Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 118

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 115 Archive 116 Archive 117 Archive 118 Archive 119 Archive 120 → Archive 125

Advice about a nomination

Hi, I thought I'd seek advice here about nominating the Ruth Archer article, as it entered the mainspace in an unusual way. I was working on the article in my userspace and had planned to bring it to DYK when it was ready. A few hours ago, I noticed that another editor had copied my draft and published it in the mainspace with no attribution to me (they didn't once communicate with me about it). Two lovely administrators came to my rescue and my draft was moved into the mainspace. So, I'd like to know if the article is still eligible for DYK or not? - JuneGloom07 Talk 00:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@JuneGloom07: I've seen this happen before, and the answer is definitely yes. The article was published with this edit, and it's certainly new enough. -Zanhe (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! - JuneGloom07 Talk 00:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I hope you cried "Aww naaaaw!" when you found it had been moved. This is a joke (allegedly) for people who listen to The Archers; everybody else can skip over it. Belle (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I wish there was a like button for that comment. And yes, I did. - JuneGloom07 Talk 02:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
{{like}} might be what you're looking for. GRAPPLE X 10:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Technically, the admin who did it wasn't doing a copy from user space. It was a page move. Which begs the question of "Why??" I have to say I'm stunned two levels. The first is why an admin did that at all, much less on a day and time when the editor was obviously in the midst of editing it. The second is that a page move like that is automatically labeled by the system as a minor edit. Another admin long ago and far away advised me to create and store my articles off line, and to do anything but minor editing the same way. Now I see why. — Maile (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The answer is: No one cares who put the article in mainspace except those who want to be noted they have the 'credit' for it (DYK etc). If someone thought the article was well-written and sourced enough to be moved to mainspace, off to mainspace it goes. Once you write something on wikipedia anywhere it ceases to be 'yours' in the ownership sense, so unless there is a policy-based objection, its not an issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The policy at play here is Wikipedia:Copyrights. As the OP states in his second sentence, the article was copied without attribution to the text's original author. The article being copied from user space to the article namespace without the required attribution to the original author is a blatant copyright violation. While a person posting any text to Wikipedia is at the same time agreeing to license that text under a set of free licenses, the terms of those licenses must still be respected by anyone wishing to reuse the text. --Allen3 talk 13:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Page move != copy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The original statement makes it clear that a page move was performed by different users after the draft was initially copied. GRAPPLE X 14:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Check the logs. What happened was someone did a copy+paste of the article from JuneGloom07's draft to mainspace. The administrator came along and deleted the copy-paste as a copyvio, then moved the draft to main space in the proper manner to maintain attribution. ~
problem solving
14:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I was responding to Maile who indicated the *original* move was a page move (rather than fixing the issue). Happy to be corrected. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
And so you are correct, Grapple X and ONUnicorn. I was confused by the edit history that only shows edits by JuneGloom07 and the admin who did the move. That being the case, I'm not so amazed about the copy and paste. In fact, something like that almost rates a yawn, except for the editor it happens to.— Maile (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I see nothing in
WP:USER to support OID's view, or apparently yours, that it's just fine to move somebody else's user content to mainspace without consultation - quite the opposite. In fact, I would describe such an action as not only not supported by the guideline, but extraordinarily ill-mannered, as well as being contrary to the project's convention of collegiality. It simply shouldn't be done. Gatoclass (talk
) 16:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I dont think it is particularly collegial to *move* someone elses draft from userspace to main without consultation, however it isnt against policy and since attribution is kept there isnt a policy (or CC-violating) reason not to, and no real response other than to not worry about it and deal with it. There have been complaints before about drafts being moved before the author is ready for it with varying results. There probably *should* be an addition to policy explicitly prohibiting it without consultation, however I have no idea where it would go and it would run (in essence) counter to wikipedias release of material and the OWNership guidelines - if you feel there is somewhere it can be wedged in feel free to drop me a line on my talk page and I will draft something up. As its been clarified that it was originally copied rather than moved (I was responding to Maile rather than the original post) most of the above doesnt really apply to this discussion and can be written off as an aside. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
You are correct that it isn't technically against policy, but it flies in the face of
WP:UP#OWN. I'm not sure it would be possible, or even desirable, to outright ban such page moves given the licencing conditions, but certainly one should consult with users regarding content in their own user space, and respect their desires concerning it, unless there is very good reason not to, such as when they are employing user pages to retain problematic content that would be unlikely to survive in mainspace. Gatoclass (talk
) 16:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Gatoclass This whole thread is starting to be a trip through the looking glass, so let me please straighten out how I feel.
- First of all, Gatoclass, OID and I were not expressing the same point of view.
- Second, when I initially looked at the edit history and thought the move was an admin whim, rather than a corrective response, I was surprised an admin would do anything like that.
- My second comment above was in response to being corrected that the first offense was someone actually doing a copy and paste from a user's page to mainspace. When I said I was not so amazed by the copy and paste, I was not saying I approve. That's happened to me, and it still ticks me off. But I'm not amazed when anyone does that. It's so easy to pull off. — Maile (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Well it sounds as if we are in furious agreement. Thanks for the clarification :) Gatoclass (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@JuneGloom07: I'm not clear if you were asking if it will continue to be eligible for DYK beyond the normal seven days because it was moved to mainspace without your agreement? I'd think not, but you can always nominate it within the time limit and then (unless you get very unlucky) you can continue to work on it for months (crazy system? don't look at me; I wanted to change the rules). Belle (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
So long as the article is nominated by September 24, everything should be fine. While JuneGloom07 may wish to do further work on it, it's quite advanced (over 20K prose characters) and well sourced. I don't see any reason for the nomination, once made, to be delayed beyond the normal reviewing time, which could be short or quite long depending on the fates. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I had planned on nominating the article today, but I wanted to double check that it was still eligible for DYK following all the kerfuffle surrounding the move into the mainspace yesterday. Unbelievably, a slightly similar thing has happened to me again! I think I might have to work offline from now on. Thank you all for your help and advice. - JuneGloom07 Talk 16:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Error on main page: Kadmat Island

Nonsense on main page, so I removed it.[1] Both

Fram (talk
) 12:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that on skimming recent DYKs from the main page, I find things like:

Feel free to ping all editors involved, I really can't be bothered anymore.

Fram (talk
) 12:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, you could also stop with the drama and
Just fix it, rather then Crusading against windmills.--Kevmin §
16:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I can fix one or two entries, yes (and I did pull that one from the main page), but I will not be around to edit much longer, and it doesn't look like many other people are interested in fixing it. Perhaps we do need to take other measures, like keeping "score" on who reviews and promotes incorrect hooks. Anyone who makes a habit of it shouldn't be doing it. Perhaps it will improve DYK, perhaps it will bring it to a halt, both options are quite acceptable outcomes.
Fram (talk
) 19:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you have a point,

Fram, that hooks relating to "firsts", "only"s and so on probably need some extra scrutiny, and it may be useful to add something to the guideline along those lines. I might point out, however, that if DYK sometimes errs regarding hooks of this type, they are usually doing no more than repeating errors in the underlying source. Gatoclass (talk
) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Louis F. Menage in Prep 4

I am having some problems with the Louis F. Menage hook in Prep 4 which claims he "built the first skyscraper in Minneapolis, Minnesota". When I check the supporting source, I see that he "spent $1 million to erect the city's tallest skyscraper" but can not find where the source indicates his building was the city's first skyscraper. List of tallest buildings in Minneapolis#Timeline of tallest buildings appears to match the source, indicating Menage's building was the tallest at the time but not the first tall building. Is this an issue with varying definitions over time for the term skyscraper or am I missing something? --Allen3 talk 11:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The Metropolitan Building (Minneapolis) article itself states that the building was the city's first skyscraper, sourced to an offline book on skyscrapers, so I think we can AGF that the hook is verified, even though the cite is in the wrong article. Gatoclass (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Wait - it appears there is another candidate for first skyscraper in Minneapolis, the Lumber Exchange Building, which does indeed raise doubts about the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I have pulled the hook until the issue is resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day,

talk
) 10:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The update is now 2 hours overdue. There are completed sets in Prep 1 and Prep 2, but nothing has been moved to a queue. Can an admin please assist? — Maile (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think I did it right - but if someone else would like to double check, I'd be grateful! Yunshui 雲水 14:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@Yunshui: It looks OK. But I wonder if you also have to update the time to get it to work? Template:Did you know/Next update/Time — Maile (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, well, it's not exactly OK. You also left the hooks in Prep 1. — Maile (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Oops. Give me a minute or two - the bot instructions are a bit sparse. Yunshui 雲水 14:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Think that's done it... Yunshui 雲水 14:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
That's great. What you promoted is now on the Main page. Thanks for doing this. — Maile (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Prep areas 2 & 3 ready to be promoted to Queues

As I write this, there are about 6 hours before the next Queue needs to be ready for the Main page. Prep areas 2 & 3 are ready to promote. Giving ample time here so we don't miss the next update. Also, this gives anyone else a chance to re-check the hooks on those preps. — Maile (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Preps 4 and 5 ready to be promoted to queue

Update due to happen in 3 hours. Preps 4 and 5 are full and ready to promote to Queue. — Maile (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing. As of the most recent update, 124 nominations are approved, leaving 187 of 311 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those left over from July and August.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Old approved nominations awaiting promotion

With 129 nominations currently awaiting promotion (excluding special occasion hooks) and 312 total, it's easy for prep set builders to overlook the ones that have been waiting for a long time since they were approved, since they aren't listed in any order.

The following are 23 nominations that were approved over two and a half weeks ago, one of which is from the previous list of 18, which has been archived. Since we're promoting 102 per week, these 35 have been waiting quite a bit longer than average. Date given is date of approval.

I have not checked these to be sure they're fine, so you'll need to do the usual double checks before promoting any of these to prep.

Please remember to cross off an entry as you promote it, or discover that it isn't eligible for promotion at the present time. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Prep 1 ready to be promoted to queue

Just completed prep 1. Queue is completely empty. Any administrator may help perform the promotion.

flyer
07:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Prep 1

that one of only four Palladian bridges in the world (pictured) is located in Prior Park Landscape Garden?

I can't find that in the reference, can someone help please? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Rodw: and @Casliber: as author and nominator respectively. GRAPPLE X 18:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
It's a claim that is often repeated eg here, here and here but I think it is properly "One of only four Palladian bridges of this design in the world", and the claim is controversial among architectural historians who study the works of Andrea Palladio and those which came after.— Rod talk 18:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like we need a different hook, just to be sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't spotted this one had been nominated for DYK after its GA review (which you kindly did). Another hook could be about it being laid out by the poet Alexander Pope, which is supported by an offline source (a book I have) but @Casliber: may wish to comment as the nominator.— Rod talk 20:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok Rod, write it and I can review. Not sure when I will be online today so anyone else can approve once a new hook written. I approved it after wading though the sources, but don't know enough about architecture really....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
ALT1 that Prior Park Landscape Garden (pictured) was laid out by the poet Alexander Pope?— Rod talk 07:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, will update per this as no other discussion is forthcoming and the queue is about to be updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day,

talk
) 11:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't want another overdue update. Any admin, please help move Prep 1 to queue 1.

flyer
13:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is now half an hour overdue. — Maile (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
hang on, we need a hook with pic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Plus, there's no rush. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done But we will need more sets soon. Gatoclass (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Prep 2 is ready to promote to Queue

Have a go at inspecting it. I'm pretty sure the image of onion powder has no issues. But check the rest if you like. Less than an hour and a half to go. Someone else will have to build another prep. My time is up at DYK for the day. — Maile (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Idea: DYK coordinator?

With the frequency of overdue updates to the main page, despite often with completed prep sets, would it be a good idea to nominate admins to be some sort of DYK coordinators, just like featured content coordinators? The DYK coordinators will be responsible for promoting prep sets to queues on time, to check for errors with the hooks, and to manually update the

flyer
02:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea, if there are specific admins willing to take on the role. I was active in DYK years ago and am going to try to help out more to provide additional support. –Grondemar 03:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
For now, maybe you can help promote prep area sets to queues when no other admin does this task.
flyer
04:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking at prep 2 now. I already had to pull one hook whose sources did not confirm what the hook stated. –Grondemar 06:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea to have at least one coordinator, and two or three coordinator delegates. All should be Admins. The questions then arise:
1) Who is willing?
2) Do we elect them or use another method?
There is a high burn-out out participation rate here, a lot of which is attributable to the in-fighting. Maybe a coordinator and delegates would help straighten that out. We have Admins participating here who are also participants in other processes like FAC and FLC. Perhaps they could offer some insight. — Maile (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Would these coordinators have any special powers above and beyond regular admins? If so, I oppose. Adding elected officials to DYK only adds elitism and bureaucracy. (In fact, I'd support getting rid of the featured content "directors" and "coordinators" for a similar reason. Any uninvolved editor with experience in the featured content process should be able to gauge consensus at an FAC or FLC). But if these are just people who agree to help keep the peace and straighten out the queues, and they don't get to decide what gets promoted or when, then it's worth considering. --
    talk
    )     aka Jakec 12:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, we would need to have a Coordinator guideline spelled out. How about this one from the WP:MHist:
Coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project. All of the coordinators, and especially the lead coordinator (or lead coordinators), serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues and focus on specific areas requiring special attention. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers.
— Maile (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The two main issues at DYK are (most importantly) the promotion of poorly referenced or simply incorrect hooks and (not really important at all) the failure to meet the deadline of updating the queues in time to keep the main page DYK churn going. You already have admins doing the former, and the latter occurs usually because people have better things to do than keep hitting some arbitrary

deadline. I would definitely discourage anyone from becoming some kind of DYK co-ordinator, it's a poisoned chalice. The Rambling Man (talk
) 13:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day,

talk
) 03:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Updated. I didn't have a chance to issue credits; if someone is willing to go into the history of Prep 2 and issue credits for the set currently on the Main Page, I'd appreciate it. –Grondemar 06:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I only told you to update the queues area, not directly promote it to the main page…
flyer
07:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
The preps and queues are out of sync now and I don't know how to fix that. Also, a new update will be needed in six hours and there are none in prep ATM. Gatoclass (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Gatoclass, I think you can fix it by clicking on the template on Queue 2, where it says "Update". That should take you to Template:Did you know/Queue/Next, where an Admin has to change the queue number. is that is? — Maile (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks. But I'm not sure whether anyone has done the credits yet - I am not going to have time right now. Gatoclass (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I've done the credits. Gatoclass (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
But it's only five hours to the next update and the preps are empty. Gatoclass (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio checks -- replacing Dup Detector with Copyvio Detector

I've noticed that Earwig's Copyvio Detector is a better tool than Duplication Detector when it comes to analyzing an article vs. its sources for copyvios, and indeed it seems to be more used by DYK reviewers (and other content reviewers in general). Was there ever a discussion about replacing the link in {{

✉
12:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

We used to have the Earwig link in Template:DYK tools, but users found Earwig was missing too much for our purposes. There has been more than one discussion about this. I guess which one is the better tool is a matter of perspective. — Maile (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I think Earwig's tool may be too prone to false positives. I used it to work on Moses Malone before it could be promoted, because much of the article had been copy/pasted years earlier. Out of curiosity, I tried Earwig's tool on Derek Jeter, an article I got promoted to FA in 2012, and has been edited with such a fine tooth comb that I was sure there was no way it would be found to be a problem. It came up as a 75.6% likelihood of plagiarism with an MLB.com subpage from 2014. Maybe both tools should be used to counterbalance each others weaknesses. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I've had similar experience with Earwig's tool and don't think it's worth the trouble. I used it on a GA I was reviewing, and it returned an alarming 90% match. But upon close inspection, all matches turn out to be false positives. -Zanhe (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I now see I'm not bringing any new idea -- this has been discussed before. Apologies for not properly researching archives before opening my mouth! What I especially like with Earwig's is that is quickly checks an article against all of its refs/ELs, whereas DupDetector (AFAICS) requires individual page comparisons. 18:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC) ☺ · 
    ✉
     18:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know. I think it's worth including Earwig's. Earwig's tool gives a much clearer, easier to read side-by-side comparison, and both tools give false matches. Take a look at the results both tools give on the article I've been working on about
    problem solving
    19:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I think there is no harm to include Earwig's tool together with the DupDet. Why not?
    flyer
    13:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    DupDet has the advantage that I can rig it to access non-open source websites. Earwig's tool is much more easy to read if you can filter out false positives. I think it's a matter of personal preference and I would support adding a link to it in the reviewer tools.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day,

talk
) 16:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

  •  Done - and only 12 hours late!

Now somebody needs to put another update or two together to avoid a similar fiasco. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I finished building prep 3 before the deadline.
flyer
15:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Well I guess there was no-one around to promote it then. Feel free to nudge an administrator if a set is ready when DYK is overdue but hasn't been promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Didi Tera Devar Deewana held too long

Hello admins! It was requested that the subject DYK should appear today (28 September, IST). The last update of today has already gone and this is now scheduled for 29th, hopefully. Why hold it in special occasions area if that occasion is going to be missed so badly?! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It was on schedule until we missed an update. It still depends on other editors filling up Prep 4. Could you help do that, maybe? — Maile (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I havn't done that before. So i don't wanna spoil someone else's expectations also. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 14:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Extremely tragic. This would have been great on Mangeshkar's birthday. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Special dates articles in holding

Maybe it's a good idea to post a reminder here so we don't miss dates on promoting these:

October 3—10
October 14

These are all on the holding area right now. — Maile (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

More sets please!

I built one set, but we could really use a couple more if someone can find time to build them. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It is difficult finding people interested in building sets when someone has been hogging the image slots for the last week. I know my interest in building sets where someone else has determined most of the tone and style of the set by filling the image slot and leaving most or all of other slots for someone else to deal with is fairly low (I have played this game too many times in the past). With the lack of volunteers, it appears that others share a similar outlook. --Allen3 talk 00:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Building sets should count as QPQ credit. Then perhaps more people would help build sets. --
talk
) aka Jakec 00:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree about the image slots - there is too much forward filling of these slots lately and I am sure you are not the only one to find this a turn-off Allen3. This is not the first time this issue has come up, and I think something will need to be done about it. Gatoclass (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Too bad I didn't see this about an hour ago before I stuck in two more image slots. Sorry about that. "hogging the image slots" never occurred to me, just a mixing up of what was available. And mostly because for 2 or 3 days, nobody was building sets at all and we were missing, or nearly missing, updates. But I'll fall back for a while and let someone else do something. There seems to be more set building participation lately. I agree with Jakec, in theory, about set building counting towards QPQ. Except I don't want one more thing to keep track of. And then you'd have to do a permalink on a nomination template to prove to a reviewer you met your quota. — Maile (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Halloween hooks?

I'd like to suggest that we organize something for Halloween, just over a month away now. There are a number of items currently listed on the nominations page that would work well as Halloween DYKs, either as they are now or with revised hooks. In particular:

I'm sure there will be others - basically anything with a spooky ghost/monster/vampire/demon kind of hook, or with a topic that could be given a suitably Halloweeny hook. Thoughts? Prioryman (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Zombi 2 is currently in the queue somewhere as well. I'm sure I could rustle up something along a similar vein in time for Halloween as well though. GRAPPLE X 11:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Vein? I see what you did there... Prioryman (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, but remember not to dominate a set with too many Halloween hooks, even if the set is to appear on the front page on October 31.
flyer
15:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
It's fine to dominate with special occasion hooks for well-known events - in fact, the more the merrier. Gatoclass (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
In fact, days like Halloween are a chance for DYK to shine, to get a couple of sets through, all related to the day itself. Aim for 16 hooks and a quicker turnaround, that would do DYK no end of favours. Let's just make sure the articles/hooks etc are suitable.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Yep, let's get cracking - we've got most of one set already (above). Could someone please take Tufted ground squirrel and Demon core out of the prep area for now? I'll create a holding area for the Halloween hooks. Prioryman (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Done - the vampire squirrel and demon core are back in play for Halloween. — Maile (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks for doing that. Prioryman (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, got one more for you: could you also please pull Zombi 2 from prep 2? Prioryman (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Have you asked any of the nominators of these hooks whether they want theirs to be held for Halloween? If they don't, we should respect those wishes rather than co-opting them. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I've already asked in the case of Cooloola monster, as there was a dispute over the date, and have left a note on Template:Did you know nominations/Demon core and Template:Did you know nominations/Zombi 2. Template:Did you know nominations/Tufted ground squirrel is one of mine. The others either haven't been scheduled or haven't been reviewed yet. Prioryman (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I am happy for Demon core to be used on Halloween. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
If they did not request a specific date, hook nominators have no control over the date for their hooks to be displayed anyway.
flyer
23:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I have reinstated my (removed) comments above about two nominations that need to be reviewed. They've been moved to the bottom holding area, and if we don't say here they are still needing reviews, they could sit there until Halloween without being reviewed. — Maile (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Maile66: or any other admin - Zombi 2 has moved up to Queue 2 - it needs to be yanked ASAP so we can put it in the Halloween set. Prioryman (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/You Don't Know What to Do

This hook was approved on September 9. It is now September 29. I would greatly appreciate it being promoted. Many thanks.  — Calvin999 20:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Promoted to Prep 5. — Maile (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
A friendly reminder to all prep set builders: there's a list of hooks on this page (including this one) that were approved at the same time or earlier; these have all been waiting for about three weeks. Please remember to take a look when you're assembling prep sets. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Could we get a system whereby the oldest approved hooks appear at the top of a "hooks needing a set" list? I agree that this process is painfully slow, and after several of mine took three weeks or more to see the mainpage I basically stopped making them. Do we have designated admins to oversee this, or is it just the luck, or lack thereof, of the draw? RO(talk) 21:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
This (really good idea) has been discussed several times before. Nothing happens with it. In regards to a designated admin, please see Idea: DYK coordinator. Nobody is in charge of anything, and human beings keep being imperfect about selection methods and everything else they do. If there is any criteria at all followed, it's to try and mix up the subject of what is in a set, leading to hopscotching through the dates trying to find something.— Maile (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Try placing a request for a bot to generate such a page.
flyer
23:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
While assuming good faith, I cannot see the rush to promote this hook. There does not seem to be any date connection for this hook, and several hooks have been waiting longer. Aaron, you may want to help prep building to speed up the process (by allowing updates to be on time), but try to avoid promoting hooks you nominated or reviewed. Thanks for your help.
flyer
23:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
How did you know to call me Aaron?
SSTflyer  — Calvin999
08:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
In the past, you have alternately called yourself Aaron. And right here on DYK, as best as I can remember. Everything we post is public record. — Maile (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
How is this relevant to this discussion?
flyer
08:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Queue 2 needs a new hook – admin needed

One of the hooks apparently destined for Halloween was just pulled from the final (quirky) slot of Queue 2 but not replaced. Can a friendly admin please move in a quirky hook from one of the preps, so the queue is the proper length? Many thanks. (The next promotion to the main page is in just under four hours.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Corrections for the upcoming Queue

The (pictured) in Queue 3 is incorrect. It should be after Paul Newman, who is pictured, rather than Martin Ritt, who isn't. Also the credits need to be fixed. The following correct credits should replace the incorrect ones: 

* {{DYKmake|Hud (1963 film)|GDuwen|subpage=Hud (film)}}
* {{DYKmake|Dusky-green oropendola|Cwmhiraeth|subpage=Black oropendola}}

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Please fix this ASAP. Going on main page in less than 2 hours.

flyer
06:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems to have been done by TRM. Ping me if there's anything more than needs doing. Jenks24 (talk) 06:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Queue 4 image needs a caption in next four hours; admin needed

Admin needed to add a caption to the image in Queue 4, which is due to be promoted to the main page in about four hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The image uses a template, {{CSS image crop}}, which, according to its documentation, should only be used for previewing how a cropped image will look. When used on a page, especially a high traffic one such as the Main Page, it should be replaced with an actual cropped image, which should be placed in the standard {{Main page image}} with a caption. Pinging Crisco 1492 (the nominator). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
D'oh! Already hit the Main Page. Copied report to
WP:ERRORS. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM
20:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

All queues are empty, but five prep sets are completed

Admins please help transfer the prep sets to queues.

✈
04:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day,

talk
) 07:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Highly dubious and probably wrong hook removed from prep

  • ... that at Grakliani Hill there had been 300,000 years of non-stop human settlement?

From Template:Did you know nominations/Grakliani Hill, @Tradereddy, BabbaQ, and Allen3:.

It is sourced, but reading through the sources (markedly lacking any scientific ones, and including many patriotic ones, like Agenda.ge, "Initialized by the Government of Georgia"), it appears that this must have been a misunderstanding or a very strong claim they couldn't substantiate afterwards. All finds that are being discussed are from the last few thousand years, and the article itself makes this clear: "The site had been occupied between the Chalcolithic and the Late Hellenistic periods." (section "occupation").

See e.g. this source used in the article: "The settlement and necropolis of Grakliani Hill is believed to be the only monument of extensive chronology where almost all of the layers of human development, from the 4th to the 1st centuries BC until the period of Christianity, were revealed." I have no idea what they mean, a city like Rome or Athens has all these layers and more, but in any case, they claim here "from the 4th century BC", not from 300,000 years ago. It is also quite revealing that an article like this one from the article no longer repeats the 300,000 claim, and again doesn't speak about anything pre-4000 BC.

The article also has some issues with too close paraphrasing.

Article:

  • "In fact, within the first two months of digging, researches unearthed more than 35,000 priceless pieces, from hundreds of graves and remnants of settlements that date back to eighth century BCE"

Source:

  • "The two months of digging that followed unearthed more than 35,000 priceless pieces. Hundreds of graves and remnants of settlements that date back to VIII century B.C. were found, along with clay pottery, jewelry, household items, weapons and tools made of a variety of metals."

Please remain critical when assessing sources. Being sourced isn't sufficient to be added to an encyclopedia, the reliability and scientific value of the source (for scientific claims) needs to be taken into account. It looks as if they have a very interesting archaeological site dating back to a few thousand years BC; apart from that, we have one oft-repeated but otherwise completely evidence-free claim of uninterrupted habitation for 300,000 years, which is a very strong claim to make.

Fram (talk
) 14:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day,

talk
) 20:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Now overdue, yet five prep sets have been filled.

✈
01:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived, so though I don't have time to do a full list at the moment, I thought it was important to have some old nominations needing review listed here during the prime weekend hours. Hence, I've compiled a new set of the 17 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which I'll be expanding in the next 24 hours. As of the most recent update, 110 nominations are approved, leaving 200 of 310 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those left over from July and August.

  • The nominator of this hook seems to want to use an image with this, but no image has been provided yet. Otherwise, I have done a review and approved one hook.
    ✈
    12:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the nominations listed above, can someone please review Template:Did you know nominations/Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Mainstream Top 40 chart (from August 4)? The author recently made significant revisions to the article and it needs a fresh review from an uninvolved editor. Thanks everyone! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I've added another 21 hooks from September 8 through 10, plus the one Notecardforfree mentions above, which is actually from July 30. We should be set for the next little while. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Old approved nominations awaiting promotion

With 111 nominations currently awaiting promotion (excluding special occasion hooks) and 309 total, it's easy for prep set builders to overlook the ones that have been waiting for a long time since they were approved, since they aren't listed in any order.

The following are 21 nominations that were approved over two weeks ago; about half are over three weeks old, and five are from the previous list, which has been archived. Since we're promoting 102 per week, these 21 have been waiting quite a bit longer than average. Date given is date of approval.

I have not checked these to be sure they're fine, so you'll need to do the usual double checks before promoting any of these to prep.

Please remember to cross off an entry as you promote it, or discover that it isn't eligible for promotion at the present time. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day,

talk
) 17:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The Internet and cats
for DYK?

Me and a couple of other editors recently created an article on a very notable topic, yet a bit of a quirky and interesting one too. Essentially it is about the relationship between cats and the Internet, and the effect this has on humans.

As I wrote in the artocle, cats ruling the Internet is essentially assumed knowledge... But nobody except some scholars and researchers have made hypotheses why.

Anyway, I wanted to know what we had to do (presentation-wise) to get it up to a DYK standard? I really think this should be featured on the main page as something all our editors have experienced.--Coin945 (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I love it! @Coin945: you could nominate it right now. At a quick glance, it looks pretty good to me. I didn't read every word. Get it nominated by Oct 9, which keeps it within the 7-day after creation criteria. Check to make sure there is no close copyvio or close paraphrasing with sources used. Whatever image is used should be freely licensed on Commons. — Maile (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Maile66: for your praise and advice. :D I'll get straight onto the nomination.--Coin945 (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Here is the nomination. I'd love for you to leave a comment. Template:Did you know nominations/The Internet and cats :)--Coin945 (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Note that you have to link to the article in the hooks provided. I have done that for you, but please correct me if I have made any mistakes with this.
✈
08:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day,

talk
) 05:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done - but the preps are completely empty, we need someone to build a couple of preps. Gatoclass (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Arvo Pärt

Arvo Pärt is the the world's most performed living composer and recently turned 80. Both is not commonly known. Therefore, I would like to see his image with the hook for De profundis (Pärt), now in Prep 2, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day,

talk
) 08:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK update 3 hours overdue-

The update is 3 hours overdue. Two prep areas are full, but nothing in the Queues. — Maile (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done - I only had time to review one set though, someone else will have to promote the second set. Gatoclass (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Gatoclass:, thank you for your selflessness in responding to these sporadic (and increasing) fire drills. Your efforts have been greatly appreciated. We need more admins to help do this. — Maile (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Prep building help!

I'm trying to build a prep for the first time in a long time, but can't manage to mark the individual nom pages as "passed". Adding the "yes" parameter to "|passed=" is doing nothing. What am I doing wrong? Pls point me in the direction so I can carry on! Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Sorry, don't worry, I worked it out myself about 10 seconds later. The template needs to have the subst: prefix. D'oh! Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe time to slow down the updates?

This mad rush to avoid the red template seems to have become a stressful moment for some. Perhaps it's time to slow down the update rate? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Do we have a shortage of hooks? Slowing down the update rate may be a good option but there should be more hooks per set.
✈
09:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you know nomination/Chilly McIntosh

According to my own records, I uploaded the DYK nomination identified above on October 5, 2015. However, I can't find it on Template talk. I'm not sure what I did incorrectly, but the form is still shown at Template:Did you know nominations/Chilly McIntosh. What do I need to do to get back in the Template talk list so it will move forward? Thanks. Bruin2 (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I had a look for you, and the reason is that when you created the template, you never added it to the nominations page—DYK doesn't feature an automated process like GA does, you'll still need to add the template to the relevant date heading yourself once you create it. I'll do that for you now. GRAPPLE X 10:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day,

talk
) 06:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day,

talk
) 21:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


Can someone review Prep 6 and load it on queue, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list is over a week old and could be archived at any moment, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing. As of the most recent update, 113 nominations are approved, leaving 218 of 331 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those left over from July and August.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day,

talk
) 13:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ada Lovelace Day

I have cleared Preps 5 and 6 so they can be filled with the special occasion hooks for Ada Lovelace Day, Tuesday, October 13. Yoninah (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ada Lovelace Day on Tuesday

Just realised that Ada Lovelace Day is on Tuesday. I am going to look through the approved list and see if there are any about Science, Technology, Engineering women. I will mark them with "Ada Lovelace" so you can find them. Can someone assist with moving them? Its late notice so we will need to move promptly if we are to do anything. Thanks for listening Victuallers (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC).

Fine! - Talking about late notice, it's already 11 Oct where I live, and special occasion hook still not in prep - help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! the current Prep 3 has two hooks related to Germany, a bio and a railway, - I don't mind, but perhaps others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Adding: the 11 Sep hook is in prep (Prep 1), but was changed to a grammar I don't understand, and the set is not full, - more help needed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
If you are talking about unreviewed articles, they'll get noticed quicker if you list them here. This close to the date, I'm not sure how many people are scrolling down the nominations page. — Maile (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I admit its very close and maybe too late to do anything. I think they will need to be approved or very simple to approve articles. If this proves to be impossible then I guess I realise why. Its a pity I didn't spot it earlier. I have identified three or four but there are only one or two that are approved or close. Not surprisingly some are by me, Victuallers (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I've been through all the noms and identified six that we can use - there are quite a few more that just need some help. Six is good given the late notice but could you help make it more? Goodnight. Victuallers (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Quick, somebody review Rommie Amaro! Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 Done Yoninah (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
We have about ten hooks all loaded - thanks to all who helped especially Yoninah. Still may need some polishing but not bad for a very late start. Impressive to see that we had a lot of the right type of hooks without any targetted writing. Victuallers (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen

What I see is that the special request for today is now in a barely filled prep instead of the next queue. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I have no idea how that happened. I haven't been involved in prep building for a long time. Unfortunately, the queue that it should have been in is already on the main page. Yoninah (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
And what now? Swap at least to the next possible possibility? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, I've done that: the next prep to be promoted to queue is Prep 4, so I swapped the lead hook there with your special request. If some admin is around and can swap the lead hooks of Queue 3 and Prep 4, it could go to the main page in 4.5 hours rather than 16.5 hours. I have no idea how it was skipped; last I saw, about 24 hours ago, was that it was in a partial set in the next prep due to be promoted, and when I checked again a number of hours ago, it was still in the same prep with the same partial set, but that prep had been bypassed for whatever reason. I'm sorry things went awry, though I have no idea how they did. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: and @Gerda Arendt:, nothing in that hook says (pictured), and nothing in the hook mentions the cross (at least not in English). So why is the cross the accompanying image? — Maile (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
It's trying to translate "Kreuzstab" to readers not fluent in German without using extra characters. See nom and talk where the meaning of the title is questioned. The cantata is known as the "Kreuzstabkantate" in German. Can you word that? Perhaps (Kreuzstab pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
see also Cross-staff cantata --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
... that in the cantada Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56, in English "I will gladly carry the Cross" (cross pictured), life is compared to a sea voyage, while addressing death to come? 198 characters — Maile (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Kreuzstab is literally not the cross (Kreuz), as explained on the talk (with many images), but a cross staff which pilgrims, bishops etc carry, of course to symbolize the cross. Simpler: ... that Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56, ("I will the cross-staff gladly carry", cross-staff pictured) was called a cantata by Bach himself? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually I just added (Kreuzstab pictured) to the hook, and I think that might clear it up. Have a look over in the prep area. — Maile (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I just fixed that. Perhaps we should discuss the topic in general, now that we have the captions: Do we have to interrupt the flow of the hook by some pictured when a caption says (more) clearly what is pictured? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I don't know the answer. It's a good topic to be discussed. I just had this mental image of a lot of high drama happening here because the hook got pulled from the front page for not having the word "pictured". Or some other such prancing about. — Maile (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, we can't be too cautious. There's an image in the article which was pulled from the Main page because of this, similar situation, fishermen mentioned in the cantata title and pictured, but how to add (pictured) in the middle of a bolded title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you 100% on the Kreuzstab hook - it was clear without (pictured). I'm not sure (pictured) is always needed. But you know how it is around here. There needs to be something written into the rules that using (pictured) is the promoter's discretion, or we get yanked hooks. — Maile (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Can a clearly involved editor review a DYK nomination, and can a DYK reviewer reject a nomination?

This is the nomination:

✈
07:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer User:SNUGGUMS moved the article into draft space without consensus, stating

✈
05:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that this article has been restored to its original location:
✈
05:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Answered on the template, but it comes down to this:

WP:DYKR: ...an uninvolved editor will soon review the discussion and likely close it and promote the article. If the article does not qualify for DYK for some technical reason or if the participants cannot agree on at least one viable hook, the discussion will eventually be closed by an uninvolved editor and the article will not be promoted. — Maile (talk
) 12:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Foreign Direct Investment in India

The nomination is approved already but the article has problems needing address. But the nominator keeps reverting the comments. Just pointing out if some coordinators really want to take this up may do so. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't have official coordinators here, but I restored your review again and left a warning on the other editor's talk page. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. --
talk
) aka Jakec 16:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Though for the record, I don't believe that the issues you mention are absolutely necessary for DYK. It's okay for articles to be incomplete and rough around the edges, so long as they are neutral, well-cited, and lack copyvio or close paraphrasing. --
talk
) aka Jakec 16:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind if you object or others with consensus feel that the article is ready. I and others have been seeing many a times poor articles at DYK and this one won't be an exception. So am fine. I am anyways steering away now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day,

talk
) 00:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Calling on an administrator to promote Prep 5 to the queue – Ada Lovelace Day is starting in half an hour! Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Done now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Credit fixes

Three credits should be fixed in the upcoming Queue 6. The correct credits are: 

* {{DYKmake|Entrepreneur First|Yoninah|subpage=Entrepreneur First, Alice Bentinck}}
* {{DYKmake|Alice Bentinck|Yoninah|subpage=Entrepreneur First, Alice Bentinck}}
* {{DYKmake|The Verse of Wilayah|Saff V.|subpage=The Verse of Wilayah}}

The first two are currently missing the subpage parameter, and the other one has a redirected article title. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Allen3 talk 11:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't run Halloween hooks before Halloween

I would have thought this would have been pretty bloody obvious, but could promoters please make sure that they do not run Halloween hooks before Halloween? We have already lost two Halloween hooks because someone wasn't paying attention. Prioryman (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that. I'm not sure what section the hooks were taken from, but IMO it's important to ensure any eligible hooks are moved to the special occasions section to lessen the chance of them being selected prematurely. Gatoclass (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I found some approved hooks appearing both in the main nominations area and in the Special Occasions area, and deleted the former. Yoninah (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Prioryman, is there a reason that you are double listing Halloween hooks in both the regular and special occasion sections of T:TDYK (e.g. [3] and [4])? Moving a nomination to the special occasion holding area is a two part action, removing the nomination from the regular section and the addition of the nomination to the special occasion holding area (e.g. [5]). Leaving a nomination listed in both sections is an open invitation for confusion. --Allen3 talk 13:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Simple enough: If they're listed only in the main area it's hard to see at a glance which articles are meant to run on Halloween. If they're listed only in the holding area they get overlooked by reviewers (as we found with Gibraltar). The best solution is to double-list them so that they are reviewed in the normal course of events, while simultaneously enabling us to keep track of which nominations relate to the specific date. Prioryman (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I understand your dilemma, Prioryman. Perhaps we could create a subpage for Halloween, Christmas, and other significant special-occasion hooks, the way we do for April Fools' Day hooks. On the subpage, there are 2 columns: one for suggested hooks, and one for approved hooks. Then there is no misunderstanding, and anyone who wants to review a Halloween hook is directed straight to the subpage. Yoninah (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
This is an excellent idea. — Maile (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The main special occasion section states quite clearly that unapproved hooks should not be placed there. Double listing them is not going to prevent them from being promoted prematurely if they are not moved at the time of approval, and may in fact confuse people who see that the hook is already in the special area, so they think they don't need to do anything. The subpage idea might work if links to it were posted here on the talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I think all special occasion hooks should be moved straight to the special occasion section whether they have been approved or not. If they haven't been approved within a few days of the occasion, attention can always be drawn to that at this page. Special occasion hooks need to be in the right place otherwise they can be completely missed before the occasion, or inadvertently promoted as occurred with the two Halloween hooks above. Prioryman, the reason the Gibraltar hooks languished so long is that (a) they were controversial and nobody wanted to touch them, and (b) they weren't actually special occasion hooks, they were hooks requiring a double approval as I recall. Gatoclass (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The important thing is that the issue has now been brought to the attention of all, so hopefully we won't see any more Halloween-eligible hooks prematurely promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

BattleTech (video game)

I have promoted this nomination for BattleTech (video game) to Prep4 but I found the template was incomplete and I was therefore unable to archive it. I also had to create an appropriate credit for the prep and I think I did this correctly, but someone might want to check. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The template was mangled when it was incorrectly unpromoted after being pulled. I've fixed it. The credit you added was correct. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
My fault, sorry. Perhaps, though, we should read the articles before promoting them in future to check they're written in parsable English. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Size of DYK Images

Hello, DYKers. I'd like to ask what the DYK image size should be, please. Wikipedia:Did you know#Images says "100x100px". Yet I keep seeing over-sized images (120px wide and >120px tall) displayed using {{Main page image}} in the prep areas. We could use some consistency from hook-set to hook-set, and across MainPage (the current images at ITN and SA/OTD are both 100px wide). What is the preferred size, please? Do we want to make "|width=100x120" the new standard size for DYK? Please advise. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there one out there now as an example? — Maile (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I thought the idea was that all the sections were now supposed to use the same "main page image" template and its default size of 120—the images have been a bit larger since the template was introduced—only modifying the size if the photo was unusually narrow or wide in aspect. The "100x100px" is a legacy from the old method, and should be updated. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination request for Thomas á Jesu

Hi there, per the instructions, as an IP I have to post here rather than filling in the form. (Don't know if this happens to you much, but that's what it says in the first line.) Could the following nomination be made please? Thank you much, 184.147.131.85 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  • ... that monks who wanted to live a life of solitude in the 16th-century "desert" hermitages founded by Thomas á Jesu had to apply and meet strict criteria.

P.S. for the quid pro quo I reviewed Melipona beecheii.184.147.131.85 (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done: Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas á Jesu. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much.184.147.131.85 (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 40 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us through the end of September. As of the most recent update, 89 nominations are approved, leaving 222 of 311 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one left over from August and those from early September.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day,

talk
) 10:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day,

talk
) 22:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

How much of the "5-day rule" can we waive for new editors (particularly students)?

The 5-day rule is a problem for the new editors who are not familiar with DYK. Let me give you two examples. First, I customarily review the new article feed (for Poland,

WP:IAR we consider DYKs to be a motivational tools for newbies through which they can see their content promoted, and thus hopefully get encouraged to produce more content. We already have an exception in the quid-pro-quo review requirement for new submitters, I therefore suggest we also make an exception for their first two or three submissions, allowing them to submit work that has been expanded/created not just five days, but five weeks ago. This should be sufficient time for editors who receive a talk page invitation to DYK from new article feed, or for students, to go through the process (again, let's remember that many of those people don't log in to Wikipedia on a daily basis, like we do, but more likely, on a weekly one). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here
04:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Given how long it takes us to process nominations, I for one am willing to waive it for new editors, given the purpose of DYK. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I have a slight COI here, as I have a current nomination that's listed as having been made eight days after the article moved to mainspace (but that's because it was formerly part of a double nomination that was made days earlier and then split). My opinion is that, since the goal is to encourage as many valid DYK nominations as possible rather than to prevent as many nominations as possible from succeeding, relaxing the current seven-day window, at least for editors new to DYK, is a good idea. I wouldn't have been so bold as to suggest extending the window to five weeks, but I recognize that
    talk
    16:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm generally sympathetic to this, but there is also the tactic of nominating an article before it is finished, or even meets the criteria (other than length), and then continuing to work on it. In practice most aren't looked at for a few days, & reviewers generally won't complain about this. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
GrammarFascist

talk
12:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

  • None Support rigid enforcement of 7-day rule. We currently have an issue with different editors applying different interpretations of fairly clear guidelines and rules, frequently invoking cryptic precedents from a mythic past to override various DYK guidelines. The result is the emergence of a self-recognized class of Master Masons who have declared themselves keepers of the arcana of DYK (y'all know who you are). This situation is utterly bizarre and entirely inefficient. Let's mean what we say and say what we mean. LavaBaron (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Leonhardt Schröter

  • ... that Leonhardt Schröter lost his job, so he became a librarian?

I'm not seeing how this hook meets the "interesting" requirement. Perhaps that "Leonhardt lost his job as town Cantor because of his Philippist sympathies?"--ProverbialElephant (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I wrote this hook as a tongue-in-cheek poke at my librarian friends, who have significantly assisted me in finding sources for articles. The implication is that librarian isn't a real job. In fact, since I specifically wrote it to be amusing, I thought it was "hookier" than what I usually provide. However, if you have to explain anything, it isn't funny. So, sorry. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 11:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
There's no great need for hooks to be anything other than a concise fact; this one reads fine in that regard. GRAPPLE X 11:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:DYK conditions

I was told to post here instead of at Template talk:DYK conditions by that talk page. I use Template:Did you know review instead of Template:DYK checklist. Is it worth adding, underneath "Reviewer's template", this: "(prose version)"?--Launchballer 08:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Not bad. I would also say for anyone who thinks they don't have to provide details of a review, the instructions on the nomination page are very clear that details are to be provided in the review under the section "How to review a nomination"
DYKReviewing guide
For my own use, I created a cheatsheet. — Maile (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
DYK Review Cheatsheet
Symbol Code DYK Ready? Description
{{subst:DYKtick}} Yes No problems, ready for DYK
{{subst:DYKtickAGF}} Yes Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language or offline hook reference accepted in good faith
{{subst:DYK?}} Query DYK eligibility requires that an issue be addressed. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article}}
{{subst:DYK?no}} Maybe DYK eligibility requires additional work. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article}}
{{DYK?again}} Maybe New reviewer needed for article or hook
{{subst:DYKno}} No Article is either completely ineligible, or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article}}
DYK Reviews At a Glance
Criteria Shortcut Details Notes
QPQ
DYKSG H4
  • Required only for self-noms with over 5 DYK credits
  • Multi-article hooks require one QPQ for each bolded article in the hook
Eligibility
Shortcut
  • New - no more than 7 days old in article space (not AFC) at nom
  • Expanded - 5X within 7 days of nom
  • Expanded previously unsourced BLP - 2X
  • Promoted to Good Article status within 7 days
  • Translated article from other wiki counts as new
(article history edit summary should state translation)
  • Has not appeared on DYK previously
(noted on article's talk page and/or DYK check)
  • Has not appeared on In the News as the qualifying linked and bolded article
(noted on the article's talk page)
  • No
    dispute tags
(should not be removed without resolving the problem)
  • NPOV, stable, no edit wars , no outstanding talk page issues
  • Not a Stub
  • DYK Reviewing guide
    In addition to at least 1,500 characters of readable prose, the article must not be a stub. This requires a judgement call, since there is no mechanical stub definition. If an article is, in fact, a stub, you should temporarily reject the nomination; if the article is not a stub, ensure that it is correctly marked as a non-stub, by removing any stub template(s) in the article, and changing any talk-page assessments to start-class or higher.
 All categories of noms subject to identical criteria reviews
DYKcheck
Length
Shortcut
  • 1,500 minimum characters of readable prose
 Excludes infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables
Sourcing
Shortcut

Shortcut

Shortcut
  • Check for copyvio or close paraphrasing
  • One inline source per paragraph
  • Direct quotations must be marked as such and sourced
  • No bare URLs or external links used as inline sources
 Dup Detector at Toolserver
Hook
Shortcut
  • Facts must be stated and sourced in article
  • Should not focus negative aspects of living individuals
  • If subject is fiction, hook must involve the real world
  • Maximum of 200 characters
  • NPOV
  • No redlinks or external links
Image and Sounds
Shortcut
  • Must be in the article
  • Freely licensed on Commons (fair use not permitted)
  • Sounds must be formatted with {{
    DYK Listen
    }}

Article traffic stats

The stats.grok.se page has been down since October 12. Any hopes of retrieving the page stats for the last week of DYKs? Yoninah (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

More, over the long haul. I don't know where we'd get them. Have you seen Village pump (technical)#Pageview_Stats_down_again? Henrik, who used to compile them, has not been active for a very long time. @TonyTheTiger: has been keeping a running total at VP, but no one responds. Raw data dumps are Here, but you'd have to know how to pull what you want from that. At one point, @Cyberpower678: had (or has) something to do with XTools, which is a stats tool at labs. I have the feeling this is all in the hands of Wikimedia. — Maile (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
It's working again!!! Yoninah (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day,

talk
) 23:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Prep 1

The second hook is 237 characters and almost unreadable. Pull or cut? Yoninah (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

How about cutting it to "Equatorial Guinea is ranked one of the lowest countries by measure of the quality of life due to corruption"? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I did that already. I will try to find time to verify the hook a bit later on, since it's making a somewhat exceptional claim. Gatoclass (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Gatoclass, I've just swapped the hook with one in Prep 3 so we have a bit more time for you to look at it; otherwise, with promotion to the main page overdue and Prep 1 the next to be promoted, it could hit the main page at any moment. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day,

talk
) 11:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Question

I confess that I completely forgot to nominate

talk
) aka Jakec 11:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That's fine by me. We used to allow up to 11 days, if I remember correctly. Yoninah (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@
talk
) aka Jakec 13:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Should DYK review guide be amended to require detailed description of the review conducted?

As BlueMoonset has pointed out, the instructions for reviewing a nomination have long included the requirement to indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed. But the RFC incorrectly states that DYK currently does not require indicating all aspects, when in fact it does. In short, the RFC is malformed. An amendment would be needed to rescind the current requirement to indicate all aspects, not to add it as this RFC incorrectly states. I am therefore closing this discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Situation: The

DYK Reviewing Guide
currently requires editors to (1) complete a seven-part review of DYK nominees, and, (2) write a review. The form of the review, as required by the guide, must begin with "one of the five DYK review icons" and contain a "thorough explanation of any problems or concerns you have." The guide does not require a "thorough explanation" of the review process in the absence of "problems or concerns." Some editors have suggested all DYK reviews should explain, in detail, the methodology of the review conducted, and should include a full list of each of the seven criteria and explicit statement that each criterion was passed. Other editors have said, in the case of "no issue" noms, that blanket statements such as "all DYK criteria have been met" are acceptable. Question: Should the DYK Guide be amended to require all reviewers provide an in-depth description of their reviewing methodology instead of the status quo which only requires a "thorough explanation of any problems or concerns"? (exact format to be decided if proposal passes) LavaBaron (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Support

  • Support. For editors who regularly review articles, this requirement could be seen as a bureaucratic hassle, but allowing them to just write "meets all criteria" is an open invitation to new/inexperienced editors to do the same. The fact is that the article must be re-reviewed by the prep builder and queue promoter anyway, but some accountability must be maintained at the base level. Yoninah (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose Creating new levels of bookkeeping will only serve to deter participants in DYK who have, thus far, enjoyed a more relaxed regime without issue. The proposal would impose an unnecessary bureaucracy on a dwindling editorship. Our focus should be on quality, not process for the sake of process. LavaBaron (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Gatoclass - the RfC is not malformed. It is specific to the reviewing guide, not the more vague and vast instructions that BM has indicated exist in various places across the Wiki. The fact that it is specific to the instructions as they exist in the reviewing guide, is made abundantly clear in this RfC. BM's proposal, which is not neutrally worded and which - by vaguely and non-specifically indicating a vast swath of Wikipedia, does not contain an actionable proposal - should be closed in favor of a properly formatted proposal. LavaBaron (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

T:TDYK, however, best reflect current practices, and one longstanding accepted practice is that if another reviewer asks you to explicitly state all aspects of a nomination that you have reviewed, you comply with that request, as you are obliged to do by the instructions at the top of the page. Gatoclass (talk
) 15:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Gatoclass, the relative importance or non-importance of the reviewing guide is irrelevant. This proposal is asking about an amendment to the reviewing guide. The reviewing guide can, in fact, be amended as a singular entity. This proposal nowhere suggests that an amendment to the reviewing guide will have holistic consequences across WP. It is a concise and tightly focused question that asks about an amendment to the reviewing guide and does not portend such an amendment will have any wider implications. To posit otherwise is to say the reviewing guide is non-amendable and untouchable. This preemptive closure, though I'm sure well meaning, was based on a misreading of the question and was uncalled for. LavaBaron (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the salient point here is that the accepted practice is to require that all criteria be explicitly referenced in a DYK review. If you want to alter that, you want to rescind the longstanding requirement as stated in the instructions at T:TDYK. It is therefore misleading to describe retention of the criteria as an "amendment"; it's your proposal to drop the requirement that is effectively an amendment to the accepted procedure. Gatoclass (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Gatoclass, again, I have advanced a RfC to amend the reviewing guide. It is tightly and concisely focused on the reviewing guide and has nothing to do with anything else. Since when do we shut-down RfCs because they're too focused? Since when do we shut-down RfCs because they're not vague enough? Since when do we shut-down RfCs because they address written policy instead of unwritten custom or "accepted practice"? I have not proposed to "drop" any requirement, I have proposed a very simple amendment to the language of the reviewing guide and only the reviewing guide (an amendment I oppose) without pretension that such an amendment will impact anything else. The problem you're having is that you're trying to read between the lines of a very simple and straightforward RfC and imagine a complex meaning, or wild plot, that simply doesn't exist. The closure of the RfC was inappropriate. LavaBaron (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
LavaBaron, you may have a point in arguing that your RFC was not technically malformed. However, as I have since pointed out, it was misleading and POV in its presentation, in that it presented a proposal by you to overturn the status quo as the status quo, and conversely, presented the status quo position as if it were the new proposal. If you can't understand the problem with that, then I doubt there is much point in continuing this discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Gatoclass Thank you for acknowledging that my "RFC was not technically malformed." As for "POV in its presentation," I'm sure whatever secret, coded, subliminal POV existed in my proposal, it was no more POV than a proposal that explicitly and overtly contains editorial commentary. You, of course, will understand why one would be upset to see their RFC shuttered because someone contends it shows POV if read backwards on a full moon, when a proposal that overtly makes editorial declarations and advocates for a specific !vote is celebrated as a piece de resistance. LavaBaron (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
In addition to the points mentioned by Gatoclass, the proposal was not neutral in its wording, requiring that "all reviewers provide an in-depth description of their reviewing methodology". Was such a ridiculous statement of the requirement intended to mock people and influence them to oppose it? You say that "some editors have suggested" it, but there is a huge difference between providing an in-depth description of reviewing methodology and simply listing what was reviewed, which is what editors have actually requested. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
As Gatoclass has explained, neither was this neutral in its wording. However, Gatoclass only chose to shutter the RFC that he was !voting against, while keeping open the one he was !voting for, despite asserting both were not neutral. The question, at this point, is irrelevant anyway as a NPOV RFC has been opened. This extended post-closure discussion can now be hatted. LavaBaron (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
And leave your accusations unchallenged? I don't think so. The other, unstated reason I closed your original RFC was because at the time, only one person other than the initiator had responded to it. Had more people responded at that point, I think it would have been presumptuous of me to unilaterally close it. But by the time I closed your original RFC, five people had already !voted in the other discussion, by which time I felt it was too late for a unilateral closure. In any case, it wasn't at that point even an RFC - you are the one who chose to later add the RFC template, only to remove it again in order to start a second RFC of your own without consulting anyone else about the wording, in spite of the fact that the wording had already clearly become an issue. Gatoclass (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't follow. However, I can see you are very passionate about this subject and I respect the enthusiasm and perspective you bring to the conversation. I think we can both agree this is a rich and interesting discussion on the nature of DYK. Thank you for contributing to it! LavaBaron (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day,

talk
) 11:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

QPQs and slap-dash reviews claimed

As I was scrolling the nominations page, I made the turn-around tick and notations on templates where there were no details on what was reviewed. In this case, it looked like an editor sliding by on numerous slap-dash check offs in a row. Please don't hesitate to question QPQs from any editor if what they are claiming looks like a review was not actually done. Anyone who has done a review should be able to provide some details. The very least respect/courtesy we can pay to nominators is to not fake the reviews, to list the details. In the long run, questioning a review helps lessen the complaints we get on this page when a promoted hook has to be pulled. — Maile (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Maile, are you satisfied with the reviewer's response on those reviews (plus more) a few hours ago? Hooks are already being promoted. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's list them here, because it's getting to be confusing going back through my contributions history. Any other seasoned DYK reviewer is welcome to express their viewpoint:
  • ADMIN, PLEASE PULL FROM PREP 3 Marsh Creek (Bowman Creek) - Should not be a QPQ, and should not have been promoted.
  • ADMIN, PLEASE PULL FROM PREP 3 Evangelienmotetten - Promoted without adequate review.
  • ADMIN, PLEASE PULL FROM PREP 4 Frigid bumblebee - Should not be a QPQ, and should not have been promoted. This one has been pulled from prep, because of copyvio/close paraphrasing. — Maile (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
We have a problem, folks. Things are being promoted that shouldn't. Remember
Fram:? While we encourage everyone to get involved in DYK, it is of particular concern that we have so many in the above list. Is there any recourse to this? — Maile (talk
) 16:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Maile66: Did you know that anyone can add or remove hooks from the prep areas? You only need admin help when they've been moved to the queues. I haven't looked at every review you've listed, but your concern looks legitimate to me. -Zanhe (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Zanhe: I guess I was thinking of a Queue, which does take an admin. However, I'm leaving the request as is, because if no one pulls these hooks, they will make it to Queue and require an admin. I know it should not be me to pull them, because I was involved in the review and it should be an uninvolved party. — Maile (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I've moved all three hooks to Prep 1 to avoid them being promoted to queue while this is ongoing. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be a serious issue. Time for more thorough reviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems like the real problem is verifying that reviewers are actually going through all the relevant criteria. Right now, the rules for reviews are a little ambiguous; although they require reviewers to look at all criteria, I don't think there is anything in the rules (as they are written right now) that would prevent a reviewer from saying "I have looked at all the criteria and this nomination passes." Instead, I propose we implement the following baseline standards for DYK reviews:
  1. State the date on which the article was created, 5x expanded, promoted to GA, etc.
  2. State the length of the nominated article
  3. State affirmatively that the article "passes relevant policy considerations, including (i) neutrality, (ii) citations, and (iii) close paraphrasing"
  4. State the length of the hook
  5. State why the hook is interesting and link to the source used to support the hook.
  6. State affirmatively that "QPQ has been satisfied"
  7. If applicable, state affirmatively that "the image complies with relevant guidelines"
A hypothetical review under this system would look like this:
  • "This was created on October 19, the article is 2345 characters long, and the article passes relevant policy considerations, including (i) neutrality, (ii) citations, and (iii) close paraphrasing. The hook is 123 characters long, it is interesting because most people wouldn't know a fact like that, and it is supported by a source at [this link] via inline citation. QPQ is satisfied, and the image complies with relevant guidelines."
Without affirmative requirements like these, I don't see any other way we can require editors to "show their work" (for lack of a better term), and we will simply have to take their word at face value. Nevertheless, I am definitely interested to hear other thoughts on this matter. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Or we could just
talk
) aka Jakec 21:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
If that was the case, we wouldn't be removing items from preps, the main page etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
You certainly could, just as you could assume that all reviewers are blue and from the planet Mars. Eric Corbett 21:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
When something like this happens, just like the batch in early September from a different reviewer, there are clues that the system is being taken advantage of. All the above reviews are by the same editor. Six of them on the same day, with five done within minutes of each other, almost the time it would take to open a template, type a few words, and save. They are as follows:
So, we would love to extend good faith to everyone. But a streak like this should be caught, and caught before it gets too far.— Maile (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's not beat about the bush; the system is clearly being abused here, and I don't think LavaBaron (talk · contribs) can plead ignorance. I specifically asked him here to do a proper review of Template:Did you know nominations/Francis Doughty (clergyman), to which he responded by doing another slapdash review. I see from this thread that this has happened multiple times. I think we should make it clear that this is unacceptable and it damages the integrity of DYK. It would be inappropriate to proceed straight to a ban, so I propose that LavaBaron should be given a final warning that further slapdash reviews will lead to a ban (of an initial month's duration?) from submitting or reviewing any further DYKs. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Proposal of "Warning" - Oh good Lord. First - "Abuse" suggests some scheme of gain. Since half of the reviews above are goodwill / non-QPQ reviews, I'm really curious what kind-of conspiracy you think is occurring exactly? Second - all of my reviews meet the requirements for what the written output of a review must contain as laid-out in
    DYK guidelines and are identical in verbiage to many other DYK reviews like those contributed by Editorofthewiki and others. I'm sorry you don't feel the DYK guidelines are adequate, I really am. I'm happy to work with you on a proposal to update or amend them. Until then, "warnings" should be reserved for actual violations of commmunity guidelines, not violations of individual preferences. Third - "final warning" suggests there's already been a warning. Your individual decision to describe to me your personal preferences on my Talk page does not constitute a "warning." Like I said, if you would like to collaborate on an update to the DYK guidelines, I would be very happy to help. Do let me know. LavaBaron (talk
    ) 09:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, cool - excuse the Wall of Text but I was not notified I was the topic of discussion by the person who started it so am late to the party; since I don't plan to stick around I'm going to deal with this all in one fell swoop -

  • (1) I review multiple noms and then enter my promote/delay rationale back to back so if timestamps are within a minute or two of each other that's the reason. Pretty simple explanation. No conspiracy involved.
  • (2) At least half of reviews listed above are not QPQ (though the complainant has disingenuously claimed they are). What do I have to "gain" by volunteering my energy for goodwill (non-QPQ) reviews? Trust me - no TBAN is necessary. I'm done because it's not worth it to get dragged into this.
  • (3) I can't take Maile's complaint about me in GF as I recently had to advise him/her [6] to review the DYK guide more attentively due to her own errors in applying DYK criteria (
    WP:BOOMERANG
    blasting off right now. (It isn't, thank God.)
  • (4) In my reviews, when I say "everything" looks good, I mean "everything" (as in everything in the DYK criteria) - I'm unclear why the word "everything" is ambiguous or confusing to the complainant.
  • (5) Contrary to the idea presented above, this is not about me but about a crusade complainant has recently initiated against multiple editors. Just this week complainant also went after (among others) Editorofthewiki (in this DYK) because Editorofthewiki, like me, also used the phrase "everything checks out" in his reviews. When I hold a review for a problem I explain in detail as I did here. When I pass a review I write a quick summary. Community guidelines require no more or less and an individual editor's preferences don't trump our consensus-developed guidelines. As per the points alluded to by Notecardforfree and Jakec, if one or two editors can't AGF and want mandatory language adopted for DYK reviews, that's cool but there's a process to introduce new community guidelines. Bullying editors into exhaustion / submission with complaints based on knowingly false presentments (see: aformentioned claims of QPQ) is not that process. It is extremely disruptive, time-wasting, and I'm concerned to see it being pursued as an alternative to the normal policy-creation process.

Anyway, I'm a pretty anonymous content contributor and don't do WikiPolitics so this just isn't a very interesting discussion for me. I probably won't be checking back as I'm busy writing an encylopedia at the moment. Ping me to let me know how it turns out if you want. You know, whatever. Take care - LavaBaron (talk) 08:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to believe you're checking things thoroughly when you missed something very obvious here. 97198 (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I've done 20 DYK reviews in the last month. If your statement is I'm only averaging a 5-percent error rate, I'm absolutely thrilled to own that! It actually means I'm pacing Maile's own error rate in DYK reviews this month. Great to get an affirmation - thanks! Hope all is well with you, 97198. LavaBaron (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm a little bit lost as to the problem here. Unless the criticism is that there is the feeling of reviews being done so quickly that mistakes are being made. If that's the case then it should be possible to demonstrate mistakes (as someone has done already, by pointing out one minor process error). I've had a look through the noms listed above and LavaBaron seems to have, for the most part, correctly ticked or crossed as relevant. What concerns me is that the criticism is that he's not writing a longer sentence to say the review has been done... which I am not sure is a valid concern; claiming a short comment is akin to a quick and incomplete review seems like a strange metric. Writing a longer sentence isn't hard, and I am sure a bad reviewer would be able to do that... As far as I knew, DYK was a lightweight process that got new content on the main page to encourage people to write new stuff and to keep the main page fresh. If bad, untrue, uncited or copyvio content gets through to the main page, that's a bad thing! And we should be alert for that and take action against reviewers who do so. If occasionally process is missed (such as missing the QPQ or missing that it was a userspace move) then that's not great, but not really the end of the world. --Errant (chat!) 14:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Great points, Errant. Between this, and Jakec's comment here [7], I think it's safe to safe this is, predictably, going nowhere. Would you mind restoring my reviews back to the prep? (I think either Maile or BlueMoonset mentioned they were invoking some kind-of perceived emergency powers to remove them; not sure it's appropriate to continue to punish the authors just for the sake of having a prop for this latest engineered Wikidrama. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to restore them.) In the meantime, I'm going to return to doing DYK reviews with extreme gusto. LavaBaron (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
LavaBaron, I'm just starting a discussion on why the written DYK reviews are currently expected to indicate specifically what was checked. Your reviews have generally not done this, and several regular DYK reviewers have pointed this out—Maile, Prioryman, Yoninah, SSTflyer, and I specifically—and your brief approvals have been superseded by requests for more completely written out reviews. Your latest brief approval reiterations claim an "administrator ruling" in your favor. Jakob, Errant, I didn't see such a ruling here; was that your intent? My experience is that such matters are put on hold until eventually some sort of consensus is achieved, and so far there's been quite a diversity of viewpoints in this discussion rather than any conclusion. I'm looking forward to your thoughts. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Doubling-down is only going to create more disruption. Is that your intent? It seems so.
Since we experienced a minor edit disagreement several months ago you have relentlessly pursued me across WP attempting to draw attention to, what you have rudely and uncivilly characterized as, my "incompetence" [sic]. Each of the numerous times you've attempted to secure community consensus for a TBAN or warning has resulted in, at best, nothing and, at worst, your own censure by other editors. This latest disruption you've engineered, including your assumption of some presumed "emergency powers" to de-list already reviewed and promoted DYKs, has not only impacted me but has, in fact, caused grief and problems for other editors (said DYK noms you're de-promoting). Attempting to hitch your long-term crusade to the opinions of other editors like SSTflyer, etc., who are clearly unaware of the genesis of your issues, only spreads the contagion of your disruption. Your energies would be much better spent, as you have been endlessly cautioned by other editors, letting go of whatever perceived slight you feel occurred in the past and focusing on encyclopedia building.
If your intention is really to "start a discussion" about amending the DYK reviewing guidelines, this thread isn't the place to do it. A new thread containing a concrete, actionable proposal, should be proferred. If you need help constructing such a policy proposal for community consideration, let me know. I'm happy to help. LavaBaron (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
So, sorry, if my comment was taken as an admin "ruling" then to be clear, I was merely offering my view in support of LavaBaron's reviews. It definitely shouldn't be taken as any sort of ruling (cos, well, we don't do that!). I think my point was that there's nothing too much offered as wrong with the reviews LavaBaron is doing, except that the review text is short. Looking through the DYK page this is not an uncommon approach, and my thought was that there's nothing wrong with doing that IMO. If people are not promoting DYK's because of the length of the review then that strikes me as the problem rather than LavaBaron and others (because others are "guilty" of this too). As I said before: we should be alert to people passing articles that simply don't meet the DYK criteria and rightfully warn them about that. But there doesn't seem to be a suggestion or evidence of that in this case. To LavaBaron I'd say: just take it easy! I think you're doing a great thing volunteering for DYK, don't let things escalate! --Errant (chat!) 08:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Errant, this is part of a long-term pattern of disruption BM has been engineering that stretches back months and originates in a GA-dispute we had. It has become so acute I've actually received barnstars from other editors for having to deal with it [8]. BM has continued this disruption by red-tagging no fewer than seven of my DYK reviews in the last several hours, despite the fact no consensus was achieved here to overturn them. As evidence of the singularly obsessive nature of this disruption I'd point to the fact that Jakec submitted a review here - Template:Did you know nominations/Tribute to Troy - that did not explicitly mention passage of a copyvio check and BM did not tag it, despite the fact his most recent round of red-tagging occurred after that review was posted. There are numerous other examples. If he's so concerned his preferences are adhered to, why is he only trying to deep-six my reviews? He is clearly abusing process to carry-out a highly disruptive, long-term grudge. LavaBaron (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Standardization of Review Language

The guidelines for written DYK reviews contain conflicting differently worded standards, to wit:

  • (Version 1) The
    DYK Reviewing Guide
    , among other places, currently requires editors to write a review that must begin with "one of the five DYK review icons" and contain a "thorough explanation of any problems or concerns you have." The guide does not require a "thorough explanation" of the review process in the absence of "problems or concerns."
  • (Version 2)
    T:TDYK
    , among other places, requires that a review "indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed," in other words requiring an editor explicitly list and confirm every aspect of the DYK has been reviewed; this disallows reviews with non-problem DYK noms worded thus: "all criteria have been checked and met."

Should conflicting differently worded DYK review language be standardized? LavaBaron (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes - Standardize Language to Version 1

  • Support - DYK is suffering from the system-wide effects of a dwindling editorship. To enforce bureaucratic standards in the absence of a demonstrated issue does not help the matter. We should focus on quality, not process for the sake of process. Standardizing to version 1 does not relieve editors of completing a seven-part review, it only relieves them of using specific language to describe their review. LavaBaron (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes - Standardize Language to Version 2

No - Maintain Status Quo of Conflicting Standards

Discussion

I move to abort this RFC. Rather than starting endless RFCs based on your own personal notion of what a neutral opening statement is, I think you need to collaborate with your opponents to come up with a wording that all parties can agree on. BTW I am logging off now so will not be able to reply to any responses here until tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Support the move to abort. — Maile (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
While I respect your opinion and you as an editor, to quote you sans personal attacks, "you can't shut down editors voicing their opinion on a talk page, any talk page." LavaBaron (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose First, I don't personally believe I have "opponents," only editors who, with me, mutually celebrate a diversity of opinion and are interested in collaborating to achieve a common ground that advances improvement to WP. Second, the requirement of a RFC is that it be neutrally worded, which this is, not that all parties agree to the very existence of a RFC; if that were the case, there would never be any RFCs. Third, I disagree with the premise that a single RFC on this question constitutes "endless RFCs." LavaBaron (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Support aborting. This does not, indeed, come across as a neutral stating of the situation; I don't read the cited pages as conflicting (merely as one being more complete than the other), which makes characterizing them as such POV. On another note, I've seen
talk
04:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Goodness, I've received barnstars for putting up with what other editors have characterized as "unwarranted attacks" from BM! [9] If this is something in which you're very interested, PM me, I'll be happy to provide you a hundred wikilinks. But, you're correct, this isn't the correct forum and I accept ownership for error if I inappropriately introduced it. As for your concern about NPOV, while I disagree entirely, in a spirit of community and compromise, I have replaced all instances of "conflicting standards" with "differently worded" standards which is objectively correct. As I have met you halfway, I hope you extend your goodwill by offering me a similar courtesy. LavaBaron (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I saw your mention of and link to the barnstars further up the page. I didn't follow the link because barnstars would prove nothing. If you believe another user has engaged in a pattern of harassment against you, the proper course of action is to take it to arbitration or to AN/I. This talk page, like most parts of Wikipedia, is not a remotely appropriate venue for lodging such accusations. —
talk
01:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Once again, this RFC isn't the correct venue to continue this discussion. LavaBaron (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for alternative wording

I think perhaps the best way to get this mess sorted quickly is to try and get consensus for an alternative wording. I am going to suggest the following, but am happy to consider amendments or alternatives:

reviewing guide
, makes no mention of this requirement, stating only that reviewers should give a thorough explanation of any problems or concerns you have. The question is whether the DYK reviewing guide should be updated to conform with the instructions at T:TDYK and with longstanding convention, or whether the instructions at T:TDYK should be altered to conform with the guide.

BTW, I have a VERY busy next few days ahead of me off-Wiki, so I may not be able to participate much further in this discussion until a later date. Gatoclass (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - While a noble effort, the statements "has long been accepted practice" and "longstanding convention" introduce longevity-based value declarations into the RFC wording, essentially the RFC equivalent of
    founding myth" rather than a "longstanding convention." The RFC really needs to be based on objective fact, not "a friend of a friend's cousin told me ..." kind-of stuff. LavaBaron (talk
    ) 07:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Goodness me, 2007 is going a long way back! DYK then was very different from what it is now. The DYK reviewing guide you like to cite wasn't written until 2010, and the T:TDYK instructions were not added, I believe, until 2011. I'm not going to dig up diffs, but yes, this is a longstanding convention, years in effect, as I think any regular here will be able to testify.
As for the inclusions about longstanding convention, they are necessary because the convention is different from the stated instruction, in that the instruction is not invariably enforced, but only when a second nominator thinks it appropriate. Not to include mention of the convention would lead to a misleading notion of how the instructions are actually applied. I also think it's appropriate to mention the convention because users less familiar with DYK may want to know which method is preferred by experienced DYK contributors. Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, 2007 does go a long way back. Is it a "longstanding" convention or isn't it? LavaBaron (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day,

talk
) 10:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

OK on P, H, L, N, Q

That is the full DYK review posted on this nomination template, and subsequently reaffirmed by the reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the third different reviewer (not review) you've demanded on this nom. Perhaps DYK would better meet your exacting standards if you simply did all the reviews yourself? ErrantX has previously counseled you that "claiming a short comment is akin to a quick and incomplete review seems like a strange metric." I tend to agree. Did you actually notice a problem with the P, H, L, N, or Q on this nom? If not, what's the issue - specifically - you're raising? LavaBaron (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The issue, as I have stated at the nom, is that it is at the least difficult, and at the most, impossible, to know what has been checked. As a fellow user promoting article into prep areas and queues, it is worthless. If you've spent the time reviewing everything, then you might as well spend an extra few seconds just explaining what has been checked. Yes, we could assume good faith, and assume that everything has been checked, but the problem is, with a variety of experience levels, sometimes a short review does mean a quick and incomplete review. Almost certainly not from yourself, but at least by stating what has been checked, people can have reassurance that you know what you're meant to be checking. (It clearly doesn't prove they have been checked.) By spelling out what you've checked, you are demonstrating competence, and that is the main benefit. Even if you had a user page that you could link to which explained those abbreviations, we could be happy. But as they are, there is just insufficient evidence for a fellow user to have confidence what has been checked. Harrias talk 08:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Harrias, thank you. That is valuable and useful advise and an excellent point and I will definitely make a link-to userpage then resubmit the review. I apologize if I came across snippy in my response to you. I've been burnin' 'n churnin' reviews and may occasionally presume foreknowledge, where such presumption is not warranted. LavaBaron (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
No worries. I can understand your frustration at what is essentially bureaucracy. The main issue, as you've noted yourself elsewhere, is that without a set template or even a consistent list of reviewing guidelines, there isn't a familiarity with the list of "policy, hook, length, newness, QPQ". Hence, although obvious once you've spelt it out, it isn't immediately obvious as a set of abbreviations. Harrias talk 08:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Most certainly. Thanks again for your proactive approach. LavaBaron (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@Harrias: there is a Reviewers' Template in the Toolbox on the nomination template.— Maile (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
There is, but it is far from commonly used, which was my point. Harrias talk 17:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Harrias seems definitely correct, — Maile . I've recently sampled the preceding 8 years of DYK reviews and instances of its use are the exception, rather than the norm. LavaBaron (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2000

I remember seeing a comment on a DYK to the effect that an article about a politician involved in a current campaign cannot be promoted until the campaign is over, lest it look like we are promoting him. Does that apply here? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The actual voting won't take place till next year. It's so far ahead in time. So, imo, it should be okay. --PFHLai (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Well for the UK elections, I recall being told we couldn't run anything a month before the actual election if it involved a candidate (like UKIP Calypso) so since we're not in the month "cycle", I see no problem. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us into the beginning of October. As of the most recent update, 116 nominations are approved, leaving 215 of 331 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones left over from before late September.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Animated images

Template:Did you know nominations/New City Hall (Prague) has an animated image. Just double checking before I approve it, are animated images okay for the Main Page? I can't see any rules against it, or a reason why not, but wanted to ask first. --Errant (chat!) 13:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any rule explicitly banning it, but this particular animation seems a little large for the Main Page. --
talk
) aka Jakec 13:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Aye, agreed. 100px high it's not discernable. --Errant (chat!) 14:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
We've used animated images in the past. The new "main page image" template has a default width of 120 rather than 100, and DYK seems to be using the "|width=120x133" parameter for its images (based on the "/Clear" page) to keep narrow images from going too long; it seems like we're currently going a little larger than 100x100px by default. I've already posted to the nomination template and added the width parameter so you can see how it looks, though you still may not want to use it at the smaller size. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I've boldly updated the DYK info page to the new image sizes to help anyone else in the future :) --Errant (chat!) 09:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day,

talk
) 10:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Should
WP:TAFI
return to the main page?

Considering this directly affected DYK last time, please weigh in here:

Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement#TAFI on the main page?.--Coin945 (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)--Coin945 (talk
) 18:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Reminder: Halloween

Should we pre-build a set of hooks for October 31?

✈
07:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Good thought, but I don't think that's feasible at the moment. Right now the latest prep available would hit the main page as the first of the two October 30 sets. Once the preps for October 31 become available, they can be loaded up, still days in advance. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Prep 5 and Prep 6 are the two sets that will eventually post on October 31 at 00:00 and 12:00 UTC, assuming all the intervening prep sets are built and promoted on schedule. As both preps are currently empty, pre-building can commence at any time. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day,

talk
) 22:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Halloween 2015

Is there an effort to make DYK's customized to Halloween this year? sorry I am no regular.

maybe i could find this out somewhere on this multipaged page..but I havent seen it in the special holding area or anywhere. Isnt there a calendar where you can click to see whats in queue? Thank you .--Wuerzele (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

See
T:DYKQ. Yoninah (talk
) 19:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
They're in prep areas 5 and 6 on the page linked by Yoninah. Prioryman (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Yoninah, Prioryman Thanks much. I see nothing in the section of prep area 5 and 6.
Are you looking on
T:DYKQ, under the section titled "Prep areas"? Yoninah (talk
) 21:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
So, there is no effort to make DYK's customized to Halloween this year? --Wuerzele (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@Wuerzele: if you look at the chart near the top of the page, "Local update times", you will see that October 31 in all time zones covers Queues 5 and 6. Preps 5 and 6 will become Queues 5 and 6, respectively, when they are promoted. Yoninah (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
seeing it finally, sorry for being so dumb...thanks. can i do anythg to help?--Wuerzele (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination with less than 1,500 characters

Please see if this request can be accommodated on the DYK page and should you agree, I will nominate this for DYK. Either way, thanks for your time on this subject. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit to Abbey Road as it is a POV pushing coatrack piece cited to appalling sources. Please come back when you have something like Mark Lewisohn's Sessions. The article on Everest will almost certainly fail a DYK review for the same reason. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

TAFI tacking its link to the end of hooks

Please see discussion here: Template:Did you know nominations/Deep frying. — Maile (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Question about how to proceed -

Resolved

I had been doing a DYK review of

unilaterally ) merged it into another article [10]. Mhhossein undid the merge, but the first editor immediately re-merged it [11]. I don't know how to process this open DYK at this point. (Also, it appears this is an active sanctions article so I don't really want to get in a merge/re-merge/merge/re-merge war for the sake of closing a DYK.) Advice would be appreciated. Thanks, kindly, in advance. LavaBaron (talk
) 00:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Jakec resolved - thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Bombus hyperboreus

The nomination Bombus hyperboreus has been moved to a new name thereby mucking up the template which needs attention before the nomination can progress. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us into the beginning of October. As of the most recent update, 130 nominations are approved, leaving 219 of 349 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones left over from August and September.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Broken cites in prep 1

Can someone fix the broken cites in the Javanese traditional house article currently in Prep 1? The article uses the sfn template, which I am not that familiar with. Gatoclass (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

IP editor and Help Desk post

So an IP editor posted to the

problem solving
00:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It's done and transcluded on the nominations page. ~
problem solving
12:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

How is the hook about Nancy Grace "neutral"?

Hi, with regard to the current hook on DYK "... that the University of Southern California sports anthem "Tribute to Troy" has been called "almost as annoying as Nancy Grace"?, I'm curious how this hook meets the requirement of DYK for hooks to be neutral? Seems like this hook is repeating someone else's criticism of a particular person, and doesn't seem to be neutral at all. Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned this at
whisper in my ear
02:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
This should not have been queued by the editor who closed it. Editors should take care to carefully follow the DYK instructions when closing noms or they may be subject to attempts to impose "final warnings", as we've recently learned. This is not the first error originating from this source. Perhaps spending more time double-checking one's own contributions, instead of auditing the DYK reviews of others, would help the editor in question who was responsible for closing this? I can't say. LavaBaron (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
You have a point.
We could correct and retract it by claiming say that Nancy Grace is less annoying than the University of Southern California sports anthem "Tribute to Troy." {:>{)> 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Its impressive to see that when a mistake may have been made then the people who have been looking at the list of hooks didn't see this one. The people who looked at the preps didn't see this one, the people who looked at the queues didn't see it .... but when the mistake is made then someone can see exactly who caused it .... out of the dozens and dozens who looked at it. Well it must be someone who is actually helping the project .... because they are the people who are doing something! If you haven't got anything to say that isn't constructive then please keep quiet as all those people who did see it can now claim 20/20 hindsight and how they wouldn't have made a mistake. This isn't true. They had normal sight and like the rest they didnt see it. Victuallers (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I said something that's constructive. The editor in question has been re-reviewing my recent DYK reviews, claiming that I make errors in them (though, to be honest, she has failed to arrive at a different conclusion than me in any of them). My constructive suggestion was to spend less time worrying about other people, and to spend more time worrying about oneself. It looks rather odd when one is lecturing people on being careful while simultaneously stumbling around, knocking over the furniture and spilling food on the carpet. This isn't the first major error she's made in her reviews and closings while fruitlessly attempting to catch me in a "gotchya" moment. This latest pratfall is elevating things to a new level of tragic comedy, though. We should focus on encyclopedia-building. LavaBaron (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
You're right. I did make a mistake. I double-checked all the DYK criteria on this one, and failed to remember the BLP issue. Apparently, I also failed to double-check the fact that you did a QPQ for the Tribute to Troy nomination, when in fact you didn't do a review at all. Yoninah (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Um, actually your wikilink is to a wikilnk of a QPQ I did. Your decision to re-review my QPQ (and come to the exact same conclusion) is your personal right, but doesn't invalidate my QPQ. Like I said, please spend some more time policing your own errors and omissions, which are really quite considerable in breadth and scope, and less time pointing your finger at others. I'm here to write an encyclopedia - can I empower you to join me? LavaBaron (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
LavaBaron, did you create this hook? If you did, I'm curious what you could possibly be thinking? This is incredibly bad judgment and in my mind, you shouldn't be allowed to continue to submit hooks. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, I shouldn't be held responsible for anything. I was Blue Sky'ing it. LavaBaron (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Both the article creation and DYK submission indicate you are the primary author. Why should you not be held responsible for this? What am I missing here, because I cannot reasonably parse your deflection from responsibility in this thread. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not "deflecting" - I'm being focused and topical. The thread is about the error the closer made and that's what I'm discussing. If you want to start a thread about a different topic, you're welcome to do that and I'd be happy to accept an invitation from you to participate in it. LavaBaron (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
No, this thread is specifically about the lack of neutrality and BLP-adhering hook you created and submitted to Wikipedia. The buck stops with you, nobody else. If you can't own your work, you shouldn't be editing here. And as for blue sky ideas, that kind of stuff takes place on the article talk page, not the DYK workspace. Start taking immediate responsibility for your edits or stop editing. It's that simple. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Relax. I took responsibility, already, at the Main Page talk and was thanked by Jenks24, in fact. This thread is where we identify the failures in process that led to this inappropriate hook being promoted. Since the act of promotion rests with the promoter (by definition), that's obviously the genesis of our discussion. In any case, the promoter has already admitted her error above ("I did make a mistake. I double-checked all the DYK criteria on this one, and failed to remember the BLP issue.") so there's no reason to browbeat her over it. I'm confident she'll be more attentive in the future. LavaBaron (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
No, you are wrong here. It doesn't matter what the promoter did or did not do. By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, which say, and I quote: "You take responsibility for your edits". If you continue to deflect responsibility on to other editors, then you are violating the terms of use. Nobody else is responsible for your hook, despite what you believe. And if you continue to blame others for your edits I will take the necessary steps to stop you from editing. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Yikes - sounds serious! LavaBaron (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Heads up on Edit-a-thon

Just wanted to let reviewers know of a

Women in Red and WikiProject Women scientists, that is expected to produce many new biographical articles (72 before the official start date!). Some may be created and/or nominated by new and inexperienced editors who may be unfamiliar with DYK rules and formalities. Please have patience and assume good faith with any incomplete noms or reviews. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk
) 22:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

How much of the "5-day rule" can we waive for new editors (particularly students)?

The 5-day rule is a problem for the new editors who are not familiar with DYK. Let me give you two examples. First, I customarily review the new article feed (for Poland,

WP:IAR we consider DYKs to be a motivational tools for newbies through which they can see their content promoted, and thus hopefully get encouraged to produce more content. We already have an exception in the quid-pro-quo review requirement for new submitters, I therefore suggest we also make an exception for their first two or three submissions, allowing them to submit work that has been expanded/created not just five days, but five weeks ago. This should be sufficient time for editors who receive a talk page invitation to DYK from new article feed, or for students, to go through the process (again, let's remember that many of those people don't log in to Wikipedia on a daily basis, like we do, but more likely, on a weekly one). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here
04:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Given how long it takes us to process nominations, I for one am willing to waive it for new editors, given the purpose of DYK. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I have a slight COI here, as I have a current nomination that's listed as having been made eight days after the article moved to mainspace (but that's because it was formerly part of a double nomination that was made days earlier and then split). My opinion is that, since the goal is to encourage as many valid DYK nominations as possible rather than to prevent as many nominations as possible from succeeding, relaxing the current seven-day window, at least for editors new to DYK, is a good idea. I wouldn't have been so bold as to suggest extending the window to five weeks, but I recognize that
    talk
    16:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm generally sympathetic to this, but there is also the tactic of nominating an article before it is finished, or even meets the criteria (other than length), and then continuing to work on it. In practice most aren't looked at for a few days, & reviewers generally won't complain about this. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
talk
12:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • None Support rigid enforcement of 7-day rule. We currently have an issue with different editors applying different interpretations of fairly clear guidelines and rules, frequently invoking cryptic precedents from a mythic past to override various DYK guidelines. The result is the emergence of a self-recognized class of Archons who have declared themselves keepers of the arcana of DYK (y'all know who you are). This situation is utterly bizarre and entirely inefficient. Let's mean what we say and say what we mean. LavaBaron (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • What is already there: There already is a bit of a grace period, if the backlog isn't severe. Plus, there's always some discrepancies with time zones which often grants several hours of grace period. I'm sympathetic to Piotrus's concerns, however. Perhaps if the students then reviewed each others nominations after creating nominations?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's realistic to expect students (like any new editors) to competently review another DYK, through I am more than happy to do it myself (but as an editor, not instructor, as I also wouldn't expect an average instructor to know much about DYK reviewing). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I have routinely allowed up to about a month's leeway on the time limit for new contributors who overlooked that requirement. I've never allowed a user the same leeway twice, as they shouldn't need to be informed a second time. And I am, at the very least, struggling to see why we should make allowance for more than one very late article for a new contributor. Gatoclass (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

(ltdr except for Gatoclass above). As long as we don't think we are being gamed then I agree with Gato. Be nice to newbies and bend the rules to help Victuallers (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
What's really wrong with 7 days? Mhhossein (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
It's too short of a period for new editors to operate within. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Gatoclass and Victuallers. Strict enforcement of rules is bad enough for arbitration, we can help newbies by looking at DYK rules as guidelines. When a nomination has no other problem than being not new enough, I would welcome it. If there are severe other problems, rejecting it by "not new enough" is a way that saves the time of the reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Personally I'd like to see the 7-day requirement made a 30-day requirement, but the RFC I initiated on that point failed to gain consensus. I completely agree that if it's a new or newish editor, there should be more of a grace period around their articles. ~
problem solving
14:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: What would people think about making the rule 30 days for brand-new nominators, but for a maximum of five articles, after which the standard seven-day rule would apply? More specifically, once an editor knows about DYK and has nominated articles they created (or 5x expanded or promoted to GA) within the past 30 days, any articles they begin working on subsequent to those nominations would fall under the 7-day rule. Also, there would be an arbitrary time limit of, say, 48 or 72 hours from when they make their first overdue nomination to make any other overdue nominations that fall within the 30-day window.

  • Example 1: Editor 1 creates one article on October 10 and another on October 20, taking ten days to get each one to the point that they're happy with it, and working in mainspace rather than draft space because they don't know that will affect their DYK eligibility. On October 25 they find out about DYK and nominate both articles. (Under the standard rule, only the second article would have been eligible, and only if editor 1 had worked in draftspace until they thought the article was ready.) This is still new content, and still the kind of editor we should be encouraging, I think. However, now that our hypothetical editor 1 has made their first two nominations, they know that seven days is the standard limit for time between article creation (or expansion or GA promotion) and nomination, so it's reasonable to expect them to follow that rule with future articles they create.
  • Example 2: Editor 2 creates an article every three days starting October 10. On October 30 they find out about DYK and nominate all 6 of the articles they've created. The first five get a pass on the 7-day rule, because editor 3 didn't know about DYK at the time they were created. The 6th is okay, too, because it's nominated 2 days after it was created.
  • Example 3: Editor 3 creates 3 articles on October 10, another 3 articles on October 11, and a further 3 articles on October 12, and then takes a two-week break from Wikipedia. When they get back, they notice the DYK section on the main page and discover how to nominate their own articles. Under my proposal, editor 3 would have to choose just 5 of the articles they had created to nominate — they couldn't get the 30-day extension for all nine articles.
  • Example 4: Editor 4 creates one article on October 10 and another article on October 15. On October 25 they find out about DYK and nominate the second article. Four days later they decide they want to also nominate the first article after all... but it's too late; they knew about the seven-day rule and didn't nominate the article when they had the chance.

If indeed some new users have been granted approximately a month's leeway with their first nominations in the past, then, if we're going to continue granting such leeway, it seems that it would be fairer (and less confusing) to have a formal rule about that practice, rather than it being just a discretion call on the part of whoever happens to look at a particular nomination.

Pinging @

talk
06:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You go for arbcom candidate the right way, it's the place where simple things are made complicated ;) - Why not leave the rules as they are and be lenient as I described. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in theory. The proposal needs a little streamlining, but I fundamentally like the idea a first-timer gets a relaxed version of the requirements, not unlike their waiver from QPQ. LavaBaron (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Don't we have enough rules already? I think I'd prefer it if we just kept it mostly informal. Perhaps a word or two to say that the requirement can be waived for new users who have yet to participate in DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @Gatoclass: I'd prefer to keep it informal, but I had to take this here because we already have rules-stickers saying stuff along the lines of "there is no rule allowing exception, so I am not agreeing to this nomination being passed." Sadly, without a newbie-friendly rule, we risk having some of them trashed by the newbie-unfriendly rule-enforces. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, but I'd keep it simple: first five articles to be eligible for 30 days, then regular rules apply. Isn't the first five also excluded from QPQ reviews? Let's keep it synchronized. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose If it ain't broke don't fix it. We have flexibility under present rules. We can do it, but we don't need a rule. However, waiver should be a relatively rare occurrence, depending on equities and exigent circumstance.
If it is a new article which had to be reviewed before going live, then the editor has an unlimited time to fine tune it. Just as one can do in their Sandbox. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Allowing five sounds complicated. It could be hard for the editors themselves, to keep track, as some DYK's might be rejected or delayed or overlap. Would five allow just applications, or accepted DYKs? If the editor has two pending DYKs that would use up their 5th allowed, do they get to choose which one gets the DYK. Maybe there could be a tracking page. Etc.... Perhaps allowance of one time (as Gatoclass has allowed) could be put into a rule, but not any other number. --doncram 14:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC) (I am not currently a DYK participant, so feel free to discount my comment)
  • Comment: The previous discussion to change the 7-day limit to a 30-day limit fizzled out. Wouldn't it just be simpler (and better) to have a 30-day limit on all DYK noms? It's not as if we're drowning in good hooks, is it? Better too many quality hooks than not enough. Edwardx (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: K.I.S.S., the DYK rules are already much too complex and this only adds to the mess. Make judgments on a case by case basis, and once a new member is informed of the 7 day rule, the have the option of working within that time frame.--Kevmin § 15:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Support a loose enforcement of the time limit. It doesn't matter at all to the readers how old the material is so why should we reject good quality contributions just because they don't meet a completely arbitrary internal time limit. Why not make it 14 or 30 days? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have nominated a fair number of student articles, but if I missed the deadline I left it out. But I think we should show some lenience for the first self nomination of a person. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support for 5-nom proposal. Since the QPQ requirement is waived, I could see this requirement being waved as well. Currently, it seems that we already grant some leniency for the first one or two noms, so, if GrammarFascist's proposal doesn't go through, our current practice should be made explicit.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: K.I.S.S., It aint broke, IAR covers this. Who wants this rule? This vote seems to be those people who want to keep the same amount of leeway and those who oppose because we have that amount of leeway. We are passing a rule to say that the sun needs to rise in the morning except when its foggy. Aint broke guys. Victuallers (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the proposed five-article limit. It's just going to further complicate the rules IMO. I think everyone is probably entitled to some leeway on their first nomination. I think we could add something to that effect to the rules without unduly complicating things. That would, for example, enable users to nominate articles of other users who have never participated in DYK, as it would give more time for eligible articles to be identified and for the creator to respond, as Piotrus has noted. Gatoclass (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • AFKM Oppose Seven days is plenty and any well-deserving exceptions can be dealt with on an ad hoc basis per WP:IAR and WP:BURO. — LlywelynII 23:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Prep 4

@

The Almost Impossible Game Show (in the quirky slot) does not reflect the description in the article. In the article, the first trick is described as "shaking a croissant off their suit". The second trick is described as catching the teabag in a cup that is attached to their crotch. Yoninah (talk
) 21:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for the oversight. Perhaps we should change "shake croissants off their crotches" to "shake croissants off their suits"? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have amended the article in the first instance, in the second I suggest:
ALT2: ... that challengers in
The Almost Impossible Game Show not only have to shake croissants off their crotches, but must also thrust teabags into cups attached to their crotches? I have amended Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 to that effect.--Launchballer
22:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
This makes me very uncomfortable. Aside from the fact that nominators should not be making changes to their hooks in prep, looking at the article I see that the hook comes from the article author viewing the show and writing what he saw. There don't seem to be any reliable secondary sources—the British Comedy Guide is a by-fans-for-fans site, Bother's Bar is a blog, and UKGameshows.com is a wiki—and the bulk of the sourcing is three different episodes of the show. I think, under the circumstances, this should not be in prep, and needs to be pulled back for further consideration. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I commented on the sourcing issues at the article's DYK nomination template. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Darejan Dadiani

Just wanted to make an observation re the hook for Darejan Dadiani, currently on the main page. According to her biography, this interesting woman exerted a lot of political influence, including initiating an end to primogeniture in Georgia - plus, her policies led to the annexation of Georgia by Russia. With all of this, couldn't we have found a better fact than the number of children she had? (Which is not even close to the record.) It's discouraging to see, and I hope we would be moving away from defining a woman by her family instead of by her accomplishments. Hopefully we will change such hooks if they come up again. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

"Defining"? It was just an interesting fact... --PFHLai (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Pic in pic

Hello, all. The photo in Prep 1 now shows a painting and the painter in the photo. While we have a license for the photo, do we need a separate license for the artwork within the photo? It doesn't look like the photographer and the painter are the same person. I hope we don't have to wait till that person is dead for 70+ years before we can use the photo, but I thought I should ask first. Thanks for your advice. --PFHLai (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

According to the
OTRS has received appropriate permissions from both the photographer and painter. As at least two experienced OTRS volunteers have reviewed the submitted permissions ([12] and [13]), everything should be good to go unless you have a specific reason to doubt the provided permissions. --Allen3 talk
23:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Allen3. I didn't realize that permissions were granted for both photo and painting. No problems now. Thanks, again. --PFHLai (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra Day: Dec 12th

I propose we make December 12th 2015 a "100 Years" of Frank Sinatra Day for DYK and host his main article, recently promoted to GA status, and other related articles for 24 hours on the day. It is his centenary, and being such a massive figure I think we can justify DYK dedicated to him for a day. Miyagawa has expressed an interest, but we need further contributors to expand or create a few articles which can be gathered under the special holding section. Perhaps we could do something different just for a day, a different format for DYK or something to glamorize it as it is Sinatra. I think a Vegas-style gold header for Sinatra instead of the usual bland DYK green header or something like that would be a cool idea for a change.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The following are red links in his article, some of which may be potential DYK articles. Any help creating them would be most appreciated. If we have enough articles we could show a batch for 12 hours and another for 12 hours and keep the main Sinatra article constant.

  1. Hank Sanicola - tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Artanis Records - on it Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)
    16:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Gus Levene
  4. Say It (Frank Sinatra song)
  5. Oh! What it Seemed to Be
    (song)
  6. Hollywood Plaza Hotel
  7. Riobamba Club - working on it. Yoninah (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Yoninah, I didn't see this here. I marked it from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki link. Please feel free to do whatever you want to it. Certainly plenty there for a DYK hook. SusunW (talk
    ) 23:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  8. Jim Byron Done! :) Miyagawa (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  9. Maxine Cheshire
  10. Jack Entratter Done, awaiting collaboration before DYK nom.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  11. Kauai County Fair
  12. Burt Boyer

If anybody is interested, now is the time to expand a few articles, particularly his most notable albums and songs! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Yosef Karduner

BLP article currently at prep 2, but the article has an unsourced section.

sst✈
discuss
 14:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I added a source and removed the tag. Yoninah (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Prep 3

"that Sugar Hollow Creek and South Branch Roaring Run are Class A Wild Trout Waters, but are entirely on private land"

Is there any reason why this is "but"? Is there a reason to suppose that "Class A Wild Trout Waters" should be on public land? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I cant work out why they even exist as articles. Is there some aspect of notability I am missing? Aslo whats notable about them being Class A Wild Trout Waters, is wild trout particularly rare? Is it unsualy to be a class A? Are there thousands of Class A Trout Waters? Or just 3? Who knows, because neither of the articles go into any detail and neither do the associated articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
It seems that a lot of the DYK noms about Pennsylvania creeks use the term "Class A Wild Trout Waters" but there doesn't seem to be any article that defines that term or talks about
problem solving
15:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Suggest this is pulled until an actually interesting or notable hook can be determined. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Meanwhile, Class A Wild Trout Streams are, "Streams that support a population of wild (natural reproduction) trout of sufficient size and abundance to support a long-term and rewarding sport fishery."
problem solving
15:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The fact that we don't have an article on this trout fishing classification, it makes the hook almost impossible for a passing editor to get their head around, it's really a case of "so what?". Pull it and rework a decent hook that can be understood by our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Hold your horses, I'm writing one right now. --
talk
) aka Jakec 15:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
That's fine, but the hook shouldn't have been passed without such an article existing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
And now there is one. Funny how you keep pushing me to write all sorts of useful articles that I wouldn't have otherwise made --
talk
) aka Jakec 18:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Trout Water Classifications". Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. Retrieved 11 November 2015.

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us through the first three weeks of October. As of the most recent update, 114 nominations are approved, leaving 210 of 324 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones left over from August, September and the first half of October.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Women in Science hooks

It's nice to see so many women in science hooks ready for DYK. But too many of them emphasize that the subject is "the first". This is going to start sounding pretty redundant... Yoninah (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that also. I've been adding ALT hooks that focus on the woman's career. Even if the nomination has already been approved, can't hurt to add alternative hooks. — Maile (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding hooks for April Fool's Day

Earlier today, I

T:TDYK? Thanks in advance for your help. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk
) 18:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Leave a note in the nomination requesting it to be held for then, it will then be sequestered off by another reviewer in time. GRAPPLE X 18:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I have made the move to the holding area. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

DYKSTATS Tool

The WMF recently made their views data available via an API. I was casting about for a use for it and thought of DYK stats. The current stats are taken from a tool that doesn't count mobile views, and requires people to calculate totals manually (which can sometimes be confusing). So I mocked up a tool on Tool Labs to basically do it for us. Here is an example of its output. It's very simplistic for now (although with decent safeguards). But if there is demand and people like it I'll tidy things up to be a bit nicer. --Errant (chat!) 14:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, very good! It's easy to use. I can see where it would be very helpful. — Maile (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll second that! I've just tried it with Waste House, a recent DYK of mine for which I couldn't get the stats using the conventional method because 12th October's were missing, and it has brought back these results. With regard to the actual purpose of the tool, compared with the existing tool I can see that extra views have indeed been counted on the day before and after. Good stuff! Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 15:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
It's been interesting, as an aside, comparing the additional numbers that including mobile views bring. So far it looks like ~10%. --Errant (chat!) 15:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Very nice and useful tool! Sorry for sounding greedy, but I was wondering if you can create a similar tool that counts the views for the whole day (24 hours) for use with
discuss
 01:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I'll happily expand it to produce more than one type of statistic. Leave it with me.... --Errant (chat!) 09:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_118&oldid=1142511177"