. There may be a place for automation per TB's suggestion, but this seems like a win-win no matter what.

Am I not an unending stream of pretty-good-but-not-great ideas? EEng (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support I like this. I know there has also been recent complaint about the notifications from DYKUpdateBot, but I also want to throw that idea on its head. What if the notifications from DYKUpdateBot were sooner and more frequent? Reminders would occur not just when there was nothing in the queues, but also when a certain % of the queues (or preps) were empty? While it would take a bit of a drive from DYK to fill up the queues and preps, the new norm of both queues and preps being full would give more time for people to look at the hooks before they went to the main page. One the queues and preps were full, the rate of required updating would return to its normal pace. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: the one definitive clue we prep-set builders have that a hook is not in some other prep or queue is that the nomination template is closed and disappears from T:TDYK. If instead they stick around, each time I find a potential nomination I'll have to search through a bunch of preps and queues to be sure that none of its hooks are in it (and some noms have bunches of preps to choose from, some of which may not use the same bolded phrase). With this proposal, we're just asking for duplicate hooks across the sets, and frustration from people who realize that the hook they just checked has already been promoted. I'd also like to propose that EEng take a one week moratorium from proposing any new ideas, since an unending stream of not-great ideas is taking up a lot of time that might be better spent elsewhere. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, the prep builder notes at the end of the nom page that it's gone to prep. Why is that less reliable that turning the nom blue? Anyway, there are way worse things going on here than one DYK running twice.

Here's the thing. When you turn the nom blue it says, "This discussion is closed." But we all know that's not true -- the moment that happens also happens to be the moment when the most difficult discussions begin, except they happen here on this page instead of on the nom page where they belong.

Perhaps you should open a thread proposing that I make no more proposals for a while. EEng (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You're even wearing me down with the proposing and reproposing. I feel like I forgot my wellies and fell in your unending stream. Belle (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I swear this is the last one for a while. Pleeeeease? EEng (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps people should be required to leave a note on the DYK nomination page when they move the hook to prep. That would certainly fix that issue. --Jakob (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

As I keep saying, that's part of the proposal -- first bullet point. EEng (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - As BlueMoonset has pointed out, this would add significantly to the work involved in building prep sets. Further, it would add to the work of administrators who review and approve prep areas before moving them to the queue, as it would be necessary to go back to the noms page to check for comments from users who didn't notice that the hook was moved to the prep. Additionally, this would create new work for Shubinator, who built and maintained the DYK bots, because he would have to add scripts to give new jobs to the loyal DYKUpdateBot that moves approved hooks to the main page; posts notices on the talk pages of all involved articles, article creators and nominators; resets the clocks; archives the hooks that came off the main page page; and clears the queue that was just promoted -- because the bot would now also be responsible for closing all the nominations of promoted hooks. And when the bot isn't working and a human administrator has to do all that stuff, it would just one more set of jobs to do -- and one more step that possibly could get forgotten during a manual update, leading to a variety of potential problems. --Orlady (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Blue and Orlady. As if the nominations page wasn't enough of a mess. This is a major step backwards. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Blue and Orlady. I use the template turning blue not just to check that an article has not already been promoted, but as part of my procedure to ensure that the promotion has been done correctly. There are quite a few steps involved. I'd like to be able to automate the process a bit more, but the big problem is to find the approved hook amongst all the markup. It's no picnic for the humans either. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Not BLP, really, but privacy

I'm a bit concerned about Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Diane_Guerrero, now in prep. The hook is that the subject's parents and brother were deported from the US. That's certain OK for the article, but isn't it a little bit invasive to trumpet this fact, which is really about three people other than the subject, on MP? I'm not saying it's a pull, but I thought this point should be given some thought. No doubt there are lots of other good hooks we could use. (I wouldn't be saying this if the hook was e.g. "... that the deportation of three of her family members inspired The Subject to write her biggest hit song?" or some other direct tie-in.) EEng (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

"She is notable for having overcome the deportation of the rest of her family when she was a teenager" is unsourced (either directly or anywhere else in the article) so it is not eligible for DYK anyway. Needs pulling. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Or, you know, simply removing the sentence from the lede and adding an RS that supports the claim (i.e. this) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but look at what's happened. I was worried about the propriety of the hook even if it's verifiable. Then someone else says it doesn't seem to be, in fact, verifiable. At that point, we're done as far as this hook being included in any set. None of us should be trying to figure this out on the fly, especially since this is a BLP. There are plenty of other hooks to use. The nom should be reopened and the issue addressed. I'll check now and if no one else has pulled it I will, and copy this discussion to the nom page. EEng (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• That's one of the reasons article writers get upset. Anything wrong? Pull. Can it be fixed easily? Too damn bad, pull it! And now, with even grammar mistakes being a cause for pulling... I referenced the sentence in question within five minutes (a single Google search, first link). As for whether it's invasive to use this as a hook, debateable since Guerrero was talking about it herself in an interview on a public website. An ALT is possible, but there shouldn't be any need to pull the hook right yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

We absolutely should not be taking it on ourselves to come up with a new hook at midnight, especially in a BLP. As always, what's the hurry? There are plenty of other good noms to use. Apparently the writer didn't provide the right source, so he's got himself to blame. EEng (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• And we can tell Tony (the nominator) without making it appear as if the sky is falling. It was quite probably a slip. I've had it happen to me before: I've got a reference open, have mined it for information, but forget to include it or (more commonly) end up moving it while refactoring for grammar. A nudge is all that's needed. Pulls should be a last resort, as they are both detrimental to the queue and to the relations between editors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't pull until someone said the hook was unsourced. This is a BLP. EEng (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• And, again, it took all of five minutes to source. Fixing something should be our first reaction, not just pulling. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

We keep going over this and over this. You're confident making an on-the-fly sourcing change to a BLP hours before it appear on MP. That works out with no problem maybe 90% of the time. The other 10% are a black eye for Wikipedia. That's not a good trade. Anyway, as TTT said below, this discussion should be going on on the nom page, not here. EEng (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Since this does not involve broader issues and a set of other nominees, can you please join the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Diane Guerrero.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat similar, and now in prep, "... that despite being molested as a child, Mekayla Diehl forgave her attacker and later became the first woman of Native American descent to win Miss Indiana USA?". Seems correct at first glance, but is that sufficient to put it on the front page like this? Anyway, we could do a lot worse, we could copy the Miss Universe website biography of her (one of the two sources used to support the hook), and claim that she was "a victim of child abuse and adoption". Rather insulting to all adoptees and adopters in general, and to her grandparents (who adopted her) especially... Fram (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, are you staying neutral on the 48-hours-before-moving-to-prep proposal? EEng (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2014 (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 #6 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) 06:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Chillax Bot. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Leclerc

Is it just me? I had to read (now Prep 1)

• ... that Leclerc adopted his nom de guerre to avoid risk to his family should name appear in the papers?

several times and am still not sure if I got what it is supposed to mean. What name? His real name? The family name? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I've given the hook a tweak and copyedit. Gatoclass (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I had tweaked that myself earlier and, along with leaving out a critical word, I completely missed this problem. It makes no sense as currently stated. It really should read "to avoid risk to his family should his EXPLOITS appear in the papers" but it's in Q now so beyond my reach. I think it would be a good idea if some admin reach in and do this before it gets to MP. EEng (talk) 12:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• He didn't care if his exploits were in the papers, so long as they weren't linked to his real name (and thus traceable back to his family, allowing the Nazis to take revenge). Standard reason for a pseudonym. I didn't have any issue with the hook as Hawkeye wrote it, and I still am not having any issues parsing that (except for the missing "his" above, which has been fixed). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Right, that's the point. He expected his exploits to get in the papers, but he didn't want his real name there too. by using a fictional name, then if his exploits got in the papers, that would appear instead of his real name, protecting his family. ("Name" certainly suggests, at least, real name, which leads to a contradiction in the reader's mind if that's the way he or she parses it.) I believe that the source says exactly this... "in case his exploits were reported" (or maybe it was "adventures"). EEng (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Which is why it was his name which led to the nom de guerre. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe its just me, but the "should" was really throwing me off (even though grammatically correct), so I tweaked it and also added "real" for clarity: "...adopted his nom de guerre to avoid risk to his family in the event his real name appeared in the papers?" --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"Should" is a slightly out-of-style way of saying "in the event", but what you have is fine. For the record, that's:

that World War II French General Leclerc adopted his nom de guerre to avoid risk to his family in the event his real name appeared in the papers?

EEng (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yah, I am familiar with that usage of it, but in this sentence in particular my brain wanted to read it as a helping verb for name (which of course was actually a noun here) causing some processing difficulty. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Was this chap the inspiration for "It is I, LeClerc!"? I do hope so... Bencherlite^Talk 15:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't kill me Wait. I'm really having a bad day. That's still not right. It still doesn't make sense. If his real name appeared in the papers, then the fact he's using a fake name isn't going to help his wife and children. Look, here's what the source [8] says

Like most Free French, his family was still in France and the mission could end up in the newspapers. If he used his real name he could put Therese and the children at risk.

So this time for sure:

that World War II French General Leclerc adopted his nom de guerre to avoid risk to his family in the event his missions appeared in the papers?

If you will be so kind. EEng (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No need to kill you, you are absolutely correct and the new wording is much better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

And see #Wait.21_EEng_has_another_idea.21 EEng (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The odds of his exploits appearing in the papers was fairly high, because he was almost immediately interviewed by the BBC (using the name "Leclerc" of course). It didn't take too long though for the Germans to work out who Leclerc was once his photo appeared, but his family remained safe in the German-occupied zone. There was a hell of a row with his father when he decided to change his name officially. I might add this to the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Did You Know at Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I doubt DYK needs to be more discoverable. EEng (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This could be way to get more serious contributors. You know, to double-check nominations?--¿3family6 _contribs 13:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point. EEng (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead in prep3

Resolved

• ... that the rood screen (pictured) in St John the Evangelist's Church, Kirkham, designed by Augustus Pugin in the 1840s, was moved and altered by the parish priest in 1906?

I can't see that the source says "altered" - any chance this can be properly verified before pulling the hook? Gatoclass (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It certainly was altered as it did not fit. Will try and add with a source later, unless User:Peter I. Vardy can get there first. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

As it stands, it should be pulled. The source for it says "He moved the rood screen to the back of the church, and altered, extended and refurnished the sacristy. "[9], where the "altered" clearly is about the sacristy, not the rood screen. Unless some other source is found for the altered rood screen, it should be pulled. Fram (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Have made an adjustment and added a new source, but it's not available on the web, so it may be tricky for you to check it. But hey, those bells got pulled, so why not the screen too! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

So, it's in Prep3? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC) is it?

You will find that the hook has now been positively confirmed by Martinevans123 from a reliable source not available online. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Hassocks5489 has even found an on-line source now to suppport the original bells hook! Haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean bell hooks?--¿3family6 _contribs 13:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

or "our Gloria" as she's known to her pals down at the snooker club...? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this nomination being ignored now that sources have been found for both the first "pulled" hook, and for the second current hook? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

ALT5 has now been checked and the article re-approved. Gatoclass (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it in a queue somewhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Prep 3 again

"that the 1967 song "Days of Pearly Spencer" features a "strange phoned-in chorus"" per WP:ATTRIB ("Editors should provide attribution for quotations....."), we should be saying who is attributed with this quote. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, all these competent veteran DYKers who see no issues with the current state of affairs CAN'T HEAR ME.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you need one of these? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something that quote was never in the article. But it can be found in the 5th paragraph here Belle (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with including a quote in a hook if the reader can immediately find the attribution in the article. Different if this were a BLP etc., a controversial topic, etc., of course. But if it's not in article, uh oh.

Well, here we are again discussing a hook here at TDYK because the hook's in prep and the nom is closed. EEng (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we're flogging that stable door again, after the dead horse has bolted, I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no problem here. Just you pesky kids driving our kind and generous veterans away with your pesky complaints. THAT IS ALL. Move along. The Rambling Man (talk)

I've fixed it in the article and in the hook...unless you meant we should give a named attribution in the hook; I don't think that will sit particularly well as it comes from the obituary written by (as I have just discovered) the former editor of "Men Only" rather than a music journalist (not that that makes his observation about the strangeness any less valid) Belle (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

.. what are you saying, Belle! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest that it is rather odd to quote the editor of a soft-core porn magazine as some kind of authority in music. Does this man have any credentials in music? Why should what a porn magazine editor think of a music track be of any real-world significance? It's still not attributed in the article. Suggest this hook is removed as a complete flop. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• As noted, the article is fixed now. I do wonder how Storye book managed to miss the fact the quote wasn't in the article, as he is nromally one of our best reviewers (very thorough). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

  Repeating something I said earlier elsewhere: none of us can catch everything all the time (not even me and I'm practically perfect) Belle (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with TB re SB -- surprised to see a nontrivial error in anything he'd passed. EEng (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC) And I agree with Belle too.

About me being practically perfect? Thank you. Belle (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Pull the hook. A unattributed non-notable soft-core porn magazine editor says it's a "strange phoned-in chorus". Who cares what a non-notable soft-core porn magazine editor says? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

He was writing the obit for The Independent (I was just pointing out that he wasn't a music journalist). I think the phoned-in chorus is hooky regardless of who said it; that it appears as a quote is incidental. Belle (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's the entire basis of the hook. Okay, no problem, a soft-core-porn mag editor now critiques music and, despite him not having any attribution in the article or an article (or does he?), we use his opinion as the primary part of the hook? Brilliant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not a critique though, it's an observation, like saying it is 3 minutes and 4 seconds long (time chosen at random; may not reflect actually running time). I think you are going a little overboard on this one. I could break it out of the quotes if you like, it was probably only quoted to avoid a challenge on close paraphrasing. Belle (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's nothing like giving the running time, but nonetheless an unattributed subjective quote is fine in a hook for something the reader will recognize as obviously subjective and... let's say... harmless. It's a fun characterization and the wondering reader can find attribution in the article. EEng (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but seriously, if the article is using non-notable people to give personal opinions on a piece of music and we now use that as main page fodder, it's wrong, isn't it? Paves the way to something like "EEng said "this music rocks!"" in a hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're saying the article shouldn't include it that's one thing (but we certainly don't require that everyone we quote is notable). But as long as it's OK to be in the article then it's OK for the hook -- the question is only whether it needs to be attributed in the hook. I say it doesn't. It's a quirky phrase that will draw clicks. It doesn't overpraise or insult anyone. It's OK. EEng (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying it should have attributed in both places, but seriously, if we're taking the opinion of a non-notable porn peddler to be that of note on music, gods help us. "we certainly don't require that everyone we quote is notable" seriously? So we just quote any old Joe? I think you're kidding, you must be. Editor of a soft porn mag has an opinion on a song he's heard. Why do I care? Why does Wikipedia care? Why do the millions of visitors to the main page care? Actual questions, need answers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Pull, pull, pull

Does anyone else think this hook pulling is wreaking havoc at DYK?

Being an administrator may give you the right to pull a hook from the queue, Rambling Man, but you must follow the rules and replace it immediately. And who left that mess in Prep 3, with a non-lead-worthy hook and a different picture? Yoninah (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It will cause no more havoc. Having seen way too much dramah over it, especially the most recent underhand post-consensus changes that were made without informing any of the discussion participants, and that introduced basic errors, I have pulled the nom in its entirety. Neither it, nor I, will return to DYK. - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Withdrawn. Sorry for all of this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

So, another in a long line of people complaining about DYK and acting on their own initiative without actually paying attention to any of the safeguards DYK has (several of them initiated after a different batch of complainers drove many regulars away in 2011). This however is getting to be too much. Hook unclear? Pull! Hook fact not followed immediately by a footnote (but supported by the footnote after the next sentence)? Pull! Missing period? Pull! What happened to protecting editors and their interactions? A split infinitive is not going to kill anyone. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid pulling hooks that don't reflect the intention of the nominator (remember, the one the DYKers are working so hard to keep encouraging) is the only way. Modifying and redefining the purpose of a DYK hook unilaterally will do nothing but drive these novice editors away. It's certainly driven some experienced editors away. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think I said that this particular hook pull did that, did I? The section title is "pull, pull, pull", and the opening sentence is "Does anyone else think this hook pulling (i.e. an action, not 'pulling this hook') is wreaking havoc at DYK?". It's clearly a statement about the constant hook pulling over the past week or so, which is what I am addressing. If you didn't notice, I not only cleaned up after your removal of a hook from queue (can you imagine the moaning that would happen if we had ellipses on the main page?), but also closed the previously promoted nomination as withdrawn for Schro. Things which existing guidelines recommend (actually, two of them [replacing the hook and reopening the nom page] require).

How long would ITN (since you love bringing that up) last if hooks were pulled every 12 hours owing to minor issues which can be fixed by normal editing? Say, for instance, 2014 Mpeketoni attacks (first article I checked), which has "more than 60" killed on the main page (permanent link) yet the article says "At least 53 people were killed in the attack and eight others were unaccounted for as of 18 June" (which is not as conclusive as "killed", no?). I'm not pulling it, because this can be fixed via normal editing. Instead I will raise the issue at WP:ERRORS and hope either the article or template are fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• As an interesting side note: this discrepancy has existed since the blurb was posted 3 days ago. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• There were two attacks - the first killed ~50, and the second ~15. "More than 60" is purposely imprecise and conservative as the figures are not definitive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, for the record, the ITN article was accurate, as was the ITN item on the main page. It's not useful to try to point to other parts of the main page to explain why DYK can be so crap, especially when they're doing it right, unlike DYK. Boomerang anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Yoninah: If you'd like me to read these threads, please notify me of their existence. In the meantime, try to solve some of the havoc by ensuring hooks aren't overhauled at the last minute. I too have suffered at the hands of the "expertise" last minute "tweaking" that goes on around DYK. Like SchroCat, despite being a prolific article creator, I will not participate in the DYK process until it's fixed. Others are free to use anything I create, but the approach that some take here, to modify things to their own taste, and in doing so, introducing errors onto the main page (which are then attributed often to the nominators) needs fixing. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm starting to get annoyed too. Fortunately I've graduated and am jobless right now, so I have a lot of time and thus my frustration threshold is very low, and I actually find a lot of the debates and dialogue amusing, but this is starting to get out of hand. I was a bit challenged at first by all of the extra scrutiny placed on DYK noms in the past few months, but I rose to meet them. I don't even mind discussing errors and finding ways to improve things. But I agree that the level of debate, complaining, and now nom pulling is now absurd. I'm not planning to leave DYK, but I can see why other people are getting turned off and leaving.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• So please make sure everything that gets into the queues for auto-population onto the main page is accurate, cited, hooky etc. Don't just whinge about the fact some of us our doing our best to increase the bar at DYK, which is currently the black sheep of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That was uncalled for. I help out the best I can at DYK, and I am trying to get more involved, but it takes a while to learn the ropes. My reviewing skills have definitely improved as a result of the recent discussions by you and EEng, and Storye book's, BlueMoonset's, and Yoninah's careful attention to detail and double-checking of mine and others reviews. I've also started interjecting occasionally at other reviews. But believe it or not, I have other things I'm involved with on here, too. All of yesterday and this morning I was involved in 20+ deletion discussions, and spent hours scouring the internet for sources for the articles in question, many of which will be deleted anyway because I didn't find any. Learning to do more and how to do it takes time, you can't expect things to change just because of some quite long-winded discussions this past month.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. If you have the time to fix the errors we're now picking up here, then do so. We have had far fewer ERRORS at DYK over the past week or so, and sadly it's put a few DYK regulars' noses out of joint. So what? If we can continue to improve the hooks by actually reviewing them properly and checking the sources, then we should. The problems haven't gone away, but the quality is gradually improving. Omelettes and eggs. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree about reviewing and checking sources. It's the drama and pulled hooks and general mess associated with a few editors that I'm tiring of. I don't mind the extra scrutiny, but I think there are better ways to recruit and train reviewers than what is transpiring now on the talk and prep pages.--¿3family6 _contribs 17:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• So you are saying that it's better to have an errorless encyclopedia with no editors, than a growing encyclopedia with some editors? While using a reference to a quote widely attributed to a genocidal dictator? Have fun with that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• No, that's not what I'm saying, where did I say that? We lose some of these stubborn editors who believe that everything is just fine. So what? We get more because people begin to respect DYK again as part of a quality encyclopaedia rather than just report errors to ERRORS and ANI. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think the extra scrutiny recently is good and bad: it makes us watch what we nominate, no-one wants to have an error on the main page, especially not presently, but I have stopped building preps as I don't want to get it wrong. Thanks, Matty.007 18:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm also backing off from prep sets for fear of getting my hand slapped instead of a friendly reminder. Yoninah (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think we're getting close to the point where Rambling Man's tactics are more disruptive than constructive. I hope he reconsiders his approach before other steps become necessary. Prioryman (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you got the wrong piped link there. What you wanted was probably something like "WP:SHUTDOWNDYK" instead. It owuld at least be a better reply to all the problems than the "WP:SHOOTTHEMESSENGER" tactic applied by some of the regulars here. If you believe DYK is more important than getting it right (like some people here clearly do), then you have your priorities wrong. Fram (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I would say there was a consensus that the cure is too disruptive. No one doubts that improvement is possible but we are being forced to lose the workers who drive this project because they do not like the prescription that is being offered/forced on the project. The majority seem to stand accused of not listening... or at least of not being convinced. Maybe they are not convinced? Victuallers (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Ooh, threats from Prioryman, I'm so nervous I may .... just carry on. By all means seek some kind of "user conduct" discussion. You have a certain paranoia, claiming I'm using "tactics" when all I'm doing is analysing the continuing failure of DYK and the continuing ignorance of some editors who think all is just dandy. The "consensus that the cure is too disruptive" is where? Amongst the whinging veterans who don't like their pet project being criticised? As far as I can tell, it hasn't impacted nominations at all, it's just reduced the number of trips to ERRORS and ANI. Which, I'm sure we'll all agree is a good thing, right? The Rambling Man (talk)

Are all the people who don't agree with you "whinging", "half arsed", "ignorant" AND "paranoid"? Do we have this as a common feature or are some of us only in one or two of these groups? Looks like the members of the consensus you seek have something in common apart from failing to listen with due respect to your requests and suggestions. Victuallers (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

No, mostly they are a random combination of the qualities you've listed. But isn't it great how few ERRORS DYK is promoting at the moment now it's been brought up? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

One more hook required for Queue 2

One of the hooks in Queue 2 got pulled and I don't have time to replace it, can someone else do the honours please? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think this is the one I did? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was, thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone add to p3

Maybe Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Edmondston-Alston_House -- need some US. I'd do it but don't know how to handle a photo. Interchange #2 and #3 to avoid 2 bios adjacent. EEng (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Queue 2 image

The flag of Sierra Leone should utilize the superior SVG version that was included in the DYK nom instead of the JPEG one currently in use. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic job!

A lot of people complain about DYK here. Some because they want DYK improved and some because they hate the DYK and want it removed from Wikipedia. Have there been a few problems? Absolutely, and there's always room for improvement. That said, I don't think that this echo chamber of negativity reflects the vast majority of great work that DYK volunteers (writers, nominators, reviewers, and admins) do. I want to say that DYK is always one of the first places I go on Wikipedia and it is full of interesting facts that help develop new content. If you've worked on 1 article or 1 thousand, thank you! Nice work all! IronGargoyle (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, DYK mostly has good and interesting articles sourced usually pretty well and accurately. No-one here "hates" DYK and no-one wants it "removed from Wikipedia", people just want the quality to be improved. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Let's remember WP:AGF please. Why would people be advocating for procedural changes here if they wanted DYK scrapped altogether? Gamaliel (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about any specific people and I'm certainly not including anyone in the present conversation (I think that there are people who do hate DYK and want to see it removed but I'm not going to provide specific examples or name names because that's not the point). I just wanted to inject a bit of positivity and praise for the project to counter the recent theme of negativity (well-intentioned or not) that I see here on the talk page. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well you're still wrong, I can't see a single person "hating" DYK or wanting it removed, I see a lot of people trying to help fix a very broken process which is far too quick, far too slapdash, allows garbage to be passed once, twice, three times until it gets onto the main page. This isn't negativity, this is the description of a problem that exists. First step on the road to recovery is to accept DYK has a problem, sadly far too many DYK regulars haven't been able to take that first step. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's really an "echo chamber"; it's just a couple of noisy people. I've seen this kind of thing happen before. Usually they just get bored and go away after a while. Prioryman (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe echo chamber was the wrong word. I agree with your assessment of what's happened in the past. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to echo IronGargoyle's thanks to the numerous people who do work in submitting, reviewing, checking, administering, improving etc etc DYK submissions. To also echo some other comment made somewhere recently, DYK was what originally got me really involved with Wikipedia. In unusual ways, but it was this project that did it. There are probably many more readers and occasional editors for whom DYK will be the "hook" into full participation in editing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Nice summary. I hope that is what the project remains. I apologise that someones thank you was said to be wrong. It was not. It was appreciated. Victuallers (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Errant line

There is an errant line, "To Prep 4 Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)" on the noms page at the end of the June 18 listings. Yoninah (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably caused by someone adding that particular line below the "Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line." line, which places it outside the actual template when it was promoted. I'll find out which one and move that line inside the template proper if someone else hasn't beaten me to it. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Night We Called It a Day (album)

Something strange is going on when I try to click on "Review or Comment" under Template:Did you know nominations/The Night We Called It a Day (album) on the noms page. I can get into the template from the "What links here" page for the article, but not from the noms page. Yoninah (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the correct name for this template is Template:Did you know nominations/The Night We Called It a Day. Yoninah (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It's my fault. I created the original nom page at Template:Did you know nominations/The Night We Called It a Day. I'm trying to trace back and find where I made the error.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. No need to move the nomination template; the nompage and DYKmake templates have been corrected, and you'll be able to see the correct article history to. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2014 (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) 06:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Prep building and the issue of responsibility - suggestion

I am very concerned that a couple of our regular prep builders have expressed an intention to "back off" from building sets due to the number of promoted noms getting challenged recently. Prep building is a vitally important part of this process, we need our regulars to stay engaged.

This is actually not a new concern of mine, it's been bothering me for a long time that the burden of responsibility has, IMO, been placed too heavily on the shoulders of prep builders rather than being more evenly distributed. Prep building is a difficult- and time-consuming-enough task as it is, without the expectation that builders also be made responsible for checking a host of standard article and hook criteria. I was already mulling the notion of proposing, in a few weeks' time, a tighter definition of respective responsibilities of DYK participants, but given recent events, perhaps this is an opportune moment to bring that discussion forward.

In brief then, I'm thinking it should be clarified that prep builders are not primarily responsible for set verification. Beyond simple checks for hook grammar and interest, and a basic level of presentation for the article, prep builders should be allowed to concentrate on what they do best - selecting an appropriately varied set and posting it to prep. It doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage them to do more, but I think neither should we be blaming them when, for example, hook statements turn out to be erroneous. Instead, I think the responsibility for hook fact-checking should shift to the administrators moving the sets from prep to the Queue. Technically, that's a very simple job - far easier job than set-building - so I think it makes sense for the promoting admins to take on that particular responsibility. Ultimately, of course, primary responsibility still lays with the reviewer/s, and we might eventually need to look at making that part of the process more accountable, but that's probably a discussion best left for another day.

Regardless, with regard to the present situation, I would like to assure set-builders that I personally will not be holding them accountable for errors identified in their sets (unless of course they are egregious) - I am already taking responsibility for the accuracy and quality of sets I promote to the queue and I therefore expect any criticism of such sets to be directed to me. Since I currently have some spare time, I also expect to be promoting the lion's share of sets to the queue over the next few days. The important point is, I currently have time to verify and promote sets but I don't have time to also build them - for that I need assistance. So once again, I request that our regular set-builders stay engaged, and indeed encourage everyone to continue their participation. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If the number of sets required per day was reduced, the problem of finding a set builder would be less frequent. What's the rush? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

"The rush" is that there are approximately 250 eligible articles waiting for promotion at T:TDYK. If we slow down the process, either there will soon be 500 noms on that page or large numbers of them will never get promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 08:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Just like all the other processes on the main page then? The promotion rate of FLs means we currently will have an increasing backlog, the throughput of ITN means some items aren't good enough so they fail. It's commonplace. Perhaps part of the problem is offering some form of guarantee that DYKs, once "checked off" by the various reviewers, will feature on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, if you want to propose some radical restructure of DYK, you are free to do so, but you should start a new thread for that. This thread is about something else, and I'd like to keep it on topic, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't given up on building prep sets, but had to suspend doing so for a while because I'm in Canada with the Paralympians at the moment. I will resume when I get back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Gatoclass' premise that the administrators who promote queues are the folks primarily responsible for ensuring the quality of what gets approved for the main page, but the prep-builders should not be let off the hook completely. The prep builder is the one who closes the nomination discussion (let's get away from saying they "promoted" the hook). Closure of any discussion is an action that normally involves some accountability. For DYK noms, the person who closes a discussion should be expected to try to make sure that the nomination was reviewed properly, that the relevant issues raised during the discussion have been resolved (for example, that there are no unresolved issues with the hook they are promoting), and that there are no apparent issues that appear to require continuation of the discussion. (Ideally, they would also check to ensure that nobody wrote below the line that says <!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->, but that's probably asking too much!) --Orlady (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with most of your comments Orlady. Obviously if we go ahead with tighter definitions, they will have to be negotiated, and I think you raise some good points here. Gatoclass (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

No, prep builders are (should be) responsible for checking the accuracy of the hook (but not the rest of the criteria). Admins who do the final promotion are also responsible to fact check. Having multiple eyes on something is the best way to make sure it is accurate. It only takes a couple minutes to find the fact in the article and check the online source (or AGF on an offline source). I wouldn't expect independent research to verify the fact, but checking to make sure it is in the article, properly cited, and that the citation is valid isn't too much to ask. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, prep builders are the penultimate line of defence, they shouldn't be building sets if the blocks they're using are corrupt. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Another solution: Reviewer accountability

Thank you, Gatoclass, for your calm and reasoned approach to finding a solution to what has been dubbed "The DYK Problem". I don't think we've reached a solution yet, but your ratcheting down the tone many notches from the strident negativity that appears in almost all the threads on this talk page is much appreciated.

I'd like to suggest another solution for discussion. I don't think the problem is with the "rush" to get things onto the main page, or with the need for a "48-hour holding area" (it could just as well be 24-hours, for all the eyes that are supposedly going to look at it), or with the prep builders or administrators who "fail" to spot errors in sourcing or whole articles while they're putting together those 7 hooks. Bottom line, it's the reviewers. Some of them are novice reviewers who are bound by the QPQ system to review something; others are more regular reviewers who nevertheless are skipping over fact-checking, reference-checking, and other DYK criteria, letting errors creep through. I believe that the solution is to impose accountability at the review stage. I really like Maile's checklist; I think something along those lines should be programmed into every template so that the reviewer is "forced" to tick off what s/he checks, one by one. Then, it is perfectly appropriate to put the approved hook into a holding area where it will wait as long as necessary until a second reviewer double-checks it to make sure all the criteria have been met. Since the criteria are clearly spelled out on the template, you can include any criteria you want in order to make sure that it will hit the main page "error-free". After that, it would seem that prep-building and queue-promotion would go much smoother. Yoninah (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This is one problem among many, but hopefully this is one issue where we might all be able to find a common ground. Gamaliel (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I'm kind of partial to the format of the GA review Table, but some program guru (such as Guru Shubinator) would have to incorporate that with the current nomination template, so it would be relatively seamless in execution. At the very least, every new reviewer would have a visual of what they need to check in the review. And as you say, if the review couldn't pass without filling out the template...then it just wouldn't pass.— Maile (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Another example might be the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist. We need to improve accountability and traceability. And we need to make the review process more structured and methodical. It's better to get things right first time, rather than having to duplicate effort with multiple reviews. Edwardx (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support no issues with mandating a checklist, sounds like it'd have the side-effect of slowing things down in any case which is ideal. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support I don't want to detract from Maile66's glory at all, but I recall that I suggested something like this as well. I fully support this idea, and cannot see any downside to it. I do have a question: Would QPQ credit extend to the second reviewer, or only for the initial reviewer?--¿3family6 _contribs 19:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

3family6, recently I ran across a template where someone else had actually tried to work up a review checklist template. Seems to me it was 2011, so perhaps someone here will remember it. I do know this idea was floated before. It was before my time. FYI - you're not detracting from me. What I've been doing is just covering my behind. And trying to keep track of what I did on any review. Things come back to bite a reviewer, so I've been logging the details on the review template. Also, it's just simple courtesy to leave this for promoters to see. But I do believe we need a better structure in place for reviewers both new and veterans of the process.— Maile (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably thinking of {{DYK review checklist}} or {{DYKrev}} (guess we have at least 2 attempts). Both are a good start but will need expanded/adjusted to meet this proposal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. This is what I recently saw. — Maile (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I implemented something for FLC a while ago, "things to check", it's a good ready reckoner, and while most of it applies to article content, the fact I could point people to common errors, common flaws in nominations without having to continually repeat myself in reviews, was very helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Another thing, we have way too many rules and ins and outs for even the old-timers. New reviewers can't possibly know everything they're supposed to check. This is a collapsible cheatsheet I've run up for myself just to remember the basics I need. It's a work in progress: DYKCheatsheet. — Maile (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I'm not too much into DYK but I have been lurking; as an outsider, having a standard checklist like that would definitely be good. As long as it's built-in as a template and easy to use, I can't see a downside. Would make reviewing more appealing and streamlined in my eyes. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - This appears to be two proposals in one: a checklist and a mandatory second review, but all the comments on on the checklist only. The two don't in any way seem to require one another, so I suggest this be a discussion only on the checklist. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• I am a bit hesitant to "mandate" use of a checklist template. I think prepopulating it into the nomination template would accomplish the goal of making sure new users are checking everything and new most people new or otherwise would use it. However, the lack of mandate would allow experienced users to continue using their current style of review if they so chose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. We did try a checklist some time ago, but although I thought it needed more time, it got dumped pretty quickly by consensus. I guess we could try it again, but first, an acceptable checklist would have to be developed. However, checklists do not ensure accountability, because lazy users can still tick off a checklist without actually making the checks. Accountability to me means some sort of penalty for not doing the job properly. Regarding the proposal for double reviews, I would have to oppose that because if we are going to double reviews we might as well just declare QPQ a failure and go back to voluntary reviews - but that would mean a critical shortage of reviewers, so it's not an option IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: If I remember correctly (but note that my memory may have distorted the facts!), that earlier checklist got dumped for a variety of reasons -- after it had been tried out on the noms page for a little while. One thing that I recall as problematic was that it took up a huge amount of real estate in the nomination template (the proposal called for it to be built into every template, so the entire checklist would be displayed as soon as a new nom was created) -- when viewing a relatively simple brand-new nom on my computer screen, I couldn't see the top and the bottom of the nomination at the same time. And because it used icons for each of the items on the checklist, it added greatly to the visual information that a prep-builder would need to process when scanning the noms page for prep-area candidates. For a nom that passes on all but one or two criteria (as many noms do) and then is discussed on the noms page, the presence of template within the nom template made it harder for a prospective prep-area builder to follow the discussion and find the approved hooks in the wiki-code version of the noms page. IMO, checklists for reviewers are a great idea as guidance to reviewers, but mandating that every nomination include an extensive template was an idea that didn't work out. --Orlady (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If a compact checklist, perhaps something like that Maile is using for himself, can be developed, I don't think it could do much harm. However, I think it should be made clear that it will be mandated only for QPQ reviewers and only for the initial review - we don't want the same checklist stamped on a nom over and over for subsequent reviews. Gatoclass (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Before we pursue a new checklist, let's consider the guidance that currently is provided to reviewers. The edit notice that displays when a nomination is opened in edit mode provides a rather comprehensive list of the review criteria. Apparently reviewers aren't paying enough attention to that list (possibly they aren't noticing it). Maybe there would be more compliance if the appearance of the list were changed frequently to attract people's attention (for example, keep changing the text colors), so reviewers will be less inclined to ignore it.

As for QPQ, I don't believe it's reasonable to expect high-quality work from every reveiwer. QPQ inevitably means that some reviews will be done by users who don't really understand what they are being asked to do. IMO, neither the existing edit notice nor a formal checklist is likely to completely resolve that problem. I submit, however, that we should treat deficient reviews by inexperienced DYK reviewers as an opportunity -- this is an opportunity for engagement with an inexperienced user to help them become more effective contributors. It's a mistake to assume that somebody (particularly a newbie, but similar issues occur with WikiCup competitors and some other veterans) who did a DYK review solely for QPQ credit did that review properly (BTW, this is one reason why I think prep builders need to take a critical eye to the discussions they are closing), but it's also shortsighted of us when we don't use a deficient QPQ review as an opportunity for positive interaction with a contributor who might want a bit of a nudge to help them become both more proficient and highly productive in the future. --Orlady (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

We have two issues here. One is that if we want to have the QPQ review as a means for new editors to become proficient contributors, we should actually design it to do that. And two is that if we are to not expect that the QPQ review will be a high-quality one, then we should not be using them to feature items on the front page. Gamaliel (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose If a reviewer skimps on the review I see no reason that they wouldn't tick off items on the checklist with the same careless attitude (somebody might have already said this but I'm the type of lazy reviewer that doesn't read previous comments). I'm pretty sure that the hassle of filling in a templated checklist would put an end to at least my reviewing [and cue noise of editors rushing to add support for the proposal]. Belle (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Why would filling out a simple template be such an arduous task when you're already doing a solid review? I would think the work of doing a decent review would be much more offputting than a couple of checkmarks or whatever will be on the template. Gamaliel (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  Unfortunately it isn't either review or fill the template. Why would I want another step to make reviewing yet more complicated? Belle (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment As noted we did try this and it just means more for people to cut and paste before writing "good to go". My own pet solution to improving quality is that reviewers should make a referenced addition to the article of at least one sentence. That means that they look at the article and we get real eyes on real text and one real source. My own enthusiasm is low and I don't want Gato's suggestion (nice to see the help!) to wander off topic so feel free to propose this idea if you think it might work. Victuallers (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Template ready for testing

I have designed a new review checklist template: Template:DYK checklist. It is very much a work in progress, so comments of any kind are welcome. If we decide to preload it into new nominations, it could be loaded with comments to explain what each field is - we do something like this at ITN and it works pretty well. If we don't go that route, the checklist is at least available for people who want to use it.

The new template has a number of features built it. It will collapse itself when there are no problems (by type, undecided about complete collapse), provide a notice if the review is incomplete, and hide the image section if there isn't one. Take a look at the testcases to get an idea of what it looks like in action. Try it out on a live review, if you like, by copying and pasting from the documentation page. And provide feedback so I can make it work/look better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I did a review with the template on Tim Frick. Overall, a good template. Two issues: (1) Template does not provide for ALT hooks; (2) When I copied and pasted to the nom template, the line breaks did not copy over. I had to go in and hand insert each one. — Maile (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a big mistake

This nomination was actually never promoted but the hook appeared on the MP.--Skr15081997 (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It was a mistake, but not a "big" one. I promoted that article, obviously I just forgot to close the discussion when I did so. I'll do that now, thanks for the reminder. Gatoclass (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree it wasn't too "big", but it was there on the nominations page. Someone else might have promoted it and the same hook would have appeared on the MP.--Skr15081997 (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

A valid point. I'll try to do better in future. Gatoclass (talk) 08:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

moved from T:TDYK:

Please replace the line

[[File:Flag of Sierra Leone.svg|100x100px|File:Flag of Sierra Leone.jpg|Flag of Sierra Leone]]

with

[[File:Flag of Sierra Leone.svg|100x100px|border|File:Flag of Sierra Leone.jpg|Flag of Sierra Leone]]

i.e. add a border to the flag. 213.246.89.79 (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It's off the main page now, but I added the border to the archived image. T:TDYK is not the correct place to make requests of this type, next time make it at WP:ERRORS or this page. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Updaters needed

I am currently available for verifying sets and promoting them to the queue if someone wants to throw an update or two together. As I said above, you don't need to worry about making mistakes ATM as I am taking responsibility for sets promoted over the next few hours. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I am taking a break but updaters are still needed. Gatoclass (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Prep 1

Apparently, Felisa Vanoff was not checked for close paraphrasing. A spot check of footnote 2 shows the article text following line by line, if not outright copying, the source. I suggest it be returned to the noms page for further discussion. Yoninah (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Template formatting

Could someone also fix the formatting for Template:Did you know nominations/Trijata so the Review or Comment line comes up on the noms page? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed by Maile. I fixed the DYKmake template, which was also malformed. It should now be fine. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2014 (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) 14:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Admin needed to fix Queue 4, which still has its "remove this line" header, and I think needs a DYKbotdo line. As the move to the main page is now overdue, immediate attention would be great. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I must have forgotten to remove the header when I promoted the set last night. Done now. But, there hasn't been a single hook uploaded to prep since I logged off, I'm starting to feel like Robinson Crusoe around here. Gatoclass (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a few hooks will get added by Friday. EEng (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Just kidding. I added some a few hours ago.

To the contrary, EEng, it appears that you have nearly succeeded in your campaign to cause DYK to grind to a halt by discouraging volunteers from contributing their time to building prep areas. --Orlady (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the people that point out problems are of course to blame, not the ones creating our causing the problems. If people can't stand that their work may be corrected, improved, removed, rewritten, criticized, ..., then they shouldn't be on a wiki but go play on another website. If people can't stand that others want the info on the main page to be as error-free as possible, and that others want to raise the lax standards used on DYK for way too long to reduce the continuous flow of problematic hooks and articles that have "graced" the main page far too often, then tough luck, but perhaps then they simply shouldn't be building prep areas or doing other DYK work. The vast, vast majority of discussions here about incorrect or problematic hooks has focused on the hooks, the articles, not on people; the proposals to improve DYK have focused on process, not on people; but a few old-timers here believe this is unacceptable, and want to remove these discussions, make it much harder to change or remove hooks from the preps, queue or main page, or even take action against people like EEng (an RfC/U was proposed already), even though no one has e.g. compiled a list of reviewers with the most errors to take action against them. The defensiveness of a few people here who seem to believe that promoting as many DYKs as possible is the ultimate goal of Wikipedia (hyperbole warning!) is doing much more to bring DYK to a halt than the actions of EEng and the like. Fram (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Give it a rest Orlady. If you want to keep pushing garbage to the main page, fill up ERRORS and get frequent flyer points at ANI, feel free to ignore these concerns. In the meantime, we'll try fix the broken process. It would be good if you could try to help too. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Look, this is a difficult situation all round - and is a bit like walking a tightrope for reasons outlined by Crisco 1492 below. I am pleased that EEng and TRM are actually correcting things as they go, FWIW, and that collaborative actions like that speak louder than words. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Issue with Tom Rees DYK

The hook for Tom Rees (currently in prep area 1) had a picture with it when it was nominated. Any reason it was removed? Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed it because the copyright tag looked dubious. Gatoclass (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, not all noms with pictures can have a picture used - there isn't that much space. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, picture antedated 1923 by definition — he died in 1916. Understand;of course that they all can't havbe pictu8reds, and sokme editorial discretion is required. Best. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, a photograph taken pre-1923 (or work made pre-1923) may still be copyrighted in the US if it hasn't been published until afterwards. That's why the copyright status of Les Demoiselles d'Avignon is so controversial. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Remember the necrophilia hook?

Just when you thought it was safe to go back on the nom page...

• Template:Did you know nominations/Jailbait

EEng (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Other than the fact that this gets you attention once again, what's your point? Are you using this talk page to inflame things? To get attention? This is a nomination that happened exactly as it should have. Everyone had their chance to input, and the nominator has already withdrawn the nomination. I question your timing. The image was removed on June 14, because the conversation about it happened exactly where it should - on the nomination template. It never made it even to a Prep area, so this is a non event. It was not until June 26 that you joined the conversation to complain about the image. It had been gone 12 days. And multiple editors have had their say on the nomination, and the nominator himself requested it be withdrawn. The process worked. This is an example of when DYK did it right. — Maile (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Get your facts straight. The withdrawal of the nomination, and the discussion that led to that withdrawal, was all subsequent to my post here. So yes, DYK did it right -- apparently because of my post here.

Get your priorities straight. Way more than the usual run-of-the-mill DYK errors, featuring an article purporting to explain that there there's a difference of opinion on the legality or appropriateness of the sexualization of children in any form, is the sort of thing that really would get DYK shut down. I posted here because after quite some time the nom had remained open, and that concerned me.

Any other fact-challenged complaints you want to make? EEng (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget who you're addressing.... DYK upper echelons..... There is no problem (repeat thrice). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Can someone check this

I have promoted a nom to prep 3, my first promotion work. Can anyone check to ensure that I have done the work correctly.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That looks fine, thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Margaret Rodgers (deaconess)

Hook in prep:

• ... that although deaconess Margaret Rodgers could not be ordained as a priest because of her gender, she was cited as "one of the most powerful people in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney"?

Article: "Rodgers never sought to become ordained as a priest, [...]"

I think it is very strange to have an "although" part in a hook for something that a) the subject didn't seek anyway, and b) wouldn't have made her "one of the most powerful people in the diocese" either (most priests in the diocese aren't among the most powerful people either). Note also that even on the current website, among the "senior clergy", one women (archdeacon) is listed as well[10], so it is not rare for a non-priest to be among the senior cleargy or most powerful people there.

Furthermore, she was "cited" by an "employee" of her: she was the CEO of Anglican Media, and the source of the quote is John Sandeman, who worked for the same institution; not really an independent or neutral source for such glowing praise. Fram (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. (Note: prior link text not intended as blasphemy.) EEng (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Bad hook, pull please. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Now hold it, TRM. The hook that got promoted is OK, even though I had suggested alternatives which I personally thought made the subject sound more interesting and "clickworthy". I don't see why it should be pulled. As you know I share your frustrations with DYK quality but at times I feel you're painting everything with the same brush. You shouldn't say "pull" without saying something about why. EEng (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Oh wait. I guess you're saying you subscribe to Fram's concerns. Well, I don't think those are a problem. Quoting some nice things someone said about a subject, if they're interesting, is OK as long as it doesn't make a categorical claim about "best ever" etc. This kind of talk is what's called in the law "puffery" and it's OK in a hook in most cases, IMO. I think my ALT hooks present these characterizations in a why that detaches WP from them a bit better, but still I'm not concerned. EEng (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it's a bad hook. It makes the reader believe something that isn't the reality. It could have said "although she wasn't a dog, she was .... " as it would be equally accurate and equally misleading. And if the hook needs rework, you should stand by your opinion that it shouldn't be done at the last minute, so pulling the hook is technically your best bet. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Bravo!

Excellent job on this one! [11] Let's do more just like this one. I laughed the entire time, from beginning to end. Seriously! USchick (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think this represents one of DYKs more grievous failures, in that the hook could have read:

...that on 20 June 2014, forceps were not required when five fire engines and twenty-two firefighters extricated a person "trapped inside a stone vulva"?

EEng (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the article is not about the idiot (I mean student) who was trapped. The article is about the artwork, so the hook fits the article, not the sensationalism around it. Interesting article, appropriate hook, FABULOUS! USchick (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You do realize, of course, that I was kidding about the "grievous failure"? So perhaps you're kidding when you suggest that the hook that was run --

that the University of Tübingen has a giant stone vagina (pictured) that weighs 32 tons?"

-- some how avoided "sensationalism" more than the vulva hook (ouch!). I think either's fine, and as you say the kind of thing (sexual or not) that we need more of -- I just think that vulva + fire engines + forceps beats lone vagina every time. EEng (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't want to give it all away (ha ha, pun intended) by revealing too much too soon. The hook is just enough to get you in and then the reveal is priceless! USchick (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I preferred the "wife who shot her husband twice just to scare him" from the previous set, but each to his own ... Gatoclass (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man's disruptive and unacceptable behavior

Heat > light (some time ago, in fact). Nothing useful is coming out of this, so collapsing this. BencherliteTalk 18:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man says: The "consensus that the cure is too disruptive" is where? Amongst the whinging [sic] veterans who don't like their pet project being criticised? TRM repeatedly defends criticism aimed at him by attacking users as whining DYK cronies who staunchly defend DYK against intruders and who claim that nothing is wrong with DYK and nothing should be changed. This is absolutely false. No cool-headed, sensible, rational person could possibly honestly think DYK users are complaining and leaving because they think everything's fine and they resent someone helpfully coming in and trying to fix it. I'm sure everybody realizes that DYK is not perfect, and I'm also sure that constructive criticism, suggestions, and solutions to any and all problems are welcome. I haven't seen anybody ever suggest otherwise. But TRM's disruptive and disrespectful input is far, far, far from constructive. His heavy-handed, mean-spirited, hostile invectives are not conducive to the collaborative environment which is so important to Wikipedia. TRM says "We lose some of these stubborn editors who believe that everything is just fine. So what?" He dismisses the problem of putting "a few DYK regulars' noses out of joint" by saying "Omelettes and eggs". He again repeats "So what?", indicative of his total disregard for the damage he leaves behind him. It's not enough that he drives users away -- he then has to insult them and spit on their graves. Maybe he's unfamiliar with WP:WikiProject Editor Retention. I wonder if its founder thinks that such an attitude is befitting a high-profile administrator. Problems could easily be reported on and get corrected or discussed in a constructive manner and such input would be welcome. There have been other harsh DYK critics, but they still managed to remain civil. TRM insists on being as nasty, mean, pointy, sarcastic, condescending, and snarky as possible. His singleminded goal of badmouthing DYK and its users extends to WP:ERRORS -- his frequent indictments there of everything about DYK are inappropriate. That is not the correct venue for such commentary. Among the users who have announced their intention to curtail their contributions or leave DYK altogether in response to the extremely unpleasant environment -- the "eggs" who have been broken for TRM's "omelette" -- are Yoninah, Matty.007, and Yngvadottir. There appear to be many, many more who have simply silently cut back or disappeared entirely from DYK and/or Wikipedia as a whole. The bully TRM has chased so many users away that it seems as though Gatoclass is left to singlehandedly take care of everything. TRM wants to know where the consensus is. I think most users are afraid to comment on TRM's behavior, since every one who dares to, ends up eviscerated by TRM. Here are a few selected comments from the brave ones: Yoninah: "Rambling Man's vehemence and EEng's sarcastic humor are going to derail this project faster than Wikipedia burnout ever did." Bellemora: "I think it is the tone of the arguments rather than the substance; I would say you and The Rambling Man are blunt and forceful and nobody likes to be on the receiving end of blunt force." 3family6: "I agree that the level of debate, complaining, and now nom pulling is now absurd. I'm not planning to leave DYK, but I can see why other people are getting turned off and leaving." Prioryman: "I think we're getting close to the point where Rambling Man's tactics are more disruptive than constructive." Crisco 1492: The DYK "talk page has gotten too toxic recently to support constructive collaboration" and "So you are saying that it's better to have an errorless encyclopedia with no editors, than a growing encyclopedia with some editors? While using a reference to a quote widely attributed to a genocidal dictator?" Victuallers: "I would say there was a consensus that the cure is too disruptive." Even EEng: "You're being POINTY, TRM, and it doesn't help." Fram says that the regulars are employing a "WP:SHOOTTHEMESSENGER" tactic. But this has absolutely nothing to do with a "message" of constructive, civil criticism. This is entirely about the outrageous and unacceptable behavior of the "messenger". Urarary (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC) I imagine the only way you'd get resolution here is to take this to ANI, after all this chatroom has no teeth at all. Good luck with it, I'll happily leave DYK to its own destiny, my gladdest leaving thought being how much better the process has been in the past two weeks. I'm also very amused to read that you consider my behaviour to be "outrageous". We certainly have different definitions of outrage! Cheers now, see you in court. P.S. "whinging" doesn't need a [sic], use a dictionary. P.P.S. good work finding the quotes and attempting to asset they are all direct criticisms of me, you really are good, all this on your 31st ever edit!!! Diffs are better though, because they allow people to read these quotes in context rather than via your own spin. HANG ON, I recognise you... I didn't realise you had this account too!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Without addressing the merits presented, I'm a bit confused as to why I was pinged here and what exactly this is referring to. This sounds more like RFC/U type complaints. I haven't examined all of TRM's contribs here to have an opinion, I've kind of avoided DYK for my own reasons, which is a shame really since I like to create stuff like Glore Psychiatric Museum which is still now eligible for DYK as I just created it, is interesting and all, but I just haven't wanted to go through the hoops needed to get the pip. Honestly, I've found the problems that I perceive to simply be many times greater than I can help with. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Isn't this what you've been saying all along, EEng?--¿3family6 contribs 00:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Let me add one note: With all honesty, I'm not a great writer, but if DYK was actually fun and easy, it would give reason for me to write a half dozen short articles a week on unusual and quirky subjects that would look great on the front page, would pass WP:GNG and would add a little cultural spice to Wikipedia. Without laying blame, DYK is currently not an incentive at this time. DYK has the potential to be an effective editor retention tool, but it is my singular opinion that it falls short at this time, and is not particularly "user friendly" for novice editors. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC) I want to be clear about something: DYK does need change. I don't think there's anyone here who denies it. The problem is twofold: one, DYK still needs to be friendly enough to new and/or less experienced editors, to promote the influx that Wikipedia has needed (meaning, of course, that we can't have an FAC lite review process); two, a transition which drives experienced DYK contributors/admins to go elsewhere is going to leave nobody behind who actually knows why we need changes, and thus essentially return everything to square one. Hence the comment about broken eggs: if all of your eggs are broken before you've got your omelette (say, they fall on the floor) you're left with nothing. I've got some topics I want to cover over the next few weeks (Umbul Temple, Java Supermall, etc.), but I'm not sure I want the headache of having an article pulled for a typo. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC) If you are afraid of "breaking eggs" and upsetting people, nothing will change in a meaningful way. The real question is "How many people came to DYK once and swore they would never come back?". Sometimes, solutions require boldness, bravery and a willingness to ride out the storm. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Facepalm Really, people? A number of you steadfastly deny that there is any problem with DYK despite the steady stream of errors that end up on the front pagem and this is the problem that you are going rally around? There's no denying that the Rambling Man has been quite blunt in vocalizing his complaints about DYK, but is a few people calling out obvious problems going to cause an exodus of good contributors or are good contributors going to flee a broken process that remains unfixed because of intractable editors? Gamaliel (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC) A lot of the recently reported "errors" are nitpicks at best. IMO, DYK gets a lot of negative attention because some people want to see higher quality articles and/or higher quality hooks on the mainpage in the DYK space; trawling DYK for "errors" is just a means to this end. The real problem the critics face, though, is in persuading the host of DYK nominators to accept a regime under which their currently eligible startup articles become ineligible due to tougher criteria. Gatoclass (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC) To be fair, that's partially true, however DYK has made a couple of high-profile ANI visits over the past fortnight or so. I think the problem comes less from a demand for "high quality articles" but more for "high quality hooks which are correctly and appropriately referenced. Which tougher criteria are you referring to? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC) I was wondering about this as well. We should do a better job of enforcing the existing criteria, but his comments give the impression that he thinks some people want to turn this into GA. Gamaliel (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC) One of the best proposal's I've heard from EEng, which surprisingly he DIDN'T turn into a formal proposal (at least that I recall), is to put a message on the DYK MP template that the articles are works in progress, and invite editors to improve them. But make the hooks iron-clad.--¿3family6 contribs 14:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC) See new section a bit down this page -- look for the evil EEng image. EEng (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Nicely put, neutral description there. "No cool-headed, sensible, rational person could possibly honestly think DYK users are complaining and leaving because they think everything's fine and they resent someone helpfully coming in and trying to fix it. I'm sure everybody realizes that DYK is not perfect, and I'm also sure that constructive criticism, suggestions, and solutions to any and all problems are welcome." I was going to disagree with you, but then I would not be a "coolheaded, sensible, rational person". What a dilemma... Oh well, so be it. You are wrong: some (not all) of the DYK users dislike every form of criticism of DYK, and do everything they can to drive off people who find errors and make sure that what appears on the main page is as error-free and neutral as possible, be it by directly attacking those critical editors, by making more and more demands of what one needs to do to get the right to pull or alter a hook, or by any other means they can think off. This protectiveness, the blinders some regulars here have, and the sometimes very serious errors that have been ignored or swept under the rug, have done much more to make DYK an unpleasant environment than the fact that some editors have tried (for years) and are trying to improve the standards or results of DYK. And of course, a number of editors are now caught in the middle and some leave DYK because they don't like the situation; but that isn't caused by the people trying to solve the problem, but by the people who think DYK and hook promotion is the be-all and end-all, and that accuracy and neutrality are secondary concerns only. Fram (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC) I think Urarary expressed the current feeling very well. I have never been one to complain on this talk page or get involved in "politics", but I have voiced my opinion a few times in the past few weeks because I am turned off by TRM's rants and impolite responses. I have not withdrawn from DYK, though, just from building prep sets, and am giving my energy to reviewing nominations – which, as I said earlier, is our first line of defense against errors. Yoninah (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC) To the editor known as The Rambling Man, I think you are sorely mistaken by your gross assumptions that the articles get promoted on DYK or even ITN are to be top-class articles either FA or GA status, which is not the case in the least bit. See, he even tried saying the 2014 U.S. Open (golf) event should not be posted unless it was greatly expanded because it was not "the kind of update for the final round we're expecting", when Kaymer won by eight shots and the margin was never closer than four. So, I take it that he is trying to bullwhip his way over here on DYK as well. This is highly unacceptable! Why doesn't The Rambling Man go around trying to create new content and expand this encyclopedia rather than make it a cumbersome, burdensome, laborious and tedious effort to get nominations through whether at ITN or DYK. He wants to sit back in his easy chair and put other editors through the ringer in trying to do things on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man is perfect to deal with FA, FL, and some GA nominations, but when it comes to ITN and DYK, I think he wants the whole world in his pocket before they get posted. However, the tags need to be referenced, but articles don't and should not have to be FA or GA to be nominated, and they could even be start class articles in quality and scope, which this means everything except mere stubs are acceptable. I don't care about puffing-up my own work on Wikipedia, which is why I have not ever nominated anything for FA, FL and GA on this encyclopedia. If you want to take a look at an article that I did, which could have been nominated for this Welcome to the New is what you all should look at for the epitome of my work. Stuff like DYK, ITN, FL, GA, FA trophies is not what Wikipedia is all about in the first place, it is about being the largest compendium of knowledge "summed-up" for the ages to see and utilize, as they say "information is power". I am an article creator not a trophy seeker, which I don't even have a user page because I think that means you are self-righteously glorifying yourself over the encyclopedia.HotHat (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC) I try to live by RAUL, where it says "Please feel free to tell me everything you don't like about things [I do or others]. Do, however, be prepared for the fact that doing so will make it your job [The Rambling Man updating articles to post to ITN or DYK]; if you don't like the way I do it, you can do it. Now, what was it that was the problem [articles are not of a worthy status to post to ITN or DYK]?" Significantly updated or article quality are in the eye-of-the-beholder, which if we take DYK for instance it is definitely not FAC or let alone GAC.HotHat (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC) I wasn't going to dignify this tirade with a response, but as a result of the litany of errors within it, I feel duty-bound to at least put some of the record straight. gross assumptions that the articles get promoted on DYK or even ITN are to be top-class articles either FA or GA status please direct me to the diffs which clearly state that I assume articles at DYK or ITN need to be FA or GA status. I do not recall ever stating or even suggesting this. Yes, you have when you wrote "perhaps it shouldn't be a GA and therefore this DYK should be invalidated." So, if not a GA for that article it cannot by a DYK? I read the entire page of DYK's and had to re-read it to make sure that I saw what I saw and it said what it said.HotHat (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC) You've got it arse-about-face, perhaps you need to refamiliarise yourself with the rules. One of the acceptance criteria is that an article is a newly promoted GA.... Try harder. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Then, you or someone else need to take it up on GAR not in a DYK Review. So, you or someone else need to go about showing and ascertaining why it should be demoted from GA status, and putting the DYK on hold status until that occurs. DYK should not have to be GA's or GAR's clean-up room. I think newly promoted GA's should not be on DYK in the first place only new articles or recent expanded because this will happen again and again if that is one of the criterion to nominate an article. GA is not DYK and DYK is not GA.HotHat (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Not at all. We are, all of us, entitled to our opinion. Mine was that perhaps the quality was not as it should be for a GA. I was fully entitled to say that. Unless you are happy to censor and silence things you don't like to hear. Which I hear is commonplace around these parts. Oh, and where was any claim made relating to FAs? Or was that just another piece of your baseless quest to slate me? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Not really, I just want to be able to not have GA's get on here because the process to approve them is rudimentary at best, which one editor nominates and one approves after only a very terse review process, unlike FAC or FAN process, where the entire community gets engaged. Then you bring it up. And I repeat, where did I mention FAs? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Good, I will bring it up here and on the GA talk pages.HotHat (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Having said that, please read WP:ITN where it clearly states that one of the goals of that project is To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events. The 2014 U.S. Open (golf) article had a "nominal" update. Please familiarise yourself with the update guidelines. While you have some spare time, also have a look at DYK's additional guidelines, very informative! You said I claimed the golf article should not be posted unless it was greatly expanded, could you point me to the diff where I said "greatly expanded", or would you rather point me to the diff where I suggested that the 2013 article could be used as a similar model to base an adequate update upon? "Your exact comment "But you believe the quality of the update to be sufficient? Did you look at last year's article as I suggested?" So, I take it you meant greatly expanded", which it already had a paragraph of prose by that point and you wanted it like 2013, which was a ridiculous argument. One was won by two shots in a come from behind victory the other was won by eight shots in a tournament that the lead was never in doubt and we were to write a major write-up to explain the final round.HotHat (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC) It was not a ridiculous argument, no more ridiculous than your attempts here to use propaganda and deceit to fool people. Please read the ITN instructions before digging yourself deeper. The Rambling Man (talk) "providing a substantial quantity of directly relevant information" is done on a case-by-case basis not something that is black-and-white, which it got supported and posted by not being updated to the 2013 article, which was won differently than 2014. By the way, "sufficiently updated" is in the eye-of-the-beholder.HotHat (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Yes, I think you certainly need to familiarise yourself with how ITN works. By consensus and improving quality. Now please stop making deceitful claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC) I take it that he is trying to bullwhip his way over here on DYK as well I've been involved in DYK longer that you've had this particular account you're using. I'm not bullwhipping anyone, not yet at least. I don't give a care about DYK, ITN, FLC, GAC, and FAC in the least because most Christian music will never get on them or attain those statuses. I was only brought to this project by other editors who nominated my Christmas/Holiday music albums last year One, Two and three, which I did not care about having them nominated. I had already toiled around for two years by that point and not one editor ever nominated one of my articles for DYK, which meant that they did not care, so I just kept toiling around in the dark backdrop of this encyclopedia. I will go back their again because I love it. If it were not for 3family6 liking some of the articles that I have worked on then I would not be here on DYK because I would not ever nominate one of them. So, 3family6 can nominate the article that I create, and I will get notified on my talk page if they get posted because I am out.HotHat (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Why doesn't The Rambling Man go around trying to create new content and expand this encyclopedia... let's see, 410 articles created, and in the past couple of weeks, just half a dozen or so good articles from those I've either created or expanded. You'd like more of my classy work? Of course, who would't?! He wants to sit back in his easy chair and put other editors through the ringer in trying to do things on Wikipedia. Actually, I've worked on dozens of ITN items that needed work before being of sufficient quality to be posted. I've also modified a number of DYK hooks lately. And I've been active at WP:ERRORS to pick up the various pieces that weren't caught. And you? Focusing on Christian music, which this project or encyclopedia hates because just look at Charmaine for evidence of that. The way other editors treat the only one thing I care about on here by calling it not "mainstream" or lacks "mainstream sources" in a dismissive attitude.HotHat (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC) But the point is that what you accused me of was plainly incorrect and delusional. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC) I said "gross assumptions" that means you have been "exaggerating an incorrect theory" about what DYK is an is not, which is the fact that DYK's don't have to be GA to be nominated and considered. It is one criterion amongst many to be considered. You should have said because the GAN process for those articles were flawed and not verifiable the DYK needs to be halted and taken to GAR for reassessment. The comment and the U.S. Open one is what got me going. Sorry, you took it as delusional, and if I want to call someone flat out delusional then I would, which I did not use that word.HotHat (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Your claims are delusional and incorrect and insulting and you need to realise that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Good, I love being called delusional, which I will take it as a high complement from you, so you just made my day!HotHat (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Great, you also like lying about and misrepresenting other editors too? Great attitude. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC) No, I pretty much quoted policy and your words, so misrepresenting?HotHat (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC) You lied, you made false claims about me requiring articles to be FA, amount me being an "armchair" editor, about me not contributing content. You're one class act. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC) I see that now I have been called a liar, which is rather fun! FA/GA is the alphabetical soup of Wikipedia, you said GA not FA, letters? As for the "armchair", nope I said "sitting back in his easy chair", so I guess that I have been taken out of context. We all at one point or another sit in an "easy chair" on this encyclopedia and pontificate about what others' have to do in order to satisfy us in order to get things accepted, kept or supported. You took that as a slight man, this is one of the most sanitary and sanitized places on the internet let alone the world. I have been called much worse, so stuff that people write on here is not going to hurt me because "Sticks and stones will break my bones/ But words will never harm me." I don't care what others' think of me, the only one who has a modicum of say that might hurt a little is God.HotHat (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC) I am going back to creating Christian music pages (biographies, albums, songs and discographies) on Wikipedia, and I am done with DYK and ITN, which 3family6 can do whatever he so chooses with my pages that I will create to the best of my ability and expertise.15:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC) I don't even have a user page because I think that means you are self-righteously glorifying yourself over the encyclopedia. well of course you're entitled to that opinion, but I think you'll find more people have a user page than don't. If you don't like a particular user page, don't visit it, you have a choice. In conclusion, the fact that you follow WP:RAUL sums up your position perfectly and you need say nothing further!! Thanks for taking the time to write so much, it was interesting but ultimately completely flawed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC) To you maybe, but to me I call it like I see it. By the way, I have created 366 articles in 2.5 years time and over 14,000 edits, which might be a record on this encyclopedia, but who knows?HotHat (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC) For "the record", no it isn't a record by any means, there are many editors who have racked up hundreds of thousands of edits in that time and created thousands of articles in that time, but I thought this wasn't about self-glorification? In any case thanks for your contributions! Anyway, I'm getting back to something constructive, suggest you do the same. (Oh, and having a red-linked user page just looks like you're new here, nothing more than that...) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC) I just brought it up because you act like I am new, when I am not. If you cannot click to see my edit history nor my talk page to see the two things I posted just to prove myself to be no novice then I have no patience for that person. Back to my toiling now, ahh!HotHat (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC) We could have worked well together, but I guess we will never see each other eye-to-eye anymore, editor The Rambling Man. I have had disagreements with other editors like Walter Gorlitz, 3family6, to a lesser extent STATicVapor, and have grown into a tremendous working relationship on Wikipedia with them by my side with respect to Christian music articles. I could have been your greatest asset when it comes to music articles for ITN/DYK. I hope no one else nominates one of my articles that I create because then they will want to badger me about fixing them, but 3family6 fixes them himself, which I greatly appreciate.HotHat (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Yeah, you probably didn't bad-mouth them and lie about them and accuse them of things that simply aren't true. I'll be truly glad to never, ever see your name on my watch list ever again, I hope your Christian music edits go well, a great shame you clearly don't follow the principles of the music you write about in any way at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Can someone explain to me what just happened here? I could barely follow this.--¿3family6 contribs 20:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Sure. HotHat made up a bunch of incorrect assumptions and incorrect assertions about me and my beliefs and my contributions to Wikipedia. I refuted them. HotHat refused to acknowledge any of it. HotHat went on to criticise Wikipedia for "hating" "Christian music" for some unknown reason. And the whole thing was a waste of bytes, proving to be nothing other than a display of overt ignorance. Feel free to ping me if you need any further information on "HotHat"'s or contributions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC) I try to avoid maligning any contributor here and assume good faith from all parties. I do think that HotHat over-reacted here, and I personally cannot follow the logic of their accusations. To be frank, though, The Rambling Man, you can come across as rather aggressive and pushy, so I think what happened here is HotHat was annoyed by your conduct in some previous encounters with you. HotHat, I think you really understood this point by Rambling Man. TRM was arguing that if the initial hook was inaccurate, the article should not have been GA. I can't follow how you applied that to this discussion.--¿3family6 contribs 20:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Not only did he "misunderstand" the point, he then went on to falsely accuse me of all kinds of things, the worst of which "Why doesn't The Rambling Man go around trying to create new content and expand this encyclopedia rather than make it a cumbersome, burdensome, laborious and tedious effort to get nominations through whether at ITN or DYK". Plainly the editor has done nothing to look into my contributions, or if he has done, he's not quite getting it. Hence my good "faith" with this faithless editor came to an abrupt end. Fallacious claims made to support fallacious arguments to prove a non-point, and qualified with baseless accusations all the way. And then he went on to glorify himself with his claims of edits and articles, like some kind of Wiki-god, despite arguing that having a user page was a self-gloryifing pursuit. Whatever next. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC) My comment "what just happened here?" was more about the logical flow of the arguments and was mostly directed at HotHat. I understood that he accused you of essentially just being a nit-picker who doesn't make viable contributions, and you considered his arguments to be baseless.--¿3family6 contribs 21:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Please, don't get involved in my battles 3family6, I can handle stuff on my own and on my own accord.HotHat (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Random break No. 1: An articles status should not be at issue or of relevance, whether it gets put on DYK, so if it is a GA that is sloppy, DYK should do its own review and post even if the GA status may or may not be in jeopardy.HotHat (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC) No. 2: Editors who just make comments on nomination pages and don't go in and fix the article instead make me angry. I am a big believer in don't comment about stuff you can readily fix without burdening other editors with having to read comments and do the tedious fixing. I see how nominations go on Wikipedia, which is why I don't ever nominate any of my work even Welcome to the New for GA status.HotHat (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC) No. 3: You all can read this article from a bureaucrat The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Wikipedia.HotHat (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC) No. 4: Sorry, I said "gross assumptions" that was taken out of context to mean "delusional", but you can get my drift by No. 1.HotHat (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC) It would be good now if you could retract all the lies and deceit you've peddled here, rather than rapidly closing the discussion before you're found out. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2014 (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) 22:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Gatoclass (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Queue 2 has only 6 hooks. Can't tell why it's one hook short. Deliberate? --PFHLai (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably just an oversight. Too late now, it's gone to the mainpage already - but it looks okay on my screen. Gatoclass (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Revisiting accountability - new suggestion

On the issue of accountability for QPQ reviewers, which I raised earlier: I really think it's time we did something about this, because substandard QPQ reviewing has been a perennial source of concern on this page. So here's another suggestion: QPQ reviewers who approve articles which turn out to have copyvio/close paraphrasing issues, or incorrect hooks or hooks which turn out to have unsourced statements, will be required to do an additional two reviews, plus an additional two reviews for every review they get wrong; will be required to do an additional review for every such invalid review, and will not have any of their own articles promoted until they have done a review correctly. This requirement will be imposed at the discretion of the reviewer identifying the fault, or by a regular reviewer or administrator. Comments welcome. Gatoclass (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Support. This will help, and I can't see any serious problems it would cause either. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Looking from a purely practical standpoint: who's gonna keep track of this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I would say, the user who finds the error, or anyone else who is motivated to follow it up. I certainly know, speaking for myself, that when I find a blatant and obvious error, I would be only too happy to ensure that the offender make amends, and I don't think I'd be alone in that. I do think though, that imposing the requirement should probably be left to the discretion of the person finding the error, because there are probably some cases where the error was understandable. Gatoclass (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Except, as we've seen recently (and has caused some ill will) editors who pull hooks are not always willing to reopen the nomination page and/or do any additional work after the "threat" has been neutralized. I wonder how many people would actually pay attention to issues such as this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• If through incompetence, someone lets a bad DYK through, you want them to do a total of THREE reviews instead of one? Any I the only one that see the logical fallacy here? Now reviewing is a punishment? Perhaps part of the problem is that it always has been. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

If someone is incompetent, they probably shouldn't be submitting articles for the main page anyway. But if they are not incompetent, just inexperienced, or inattentive, this should provide them an opportunity to improve their skills, under supervision. Gatoclass (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

If they are only reviewing because it is QPQ, it is unlikely they will view it as an "opportunity". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It's an opportunity to continue participating here; if it's too much bother for them, that means less work and a better standard for everyone else. Gatoclass (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

And if they are a solid article creator who is simply uncomfortable or not skilled reviewing outside of their specialty, it is OK if we never get any more DYK submissions from them? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Why can't they review an article within their specialty? And in any case, I said imposing the requirement doesn't have to be mandatory, it can be left to the discretion of the user finding the error or a regular reviewer. Gatoclass (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

My point being that this would be more likely to cause drama than solve problems, in my opinion. Unquestionably suggested with good intentions, but it doesn't address the underlying problems inherent in the entire system and may serve to further alienate editors. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"Why can't they review an article within their specialty?" - I've always disliked this type of question, as someone's "specialty" may be very, very obscure. I doubt there is a single other editor in this project who'd be able to fact check the average article I submit (i.e. articles regarding Indonesian films and actors from before 1950s). Sure, some general points, but not the more specific, unique things that usually form the basis of hooks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

This is headed in the right direction, but there's some serious problems with this. Numerous editors are dead set against any changes in the rules, to the point where even a reviewing template is seen as an arduous layer of addition bureaucracy. So, as Crisco 1492 said, who is going to keep track of this? QPQ is basically on the honor system as it is. If someone does a shitty review, I support invalidating that QPQ, but there's really no system in place to make sure they don't get away with using it anyway, and there's no way you could get the support for instituting a system for keeping track of it when we can't even get support for a simple template. Also, Dennis Brown raises a good point. We shouldn't make reviewing a punishment, it's counterproductive. (It reminds me of elementary school, where we were assigned essays about 'what we did wrong' as punishment. We learned nothing except to view writing as punishment, not exactly the outcome you want.) You don't want the kind of people who rush through reviews to rush through more reviews, and since they already think of reviews as incidental to getting their article on the front page, adding more reviewing as punishment will only reinforce that view. We need a system that will engage these editors and help them improve their reviewing skills, not punish them by making them do more of what they already don't want to do. Gamaliel (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, when you have devised a "system that will engage these editors and help them improve their reviewing skills", let me know. In the meantime, we clearly have some problems at DYK, and I for one am tired of having to deal with the fallout from poor reviewing, so until someone comes up with a better idea, I'm standing behind this proposal. Gatoclass (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't tweak your proposal to head towards accomplishing both goals. Gamaliel (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll take that as a qualified support, thanks. I'm really only proposing a general principle at this point, I'm more than happy to discuss details later. Gatoclass (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I personally think we need a system that rewards good reviewing and makes QPQ obsolete. I think we are looking at the problems from a completely wrong (and entrenched) perspective. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds great! Can't wait to hear some specifics. Gatoclass (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The sarcasm in your response is deafening, which may be part of the problem. Specifically, it requires leadership from someone wanting to find ways to increase the desirability of reviewing, be it pips for reviewers or some similar type of recognition. Primarily, it requires starting discussion in that direction, rather than a discussion on how to further punish those that have little interest in reviewing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not "punishment", it's accountability. Getting your article on the front page is a privilege, not a right. If you want to enjoy that privilege, you must fulfill your obligations to the other project members who work to make it available to you. If you don't want to fulfill your obligations, but just take advantage of others' work, then you lose your privileges until you start fulfilling your obligations again. What's so terribly unfair about that? Gatoclass (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps because I'm not part of the culture here, but everything is wrong with that. I don't see a DYK as a privilege, and again, from an outsider's perspective that is bordering on offensive. I see it as people volunteering to write or expand articles to a specific standard, and Wikipedia using that information as a front page tidbit, to tempt the reader into exploring something that they might not had viewed otherwise. It should be a win/win situation, as the encyclopedia gets interesting tidbits, and the writer gets a little pip to put on their page. That is a partnership, or at least it should be. And partnerships are inherently accountable. You make it sound like an onerous dictatorship, and we little peasants should simply shut the fuck up and do what you say. I sincerely hope that is not the tone you take with every user here, else this place is even more broken than I thought. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK isn't a privilege? So what do you think it is - an entitlement? I'm sorry, but getting your article on the mainpage through the DYK process most certainly is a privilege in my view - a privilege extended by the community as a whole and one which the community may choose to withdraw at any time if we fail to maintain appropriate standards. Gatoclass (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't see it as privilege. Again, perhaps because I'm not part of the DYK crowd, the idea that volunteering anywhere is "privilege" is offensive. Perhaps that perspective is part of the problem. Everything we do at Wikipedia is about cooperation, collaboration: There are no rights or privileges. Once we start calling things "privilege", then those that grant that "privilege" become the "ruling class"; more equal than others. That is antithetical to what Wikipedia stands for and has nothing to do with having high standards. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I hardly think one can fairly describe "the community as a whole" as a "ruling class". But in any case, as this discussion doesn't appear to be going anywhere useful, I think I will bow out at this point. Thanks for the comments. Gatoclass (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Strongly oppose About half of all the reviews I've seen are reopened because a) either the reviewer forgot something, b) the reviewer forgot to MENTION some of the criteria for which they reviewed, c) there was an error that they didn't spot. The problem with this proposal is that it would make no distinction between an imperfect review and an incompetent review.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Vote struck per amendment to proposal.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

That is not correct - I said users could use their discretion as to whether or not to impose the requirement. Gatoclass (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I failed to notice that. I still think that this proposal is too punitive, and will discourage rather than encourage editors.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Isn't something like this already done? I've had at least once where I had to do a new review because I did not stipulate in my previous review all of the criteria I had evaluated the nomination against.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, I think this proposal misses the point. The goal of the DYK venture should be seen as an abstract game for gathering of point, but as an effort to create incentives for creation of new wiki articles with certain quality standards and improving existing articles. The real problem in the DYK process at the moment isn't sloppy reviews (which do happen), but that the entire process again and again gets bogged down in endless bureaucratic arguments. The QPQ is good, but making it more complex wont help anyone nor will it engage a wider audience of editors to participate in the DYK process. --Soman (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, make it one review then. You only have to do one additional review for every review you get wrong. Surely that's not going to be too onerous? [Update: proposal so amended.] Gatoclass (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose As long as you make QPQ a requirement for nominating DYKs, you are going to get some half-assed reviews. Somebody who is simply doing their "assignment" in order to qualify their own nomination is not going to spend half an hour on the QPQ review, period. The problem is the QPQ requirement itself; the solution is not trying to make the QPQ reviewers do a better job by harassing or threatening them, or piling on additional requirements. I remember at one point you had a whole page-long checklist of things that had to be checked off while reviewing; it was so complicated I stopped nominating DYKs until the template was withdrawn. Basically you regulars here have a couple of choices: accept the fact that some QPQ reviews will be half-hearted; or recruit enough people to this task so that we no longer need QPQ. The WORST thing you could do is to require additional reviews as some kind of punishment for not doing a thorough enough review to begin with. --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment - First, please do not expect any replies from me on this thread, at least for a while (I temporarily have internet access in the middle of a two-week wikibreak, but will not until next Sunday afternoon, so please be patient). Here are my thoughts: I wrote half-decent articles for a year or so, and was sort of part of the community for a while, and I never really heard about, nor learned what it entailed, to nominate an article to be in the DYK section on the front page, despite the fact that I would have been interested. Granted, I did not make a huge effort to figure it out, and seem to recall getting a case of TL;DR at least once, but it was not until I dedicated close to an hour reading and wrapping my head around exactly what one had to do that I was able to determine whether the article I worked on was eligible, and the process to nominate it. Some may read this to say, well GP! is lazy, and we don't give a crap whether he participates in DYK. Fine. But hear me out:
• I would have been interested in learning, but the directions were ambiguous at worst, and TL;DR at best - advertise it more ... have a "DYK for dummies" section on the directions page with explicit directions on how one goes about nominating or, perhaps more relevant to this discussion, reviewing DYKs. Am I the only one who thinks reviewing DYKs is a terrific way to introduce new editors into the peer review process? Give 'em a checklist, and hey, read the article, offer some suggestions based on the checklist, and sign off on it. DYK reviewing isn't hard, and in most cases, it doesn't take too long. To me, it is an obvious way to introduce new editors into the peer review process ... make it part of TWA and those sorts of introductory aspects of editing. Yes, this would raise the issue of "newbies and hat collectors" reviewing articles, but let me tell you, if I was a new editor, having read about some of the frankly "witchhunt-like" tendentious discussions that go on here, I would be incredibly careful about reviewing. Would we still need fact checkers? Absolutely, but this brings me to my next point.
• Eliminate the QPQ review. We have a need for more reviewers, so my suggestion is to eliminate the requirement that one does a QPQ. This may sound strange, but what we need is more reviewers interested in quality, not simply "ooh, there's an editor whose name I've heard of; let's glance at the article and sign off on it so I can finish filling out the nomination form and get my hook up for review" (Disclosure: I will admit that I have done something similar to this, but I will say that the accuracy of the hook is something that I have always checked, and to the best of my knowledge, something with which I have never had problems.) If we have new editors doing the initial scan, and more experienced editors who care going through behind them to double and even triple check, we will weed out a large majority of the crappy hooks. Frankly, we could even have a two-tiered review system - the article in question needs an article review (i.e. the normal DYK review - what we have now) and a hook review (i.e. an experienced editor comes in behind the initial editor and looks solely at the hook, and makes sure that it is cited). After both those reviews occur, then an administrator or whomever promotes or declines the article, also having looked at the hook. Checks and balances are important; I don't think I have seen any deliberate bad faith reviews, but we all go too quickly through things at times, and when we do, it is helpful to know there are others who will check something out too. None of us are infallible, so to maintain the integrity of the DYK section, we need to help each other out in reviewing. I wanted to also note that I wholeheartedly agree with Melanie's comment above, which says, As long as you make QPQ a requirement for nominating DYKs, you are going to get some half-assed reviews. This could not be more true. The solution is not to require someone who screws up a review to rush through another one and hopefully have better luck with it. Rather we should have new editors getting their feet wet in the process, experienced editors looking predominantly at hooks, and administrators promoting based on a cursory review on their part all collaboratively working to ensure that when a hook gets to the main page, it reflects accuracy, good taste, and a sound example of what the DYK process is all about.
• I would like to close by thanking all of those who spend hours upon hours working already to ensure the integrity of the DYK section. Those are the individuals whom we ought to strive to help and consider as we discuss changes to the DYK process. If you read this whole thing, I am sure you find it ironic that earlier I blasted the TL;DR nature of DYK, but to quote Blaise Pascal, "I have only made this letter longer because I have not had the time to make it shorter." Sincerest regards, Go talkPhightins]]! 18:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Utterly brilliant. This is the kind of discussion that needs to take place, everything on the table, throw out some ideas, find ways to make it more fun instead of more obligation. The "instructions" issue is exceptionally on target. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you about the DYK instructions - unfortunately, the presentation is shambolic, with a bewildering array of additional "help" pages which have been added over the years which have probably only created more confusion, the whole thing needs a total overhaul, it's something that's been on my "to-do" list for years but I haven't found time to do it yet. Gatoclass (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Amen. And there are "unwritten rules" too, I'm told. EEng (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Reading down all the posts I missed in the last 24 hours, I was about to suggest something when I read it in Go Phightins! post at the very end. I agree that the QPQ requirement is not ideal, but if we scrap it, we will be hard-pressed to keep up with the number of new nominations with just our regular reviewers. And it is a good way to get new editors involved in creating new articles, and allowing them to be more involved in DYK if they so wish. What do you think about having a little box on the editing page, similar to the "Live Chat" box on retailer websites, where a newbie could ask for reviewing help from a more experienced reviewer? Then the more experienced reviewer could walk the newbie through the process (or the checklist, if we implement one), and be able to catch errors in the review. Then QPQ would not be viewed as a punishment (as it is now), and we'd foster more friendly relations with new editors. Yoninah (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not going to act a judge or enforcer if I discover an error in a review; I'd like to see the article or hook in which I found the error get fixed. I'm not going to be chasing up reviewers and going through their editing history to make a guess at whether they are incompetent, lazy or just inexperienced. I'm not going to maintain a list of reviewers that have had previous substandard reviews and check through the nomination list every day to see whether they have now done a valid review or whether are trying to get an article promoted without doing so. If anybody else is going to do that or somebody is planning on maintaining a centralized list of offenders and their eligibility status then good luck. Belle (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said - it's discretionary, you would be under no obligation whatever to be "chasing up reviewers" if you weren't interested in doing so, and nobody has suggested you should be going through editing histories, maintaining "lists" and so on. Gatoclass (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, unless you are only going to pick on one reviewer at a time you'll need some sort of list to track who owes a good QPQ review or else you'll have to tag every nomination that substandard reviewers submit and hope the reviewer you are tracking doesn't wait until you are engaged elsewhere to nominate. And as it is discretionary they'll just be hoping to get somebody like me who uses their discretion not to adopt this approach. I'm not criticising you for making a suggestion aimed at improving DYK, but this doesn't seem practical or fair. Belle (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

3family6 made me do it

EEng relishing his plan to corrupt and destroy DYK from within

One of the best proposal's I've heard from EEng, which surprisingly he DIDN'T turn into a formal proposal (at least that I recall), is to put a message on the DYK MP template that the articles are works in progress, and invite editors to improve them. But make the hooks iron-clad.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

-- Kind words from 3family6 in an earlier thread. Your wish is my command...

I actually think we shouldn't worry as much as we do about article quality, but rather let DYK articles be frankly works-in-progress.

• We should check for BLP and copyvio, and maybe a coupla other things I'm not thinking of

• Many current requirements, such as "no tags", should be dropped
• Possibly we should just adopt "B-class" or "C-class" (or something in between -- see quality scale) as our standard, instead of (as we do now) having a set of standards outside the Start-C-B-GA-FA trajectory.
• This should make reviews easier and faster

• Then add a template to top of the article saying, "Like most Wikipedia articles, this one is a work in progress. It may be incomplete, inaccurate, or unbalanced. If the topic interests you and you want to help, click here yada yada yada ". This template remains until maybe a week after the article's main-page appearance.
• The hook however, is directly displayed on the main page, and should be ironclad. It needs to be carefully checked straight back to the sources, grammatically unimpeachable, and stylistically unblemished.

In summary, we should drop many of the standards for the articles (but make sure those that remain are consistently enforced, which they aren't now), and raise our vigilance for hooks.

• If it seems wrong that nominated articles are allowed to have obvious flaws, notice one thing: we fuss and fuss about the article linked from the hook in bold, but care nothing (apparently) about the other articles incidentally linked from the hook. To my recollection I've never seen anyone make any mention at all about the quality of these other articles, and yet many of them are truly awful and we don't seem to care that links to them appear on the main page -- so why do we care so much more about the "bold" link? And again, the "work-in-progress" template means we don't have to be embarrassed.

I think this would focus energy on what's by far the most visible -- the hook -- without putting editors through all kinds of hoops to eliminate and in the article -- nonsense not even required by GA. Furthermore, to the extent we want DYK to attract new editors, we should see it doing that by drawing in people who see the article on the main page and want to improve or fix some little bit of it (such as by addressing or tags, which would now be allowed) -- not by rewarding the article creators/ nominators with DYK templates on their talkpages. Those aren't really "new" editors anyway.

In fact, maybe the MP DYK section should say, Did you know...

• ... [fact]
• ... [fact]

If did know any of these things, then maybe you have the interest and knowledge to help us improve these frankly in progress articles.

Not exactly what to say, but the idea we want to project. EEng (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Have to say I'm not a fan. Might as well put a stamp that says "this is shit" as well. What about GAs, or articles that aren't works in progress? I've written several DYK articles which have been nominated for GA simultaneously. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Many DYK articles are pretty shitty, even after removing all the or other templates recognizing that. And that's never going to change as long as we insist on pushing week-old articles onto MP. The only question is whether we're going to be up-front about that, or look like fools pretending they'll all shiny and perfect. Anyway, the shittier they are the easier it is for a reader coming from MP to see an opportunity to become a new editor.

Articles that are GA could carry no template, or a different one. EEng (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not going vote on this proposal, rather, I want to see things develop through discussion and consensus. Not to beat a dead horse, but I think most of us agree that DYK as it stands needs work (is there part of Wikipedia that doesn't?) And I personally think that the nomination and review process is too difficult and/or complex for many editors to want to deal with - see Dennis Brown's comments in an above thread. I don't agree with EEng that we should get rid of "citation needed" or other dispute tags, but things like "clarification needed" aren't that big a deal unless they appear frequently in the article. But as things stand now, I never know if an article I nominate will pass review without some significant work. I'm not talking about neutrality issues or basic sourcing problems - I often nominate an article that has problems in those areas (because I did not notice them, and happily patch them up. But I think EEng has a point where often the problems found in reviews are not backed up by any guidelines, at least explicitly.

To answer Taylor Trescott's point, I wouldn't so much support a template saying "this article is a work in progress" but rather "can you improve this article? Feel free" or something of that nature (much better worded of course, I'm writing off the top of my head here - hmm, interesting image THAT is!). As for GAs - they can still use improvement. Or maybe they can get on their own section on the main page - though THAT is a MAJOR restructuring that would have to go through miles of red tape.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, I will say that I am neutral on the idea of a template on the article. I was thinking a short boilerplate on main page would be good.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Sounds like a "badge of shame" to me. Couldn't support this, sorry. Gatoclass (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, where's the shame in making sure that readers attracted from the main page -- who may not understand the nature of article development -- don't think that we think these are well-developed articles? That fact is that, even with the substantial amount of effort put into reviewing now, most DYK articles are roughly C to B class. Why not admit it, and at that same time save the huge amount of time spent dressing them up to look like they're more developed than they are? EEng (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Look, I appreciate any suggestions on how to improve DYK, but I really think this is a non-starter. To begin with, why just DYK - why not a special tag for all the blue linked articles on the main page with the exception of the FA? And what is the special tag supposed to convey that is not already in the Disclaimer? I don't think we need to be cluttering up mainpage links with unsightly tags that only state the obvious. Gatoclass (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Huh? What "cluttering up mainpage links"? I said a template at the top of the linked article itself, not on the link as it appears on the main page.
• I'm not talking about the blue-linked articles. I'm talking about the bold-linked article from each hook. The purpose of the template is allay any fears like, "Won't it be embarrassing for WP to 'highlight' (bold-link) articles that obviously are works-in progress?"
• But if none of that's a worry, then no template is fine with me.
• The key idea is to drop some of the requirements for DYK articles and raise them for hooks. What do you think of that?

EEng (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Wording like "frankly in progress articles" is pointy (And "if you know these things" is unnecessary; anyone can fix typos or, say, add images), but

Please help to develop and improve these articles

would be OK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

New proposal - review credits

I was challenged by a couple of users on my previous proposal to come up with a way of encouraging, rather than requiring, better quality reviews. I still think more stringent requirements have a place in the system, but I agree that encouragement is usually a better approach where possible. In that light, here's another suggestion as to how we might improve reviewing quality.

My suggestion is that we encourage secondary reviews of existing approved nominations, by awarding review credits to users who find substantial errors in an approved nomination's hook or article. Review credits will only be awarded for secondary reviews which identify legitimate and substantial errors, as confirmed by a DYK administrator or regular reviewer; they will never be awarded for original reviewers. A double review credit will be applied for any secondary review which identifies legitimate copyvio, plagiarism or close paraphrasing issues. Additionally, a review credit will be awarded for identifying substantiated copyvio, plagiarism or close paraphrasing issues in any nomination which is yet to be approved. A new table will be added to the "List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs" page for review credits. Comments welcome. Gatoclass (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I do like this idea of rewarding those who find errors during a secondary review.--¿3family6 _contribs 23:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of multiple reviewers. Credits wouldn't appeal to me personally, but I can see that they would encourage some people. I'd give them out for all reviews other than QPQ though, as you don't want to discourage primary reviewers (People who would like credits may wait until they could be the secondary reviewers). Belle (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This needs a bit of tweaking and fleshing out, but I think this is may be the best new idea currently proposed on this page. It's disappointing that there's been so little discussion so far here. Gamaliel (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Late tweak to Prep Area 3 with 10.5 hours left before it runs

I just noticed that in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3, Diane Guerrero, which was promoted by Bobamnertiopsis and had extensive discussions at Template:Did you know nominations/Diane Guerrero has the hook "... that Colombian-American Orange Is the New Black actress Diane Guerrero's parents and older brother were deported to Colombia?" I want to add "when she was 14 years old". to the end of the hook so that it is clear this happened when she was a teenager. Can I do this without further delaying the hook?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

U.S. hooks

There's a note at the top of the queue page that says:

"Since on average about 50% of hooks on the suggestions page are U.S. related, it is usually appropriate to have roughly half the hooks in any given update on U.S. topics. Thanks."

Having been examining dozens of queues over the past couple of weeks, I don't believe this to be true at all. Is this note actually required? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: It is probably a guess. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd just be interested if it's really needed, and indeed if it's actually followed in practice. It certainly shows a clear systemic bias to encourage this kind of behaviour. Would be interested in statistics on this, perhaps if I have a spare half hour, I'll take a sample of the last couple of hundred hooks and see... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia. Of course there is a strong systemic bias toward topics related to the English-speaking world, which is inevitably reflected in DYK nominations. Having said that, we probably get substantially fewer articles about the US than we did once, so that note probably needs updating. I'd say that the proportion of US-based topics at DYK is currently running at around 30%, based on the last 100 hooks featured. Gatoclass (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mention systemic bias towards the English-speaking world, the majority of which is not US-based of course. I don't see the purpose of the note at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

As I recall, the note was originally placed there to prevent people filling up sets with non-US hooks, which would often mean a slew of US hooks in the following update, which looked pretty bad. A safer option might be to just change the figure from 50% to 30%, although plainly the issue isn't as critical as it once was. Maybe I'll take a longer look at the archive; in the meantime someone else may want to comment. Gatoclass (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I've also noticed that the US-centric hooks are way fewer in recent months. But before that, they were all over the place and it really was a challenge to limit them in the prep sets. It sounds like it's time for all the rules pages to be updated. Yoninah (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

That note has been there nigh-on forever. My understanding of that statement is that the U.S. is an exception to the general rule (Wikipedia:DYK#Selecting nominated hooks) that says "No DYK installment should have more than two entries relating to one country, topic, or issue, and no more than one is even better." IMO, the note should be removed (because it is so commonly misunderstood as a mandate to find more U.S. hooks, even when there are few such hooks available) and the general rule should be revised to say that "U.S.-related hooks are an exception to this general rule because a large fraction of the hooks on the nominations page typically are U.S. related; to accommodate the volume of U.S. nominations, it is usually acceptable to have roughly half the hooks in any given update on U.S. topics." --Orlady (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Having thought about this for a bit, I'm of the view the note should remain, albeit somewhat modified, because it really looks very bad when we end up with a bunch of US-related hooks on the mainpage because someone used up all the non-US hooks. Also, Yoninah's testimony that the current spate of non-US hooks is a recent phenomenon is concerning. Gatoclass (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a serious concern that one portion of the main page advocating a dedication to a single country in its output. No other part of Wikipedia does this, why should DYK? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think "up to" is missing there. --PFHLai (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It clearly doesn't "advocate" anything of the sort. It's a caution against allowing DYK sets to be overly US-centric. In other words, its meaning is exactly the reverse of what you apparently think it is. (And you wonder why people don't take you seriously?) Prioryman (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You again? Every time you post, you make me smile, please continue! Are you the same "Prioryman" who threatened me with "user conduct" reviews? Please, go ahead... We can go toe-to-toe and rattle our sabres at one another! And while we're here, why should it be 50%? Why not 20%? Why have a note at all? No other processes that hit the main page have such a caveat? I don't see a caveat at ITN that says anything of the sort, and God knows we have a fight on our hands sometimes to keep the systemic bias out of ITN. And people don't take me seriously? Pot, kettle, here's a mirror for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The point Prioryman is making is essentially correct - the note is there to prevent the overuse of US hooks that occurs when prep builders use up all the available non-US hooks instead of using a mix of both. I thought I had explained that already. Gatoclass (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it think... Prioryman (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Not at all fair, most horses I know have more intelligence and thought capacity than the average Wikipedian. Even the many below-average Wikipedians who seem to lurk here. When is that user RFC happening Prioryman? Or is it just another of your idle blusters? As we say in cricket, I think you've bowled your fair share of no balls. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Dark days for DYK

In the name of all that's holy, Rambling Man, do you have to be against everything? I'm probably your best friend here -- I think this place really needs some shaking up -- and even I'm getting a bit annoyed.

The discussion so far is enough for the small number of prep builders to be aware that this is a possible issue. Let's reconvene in a coupla days when people have had a chance to get a sense of what's really going on. In the meantime, just try to stay within 1/3 to 2/3 US.

Now if people will please get back to letting me recruit them for the destruction of DYK from within... EEng (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not against everything, just against notices like this which are nonsense. Oh, and there are no prep builders left, remember? I chased them away with a burning torch and an inverted crucifix. They're all hiding somewhere, probably in Texas. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's the garlic, actually. EEng (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not French. Merci. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• My position is the same as Yoninah's. I will normally try to limit the US hooks. I also won't hog the non-US hooks, which will only make his life more difficult. But if there are not enough US hooks I will happily build a non-US prep. I have also noted that there are less US hooks lately. I have no idea whether it is a temporary or permanent situation, or what the cause is. Possibly the US contribution to the project is declining faster than that elsewhere. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Something like:

If more than 10% of hooks on the suggestions page are related to a single country or subject, please ensure that at least three hooks in any given update are about that country or subject, in order not to build up a backlog

would seem equitable and workable. And please, everyone, dial down the snark. It's very off-putting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, right now we could have a caveat on Indian election DYKs. Why we need a caveat is beyond me, add it to the instructions somewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd support Andy's proposal to replace the US segment at the top of this section with this new segment. Much more practical. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... "at least three hooks" feels like a bit too many. Two would be plenty, as it would still be sustainable (at least if we're still at three sets a day). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, can't support wording like that, it doesn't get the message across at all, and who has time to parse the entire nominations page to figure out what the percentages are? Besides, the problem is with US hooks no other country. Gatoclass (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Why not just say "Please try and ensure the hooks cover as wide a range of topics and cultures as possible". Straightforward common sense, and can be used to avoid bias against the US, the UK, India, Pokemon, Nigel Farage, obscure state roads in West Virginia and former contestants on The Apprentice. Everybody wins. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Because that won't address the problem, which is that too many non-US hooks sometimes get added to a single update, leaving too many US hooks for the next updater. I think for the time being I will just change the "50%" as that is clearly not the case right now. Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've changed it for now to: Since a preponderance of hooks on the suggestions page are U.S. related, it is usually appropriate to have several hooks on U.S. topics in any given update, though never more than half, rounding up. Hopefully that deals with the main issues, if there are additional concerns feel free to discuss. Gatoclass (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK and GA articles

The GA articles on here get approved via a terse and rudimentary process of nomination and approval, and really should not be a criteria for DYK's to come from. This is because we are unable to determine the wherewithal (breath of scope/brevity and completeness) with which the review process was done in the first place. I have always thought of DYK's as being new content or content that has been expanded not GA's.HotHat (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

well here we check them again for size, copyright violations, neutrality and referencing. So the checking is almost as much as for GA, even if GA is cut. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

GA articles shouldn't get a "rudimentary" check, if they do something is wrong. They should be checked just the same as any other nom. Judging by some of the GAs I've seen recently, one can make few assumptions about quality based on the GA rating. Gatoclass (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

HotHat, it seems by this edit that you don't want GAs to be eligible for nomination on DYK. This is the July-Sept 2013 Good Article RfC that made GA a part of DYK. — Maile (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess that I am just in the ever growing minority on this one, but it is not the only time, which I have found myself in that precarious and perilous predicament. I guess you don't need to discuss my proposal any further, unless you all want to amongst yourselves.HotHat (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with HotHat that GA status does seem surprisingly sparse, considering even DYK nominations sometimes (often?) get better oversight than GAs. But I don't see what that has to do with DYK at all. I could see where you would oppose GAs because they are not new or newly expanded content (well, often they are, but I digress). But right now there is no other way to feature GAs, so I think that this is a good compromise. And I think nominating them for DYK is better, because it means that they get reviewed again.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If I think of the whole start-DYK-GA-FA process as a production line, my thinking was that DYK at least offered more scrutiny and (hopefully) source of improvement of some already-GA articles. Scrutiny is a good thing I feel...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

How to withdraw?

Here is my nomination:

{{Did you know nominations/Anna (Disney)}}

Now that I found it was promoted to GA for quite a long time. How should I withdraw? Or I just post it to get rejected?Forbidden User (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. This fact was added very recently, but no fivefold expansion occurs.

I've withdrawn it for you. Just as a side note, make sure the pictures you nominate with articles are free to use, the one with that nom wasn't. Thanks, Matty.007 13:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Prep 1

The lead hook in Prep 1 is over 200 characters (not including "pictured"). Yoninah (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a double hook. --PFHLai (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

3rd opinion requested re North Fork Tangascootack Creek

subject trimmed from: 3rd opinion requested at Template:Did you know nominations/North Fork Tangascootack Creek

Would someone mind providing a 3rd opinion on whether the use of maps to support the hook for North Fork Tangascootack Creek is OR or not? Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Prep 4

... that Jim Bartels resigned as curator of Honolulu's ʻIolani Palace after criticizing Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa for sitting on one of the palace thrones?

The source says he "had a dispute" with her, the article says he "had a dispute" with her, so why does the hook say he "criticized her"? Yoninah (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

IMO they amount to the same thing. "Criticize" is briefer though so keeps the hook succinct. Gatoclass (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2014 (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, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Prep 1

The Russell Wilson (mayor) article features very close paraphrasing to the source which is being used in the hook. I suggest it is fixed or the hook pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Errors

So, WP:DYKE. We agreed to hold off using this until some other proposals got passed through, which seem to have stalled, so what should we do with it? We could either move all error related threads there, guide people onto using it but keep existing threads where they are (my preference), or get rid of it. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see much point in retaining it ATM. We've seen some discussions recently that should have been posted on nominations pages rather than here, but that doesn't seem like a good reason to open a whole new discussion page. Gatoclass (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Get rid of it is my vote. There were objections to it in the earlier discussion (certainly no consensus for it), and I still think it's a bad idea. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You prefer to see the errors all listed here? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That's what I said earlier, yes. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• I delinked it in the infobox pending consensus. Gatoclass (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be useful: in times of high debate like we've had recently it is easy for the queries on the queues to either get lost among the posts or break up the discussion. It might be less intimidating for editors to report errors there too (I remember going backwards and forwards a few times before making an error report here for the first time) Belle (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems like there's no consensus on putting errors on a separate page, or at best a 50:50 split. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:14, 2 July 2014 (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 #2 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) 09:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've built a prep if someone could kindly promote it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  Please note the Wilson article (last time I looked) contained very close paraphrasing, i.e. near-copyvio. Is that what we want on the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  Appears to still be there. Pulling. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks to all users who contributed to the set. Gatoclass (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2014 (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, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Floating posts

On the noms page, there are unrelated postings under the nom for Template:Did you know nominations/Oley Creek. Yoninah (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I moved Oley Creek to prep. Now the posts are floating around under Center of Alcohol Studies. They're signed by User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Nathan121212. Yoninah (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I just found the correct template: Template:Did you know nominations/26th South African Parliament. The floating posts are under the "Please do not write below this line" line. Yoninah (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --Allen3 ^talk 00:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate detector

I was unable to access "Duplicate detector" and got a toolserver error message stating that the user account had expired. Is this a known problem? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Toolserver has been shut down effective 1 July 2014. See this for further details. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Fixed. The nom template link now goes to Dup Detector at Labs. — Maile (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2014 (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) 06:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Queue 4

@Gatoclass: The Yank Robinson hook states that he was "among his league's offensive WAR leaders for three consecutive years". I have a problem in that I can't see clearly in the single reference given where he finished each season in that ranking (but that could be because I find baseballreference.com inpenetrable). Any advice on where to find this information in that ref would be great. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand baseball either, so I decided to AGF it. Cbl62 is one of our most experienced and competent contributors and I doubt he would make an error of this type. Gatoclass (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It would be wiser to stick with the facts are referenced clearly by that reference. The hook has plenty in it without the "offensive WAR" claim anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I trimmed it, but then I decided to replace it with another hook so I have pulled the set until I can find one. Cbl might not be happy to have one of his hooks unnecessarily trimmed so it's probabaly best to give him a chance to respond. Gatoclass (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

[12] Second column, first row under "Appearances on Leader Boards, Awards, and Honors" (I don't understand baseball either but I think you can safely put the hook back) Belle (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks, works for me. I'm sure somewhere someone finds a retrospectively calculated metric of "offensive wins above replacement (everything but fielding)" informative and interesting! I would have thought coming 2nd in the whole league with strikeouts would be much more accessible and notable, but hey, like I said, what do I know about baseball? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You should have pinged me Belle, I completely missed this post and have already replaced the hook. Never mind, it can be promoted to the next set if everyone is happy with it. Gatoclass (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, got distracted by a man working outside (not in the Etta James Coke advert way, believe me). Belle (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Belle, when they made you they broke the mold. Jury's still out on whether that was before or after, however. EEng (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I did a manual update as the bot appears to be asleep. Hope I did it right because it's a very long time since I had to do that. Gatoclass (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the manual update made us lose a set of hooks at Wikipedia:Recent additions. A bit exploration revealed what happened: The bot was not asleep, but reported an error (11:15) as the image file in Q4 was not protected. This was done by an admin 11:21, the manual update was done 11:22, and the bot did the "same" update 11:25, thus archiving the wrong hook set at "Recent additions" (which will even be duplicated after next update). The bot then updated article talk pages correctly, gave correct credits to user talk pages, and reset the queue. Oceanh (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you for that bit of sleuthing OceanH! You have refreshed and updated my knowledge of the process very handily. I will go and fix the archive, thanks for the alert. Gatoclass (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification, please

I (and other prep builders) are under the distinct impression that we cannot promote our own hooks (not our own articles, but our own ALT hooks which have been approved by other editors). The only place I can find a written rule to this effect is in Rule N1: When possible, it is also best to avoid promoting the same article that you reviewed, nominated, or created. Am I interpreting this rule correctly? Yoninah (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yoninah, I see by the history of that page that the rule has undergone some prose changes, but essentially was set down in 2009 by Art LaPella. Pinging him here, as he might be the best person to clarify this. — Maile (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• I can't see a problem with promoting your own ALT so long as it's been approved by somebody else. It's promoting an ALT of your own without somebody else's approval that is potentially problematic, because it means the hook hasn't been independently checked. Gatoclass (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I wrote rules like that because they were being used, but unknown to anyone but insiders. Although I gave up years ago, I still believe Wikipedia would run more smoothly if rules were updated to match the current consensus. How else do we know consensus has really changed, and how else are newcomers expected to know about that change? Art LaPella (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Queue 5 ("pictured" issue)

First hook claims "Stephen II of Hungary (pictured)" but the image is an historical artist's impression of what Stevo may have looked like. It's a depiction of him. Perhaps it's conventional to just claim that ancient drawings of people can be referred to as such, I'm not sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"Picture: A representation of anything (as a person, a landscape, a building) upon canvas, paper, or other surface, by drawing, painting, printing, photography, etc." [13] AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, all good. Thanks for the dictionary link Andy, very much appreciated. Having said that, I'd hardly consider Wiktionary to be a reliable source, but no issue here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Having said that, I see "screenshot pictured" in one nomination, why not "depicted" here? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

TRM, with the usual caveats to soften the blow (I'm your best friend at DYK, etc etc) you're beginning to sound completely crazy. Everything short of a photograph (and often those as well) is some kind of artistic interpretation. Having said that, it wouldn't hurt to just always say (in this hook and most others) (image) to indicate to the reader that this hook is the one related to the image, without really saying anything more than that (assuming there's no potential for the reader to be seriously misled). But really, TRM, pick your battles. EEng (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Knock it off, EEng. TRM asked a perfectly sensible question. TFAs frequently use something other than the bare word "pictured" e.g. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 9, 2014 ("1770 depiction shown"), and it's particularly appropriate to change the normal wording when the picture is not a contemporaneous one, as here. Bencherlite^Talk 18:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Quite, we're hardly brothers in arms, your continual reference to you being my best friend at DYK is wearing thin. The point I'm making is that we need to be consistent on the way we present images on our main page, taking into account the way in which TFA, TFP, TFL, OTD etc refer to anything that illustrates their chosen article. I don't need you to advise me on how to "pick [my] battles", in fact you could learn from your own advice having recently sanctioned a DYK with clear copyvio all over it, you really should do better. EEng, learn your lesson. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't say it would be inappropriate to change the normal wording when [etc etc], but I maintain it's inappropriate to fuss that it wasn't so changed. (Pictured) is fine, if for no other reason than, as ATG points out, it really does comprehendq the meaning needed here -- though I repeat that (image) is even vaguer.
• Pending clarification of the very confusing mishmash of unclear responsibilities, I'm not aware that in moving approved hooks to prep I'm supposed to repeat the copyvio check, though I wouldn't be surprised if it says I am, somewhere amid the rules, additional rules, supplementary rules, edit notices, unwritten rules, consensus lost in the mists of time, regulations set down in undeciphered Mayan script, and so on. EEng (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• It's a shame that my expressions of sympathy for your exasperation with DYK are growing thin, because you really aren't going to get them from many others, and even that small number is dropping. You're just way too acerbic, and that says a lot coming from me.

EEng (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• • More to the shame is that you have spectacularly undermined your own rants with negligence in agreeing to promote a hook which was utterly and obviously a copyvio. I think we both want the same thing, to drag DYK from the mire, but you're happy to compromise those values and play along with the poor quality approach. I am not. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, no, I was just unclear as to what my job as prep builder was, I guess. And I'm still unclear -- can anyone point me to something explaining what doublechecks the prep builder is responsible for? As to you, my friend, I quote from a biography of library pioneer, metrification zealot, and spelling reformer Melvil Dewey:

Although he did not lack friends, they were weary of coming to his defense, so endless a process it had become.

EEng (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/St John the Evangelist's Church, Kirkham

I promoted this hook to Prep 3, but cannot close the nomination for some reason. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

This is due to missing brackets "}}" at the end, which somehow have been replaced by the template "{{-}}". Compare with other nominations. Oceanh (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC) (Striking incomplete (thus unhelpful) description of the problem. Oceanh (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC) )

Sorry, I can't fix it. Could an administrator help, please? Yoninah (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• This is the edit where the template broke, not with your trying to close it. I can see what it did - Peter Vardy's post and an accidental change in the formatting of the post above it. But I can't remedy it. — Maile (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• I did it! Two little minor formatting things threw it off, and neither were about how you did the promotion. — Maile (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Sigh! I moved this hook from Prep 3 (the next set to go up) to Prep 2 (due to go up about 24 hours later) because I found yet another unresolved issue -- one that should be resolvable within 24 hours. The issue is that the "Interior" section of the article still indicates that the rood screen was moved in 1906 (not 1895-6 as the hook and another article section now state). Paging User:Peter I. Vardy, User:Martinevans123, and User:Storye book. --Orlady (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Done. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 3

Saint

Apparently "... the final version of The Saint on radio ran for 16 months ... " but I'm seeing nothing specific in the target article to substantiate that, moreover I'm seeing a crappy "for this version, which ended. October 14, 1951.[3]" I'm sure the people that reviewed the article and the hook knew what they were doing, but this needs to be tweaked before it hits the main page. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You just need to add up the months between these two sentences:

The program's final run began June 11, 1950, as a summer replacement for The Phil Harris-Alice Faye Show. The Saint was back on its original network, NBC, for this version, which ended October 14, 1951. (Deleted the errant period.) Yoninah (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

a Sorry, I thought hooks should be explicitly referenced, not rely on readers to find stuff like this and work it out for themselves. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Often we extrapolate (sourced) information from different places to make a good hook. Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Which would be a good answer if this was a good hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Vincent Price is inherently interesting, why not mention him in the hook? Or do the kids not know who he is anymore? How about "...that Billboard called Vincent Price's performance as The Saint "frightfully dull"? Or call him "horror actor Vincent Price" to pun off "frightfully". Never mind, I should read the damn hook first instead of assuming that the bit quoted here was the whole thing. Gamaliel (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

OT, Gamaliel, I was about to say that at the time of that radio program, Vincent Price was more known for his dramatic roles in film. But your comment about "do the kids know who he is"...oh, my, we may have gotten to a place in time where the so-called kids don't know he was the voice on Michael Jackson's "Thriller". — Maile (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Frick

Tim Frick's hook is referenced by a YouTube video, since when did that become reliable? More importantly, why is it interesting that a bunch of six-year-olds have a twelve-year-old "coach"? It happens all the time. I thought dyk hooks were supposed to be interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome, folks to the crystal waters of DYK. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I just thought, as most of readers perhaps do, that hooks should be reliably sourced and interesting. I used to coach six- and seven-year-olds when I was eleven/twelve. It's completely commonplace. And just because I don't have my own Wikipedia article, it doesn't make this hook any less DULLLLLL. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha. Yep, you have a natural ability in "coaching", boss. Martinevans123 (Aged 6-and-a-half) 20:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It was all about not just running towards the ball. You can call me "the Gaffer" from now on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen you make quite a few gaffes before now, Incey. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC) ... or maybe "Ron Manager" would be better, ooh, wasn't it? you know, jumpers for hooks? all in a queue for the front page, wasn't it

• The YouTube video is produced by the Canadian Paralympic Committee. And yes, I do think that's a cute hook to finish off the set. Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I asked when YouTube became a reliable source, not who claimed to produce this video. As for "cute", read dull and not at all interesting and entirely commonplace. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Video links: "There are channels on YouTube for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations that are generally considered reliable sources". It appears to be the official channel of the Canadian Paralympic Committee. You're right about the hook, it's terrible. Why not a reference to the three consecutive gold medals? That seems more interesting. Gamaliel (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Yoninah (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wheelchair basketball Canada had the video professionally produced and put it up on their website. It was showed many times on the big screen at the event venue, and during ad breaks in the webcast. The YouTube channel is an official one. I thought and they thought that this was an interesting hook. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to Rambling Man

For the past two days I've been watching and waiting for those prep sets to be filled by all the people you drove away from DYK. I took the plunge, spent between 30 minutes and 90 minutes to assemble each set, held my breath and posted it. Bingo! In rushes Rambling Man to pick apart and dissect anything he can find. May I point out that you will find much more fodder for your red pen on the nominations page? There are plenty of hooks that have been approved that you can criticize, nitpick, and fault while the nomination is still open – which is obviously the most appropriate and accepted time to make changes. Think a hook is dull? X it out on the nomination page, rather than arguing with the prep builder who thinks it is interesting. You might also consider rolling up your sleeves and making the necessary tweaks to a hook or article (really now, spouting off over a misplaced period?) rather than criticizing the prep builder in front of everyone else on the talk page. I really miss the days when civility was upheld as one of the 5 pillars on DYK, too. Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that two editors - the nominator and the prep builder - have already disagreed about the dullness of a hook puts a complaint of dullness under a WP:SNOW cloud from the word go. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No thanks, I'll continue to keep the queues and prep areas on my watchlist and do my best to stop errors and dull hooks from getting to the main page. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If I may use the AfD analogy (since DYK seems to be kind of AfD in reverse), what TRM is doing is basically roughly equivalent to sitting an AfD out, finding it closed as "Keep", and then starting a second nomination. I think if that happened over more than 5 iterations, somebody would get upset and want to complain. If we want to sort out errors before ERRORS, they really do need to be spotted and logged as soon as possible in the process. Now, there's an argument to be made that it's easier to comment on hooks once they're assembled in prep or queue, but that's a fault with the setup of DYK, not with anyone person. In any case, if we don't change it, I fear that pulling hooks in prep because it's "easier" than failing it at nomination time is going to gradually upset more and more people. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, if I'm still able to find issues by the time these hooks go to prep/queues, you should be thanking me, not berating me, for trying to prevent DYK humiliating itself again and again all over the main page. Fix your process, don't complain about the people fixing the mess it outputs. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

An excellent question - how would you fix the process? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I've gone round this buoy too many times and been shot down too many times. Variously: remove QPQ, instigate consensus-based reviews (this is a great example of why we shouldn't allow one individual to decide whether a hook is correct or not), don't offer guaranteed posts, slow down rate of main page switches. All straightforward stuff but the project is being run to the ground by people suggesting there's nothing wrong. In the meantime, I feel justified in monitoring the prep/queue areas as errors are all too frequently passed through, all the way to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

QPQ For non self-nom

It seems a bit unfair when I peruse the nomination page and see that loads of nominations seem to be exempt from QPQ because they are "not self noms". This is totally ridiculous! The purpose of QPQ is to eliminate BACKLOG. But since now we have nominators who basically on do non-self-noms, this should be changed to make non self noms require QPQs. wirenote (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK QPQ Checker in development - please comment

A developer has a link to Village Pump- Scottywong tools for the replacement on the DYK (QPQ) Checker. Please post any comments on the Village Pump thread. — Maile (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and put this in the DYK Tools template, so you can try this out there. But you can also give your comments about it over at the Village Pump link above. — Maile (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Please rewrite and consolidate Prep guidelines

Lord Palmerston claimed only three people have ever really understood the DYK Prep guidelines - one who is dead, one who has gone mad, and himself, who forgot all about them. No wonder people can't see the wood for the trees.

EEng, per your request above. As important as this is now becoming, I would like to suggest that the Prep guidelines be consolidated and clarified so anybody and everybody can understand them with no gray areas. It's no wonder there is confusion on this. I found all these mentioning how to handle the preparations:

• Wikipedia:Did you know
• Wikipedia:Did you know/Guide
• Preparation areas
• Supplementary guidelines

And I frequently see unlinked references to the "Suggestions page", and have no idea what that is. I'm still looking for the Klingon language supplement to the supplement to the regular rules as amended by that elusive Suggestions page, because it's probably out there somewhere. Really, the prep areas are a hot button issue. Please make these guidelines as concise and easy to understand as possible. All on one page, perhaps bullet points, with as few words as possible. We shouldn't be having personality spats over this. We should be getting this down to be understood. If someone could come up with a separate RFC on what the prep guidelines should be, it would probably go a long ways towards healing here at DYK. — Maile (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Definitely "let's" (i.e. not me) first pull together all the stuff M just listed above, to see what it all says currently, then we can talk about changes. I don't think an RfC project-wide is a good idea -- what the prep builder does vs. the admin promoting to Q vs. nom vs. reviewer is, in a sense, a technical question. There are lingering questions about what DYK should be overall, its standards, its mission -- those are RfC questions -- but let's just try to rationalize what we're doing in-house on this prep-building thing. EEng (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. I'm beginning to ramble again.

By RFC, I mean a separate subpage of this talk page, where we can list what this should be. It will have to be voted on. So, in effect, that is an RFC. We don't have to make it a Wikipedia-wide RFC. Just make it a subpage of this, so we don't clog down the already clogged talk page here. It's time for everybody to stop butting heads and finger pointing, and get this done. Everybody needs to park their egos at the door. — Maile (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

ALT1: Everyone needs to park his or her ego at the door.

ALT2: It's time everyone stopped butting heads and pointing fingers.

EEng (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Good luck. Note that "preparation areas" above is part of Wikipedia:Did you know/Learning DYK, which was intended to unify all that (for all our rules, not just preparation); it replaces the first and fourth items above, and it links to the second. Instead it became just another system. Art LaPella (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"Suggestions" means nominations. Art LaPella (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"it replaces the first and fourth items above, and it links to the second". Um, let's see... first and four... carry the one... um... Seventeen? EEng (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• There's a lot of history behind the confusingness. What we now call "nominations" used to be called "suggestions". There also was a time when there was only one set of hooks -- assembled by an administrator -- queued to move to the main page; some references in the instructions date from that time. There has been a long-recognized need to consolidate and reorganize all of the instructions so they describe the current rules as they are understood by the active participants in DYK. Pieces of the job have been done at various times, but it seems like every time someone gets started on a comprehensive rewrite, they give up on it after someone suggests (or demands) a complete reexamination of the process. (Don't assume that those demands always come from people who have the same motives. Sometimes it's been people complaining that DYK should have less stringent rules, other times it's been people who want more stringent rules, other times it's a desire for new technical tools, and there have also been people asking to have designated delegates put in charge.) Many of these reexaminations have led to changes in the rules, which often results in additional internal inconsistencies when new "rules" are created but some of the old "rules" aren't edited to conform to the changes. --Orlady (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

To that I might add - the notion of an RFC on this, quite frankly, fills me with horror. Much better IMO to simply have one of the more experienced and competent regulars just go through it WP:BOLDly weeding out all the redundant crap and inconsistencies and we can all argue about how well or badly they did it later. Gatoclass (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

...in an RFC. Belle (talk)

(I agree with Gatoclass, if some brave soul wants to try that; it seems like we are all discussed out for the moment, as the lack of input on some of the later proposals demonstrates) Belle (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to see some humor above. OK, so let's not strike terror in the hearts of everyone by doing an RFC. Gatoclass has suggested a/the correct path forward. Start with just this part of the process, getting the Prep instructions down to something understandable on one page. Something everyone agrees on. After that is done, address the other parts of the process. We can't remedy the entire DYK process at once, but we can proactively do it one piece at a time. — Maile (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Special occasion date request – July 10

Sorry for the late notice, but could someone please review Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of the Bahamas by July 10? I don't normally ask for this, but having it hit the MP on that date will coincide with the Independence Day of the Bahamas. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2014 (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 #6 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) 01:10, 2 July 2014 (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) 09:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done - but we could use some more updates please. Gatoclass (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 4

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The old "Beef Stew" hook claims the magazine said it "was one of the most unusual nicknames", but the article says it was just featured in a piece about unusual nicknames, no claims of it being "one of the most unusual". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

ooo, you can't trust that beef stew, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that is too much of a leap for the hook purposes (unless it was only included as an example of a "normal" nickname; which it wasn't). Belle (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It potentially misrepresents the article in the magazine. It was just about "unusual nicknames". It appears no claim was made, either by the magazine or the writer of the article within the magazine, that it was "one of the most unusual"... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The potential misrepresentation is quite trivial though (I can't see anybody running to ERRORS to complain that they are outraged about the hook because the nickname was only thought to be unusual and might not be thought of as one of the most unusual). Your correction to the hook was good (I was just going to do that) but you have more important things to do than worry about this (come and join me in the sun in the garden; we can have cocktails) Belle (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it seems an endemic failure of the system that people struggle to find an interesting hook, so that just make one up. If it just said "blah blah Beef Stew blah was an unusual nickname" which is what the source says, it wouldn't make a hook and wouldn't be DYK-able. People are scratching around, making things up to get a main page appearance. All wrong. As for cocktails in the sun, I'd be delighted. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I've always seen DYK as more of a quaint regional dish. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

[14] What an ego, TRM! Maybe Hawkeye7 meant me. (It's probably cocktail invite envy; you can come too Hawkeye7) Belle (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that's it, you're the one harassing and edit warring....! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Georg Poplutz

Transformations of a hook:

• Georg Poplutz performing in the complete works by Schütz
• also (!) mentioning Schubert, approved in the nom

I slept through the next steps:

• only mentioning Schubert
• adding a (literally) unspeakable genitive

Did you know that we now have a hook with the subject's name in a genitive (which I dislike even if you can pronounce it) and which doesn't mention what he is known for: ensemble singing. - I will watch more closely next time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop being so Latinate. Can't you just say possessive like normal people? Anyway, this is just another example of why hooks shouldn't be tinkered with in prep -- a disease with which I am now infected. But there are so many clearly wrong, or nonsense, hooks coming through -- I'm not saying this was one of those -- that something has to be done -- yet people get pissed off if you push it back to the nom page. EEng (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know "possessive", nor "Latinate"", sorry, - I am here with my limited English and my VERY limited knowledge of grammar terms which I learned in German. Don't push back to nom page, just ping me saying that all I wanted to say is gone and what I was talked into appears in a strange way. I would still say that he created the emotions, not his performance (can a performance create?), perhaps by his performance, - anyway, I keep learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, I've been running into you for almost two years and it never occurred to me that your English was limited, so maybe you're doing better than you thought. Yes, a performance can create something, such as emotions (just as it can inspire or disappoint). EEng (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)