Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 105

• Proposed Rule - "Articles and hooks that are Offensive material should be avoided."

Support - as proposer — Maile (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah shouldn't be allowed, and that is what we were thinking about. Your proposal is similar to Graeme Bartlett and the one I had made. Yoninah is correct about those hooks, that they are probably worse than any other we have talked about. They will obviously come under this guideline. OccultZone (Talk) 12:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Right. I took what both you and Graeme said and shortened it. The link to the WP article on Offensive material is what authorizes us to do that.— Maile (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Tentative oppose (since this appears to be becoming a !vote) There is far more than just being able to say it is offensive and block it. Rude words and innuendo for example probably are not so much as an issue. But obviously when it comes to hooks on things such as necrophilia or pedophilia, those require deeper examination before being allowed. I don't think we can have a blanket ban on everything that might be considered offensive because it could stifle the creativity of the DYK contributors, particularly for some of the more risqué hooks. I feel that a pragmatic approach on a hook by hook basis is better than a cover-all rule that could be more of a hindrance than a help. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:Offensive material, which discusses explicit sexual imagery at some length, you might as well pull the lead image from Queue 6 right now. Yoninah (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Since when has "nudity" (especially "the nude", i.e. an art form) been equated with "sexuality"? "Nudity" covers such a wide range as File:Starved_girl.jpg, File:MG-Paris-Aphrodite of Milos.jpg, and File:Breastfeeding infant.jpg; I don't want to meet the person who fetishizes the first one, and although I know some people would fetishize the other two, I don't think either are common. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think sexually explicit things are also up there with those hooks that require further examination before being run. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm volunteering right now for the committee to review all sexually explicit material. EEng (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• A question on what is/isn't appropriate for MP shouldn't be decided here. Without doubt this has already been hashed over e.g. in the context of Today's Featured Image, and we'd be reinventing the wheel. I'm not sure exactly where to take this -- Village Pump? -- but the problem can't be resolved here. EEng (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Looks like rule creep, and if we can't guarantee an objective criteria for what could be "offensive", we shouldn't be proposing an out-and-out ban. Even the recent Merkin image debate (I believe it's still visible at
  WT:POTD) had both pros and cons. — Crisco 1492 (talk
  ) 16:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • A couple examples, from articles I've written and seen promoted to the MP:
    • "... that the song "Run, Nigger, Run", used in the film 12 Years a Slave as a taunt, was originally used to encourage slaves to escape?" - The N-word is widely considered offensive, but in this context (as the title of a song from when the word was commonly used), censoring it would have been misrepresenting the subject. No objections on the main page.
    • ... that the award-winning film Frank's Cock is split into quadrants to symbolise the "fragmentation of the body" experienced by those with AIDS? - The term "cock" drew ire when this was TFA, but did not get any attention when this was in DYK (although reviewers rejected earlier hooks which played on "cock" and "large"). The subject of this film, a gay man lamenting his death-bound lover, is certainly offensive to some.
    • ... that if you want to talk to the
      anal
      it helps to speak their language? - I recall this drew ire owing to people connecting "anal" to anus, rather than the people (note that this was on April Fool's day, and the intended "misinterpretation" was for anal-retentiveness, rather than the scheduled tribe)
    • ... that a nine-image series by Nadar may be the first medical photographic documentation of an intersex person? - this article has been vandalised several times to remove the images (which, of course, are the subject of the article), sometimes citing concerns of pornography, sometimes citing concerns of exploitation
    • Are you (the proposer) saying that all topics such of these should be banned from the MP? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It shall be discussed and affirmed on the talk page of the particular DYK template that what is offensive and what isn't. We've agreed that there were many offensive DYKs before, maybe that's why we are talking about a rule. OccultZone (Talk) 16:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support the following language or something like it: "Hooks that may be grossly offensive to many readers or to the subject of the article should be avoided, but hooks should not be rejected simply because of the presence of a single offensive word in the title of the article." This gives us the option (but not the requirement) to avoid stupid hooks while allowing reasonable ones with troubling titles ("Run, Nigger, Run" and "Frank's Cock") through. Gamaliel (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (ec) Still way too open. "Hooks that may be grossly offensive to many readers or to the subject of the article should be avoided" - Muslims make up a quarter of Earth's population; does this mean that any and all hooks which may, say, mention a portrayal of God with human qualities or as an otherwise fallible being (it's caused issues before; see "Langit Makin Mendung") should be removed? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Being open is the point, it should allow us flexibility to discuss the issue while not outright prohibiting a broad class of potential hooks. The greater community outside DYK has objected to these sorts of things again and again, so we can't wave away a problem by saying 'well, everything's offensive to somebody'. Gamaliel (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Crisco, whether is offensive or not, it shall be discussed on the DYK template. I guess discussing anything about these examples on this section is obviously not the best idea. OccultZone (Talk) 16:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• IMHO, an open rule is not a rule, but a guideline or suggestion that can easily be kept in the unwritten body of guidelines which have arisen here at WT:DYK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Such guideline has had been a matter of dispute, That's why a rule has been proposed. We've discussed above, that we don't even have concerning non-controversial tags. There are a few changes yet to be made. OccultZone (Talk) 23:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose more rules. We don't need to say that deliberate offence should be avoided, I think. We have featured articles named
  Fuck, about the freedom of speech. If a reviewer finds a a possibly offensive word or topic in a hook or article, he can a bring the nomination to this forum, for more eyes. --Gerda Arendt (talk
  ) 16:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

We are talking about the offensive hooks, not featured articles that have appropriate title for their subject. OccultZone (Talk) 17:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

As OZ says, that's not the issue. Any rule could easily exempt potentially offensive article titles. Gamaliel (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I might myself favor something along the lines of "articles should not be rejected for DYK based on what some might consider inherently offensive subject matters, nor should hooks referring to that subject matter for such articles be rejected. However, if a good, reasonably inoffensive hook is available for an article which is not perhaps so inherently objectionable to some, it might be preferable." This would allow for hooks directly related to articles on serious pornography to still be eligible, because they should be, but would also perhaps in some more borderline cases give an incentive to find less "objectionable" hooks for articles where such might be available. And, of course, there would be I think understood cases where such a guideline could be ignored, like on National Freedom of Speech Day, National Obscene Speech Day, or similar special occasions, if they in fact exist, similar to what is done on Christmas, April Fools' Day, etc. John Carter (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • That's a bit more reasonable.23:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment This proposed change was introduced as following up from "the Necrophilia article hook issue", but the existence of such a rule would have no impact on the hook for that article, as apparently nobody who read it ahead of time found it offensive apart from perhaps Hasteur, who raised the issue
  talk
  ) 01:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@

Bellemora: Confusing.. I agree that everyone knows that it was well observed. But now that we are talking about the proposal regarding the hooks. I would just inform that if there's any type of rejection, it should be based on a rule. We don't have to surprise users, but follow each step accordingly. Tomorrow or later, same issue will arise again. OccultZone (Talk

) 01:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Would rejecting an offensive hook really be a surprise?

talk

) 01:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because there is no evaluation of amount, that how much offensive a hook is or it isn't. We will still hear "no such rule", "wikipedia is not censored", and waste time. There are specific guidelines for every single offense on wikipedia, so it would be better if we have grip over these hooks this way, it will be considered accordingly. OccultZone (Talk) 01:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to avoid the situation of DYK hooks being pulled of the main page, by not putting problematic ones there in the first place. If we don't add a new rule perhaps we can reword one, or find one that applies and emphasise its use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely.. If the nominator is notified during the DYK procedure about writing something else, it can be corrected easily or abandoned. But as usual, there should be some base, some rule. Then only we can. OccultZone (Talk) 02:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

But, as I pointed out, this rule would not have stopped the hook of the necrophilia article reaching the main page. It is not easy to quantify offence, so, in all but the most obvious cases, there will inevitably be a discussion between the reviewer and nominator or among the wider group about the suitability of the hook. That is no different to the current situation.

talk

) 09:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No, there won't be any long discussion or matter of doubt once there is a rule. Just like it is same with any other rule. OccultZone (Talk) 09:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

What would you consider should be classed as "offensive" under that rule then? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment while blanket ban of anything possibly offensive probably wouldn't work out, it could be instead simply warning along the lines: "Please try to avoid hooks that may be regarded as blatantly offensive. This has resulted hooks being removed from the main page early." Basically giving heads up that this aspect should be taken into account but not trying to regulate all the details.--Staberinde (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Guess we've got another good suggestion. OccultZone (Talk) 16:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Are these the points helpful?

• Wikipedia does not suppress knowledge merely because some may find that knowledge offensive, but neither should the manner of presentation knowingly or thoughtlessly give offense when the same information can be communicated in a manner more broadly acceptable.
• While DYK hooks are often playful or ambiguous, this should not be confused with vulgarity, shock, or tastelessness.
• Omission of a particular hook does not remove that hook's content from the body of Wikipedia's knowledge (as would omission of a piece of information from an article), merely from the prominence of the main page. The purpose of a DYK listing is to interest readers in a given article, not give exposure to a particular hook per se, so where there is significant concern about given hook, consider rewording the hook or substituting a different point drawn from the article.
• When proposing a hook touching on issues, or employing language, that is arguably sensitive, raise the issue explicitly in the nomination instead of waiting for someone else to do so, to get feedback early.

This is way longer than I thought it would be when I started typing. EEng (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Support. I really like that, EEng, and I wish I had thought of the last one myself. Asking nominators to self-reflect on their own work is one of the best suggestions I've run across. Can we add that to the rules please? Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

...at Talk:Main Page#Get that repulsive DYK off the front page NOW. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Reopened by ThaddeusB, closed by me, and close reverted by OccultZone. Are we seriously getting in the habit of allowing nominators to revert closure of their nominations? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Before you add anything like "enough time wasted" simply evaluate the outcome from the discussion that took place. There is agreement that a better hook can be proposed. It is not about "close" or "comment" but there is also an exit door. Which one you choose? Be careful. OccultZone (Talk) 02:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• This reached the main page after two months of discussion, and was pulled owing to concerns of factual correctness and the neutrality of the hook. That's more than enough time. Furthermore, you, as nominator, have a COI in the outcome of the discussion, and as such if you felt my close was incorrect you should have gotten a third, neutral opinion, here at the talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That is false - it was pulled because it was viewed as offensive, not "concerns of factual correctness and the neutrality of the hook". [3] --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• I quote: "It is unbelievable that that crap "hook" to a crap article (it is highly disputed whether Herodotus actually went to Egypt, "Herod slept with his dead wife for seven years", I have studied a lot about Herod and never heard that before) got onto the main page". There's more than just the concern that it was offensive; that may have been the immediate reason, but it's far from the only one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposing a new hook is what we had discussed, although the admin himself doubted if he's going against the censorship policy. So proposing a new hook is the way to go. OccultZone (Talk) 03:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• "We"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OccultZone, as you're new here at DYK, you might not have known that you should never close or revert the close of your own nomination. Never. If you have a problem, as Crisco noted above, you should come to this talk page and make a request. Even if you're positive you're right, wait for consensus here, and let someone else do the actual edit. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Crisco 1492's edit was made against the consensus. It is not like that he has the authority to close and no one can do anything, even if everyone is against of that. OccultZone (Talk) 03:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

OccultZone, you seem to be missing the point: whatever the consensus (which is not at all clear to me), you are the one person who should not be making that edit to your own nomination template. I do hope you understand this. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

If you are advising me for my action, sounds to be right. OccultZone (Talk) 03:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You know, I was really in the corner of the pro-DYK people before this. If the people responsible for writing and promoting this particular hook aren't sanctioned, then the next time we have the annual "let's get rid of DYK", I'm likely to move over to their side. How does the hook "an American serial killer said that he killed women before having sex with them because 'I like peace and quiet'" fulfill the educational mission of an encyclopedia? Everyone who had anything to do with this needs to be permanently removed from the DYK process. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Could anyone who wishes to defend the use of the 'hook' please explain what exactly were the "established facts that are unlikely to change, and should be relevant for more than just novelty or newness" involved? I can't see any 'facts' at all, never mind ones which were 'relevant' to anything... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It gets worse. User:OccultZone was granted the autopatrolled right by new admin Go Phightins! just minutes after this DYK hit the main page.[4] The autopatrolled right is granted to users that "can be trusted not to submit inappropriate material, deliberately or otherwise"[5] in addition to users who create new articles without known issues. So the user appears to have failed the former part of the requirement but met the latter. Why are our users being rewarded for this bad behavior? What the hell is going on here? Everyone involved in this needs to be removed from the DYK process, and new admins should not be rewarding them with user rights. Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

There was ultimately no bad behavior. Just an addition of sourced information, that was converted into a hook after the consensus. So your assumption is lot for a well investigated hook that was finally rejected. Involved editors like Crisco, mandarax, etc are very important members of this community and DYK, so removing all of these from DYK process may have negative effect. OccultZone (Talk) 05:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• There have been attempts to teach OccultZone about DYK in the hopes that s/he can contribute articles with fewer issues in the future. We're not quite there yet, sadly.

I much prefer education than witch-hunting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You had well investigated the whole article and DYK so we have to share criticism. :=)) OccultZone (Talk) 05:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• "well investigated"? No, I didn't get past scratching the surface. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

So you are saying that you never looked at the proposed hook? Because it is finally the hook that has been objected.

"Education" has wider scope than some people tend to believe. You may want to read first paragraph of Education for a quick idea. OccultZone (Talk) 06:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Did I mention the hook when I was reviewing? No. I was trying to see if you would clean up the article first before worrying about that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• Also, what exactly is your point about education having a wider scope than some people tend to believe? Are you saying that you want a permanent topic ban from DYK, which is what Viriditas was asking for. If you do, that can be arranged. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It is because you had no objection with that. Viriditas asked for the topic ban for those who have reviewed the DYK. I was a nominator, not a reviewer, so no thank you. For a more specific post, you can check.[6] So far, you were the only admin if we talk about involved parties. OccultZone (Talk) 07:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• "It is because you had no objection with [the hook]." - You assume way too much. Viriditas said "Everyone involved in this needs to be removed from the DYK process" - nominators and article creators are involved as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes and I disregard such proposal with grace, End of. It constitutes

battlefield mentality. OccultZone (Talk

) 07:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, you would, as you are a target of it. That's not necessarily the end of it. If Viriditas wants to follow through with that proposal, that's quite within policy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I am now discussing about the subject. We learn everyday, don't we? It was something new, later if there's any similar issue, with anyone. It shall be discussed on this page, thoroughly. I hope it will help. OccultZone (Talk) 07:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

In another discussion, Liz (talk · contribs) asked an important question: "How do misogynistic statements like this make it through four levels of approval in the DYK process and appear on the Main Page?" We need an answer to this question. I've proposed on another page that the DYK rules need to be changed to bring them inline with current policy to prevent this from happening again. Viriditas (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Viriditas: On which page is your proposal? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 14:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Frankly , any editor that responds to that hook being described as appallingly misogynistic (which it was) with "How long you have been on wikipedia? You think there are any guidelines that support your pro-feminist opinion? " ahouldn't be allowed anywhere near DYK. Ever. Black Kite kite (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The only proposal by Viriditas I see is on User talk:AndyTheGrump, clearly not the best spot. Here is much better. If the the consensus is that the hook was inappropriate, then the rules do need to be changed to reflect that. Myself I kept away from that DYK nomination after reading it a while back. Perhaps that is a clue that it should not pass. But we need to codify the standard. There have been several hooks over the last year that could be seriously offensive to people. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Graeme above. I also agree that I do not see how a rather sensationalistic, dare I say tabloid, hook is one which is likely to increase the "education" of people. I can't see how repeating the bizarre statements of convicted serial killers, who tend to have significant mental disorders, is particularly "educational" either. "DYK that (celebrity x) says they fucked (celebrity y)" type statements are also prominently discussed in tabloid press regarding biographies/autobiographies, but I have serious reservations whether such would really be particularly "educational" as DYK hooks for most articles, even those dealing with such books.

There is a serious concern as to what should be regarded as "offensive" for these purposes though. I think we can all probably agree that including an image of Muhammad with a relevant DYK is going to cause more trouble than it's worth from Muslims who object to images of Muhammad. But for some subjects, like maybe legitimate articles about scientific examination of what triggers sexual arousal in pedophiles, beastiality practitioners, etc., those might be reasonably acceptable.

I guess one question involved, at least in my eyes, is to what extent DYKs are to appeal to the least common denominator, and to what degree they are not. Certainly, some classic DYKs like one about a British noblewoman who never left her tree and had the butler bring dinner out to her (I think that's what it was) can both appeal to the LCD and general curiosity. But I think there might be serious differences regarding DYKs which seem to "cross the line" of social mores and commonly accepted social norms for no apparent reason other than titillation or appealing to the LCD. Some sort of general guidelines regarding where exactly to draw the lines on such topics would certainly be useful. John Carter (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• I realize that commenting now, after having seen the nomination and avoided it, is closing the barn door after the ox got out. But looking at that article, I see a list, and in fact it was moved from "list of incidents....", that were formatted so that the DYK check would be fooled into thinking they were part of the prose count. How is it the article did not get slapped with one of these tags?

But, OK, let's say people think it's not a list. Then what is it? It's an entire article of primarily one-sentence paragraphs. Per Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Paragraphs,One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs.. — Maile (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Maile66: Have you read the article or ever seen a list? Let me give you an example of a list. Wholly different than your assumptions. I have removed your "section" tag from your post because it sends to the hidden template of section and list. If someone is using a bot, or semi automated program like AWB, they will probably mess up this page. You should learn to add 'source code' and be careful. OccultZone (Talk) 01:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

OccultZone, thank you for removing the section tag here. I read the article. When I started out editing, I did several article sections like that, and every one of them was slapped with that tag. And they looked a lot like what you did with this article. Have I ever seen a list? Yeah, and once I learned the WP ropes I have since done a ton of lists. I even took one all the way up to Featured List. So, I do have an idea. But my comment was not about your editing. My comment was more that if everybody is complaining about this nomination after-the-fact, why didn't anyone even question the list format on the template? You could have explained why you don't feel it's a list. But everybody is getting into such an uproar here, I'm wondering where they were while this was still being reviewed, or in the prep area or queue. — Maile (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Maile66: No wonder so many articles that I have recently went through, they had the wrong tag. For a clue, one of the editor was edit warring over 'inline citation' because "article doesn't have enough citation"(in his own words). So you are probably not alone, but I wouldn't know that greatly until I would check that which article you have tagged. If you had ever seen a list with good sight and care, you may have never made assumption like you had above. After the series of expansion, article was more than a list, so I had to change title. No one said that the article is list, because it is clearly not. Sometimes things are too simple to understand, so why there is a need to have a defective thought? Had my explanation now and then. Maybe those had albeit more knowledge about wiki guidelines that's why they even participated or took interest in DYK and article. OccultZone (Talk) 12:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You read something entirely different than what I wrote. I didn't tag anything. I'm saying that when I wrote things as you did in this article, multiple other experienced editors tagged them as lists. And I also told you I have since created and expanded countless lists (in the hundreds) the correct way, with no tagging whatsoever. I also said I took one up to Featured List. Do not assume I'm stupid. Do not assume I don't know anything about lists. Do not assume I do not know Wikipedia rules. — Maile (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you tag or not? If not, why you proposed a tag.. That's how I had thought. In another sentence I explained my thought that I wouldn't know about your tagging skills because I haven't seen any of your edit that is related with the tags. Going by your own comment, it is good if you haven't tagged that way, you already know about better about these things than you did before, which is great. OccultZone (Talk) 14:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• OccultZone, My apologies. I think we both misunderstood each other, and I didn't realize it. For the record, I don't tag anything. I sometimes try to improve articles so tags can be removed, but I don't generally tag things. What I meant by my initial post up there, and have apparently bungled the wording, is that there is a tendency in Wikipedia for zealous tagging, and I was wondering how that article escaped such. I prefer not to debate with you about what a list is, or isn't, because I think we have different viewpoints (and that's OK). But that article has the look of what inspires taggers to go nuts. If it's OK with you, let's just leave it there. I think I misunderstood your intent, and I apologize for my sharp reaction to that. — Maile (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Maile66: Thanked you for this post. No problem. OccultZone (Talk) 23:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

One question. Can someone explain how the hook "lightened" the comment or approved it? I though it was a grim, misogynistic and sick comment; well something you'd expect from a serial killer. But why is quoting it misogynistic? A quotation is not a sign of approvement, often people even quote statements they disagree with (eg. feminists exposing misogynistic statements). --Pudeo' 01:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Fully commend the comment of @John Carter:... @Black Kite: I remember a person(registered few days ago) had told that anything that is against feminism should not be even added to wikipedia. Suggestion is meaningless though. OccultZone (Talk) 01:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between describing sexist events and capitalizing on them. DYK hooks are meant to interest readers. The DYK hook in question played off of Western cultural stereotypes that women prefer talking excessively instead of having sex. And the "humor" of sexual violence is the primary, if not exclusive, reason that such a hook would ever appeal to readers. By elevating such a statement to the main page as a DYK hook, Wikipedia appears to endorse sexual violence humor—at least as a means to drive readership—and that's sick. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Nailed it. Can someone please nominate Prototime for admin? For those who didn't get it, the prevailing folk wisdom/pop psychology states that men are quiet because they evolved as hunters whereas women are garrulous because they evolved to gather plants, name them, and formed social relationships with their children and other women. I have no idea if this folk wisdom is rooted in anything factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.8.93 (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, the article has been rejected for further MP appearance. --ThaddeusB (talk)

I have no problem. I was probably done after the comment by Bellemora. OccultZone (Talk) 02:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The DYK was torpedoed by a few very vocal, overly sensitive and delicate users with no valid reason for their objections, other than that they just didn't like it and were personally offended by it. The world is a real place where, unfortunately, horrible things happen. An encyclopedia should not exclude information about such horrible things. People may be, and often are, offended by many things, but those things should still be reported on factually in an encyclopedia. People who are so easily and dramatically offended would be well advised to simply stay away from the Internet. And television, and movies, etc. There may or may not have been problems with the article, but that is not why the hook was pulled, and if anybody brought up issues with the article, it was probably intended to justify the otherwise unjustified action of pulling the hook. Particularly telling is the fact that the most vigilent regular DYK critics, who always patrol DYK and discussions of it and never fail to join in and criticize DYK whenever they see a problem, had nothing to say on this matter, not a word. That's because there was nothing wrong with the hook. Claiming afterwards that it was pulled due to concerns about the correctness and the neutrality of the hook is absolute rubbish. Checking the reference shows that the hook was an accurate restatement of a fact in that reference. There's no dispute that the subject of the hook actually said what the book says he said. People were crying "NPOV! NPOV!", but no one ever explained how the hook was not neutral. That's because it WAS neutral. It simply quoted, without commentary, what someone had said. They probably would have objected less if it had NOT been neutral, and had described the man as a monster and what he said as a deplorable thing. What he said WAS deplorable, offensive, perverted, and maybe misogynistic, but the hook was not. The hook was neutral and not advocating anything. It provided a unique and chilling insight into the demented mind of a maniacal criminal, and in that capacity served an educational purpose. Agolib 23:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong, and you missed the point by a mile. Making fun of women by using the words of a serial killer is not acceptable. You're part of the problem, not the solution. The 19th century called and they're missing a sexist white man. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This may have been missed above. See #Question re Prep 4 hook for a requested edit to Queue 2, which hits the Main Page in about three and a half hours. It's not hugely inaccurate – just off by a few thousand years. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 04:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If I expand a BLP article (which previously had references) twofold, would it be eligible for DYK.?--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No. That rule only applies to unreferenced blps. --

talk

) 09:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

QUEUE 2 - *[7] Men can't be translated. EEng (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

QUEUE 2 - *"that chief justice Thomas Balmer was once the managing partner of American law firm Ater Wynne?" -- Chief justice of what? EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't panic -- there's still 4 minutes to go on this one. EEng (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to say in parting (with apologies for the unavoidable offense to the nominator) that this is precisely the kind of utterly uninteresting dog-bites-man hook I referred to elsewhere on this page. So a state supreme ct judge was once senior partner of some law firm I've never heard of (should I have heard of it?). Surprise! Now, a hook that said he never went to law school, or never practiced law, or started civic life as dog-catcher (not that there's anything wrong with that) or whatever -- that would be a hook. EEng (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

QUEUE 3 -*"after Kent County Cricket Club were unable to" -- was unable to? (There may be US vs. UK usage issue here.) EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

QUEUE 4 -  :*Same issue with "before they moved to their current home of Odsal Stadium, Bradford Northern spent 26 years at Birch Lane" -- ("before moving to Osdal Stadium, Bradford Northern spent 26 years at Birch Lane" avoids the issue). EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

QUEUE 3 -*"neither Israel or the US are in a position" -- is in a position. EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, correct English usage is "neither, nor". So it should be "nor the US is in a position."— Maile (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to leave something for someone else to notice. Thanks for helping with this -- I thought no one was paying attention. EEng (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

EEng, look here. I also know that the sentence is grammatically wrong, but since it was the person's statement I didn't took the liberty to twist or turn it.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a quotation, so there's no use in knowingly importing anything more than the meaning -- certainly not an obvious grammatical error which can be corrected without doing violence to what the person is saying. If for some reason we want to preserve the error we'd have to quote it, but there's no reason to do that here. EEng (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure about this? I'm a native English speaker and my natural tendency is to use a plural verb when a "neither... nor.." construction is in the subject position Furius (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Two singular subjects connected by "nor" should take a singular verb. If one is singular and one is plural, most guidance says to match the nearest subject (and often advises to rearrange the subjects so the plural one is second). In this case, as referred to in

MOS:PLURALS, "United States" is generally treated in North American English as a collective, singular noun. isaacl (talk

) 12:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

QUEUE 4 - *"neither Jessie Traill (pictured) nor Iso Rae were Australian war artists?" -- neither X nor Y was an Australian war artist. EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

QUEUE 4 - *'Tunnel Rats leader Dax Reynosa responded to claims that his group was too aggressive with the line "I pull a pistol out my pocket and I cock it"?' -- was the quoted statement the "line" claimed to be too aggressive, or was it the response? EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

QUEUE 4 - *"Eric A. Walker continued as a professor at Cambridge University and published more books, despite being lobotomised?" -- I violently object to the despite, which plays into the myth that anyone receiving a lobotomy is expected to become impaired (though that was often true -- please, I don't need any education about lobotomy or its effects). What the article says is, "in July 1946 underwent a leucotomy (lobotomy), which involved the removal of part of his brain. He subsequently made a strong recovery and was able to resume teaching." If anything this suggests the lobotomy made him better. And lobotomy and leucotomy aren't exactly the same thing, and this gets especially confused across international boundaries, where the terminology gets somewhat fluid. There's been a lot of fuss on this Talk about an imagined requirement that DYK articles be somehow certified correct, but I'd be happy to start with making sure that the hooks, at least, correctly reflect the article. EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

QUEUE 5 - *"that the Germany–Poland border after WWII mostly follows" -- what a weird way of expressing it. Don't we mean "that the post–World War II German-Polish border mostly follows"? EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

PREP 4 - *"that the camera of the LG G3 has" -- for the not-so-hip, couldn't we say "that the camera of the LG G3 mobile phone has "? EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

PREP 1 - *"that Jitan Ram Manjhi had to resign the day after he was sworn in" -- article doesn't say he "had to" resign, just that he did resign -- "Following the JDU's poor showing in the 2014 general election, Kumar accepted responsibility for the defeat and resigned" -- quite a different statement, and BTW this is a BLP. (The article also uses the word supremo and I, at least, have no idea what that means.) EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

PREP 1- *"Marten Woudstra was one of four men who formed the committee" -- this is easily misinterpreted as meaning that MW caused the committee to come into being, instead of that he was a member of the committee. Why not say, "MW was one of four men on the committee"? EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The hook is not that far off from the article in giving the impression that Woudstra and three other men got together and caused the committee to come into being. However, the source is not that clear. It says there was a committee, but it does not really get specific about how the committee was formed. — Maile (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The article's clear he was chairman of the committee, and therefore a member, so my wording is clearly justified by the article's contents. I hope we're not walking into this [8], however. EEng (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. If you and three of your friends decided to form a group to clean up a neighborhood, and they elect you as chair, are you just a "member", or did you help bring it into being? Both. But my point, is that the source does not say these four men founded the committee, only that it existed and they were members. Where did you get that link? — Maile (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Link was the first thing that came up on google for the subject's name. As mentioned elsewhere, I'm going to have to leave this list to others -- I just can't focus on all these little topics for now. Of course, in about an hour I'll let myself get drawn in again, but for now that's what I'm telling myself. EEng (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

PREP 1 - *" that allegations of conspiracy between Muslims, Jews and lepers" -- um, you mean among??? (Please, no lectures on how between can be used with groups larger than two. It can in some cases, but this isn't one of those cases.) EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Disagree with you. "Among" would convey that the allegations arose from the Muslims, Jews and lepers. a confession was forced out, stating that the lepers were acting on the orders of Jews, who in turn had been bribed by the Muslims of Spain, in an attempt to "poison the Christian population of Europe" This would seem to be that the allegations were that the three groups conspired with each other against Christians. "Between" seems fine to me. — Maile (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the point. "between" is wrong in the hook for the same reason "with each other" is wrong in your own post -- they apply (with minor exceptions) where only two parties are involved -- for a larger number you need to say "conspiracty among X, Y, and Z" or "the three groups conspired with one another". So "between" has no different meaning than does "among" -- it's just for the wrong # of parties. But you've hit on another problem, which is that it's a bit unclear, as written, whether the Muslims, Jews, and lepers are the alleged conspirators, or the source of the allegation, though the intention is clearly the former. (How would lepers even get together to take collective action -- did they have a union, or a legislative lobbying group, back then?) I therefore suggest the old text

that allegations of conspiracy between Muslims, Jews and lepers against the Christians of Europe sparked an international hysteria in June 1321?

be changed to

that allegations that Muslims, Jews and lepers had conspired against the Christians of Europe sparked an international hysteria in June 1321?

I'm gonna have to leave it to the rest of you to sort all these out -- I'm pooped. I hope I'm wrong in at least a few cases, but this convinces me more than ever that the intended target areas of DYK quality controls is too vague de jure and too diffuse de facto. A lot of review energy is invested in making sure articles are 100% perfect (which is impossible) and, apparently, not enough energy is invested in making sure the hooks are really correct (they should be traced through all the way to the sources) or (in many cases) that the hook is free of puzzling aspects prima facie (I needed a few more legalisms to reach my quota for today...).

I repeat for the nth time that I think we'd be way better off openly identifying DYK articles as works in progress we hope MP readers will jump in and help with, but the hooks should be unassailable. EEng (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I've corrected some of those while looking at the prep areas (you can edit the prep lists yourself even if you are not an admin. That doesn't mean you should, of course, but nobody has told me different, so suck it up)

talk

) 10:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been wondering for some time if changing to 7 or 10 days might lead to better quality articles and snappier, tighter hooks. After all, nominations can take weeks or months to reach the main page, so does a few more days really make much difference? Of course, one can take as long as one likes preparing stuff in sandbox, but on average, better work is produced by open collaboration in mainspace. And most of the recent problem articles have been solo efforts.

One idea that I've been trying on my userpage is letting others know of the DYK deadline for articles that I will nominate, User:Edwardx#DYK_collaborators_sought. If editors see something of interest, they can get involved at an early stage and if they make a significant content contribution, get a co-credit.

Any thoughts? Edwardx (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• support The 5 day rule is one of those factors to the DYK process that acts to make things worse. We should abandon (or at least, substantially lengthen) it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - How would more time to prepare an article result in "snappier, tighter hooks"? Better articles, maybe, as quite a few people seem unwilling to work in user space. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

More collaboration and a longer timeframe should lead to better hooks, as there will be more opportunity to discuss hook ideas, tweak and tighten them before nominating. Far too many flabby and dull hooks get through the review process without any comment from the reviewer or anyone else. Edwardx (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hear, hear! EEng (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Doesn't the five-day rule also apply to expanding articles already in mainspace? Why the rush? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, it does. Expansions and new articles are not treated particularly different, except for the length requirement. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Crisco 1492 There's a detail in the rules that needs to be tightened in writing - whether the goal post is moved or not. I saw a nomination nixed based on the beginning of the expansion being out of the time frame, even though the completion was just a few days later. The rules state "within the past five days ". The rules don't address whether the count for the time frame is when the expansion has begun, or when it's completed. The other side of the issue, is that if the rules say the count begins when the expansion has completed, an editor can say they were working on it for months, so the final few edits should be the date used. What's your take on this Crisco? — Maile (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Follow the link here [9] to see that (unfortunately) an editor either has to rush to expand within five days from beginning to end, or carry out the expansion in private and then thrust a whole new article in place all of a sudden, with no edit history to guide others as to what he did step by step (which is often helpful). At least the author of those instructions meant it that way.

And that's the way I understood it too (again -- unfortunately) -- I worked several late nights because, having added a modest amount to Widener Library, I eventually realized that I probably could reach 5X (which I hadn't considered as a possibility before) but then -- Oh, boy! Gotta hurry! 'Cause that stupid 5-day clock is ticking! Then after all that work, I get the numbskull story that prose footnotes "aren't prose", apparently because the mindless DYK tool doesn't count them as such -- and we humans have to follow what our automated masters' command! EEng (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

And then you see other people nominating articles they're still part way through, just to ensure they are nominated within the window - defeating whatever the purpose of having a window is... Support Furius (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Again you show a disturbing inability to paraphrase. "For step-by-step instructions on how to calculate whether an expansion is fivefold and whether it is within the past five days, see User:Rjanag/Calculating fivefold expansion by hand."? Really?

Maile, I've never seen anyone argue that "completed" means "doing the very last edit". If you are building a bridge, and I place the last rivet, it would be disingenuous to say that I completed the bridge in five minutes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I saw one, Crisco 1492 - and only one - in recent weeks. Can't find it now. But that's what made me ask. — Maile (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Maile66 I assume you're referring to Template:Did you know nominations/Prime Prep Academy where I did a lot of development in a sandbox and then spliced back into the mainspace shortly followed by the nomination? I did it to stay under the blasted "5 day" rule. Hasteur (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur, it's not that one. It was something I'd seen on the nominations page and gave no input, therefore, having no record in my Contributions what it was. Can't remember the article name or the reviewer. I just remember it was initially given the red X with a comment it wasn't expanded 5X within 5 days of the nomination. When I looked at the article history, the case was actually that the editor had been expanding for several days, some of the 5X was older than 5 days. I made no comment, thinking that would all work out before anyone removed it entirely from the page. Hopefully, someone did catch that.— Maile (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support as an interim measure, but in my opinion any kind of deadline like this is counterproductive. As far as I can see the 5-day rule is nothing more than an arbitrary choke to prevent the process from being flooded with every single new article. At the same time (and this is the real corrosion it works) it penalizes careful article development in favor of slapdash development.

  If we need some way to limit nominations, let's start with requiring there be at least something in the article which would make an actually interesting hook. Way too many hooks now are utterly pedestrian, unsurprising statements such as Did you know ...

• ...that [band you never hear of] followed up their debut album [meaningless album name] with a hit single [meaningless song name]? or
• ... that [athlete] is the first person since [recent date] to [do something apparently not too rare, since we just said someone else did it recently]? or
• ... that [work of art with unsurprising name] was sculpted by [artist you never heard of]? or
• ... that people often put furniture in their screened porches?

(and I'm not kidding about that last one -- it really was a DYK).

I'm not saying that hooks have to be about famous people doing important things. But at least something about the hook should be surprising, intriguing, apparently contradictory, weirdly named, or whatever. Please don't object that this is a subjective decision -- lots of stuff we do as editors is subjective. This might be one place where voting really would make sense: every day every editor has 10 hook-votes he can give to the 10 hooks he likes best, and every day the top N votegetting hooks move on to next stage, to have their articles evaluated.

EEng (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support Expand to 10 or 14 days. It takes time for people to notice and contribute to a new article. Lengthening the time limit should result in better hooks drawn from more fully developed articles. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support 5 days is not a natural period. 7 days would be more sensible as many editors like myself will have a weekly schedule in which the weekend is the best time for activity here. The AFD cycle was increased from 5 days to 7 days for the same reason. Andrew (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• Tentative support one week. Although I don't think this affects most DYK regulars (those I know complete the writing stage in a day usually), this may help us draw new editors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - the "real" rule has been more like 8 days for some time, might as well make it 7 officially... As a content creator, I often am bumping against the 5 day rule (at least on expansions), so think a few more days is beneficial. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  Also, most other processes (AfD, PROD, RfC) run on weekly (1 or more) time frames. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support expanding to 7, 10, or 14 days, per the nominator's reasoning. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support expanding to at least a week. Creating/expanding an article within the timeframe is bad enough. If you want to nominate it yourself, you have to do a QPQ. Expanding the timeframe could certainly help article quality, but it will also help better review quality - a reviewer can actually take their time and not be "oh my goodness, I need to review this before tomorrow or else I can't nominate my article!"--¿3family6 _contribs 16:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support expansion to 7 days and starting the clock from the date of completion. Gamaliel (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose longer period: I'm seeing some odd supporting reasons that shouldn't stand unchallenged, and am absolutely opposed to Gamaliel's suggestion that expansion's clock start from completion rather than start of expansion. 3family6's reasoning that the QPQ must be done before the nomination is manifestly untrue, as nominations occur all the time with QPQs "to come". Reviewers will certainly wait a week from nomination, if not longer, for the QPQ to show up. Andrew's reasoning that five days is not a natural period seems odd, since the article creator/expander can start their five days at whatever time is most convenient to them, which can naturally include a weekend if the person wants. This is very unlike AfD, where if someone is only here one day a week, the AfD could be opened and closed before they show up again; here, it's the creator choosing the day to start (or start expanding) an article. Not quite sure why ThaddeusB thinks the "real" rule is eight days, since I've seen articles seven days old get rejected. (We tend to be lenient to first-time nominators, but less likely to give the same exception to experienced DYK submitters.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset: I apologize for not being more nuanced. I know full well that articles are often submitted with "QPQs 'to come". Right now I have a sitting nomination on which I did just that. But, as a regular DYK submitter, that is how I often feel, and it was not without some trepidation that I nominated Below Paradise without first doing a QPQ. Perhaps make it clear in the instructions that it is okay to submit first and then do a QPQ?--¿3family6 _contribs 15:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Many of the articles that I create or improve are started because of an external event and so the start time is not of my choosing. Such events include:

1. Editathons and Wikimeets. These are good for getting articles started and this is often their main purpose. But they are not so good for getting them up to DYK standard because there is often not enough time or resources in the hurly-burly of the event.
2. Deletion discussions. I patrol AFD and often improve articles per
   WP:HEY
   .
3. Topical media. For example, this morning I was browsing a magazine which made a point of complaining that there wasn't a Wikipedia article about a notable person. I was going to throw the magazine away and so started an article immediately with that reference before I lost it. I would like to bring this article up DYK level but am not sure when I will have time to follow through. I might find time this weekend but there's an editathon on Saturday and a Wikimeet on Sunday. And I have a life too.

Andrew (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Andrew, that's the most cogent reason for expanding from five to seven days that I've seen. Will have to give the matter more thought. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Re:8 days. It used to be explicitly written into the supplimental rules [10]: "'Five days old' really means about eight days in Swahili :)" until someone complained about the Swahili reference and it was changed to the current language about it not being strictly enforced. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• ThaddeusB, that change antedates my DYK participation by several months, which explains why I'd never seen the "eight days" joke. (I can't recall anyone ever asking for eight days, and if they did, I rather doubt I granted it.) As far as I can see, the basic rule has become less strict in terms of granting leeway if there isn't a backlog of hooks; right now, of course, since the backlog of hooks (and approved hooks) is huge, there shouldn't be any leeway given unless it's a special circumstance. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It always seemed unfair to knock back an article that was a day late when we give people weeks to fix problems. Unfortunately, the backlog of hooks is not large. A few years back it was much larger than it is today. I have trouble assembling a prep area once the number of nominally approved hooks falls below about 50. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support I support changing the 5 day rule to 7 days/a week because I have seen many times where a nom has failed because it was a day late and that could drive away potential new contributors, which after all is what DYK is intended to promote. Extending it can give them more time to nominate especially if they weren't even aware of DYK beforehand. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Guarantees me a weekend to nominate an article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support for all the reasons stated above. Cbl62 (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I still wish someone would explain what the function of a time limit is in the first place, other than for some reason the DYK subhead on MP is, "From WP's newest content" or whatever. EEng (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, that's the reason. Originally it was three days. It was increased to five days in 2005 because DYK was replaced by TFA on the weekends, and there were problems with articles nominated on Fridays. Consideration was given to going to seven days at the time, but five was adopted as a compromise. There was consideration of going back to three days when TFA became a regular column in 2006, but it was decided to stick with five days. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Then why don't we end the self-imposed hurry and change the MP subhead to "From some interesting WP articles you can help improve...", and shift the criterion from "Someone with time on their hands was able to hurry this article into existence really fast" to "This article actually has something interesting about it, regardless of how long it's been around." See #make_them_interesting above. EEng (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support I would have nominated far more articles if 10 or 14 days were allowed. The short time is a discouragement against nomination. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Suppport changing the rule to seven days initially. It's just a bit longer without drastically changing the fundamentals. This could be revisited later if ten or fourteen seems necessary due to the issues already mentioned above, and assuming nothing terrible happens with this change. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 10:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• tentative Suppport to seven days in first instance - I too have run across articles 1-2 days late to be included. I think we might pick up a few better candidates this way. Not sure about any longer as it is supposed to be "new" and I do think we have to draw the line somewhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Seems it is time it implement the change to 7 days. What all needs changed to make it happen? --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

   Done - This should just about do it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

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,

• Now over an hour overdue. Looking for an admin to promote the available prep as soon as possible, and maybe get the next one promoted as well. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

am out and about. If preps are filled I can move a few in a few hours. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Suppose an article has 1000 characters of "readable prose size". How many characters should I add to it to fulfill the DYK length criteria. If I add 5,000 chars making it 6,000 chars, would it be eligible or not? Please ping me when answering this question.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see

WP:DYKGN - Vivvt (Talk

) 13:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Skr15081997: 1* is 1000 characters of readable prose, so 5* is 5000 characters (or over). Thanks, Matty.007 18:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Somebody refresh my memory here. I check for orphans on articles, because I'm pretty sure that used to be in the reviewing rules in one place or another. This just recently came up in a talk with another editor who also does not specifically find orphan mentioned. Did the rules change somewhere? Can we just forget about the whole orphan issue now? Personally, I've never understood the point of requiring a new article link to some other article or get slapped with a tag. So, an article doesn't link to another one - big whoop-de-doo...— Maile (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Maile66: It is a non-controversial maintenance tag, just like 'underlinked', 'deadend'. It helps a person to make article look healthier and provides a better base. It confirms that the subject has got some amount of importance other than the main page. I had created links for many articles before, usually takes about 25 seconds per article. OccultZone (Talk) 01:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• This is historically not considered a big deal, but it can be fixed easily (Djawoto can be linked from the G30S article and in "see also" from the Indonesian exile literature article). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• But the question is whether a hook can be promoted to the main page when the first thing the reader sees is an "Orphan" tag at the top of the article? Similarly, I just came across a DYK nom with "expansion needed" tags in several places. Per
  Rule D7, isn't the article supposed to look somewhat complete, even if it's start-class, and not like a work in progress? Yoninah (talk
  ) 12:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• The article with expand tags shouldn't run. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And Djawoto is no longer an orphan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Yeah they shouldn't run. Such term can be added to guidelines. Just like I had added above, that it is pretty easy to link the articles. Sometimes it depends upon the editors and their knowledge about the wikipedia pages. For example, I found many biographical articles to be orphaned, I would link by adding the names to related pages such as "List of French People", and test from semi-automated programs. It becomes clear that the page no more requires the orphan tag. OccultZone (Talk) 13:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

None of this directly answers the key questions:

1) Is Orphans specifically mentioned in the reviewing rules as part of the criteria check? It's not on the list of

Dispute tags

. If it is mentioned in the reviewing rules, where specifically is it?

2) If not mentioned, why is it an issue in the review? As @Yoninah: noted, it needs to be spelled out in the guidelines. Nominators and reviewers need this clarified for future reviews. We can't say "you need to clean up the orphan tag" if it's not in the rules.— Maile (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Common sense I guess. I only said that it is easy to solve that tag' issue, so it should be solved instead. OccultZone (Talk) 17:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Just for clarification when I said "none of this", I generally meant everyone's comments as a whole. I think the consensus here is that orphan tags should be cleaned up, but somebody needs to add that to the guidelines. However, I'm pretty sure it used to be in the guidelines once upon a time.— Maile (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the orphan tag talk page to stop using it on articles, and to put it on talk pages instead. It does not say anything about the content of the article, and so is not any kind of problem for DYK, apart from its ugliness. So I would suggest that if you see an orphan tag, just remove it, or if you want move it to the talk page to stop annoying the readers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"...annoying the readers..." is about all that tag is good for. — Maile (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• VPR to try and get consensus to yet again change how the template appears. Quite frankly, I would think the easiest thing to do, to follow the path of least resistance, is to just deorphan the article by creating a link to it. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c}
  ) 20:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll admit to not knowing all the ins and outs of formatting at WP. I'm not pulling this hook, because I might be wrong. In Prep 4, Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument hook has "~500,000 acres" mentioned. Is the tilde character a way of writing "less than"? In the article, the "Description" section and the Infobox of the article mention 496,330 acres, which is verified by the source. In the "Campaign for establishment", it's rounded off to 500,000, acres and its source says "roughly half a million acres". The hook might be totally correct. I've just never seen it written with a tilde before before. — Maile (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A tide means "approximately". But I'd say the blurb would be better without it. Most readers won't understand it, and no-one will feel deceived when they look into it and find we lied to them by a few hundred acres. Formerip (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed the tilde on the prep template. If someone else feels otherwise, they can revert it back. — Maile (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It needs to be pulled.

... that the 500,000 acres of the

Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument contain former stomping grounds of "wild" life such as the ground sloth, Billy the Kid and Geronimo

?

Is someone kidding? "Stomping grounds"?? Grouping Geronimo with Billy the Kid as some kind of "wild life"??? DYK is the gift that just keeps on giving. EEng (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Not everything needs to be pulled because you get excited. Dial it back once in a while. — Maile (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It does not seem unreasonable to group together extinct wildlife and two leading figures from the Wild West, and calling them all "wild" in order to create an intriguing hook. All three are support by citations. Edwardx (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Or:... that the

Thanks, and thanks to EEng for noting the problem above. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

On a similar vein : that one chimpanzee group wiped out another chimpanzee group during the Gombe Chimpanzee War? - I don't think "wiped out" is particularly encyclopaedic language, and the article itself states something different, that one group killed all six male members (not everyone) of the other. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The wiped out language is indeed inappropriate because of the males-only point. However, for the record I want to say that I don't believe hooks need to be, or even should be, "encyclopedic" (though no one ever says what that means). They're supposed to be fun, coy, playful, intriguing, puzzling, and all kinds of other things articles usually aren't (though personally I don't see why an article can't be fun, as long as it keeps a straight face). EEng (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Quite, we can try to engage our readers but to do so by giving them an entirely false hook, or one which doesn't make sense, or one which isn't substantiated by reliable sources is something we should avoid like the plague. Or joke about and laugh and ignore the ongoing crisis as some DYK evangelists seem to do. "Don't panic and carry on! (And ignore all those pesky hourly

WP:ERRORS!!) The Rambling Man (talk

) 18:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Good find. I should have done what you recommended. I have commented further about the sourcing in

Location (talk

) 15:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, hardly a good find. Finding errors in DYK is like finding mosquitoes in a swamp. EEng (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC) (Actually, it was a good "catch" -- to continue the baseball theme -- but I couldn't resist the image. Fram's comments suggest we should have a list of "danger words" for hooks: first, only, most, [insert 500 more words here, actually]. And the warning to check for conflicting sources is very well taken as well.)

I've pulled the following hook from Queue 2:

"that when Anthony Hewitt signed a contract worth US$1,380,000 with the Philadelphia Phillies, he enrolled in Vanderbilt University to learn how to manage money?"

The text says he "planned" to do that. This is a false hook. Please try harder to ensure the hooks match the article claims. Just glad to catch it before it made

I looked at this hook while it was in the nomination area because I assumed that the "when" should be "after" (that is, he enrolled after he signed the contract), but the source made it clear that the enrolment formed part of the contract as his team were paying for him to take the course (I don't know whether he ever took the course, but that isn't important for the accuracy of the hook). The phrasing could be changed to "he was enrolled at" to make it clearer. I imagine the article may be worded differently to avoid close-paraphrasing.

talk

) 00:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

First, thanks to Belle for notifying me of this discussion. Second, enrolling is "the act of officially registering as a member of an institution or course", which the article says he did (the contract included eight fully-funded semesters ...). Not sure what the issue is. Enrolling doesn't necessarily mean that one actually completes something, it means they registered to do so, which he did. Go Phightins! 16:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Go Phightins! 19:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Side note: Please, whatever happens, when this hook gets back in prep, let's make sure it links to Anthony Hewitt (baseball) and not Anthony Hewitt the classical pianist. As DYK boners go that's nothing, but every little bit counts.

What the article says is

he signed a contract that included a $1.38 million bonus and fully funded eight semesters at Vanderbilt, which he'll cram in over several offseasons. ... Hewitt reported to the Phillies' Gulf Coast League affiliate in Clearwater, Fla., early this week, and will attend Vanderbilt later this year. "I want to major in business or economics, so I can manage my money and start investing it," he said.

That's not "he enrolled". Period. Anyway, a much more interesting hook would be to include that the team seems to be paying for the college e.g. "AH's recent contract blah blah includes funding for blah, which he intends to use for studying blah". EEng (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point on the linking; that's my fault. As for "enrolled", I took "fully funded eight semesters at Vanderbilt" and "will attend Vanderbilt later this year", cognizant that students generally enroll in school in May for semesters starting in the fall to mean that he enrolled. Is it a little synthesis-y, I guess so. The hook could be rephrased that as part of his US$1,380,000 contract, the Phillies paid for him to attend Vanderbilt, at which he sought to learn to manage money. Go Phightins! 19:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait... the link really was wrong???? I didn't even know that. I thought I was making a joke. Once again DYK truth is stranger than (or, at least, as strange as) fiction.

Enrollment at a postsecondary school is pretty much the same as registration -- you're actually there, actually sign the forms, actually pay the money. It's not just telling the school, "OK, I'll come" after it accepts you.

I won't be following this in detail, but please be very careful. I don't see anything in the source saying that he actually "sought" to do anything at Vanderbilt, just what his contract provided. Unless you can find other sources, you should hew closely to what the one source says i.e. contract provided for this and that, and he said he would do such and such. EEng (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

So the hook was plainly incorrect, yet it passed a QPQ and an admin agreed? And yet there's nothing wrong at DYK? Bollocks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The link was, at one time, wrong. OK, as for actual phraseology of the hook, I think the following is supported by the source: "Did you know ... that when Anthony Hewitt was drafted by the Phillies, he signed a contract that included tuition to attend Vanderbilt University, at which he planned to pursue a degree to help him manage his money?" Go Phightins! 20:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

TRM - I think that is a mischaracterization of the situation. What occurred was that several people perceived "enrolled" to mean different things, and I guess that was, to some extent, my fault. Nevertheless, I believe the way I phrased the hook above is better, and the situation need not be a witchhunt/referendum on DYK. Go Phightins! 20:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Not suggesting it's a "witch hunt/referendum", just noting that I've had to correct something like five DYK hooks in the past day. There's a stinking problem here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I apologized if I overstated there. What's the procedure here? Does the hook need to be re-opened/re-approved? Or can it simply re-enter the queue/prep area? Go Phightins! 20:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey. Update the hooks. It has been 10 hours.--

• See now people are pulling in both directions - update less often to improve the quality or keep updating at the same pace and just pull half of them when they get to the main page. Which is it? Furius (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• The sensible folks are suggesting DYK slows the heck down and tries to guarantee a minimum level of quality, as opposed to having to fix six or seven or eight hooks in a day as we've had to do over the last 24 hours. SLOW IT THE HELL DOWN. Get some quality, forget the throughput until the project improves. If items stay on DYK for 24 hours, no-one dies. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'd just like to note the special occasion request to run the Lucy Li hook in the afternoon hours, Eastern Standard Time, on June 19. I put it in Prep 2, which was supposed to appear at that time, but if the hooks are going to stay on DYK for more than 8 hours, it might need to be moved up in the queue. Yoninah (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• It could be moved if space were available, but there's hardly an overwhelming need for this article to run at the same moment the US Open starts. The hook is equally time-relevant at any point between Thursday morning and Sunday afternoon. Resolute 20:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Typically the relevant date is the debut date. In this case, she actually validates the record on Thursday by debuting. She may not even be playing on Saturday or Sunday. Even if both sets are full a one-for-one swap would not take much work. Then the hook can be date-relevant as intended, by actually appearing on the date that the record is validated.--
  WP:WAWARD
  ) 23:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• The schedule now shows that at 11:07 UTC, she will debut. I think she will be playing until about 16:00 UTC. Thus, she should be in one of the next two queues.--
  WP:WAWARD
  ) 03:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think I have now screwed up my own date request.--
  WP:WAWARD
  ) 03:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• The DYKUpdateBot is working again, so the queues are being promoted at 8 hour intervals. (Actually, 8:15 intervals, until the queue promotion times align again with 00:00 UTC.) At this point, the Lucy Li hook is going to hit the main page at approximately 17:05 Eastern today, a bit over four hours after her estimated finish time. That's close enough for government work. (There's something screwed up about that Golf Channel page; the morning groups are listed as playing for 5 hours 45 minutes, and the afternoon groups are listed as playing 18 hours 15 minutes.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand that in hell, there are only two TV channels: Formula car racing, and golf. 24 hours. <Zoom>, <zoom>, <Zooooom>. (Switch channels... a hushed voice...) And now he takes the crucial putt... <slow, decorous applause>. EEng (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that demands for speeding up the DYK process is going to waste, whether 8- or 12-hour. The bot messages are rampant, and there are long-time concerns about flaws of the DYK. But it's always a cycle of endless complaints. Anyways, lowering down to 18 (six per set) won't hurt. That way, we can double-check the hooks properly. --George Ho (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

George, we've been told that seven hooks per set is the current ideal size to retain symmetry on the main page, so reducing the number to six will have a deleterious effect there. If there were a compelling reason to have fewer, it might make sense to do so despite this, but I don't see one in your post. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope this is compelling enough: are you sure that administrators and editors are capable of competently doing the 21-hook check? Can they adequately double-check errors among hooks and never overlook them at this time? --George Ho (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

As discussed elsewhere this is most easily handled by giving up the compulsion to swap sets at rigid intervals. Six vs seven / set is aspirin for a dying patient. I might repeat a suggestion I made elsewhere, however: if we allowed the last, as well as the first, hook to have an img, that would (a) allow more images, which is nice, and (b) maybe have the right layout symmetry, with six hooks, as one image has with seven. Just a thought. EEng (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

George, ever since I started working on DYK a bit over two years ago, you've been constantly worried about the frequency: too many hooks, too few, too many sets a day, too few... and too often it's misplaced. Please, give it a rest. EEng, at the moment (when labs isn't down) we have an automated process that takes on the heavy lifting of promoting to and archiving from the main page on a regular schedule. You may have noticed a distinct lack of enthusiasm for some of your suggestions so far: I would certainly imagine that if we were to ask for a second image on the main page, it would require a massive RfC and I very much doubt DYK would be allowed a second image when the other sections aren't. Do you truly believe that such a request would be successful and worth the effort and energy required? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I knew nothing about what would be involved in making a change like that. It was just a suggestion. A for the "lack of enthusiasm", let's wait and see. People need time to adjust to new ideas. EEng (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I agree with TRM's comment just above. What's really needed is changes to procedures so that more of a sense of responsibility is instilled at every stage (nominating, reviewing, promoting), etc., but that's way above my pay grade. I suggest that, for immediate relief of this minute-by-minute brinksmanship of STOP PRESS! BAD HOOK ABOUT TO GO LIVE!, the easiest thing might be to explicitly and definitely extend the length of time hooks spend in prep/queue before going live, thereby increasing the number of "eye-hours" on each hook:

• For the 500th time I propose increasing the # of prep sets to (say) 12 or even 18 -- what's the cost? (More q sets would be sensible as well, but for that someone needs to tinker with the bot.) And...
• Rule for admins: No prep set should be moved to q until, say, 24 hours has passed since that prep has sat with no edits to it. (No doubt there's some magic word by which each prep set can be displayed with an automatic "Last edited at [timestamp]" tag.)

The nice thing about this is that it doesn't require any qualitative changes to the process, just a quantitative time-dilation at the final stage, which for the moment seems to be our best defense against looking like idiots on MP.

It would also be nice to have some way editors can comment on hooks in prep or q less awkward than what we have now (which posting to Talk:DYK) but whether that's hard or easy I don't know. Only someone very familiar with the DYK machinery should attempt that, lest we wake up someday to see our internal arguments over hooks somehow posted on MP.

Thoughts? EEng (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

All very sensible suggestions. The cost of increasing to 12 or 18, of course, is that those editors keen on DYK, as an "almost guaranteed" way of getting an article on the front page, will be disheartened and submissions might easily dry up. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "Did you know that.... more effort was put into Wiki DKY submissions than in constructing all the rest of the front page put together"??

Unless the hook gets pulled, more prep areas just means a longer delay to reach MP. I guess you're saying more exposure in prep increases the chance of getting pulled. As to your little coda, I disagree. From the looks of things not nearly enough effort goes into DYK. At least, not the right kind of effort. EEng (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

yes sorry, another (deliberately) misleading hook. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Stop making me laugh. This time I spilled my coffee. EEng (talk)

I think having your hook pulled at the last minute is more disheartening. DYK is essential to encouraging new editors to participate, but if they don't learn that proper sourcing and factual accuracy are important on Wikipedia, what's the point of this encouragement? DYK can be an opportunity to show them the importance of that. Gamaliel (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this talk of train wrecks, SHOUTING and people dying meant to invite people to assist or are we trying to give examples of the type of hyperbole we should avoid at DYK? I feel that the more people rant then the more that others go well 'lets leave it to those who never make mistakes and like to report every small change they make here in capital letters'. Asking for rational contributions when the request includes an intro that tells the reader what "sensible folks think..." before they contribute is not going to invite more reasonable views. You found some errors and you have beaten back the process and the contributors and the quality checkers and .... revealed more errors. A similar finding to what they had at Salem and they knew (or thought they did) that the witch finder didn't create the witchcraft... until they stopped looking for it. I'm sure this isn't the type of contribution you wanted so I'll return to spectating as I don't want to be involved in this "train crash" you speak of... now? Who is behaving as if they in charge of this "train crash" and who is the brakeperson? Victuallers (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Most of what you're saying is unintelligible, at least to me, despite that fact that I am (trust me) thoroughly steeped in the history of Salem and its witch hunts. No one expects individuals to be error-free. But I and others do expect the process to be close to error-free. Perhaps you don't understand this, but it is quite possible to build a system which is more reliable than any of its parts -- think airliners, telephone switching systems, webservers, even most criminal justice systems (though there's a long way to go yet in that area). Every pulled hook in the last few days was an avoided opportunity to end up as a Slate article or Onion parody. You're like a parent defending his drunk-driving teenager who weaves over the centerline, runs red lights, and knocks down mailboxes -- "Well, they're just little dents, and he hasn't killed anyone yet." Great. EEng (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, too many pet project managers here, "it's not our fault we produce utter bilge and get it all the way to the main page, it's all your fault for not spending your own time checking up on us desperately urgent QPQers and checking up on the admins who post crap to the main page". This continual bemoaning of the inadequacies of the rest of Wikipedia is a well recognised disorder. It's about time those at DYK who live in the clouds where it's not DYK's fault that we have to fix 50% of the hooks on the main page finally wise up. Cue another flippant and pointless response from "your local DYK representative". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Unintelligible? Are you sure that's not hyperbole, because you both go on to answer some very relevant points to what I was saying. As you have said "500 times" we do need to check these extravagant claims. When the last of the passengers is shot and the train is not moving then we will be able to find out who the culprit is that creates this anger. Then as now you will have the last word. Victuallers (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I double-checked and, in fact, most of what you're saying is indeed unintelligible, at least to me, but glad that through some accident I somehow respond to whatever it is you were trying to say. What's all this stuff about shooting people and deaths and anger and so on? We just want to slow the train to avoid embarrassment to WP. No shooting involved. EEng (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Just improve the DYKs, stop promoting crap to the main page, and we'll all live in peace. The process is flawed, the clamour for main page appearances and pathetic QPQ reviews is the problem, the pisspoor quality control is the icing on the cake. Why should we be fixing or pulling half the DYKs that are being submitted to the main page? Why should we have to do that? The Rambling Man (talk) 5:19 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Because you will get the kind of help you deserve! (actually slightly better) After you have rejected "pet project managers, pisspoor project controllers, crap promoters, half arsed admins etc etc", you will be left only with the people who you don't accuse of being a member of these arbitrary groups. You will also lose all those who object to well meaning volunteers being tarnished by this blunderbuss anger. Anger may solve this problem and show me how you can show a new approach to inspiring people to help by repeating how many errors you have found and how pisspoor, crap and half arsed they are. I will be impressed if you succeed. Victuallers (talk) 5:57 pm, Today (UTC−4)

This isn't about "us" and what "we" deserve. It's about protecting WP's slowly-improving reputation for reliability from constant erosion. EEng (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

... goodness me, not a witch-hunt, I hope? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Where's the incisively amusing easter-egg hook? EEng (talk) apologies Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Definitely slow the train wreck down. We now are dealing with half a dozen DYK issues per day, which I guess averages out at 50% of the hooks being corrected somehow. This compares very poorly with ITN and TFA and TFL, and poorly with OTD and TFP. DYK is dragging the quality of the main page down to such a point that it is worth considering pulling the entire section until the quality control issues, both reviewers and admins pushing queues out half-arsed because the timer is screaming at them that they need to refresh the queue. ITN have just removed the stupid timer with one that just informs people how long it's been, rather than attempting to mandate a pitiful update. Suggest DYK consider something similar. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Any kind of clock is a recipe for disaster, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Beautifully apt link. EEng (talk)

Rambling Man's vehemence and EEng's sarcastic humor are going to derail this project faster than Wikipedia burnout ever did. I have been reviewing DYK articles for many years and have always put so much time into looking up each and every online source and rewriting close paraphrasing. In recent months I have started promoting hooks to prep areas, and spend at least half an hour checking those seven hooks for sourcing issues. (Often I have to stop assembling the set and leave notes on the template pages, calling for fixes before the hook can be promoted.) I know I can make a mistake, but most of my prep sets are going through intact – certainly 50% of them are not being pulled daily, as Rambling Man claims. IMO the problem lies with the QPQ system. Before it was put in place, regular reviewers like myself and others would do all the reviews. The backlog grew, and now many newbie article creators are being asked to do reviews, too. Unfortunately, they don't have the same dedication to the project – they just want to get their own article on the main page – and the system is suffering. Let's talk about revamping QPQ instead of trashing and chasing away good and valuable reviewers and administrators. Yoninah (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where all this stuff about chasing people away or derailing comes from. We're just pointing out the obvious, which is that something's very wrong. Clearly part of it is that various people are trying to carry out functions they're unsuited for, but that's not trashing anyone -- it's just a fact we need to deal with. You've suggested one possible locus of the problem, which is QPQ, which twists editors' arms to do reviews which (presumably) they wouldn't do voluntarily. EEng (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

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.

talk

) 08:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

With reviewing articles, I think it would be handy if we created something like Template:GAList. When I do reviews I often forget to actually write down everything that I checked for. Something like the GA checklist I think would help encourage people do be more systematic and thorough in their reviews, and also would prove a handy way to keep track of what they have checked for and what they haven't.

I just thought of something else: Maybe add something like a "help" field or something, that new reviewers can use if they want a more experienced reviewer to double-check or advise them in a particular area.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Must "to bed" now, so without commenting in full, I really like the idea of giving reviewers an easy way to say, "Can someone guide me here?" Maybe a template preloaded into the review with a parameter that can be changed from "No help needed" to "Yes help needed". EEng (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that hooks being pulled from the queues or preps are an indication of a system failure (or train wreck): if your brakes stop your car (train) before you go through the red light then they are generally considered to be working. And although it would be nice not to have hooks with errors on the main page, most of the error reports there come from a few "concerned citizens" (that's what we call ourselves in the meetings and we close the windows so we can't hear the nasty things the people outside are calling us), so I wonder how much the general readership cares ("OMG honey, have you seen Wikipedia's DYK section!? They said a product could be merchandised into a T-shirt! Wait until the papers get hold of this!").

Remind me to do the driving next time we go somewhere together. Stopping, over and over, inches before collision indeed means that the brakes work fine, but it also means the machinery that actuates them (eyes, brain, reflexes) are operating on the edge of disaster.

You're right that a huge proportion of readers are unaware of, or unconcerned about, how ridiculous is much of what they read -- that's why the National Enquirer and Daily Mail have plenty of readers, and Fox News plenty of viewers. That doesn't justify WP letting itself move in that direction even a little bit. And the opinion leaders who have a lot of influence on WP's reputation (journalists, academics, whatever) do care about grammar goofs, fact flubs, and common-sense cockups, because experience of many centuries shows that these things are good indicators that the writer can't be relied upon. EEng (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

My mother told me never to accept lifts from strangers. The prep areas and queues are for fixing these mistakes before they hit the main page - I think that's really what your proposals below are saying - so we shouldn't count it as a failure if we catch mistakes at this stage, and we shouldn't beat up the those involved in the chain up to that point. I think we can count it as a failure if an error hits the main page (though from my experience the opinion-making journalists are usually the offenders when it comes to grammar or accurate reporting)

talk

) 08:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the prep areas and queues are for creating sets of articles, ordering hooks, not for reviewing them. If hooks have to be pulled from prep, queue or mainpage, then the reviewing process, which should end at the time of promotion, has failed. "Beating up" those involved isn't necessary though, unless the problems are very blatant (some BLP problems, the easter hook) or often recurring with the same person. That's why the proposals are usually to change (or abolish) the system of DYK, not to punish some individuals.

Fram (talk

) 08:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a very idealised view of the process. How many hooks go from nomination page to main page unchanged? I doubt it is much over 50%.

talk

) 09:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

There is quite a difference between "unchanged" and "totally rejected as being factually incorrect" of course. I don't drop a note here i I add a minor word, change a capitalization, ... But there is a problem with the whole process if we regularly get hooks which have been approved by at least three persons (nominator, reviewer and promotor) and still are wrong, and the problem is made worse when things get rushed at the prep-queue-main page stage, reducing the chances of the errors being spotted and corrected. That are the issues people are trying to solve (by requesting a second reviewer, slower throughput at the prep-to-main stage, less hooks, ...), and that will need to be solved if DYK wants any chance of survival.

Fram (talk

) 09:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Before we get supports/opposes etc., let's hear first only from those suggesting improvements and changes. That way we don't have to circle around and get supports reaffirmed after changes to the proposal. EEng (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment I presume that the "no edits" only applies to the hooks (not the articles themselves)? Edwardx (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a good idea, assuming we nail down the wording of that "with no edits" clause. Without being challenged? Gamaliel (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see the hooks stay longer in the prep areas as it means mistakes can be fixed without needing admin assistance, but I'm not sure "no edits for x time" is necessarily the best measure of whether a set is suitable for promotion to the queues as this might just mean that nobody has looked at it. Worth trying though. 18 sets might be a bit overwhelming both for those compiling the sets and those looking to check them. It seems rare that the queues and preps are filled even now with just 4 preps, which is why the preps are being emptied almost as soon as they are filled, so I think what is really needed is some encouragement for people to make up the prep sets (at the moment they seem to get little in the way of thanks and a good part of the blame if some error is discovered, so you can't really wonder at the reluctance to step up to the job)

talk

) 00:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Time "under the spotlight" is a very crude measure of quality, admittedly, but it maximizes the one and only weapon we seem to have, for now, to keep us from shooting ourselves in the foot on MP, to wit, eye-hours. Or keep ourselves from shooting us in the foot. Or us shooting we. Or, um, ... anyway.

The idea of the 18 is (first) so that there is never, ever a time that someone has the energy to put together a set that he's unable to make that contribution just because all preps are full, and (second) because with a enforced 48-hour minimum, at 3 sets/day that's 6 sets right there, so in steady state (queuing theorists, sit up straight now!) with a reasonable daily variance of arrival rate, a buffer size representing 2X the minimum service time (taking the enforced time-in-q as "service time") seems prudent. It can't hurt and it helps at least some and maybe much. EEng (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I see what you are saying: if the prep areas aren't usually full it makes no difference if we have 10 empty slots or 100, but if some valiant soul decides to make up a set we don't want to have to turn them away because all the prep areas are full. Doesn't seem like a bad idea.

talk

) 08:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. EEng (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Revising:

• (a) that the # of prep sets be increased to 18.
• (b) that no set be promoted to Q until it has been in prep, with no edits to the hooks or image(s) -- edits to the articles don't count -- for at least 48 hours (even if that means a MP update will be overdue).

EEng (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment. The best step under these circumstances is to make sure that QPQ's are done properly instead of pulling the hook from the preps or ques. 18 preps would be too big and unnecessary, but I think 10 preps would be good to organize and check. Instead to 3 sets per day we can switch to 2 sets in 24 hours for a few days till we are sure that the review work is being done properly and hooks on the MP won't embarrass any of us.--Skr15081997 (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Being "sure the QPQs are done properly" is a great goal, but I don't know how to achieve it offhand -- rules and procedures will need review, etc etc etc. I do know that more time in q will reduce the drama of last-minute pulls -- there will still be pulls, but at least not so many at the last minute. It's very stressful for everyone sticking fingers in the dike right and left. Improving the process upstream should be the next step, but this can be done immediately.

Slowing to 2 sets per day will not have the same salutary effect. All that will happen, if we do that, is that the rate of putting sets together will correspondingly slow, but they'll still be put together, typically, at the very last minute, so that again we'll have the last-minute pulls. More subtle changes to procedures might have the final effect of increasing q length and therefore exposing sets to longer "final scrutiny", but for now, a required time under final scrutiny is the only way I can see to immediately guarantee a minimum time under final scrutiny.

What's the downside? EEng (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that the regular mainpage stewards like EEng and The Rambling Man will have seen far more hooks (especially problematic ones) than the typical DYK participant, and especially over a wider range of areas including TFA, ITN and OTD, and therefore it doesn't surprise me that, all things being equal, they are better tuned to spot issues. I'm not sure how to elevate the standard of QPQ reviews to this level in a manner that everyone will accept, but if we don't do it we're going to keep on getting threads about errors on this page again and again. I like the idea of holding preps until they are stable, it's kind of like PROD in reverse - default consensus is to keep unless there are objections. I also support some sort of mentoring - all of these hooks with errors and issues were made by editors in good faith. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Regular DYK steward? Me? I - am - a - regular DYK steward??? I don't remember even visiting this Talk until maybe a month ago, and I don't think I've even used up my 5 free nominations. If I'm what passes for a DYK doyen then we might as well throw in the towel now. Also, I never, ever look at MP so this has nothing to do with breadth of exposure. But the basic point is well taken: whatever the reason, we all have our strengths and weaknesses, and some people are better at noticing problems than others. Helping each editor find tasks he's suited for is always a worthy effort, but for the moment I still want to focus on one thing: for the moment review in prep/q seems to be what's saving us from embarrassment, so I'm just trying to make that less hectic by enforcing a minimum time in prep/q. It's fast and easy. Upstream improvements will take way more time. EEng (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think both of these would actually have the opposite of the desired effect. Four Prep sets provide a reasonable number of hooks for thorough investigation. Eighteen sets (126 hooks, which is more than half of all hooks currently on the main nominations page and is significantly more than the number of currently approved hooks) would be overwhelming, and each hook would likely get less scrutiny. Of course, it would never come to that, because even the four existing sets are very rarely full these days. And the other proposal is even worse. Knowing that every edit to a hook resets the 48 hour clock would make people exceedingly reluctant to make any changes except to correct the most horribly blatant errors. Smaller issues would simply pass through uncorrected. Plus, if someone just doesn't like a hook or has a grudge against a user, they can indefinitely delay a set by making a minor edit to any hook in the set every couple of days. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC) The part about intentional delays was just an afterthought. I don't want people focusing on that, so I've struck it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

What Mandarax says, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Obviously any system we adopt would make an exception for minor edits, and any abuse of the system can be dealt with via administrative intervention. Gamaliel (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of having 18 prep set areas available is simply so that there's never a time when someone with a burst of energy feels like putting a set together and can't because there are not prep-set areas available. With a 48-hr min time in prep at least 6 preps would always be full, and I'd expect 2-4 more on top of that, typically. The rest are just to we never have to hit a limit. The reason we rarely have 4 full preps nowadays are this: (a) there's little motivation to put a prep together before the last minute; (b) as just explained, potential set-building is sometimes lost because all 4 are full.

I'm not worried about abuse of the system or grudges.

The point about hesitation to make small changes has merit and is really part of larger issue. goota run more later EEng (talk)

Seriously now (Take 2)

I believe I was being overcautious with the "with no edits" provision, since there will usually be additional time in Q as well (though only admins can fix hooks there). Let's try this:

• (a) that the # of available prep sets areas be increased to 18. (With the expectation that 6-10 will be in use at any time.)
• (b) that no set be promoted to Q until it has been in prep for at least 48 hours (even if that means a MP update will be overdue). Admins promoting to Q should take special care to check any changes made in the few hours before promotion, especially if the promoted set will appear on MP without much delay.
• (c) that nomination discussions be transcluded onto prep and q pages along with their hooks, for ready reference in case questions arise.

OK, now I'm ready to face judgment.

Support. Duh. EEng (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK 'that when Virginia Grayson won $20,000 in the Dobell Prize for drawing, she said she would use the money to get her "ute fixed"?'

Except she didn't:

JOE O'BRIEN: And what are you going to do with the $20,000?

GINNY GRAYSON: Well, ah… (laughs)

JOE O'BRIEN: A holiday or towards your work?

GINNY GRAYSON: I'm thinking I wouldn't mind getting my ute fixed. [15]

That isn't a statement that Grayson was going to do anything with the money. It was a statement that she was thinking about it. Or, as it says at the top of the source "she'll probably use the money to fix her ute". Not much of a hook with 'probably' or 'maybe' though, and who cares about getting the facts right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

$20,000 seems like a lot to spend on just one sheep. EEng (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Trust you to pick up on that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Ewe would say that. EEng (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I read in

Just a typo, Gerda, which I noticed and corrected.

talk

) 23:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

And it was I who introduced the error, BTW. EEng (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you ;) - Now seriously: it happened that a hook that had been agreed on in a nomination was changed in prep, and I was not notified. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that happens. Ravening fact wolves circle the prep areas looking for weak or lame hooks that they can cut out from the pack and, after the wolves have eaten their fill, grammar vultures swoop in and pick on the bones. I don't think it is workable that every nominator gets a notification for every change, they should probably watch the prep areas and queues if they are worried.

talk

) 00:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Foolish hooks flee the preps for the false security of the queue sets, only to find themselves snatched from the flock at the last moment, then dashed on the Rocks of Ridiculousness or run aground on the Shoals of Silliness. EEng (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I do a great deal of adding a comma here and an article there in prep, that's not what I mean. The "lamb" is easily watched in the nomination, but once in prep, it's sometimes hard to tell if a change affects "my" hook. In cases of a substantial change, I would like to be contacted and asked, that's all. Nothing happened overnight to Schloss Weimar, thanks, "wolves", also for being watchful, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That said, if anybody wants to rap my knuckles for interfering with hooks in prep, I can take it (though I'm not saying I won't dish it out in reply). I've only been making changes where there were deficiencies and nobody has told me not to do so which is why I've carried on.

talk

) 00:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No, keep doing it - net positive ++++. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

In Queue now: "... that in June 2013, 930 cases filed by or against

The first source says that the bank is also battling over 700 civil and 230 criminal cases and the 2nd source says that trial has not begun in any of the 70 cases filed at three local police stations. The first source doesn't says that the bank had filed the case and the 2nd source doesn't prove that 70 cases were lodged against the bank. Where's the problem.--Skr15081997 (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Where's the problem? There's nothing in these two articles indicating that they are talking about the same group of cases, and much to indicate that they are talking about different (opposite) cases. From the second source, about the 70 cases: "It is 13 years since Madhavpura Mercantile Co-operative Bank fraud came to light and Reserve Bank of India superseded its board of directors, but trial in none of the 70 cases filed at local police stations has begun." Not "70 cases remain unstarted", but "in none of the 70 cases has it begun". The complete article is about cases against the Bank. Now, the other article, about the 930 cases, is only discussing cases initiated by the bank, and the fact that they need help in getting their money and so on. The two articles discuss completely separate sets of trials, but our article (and hook) lumps the two together.

Fram (talk

) 08:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The hook can be reworded and the facts in the article can be corrected accordingly. The hook can be changed to "... that in June 2013, 930 cases filed by Madhavpura Mercantile Cooperative Bank were pending in Indian courts?". We need an admin to make the changes.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected the facts in the article but only an admin can change the hook.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The first source is confusing - at one point they seem to have had more cases than defaulters. The second source isn't clear on who "the accused" is in all cases either (though those identified are all connected to the bank). That the cases haven't started doesn't mean that they aren't pending. Perhaps the hook could be reworked like so: "... that in June 2013, hundreds of cases involving

talk

) 09:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec)See e.g. [18]: "The bank has filed 225 criminal cases for the recovery of Rs450 crore" (this was in 2011). So it seems at least very likely that the 230 criminal cases were not filed "against or by the bank", but only "by the bank".

Fram (talk

) 09:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

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,

• Now overdue; admin still needed to promote prep 1, which has been ready to go for a while now. Prep 2 is also filled... BlueMoonset (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

A bot request related to informing DYK author/expanders will begin trial soon, assuming there are no specific objections to the trial. Please see

Hook says

...that

most-wanted drug lord

?