This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
WP:NAUTHOR, which rests upon how we treat Deseret News. Given that the LDS church owns the paper, and that Kilpack seems to want to be known as a member, I'm hesitant. Willing to be persuaded, though. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk
) 12:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:POINTy then they will usually manage to do so. --Allen3talk
Of the 17 sources used, the Utah Valley Writers is a dead link "account suspended". One is the author's personal website. 7 are the Deseret News, and one is the "LDS Writer's Market". The Whitney Awards are directly affiliated with the LDS church. The Trina Boice reference appears to be self published according to World Cat, and the associated ISBN number in the article doesn't point to anything I can find.
She might be notable, but I think sources not owned by LDS is a good idea, to avoid this looking like a publicity from LDS. The author's own website is primary and should not be used as a source. Utah Valley Writers definitely needs to be replaced with a link that works. — Maile (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I have been working to get this article up to snuff, and I cannot find much non-LDS coverage for a Mormon novelist. However, the Standard-Examiner cited several times in the article is not an LDS source. Yoninah (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Allen3:, Maile pretty much said what I was thinking. On the balance I do believe she is notable, but I think we could do a slightly better job of demonstrating that. I would treat an LDS owned newspaper as perfectly reliable in most cases, but where they also gain publicity from the piece, I hesitate a little. I would do the same for any newspaper. I hope this better explains why I posted here. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 I knew exactly what you meant. We have a fairly recent editor here who just happens to like producing articles related to Mormon people and subject matter. No problem with that idea at all. The editor just needs to get used to finding sourcing in addition to the LDS ones. — Maile (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
My comment was actually directed at @Allen3:, but thanks for understanding. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I have updated the ISBN on the book. I also removed the Utah Valley Writers reference and replaced it with a new source. I will use more caution in the future when using Deseret News as a source. Amgisseman(BYU) (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2016 (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:
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.
Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
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, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Now over an hour overdue. Admin needed to promoted a prep to queue as soon as possible. (All preps are filled!) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so here's a new list of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through July 8. Some of these entries have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. As of the most recent update, 53 nominations have been approved, leaving 145 of 198 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones left over from June, which continue to need a reviewer.
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) 04:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Prep 1
that mathematician Sergei Nikolaevich Chernikov already had the first of his five department chairs before defending his DSc in 1940?
Perhaps I'm just dim, but (a) I certainly don't understand what "defending one's DSc" means, and (b) I don't understand at all what makes this claim so remarkable or even vaguely interesting? For such a legend of maths, this hook leaves me cold. But perhaps I am alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
If I'm not wrong, it's saying that he was made chair of a department before he has completed the equivalent of his doctorate (or thereabouts). Which is quite unusual in academia (I've never heard of such before) but I doubt that anybody outside academia would find it terribly interesting. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Surely there's some potential in the fact that he worked as a laborer and driver before becoming a mathematician? "...that Sergei Nikolaevich Chernikov worked as a driver after secondary school, and went on to become head of mathematics at five different universities?" Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
That's far more interesting and accessible. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
pinging @Cwmhiraeth: who promoted the hook: I would not feel okay pulling this myself. Thoughts, Cwmhiraeth? Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Like TRM, I wondered what defending a DSc meant. There is nothing basically wrong with the present hook, but a more interesting hook could be found. Either what Vanamonde93 suggests, or how about "... that Sergei Nikolaevich Chernikov was considered to be "one of the pioneers of linear programming"?" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The hook is certainly factual, but I think any of the suggested alternatives are a vast improvement on the interest level and accessibility level. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh well, we had some good ideas, but nothing was done about it and it moved untouched from prep to queue to main page. How depressing. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Problems on the nomination page
I notice these two problems on the nominations page:
The nomination for
El Gran Destafio (2011)
brings up an empty page.
The nomination for Hoi Tong Monastery has got mixed up with the following nomination.
Expert help needed! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
With respect to the first of those; the nomination page is
Template:Did you know nominations/El Gran Destafio (2011). There must be something wrong with the transclusion, because it displays okay at T:TDYK, but the "review/comment" link goes to Template:Did you know nominations/El Gran Desafio (2011), which is a redlink. The fact that the article was moved from the former title to the latter might have something to do with it. Vanamonde (talk
) 10:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Destafio is a spelling mistake. The word is desafío, if that's any help. Awien (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Nominated under the wrong name, article was moved, but looks like DYK template was not? MPJ-DK 11:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I think I fixed the Gran Desafio issue. MPJ-DK 12:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
MPJ-DK, I notice you moved the template to solve this issue. Templates aren't supposed to be moved. Messes up something in the system. BlueMoonset can you add something here? — Maile (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah dang I did not know that, anything I can do to fix it? MPJ-DK 12:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
It's probably a simple fix, but I've never done it. I mistakenly moved a template years ago, but someone else fixed it for me. Best to wait now for someone who knows more about this glitch. — Maile (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The 2011 was a fairly simple fix—most was done by MPJ-DK after the move to the nomination template and the nominations transclusion—but a similar move to the 2009 left things in a mess, which I've just fixed. Remember, folks, if the article is moved, don't move the DYK nomination, but mention on the template that the move has occurred, so the wikignomes can do the necessary fixes. That way nothing needs to be done to the DYK nomination transclusion, and fewer changes are needed to the actual nomination template. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The Hoi Tong Monastery problem has been resolved. Had nothing to do with that nomination. The one right below that Priscilla Nzimiro was the problem. Where the template stated "Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line." a lot of people wrote below that line. When the nomination was closed, everything below the line remained on the nominations page with nothing to connect it to. — Maile (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
A reminder to all prep set builders: when you approve a nomination template, check it in Preview first: if there are comments hanging out below the bottom of the blue "closed" section, move them back inside the template (and check again) before saving the promoted template. That prevents problems like this one. (I had to fix one just yesterday that had dozens of lines outside the template, and thus showing up on the nominations page and making very confusing reading. Thanks—a few extra seconds to check saves boatloads of confusion later. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
"Kairana and Kandhla migration row ... refers to the migration of families from Kairana and Kandhla during 2014–16, allegedly due to extortion and looting by goons of gangster Mukim Kala."
Goons? Describing a living person as a gangster with no sources? (he and his "goons" aren't mentioned again in the article).
Less of an issue (but still a bar to it being linked from the main page), this is a very poor article, littered with terrible English and grammar ("Hukum Singh had also requested him for the same", "Naseemuddin Siddiqui blamed BJP and said that it was doing drama over the issue"), using native terms that aren't explained or linked ("Sangeet Som organised Nirbhay Padyatra from his constituency. Before he could reach Kairana, police stopped him. After some initial disagreement, Som ended his yatra"). I was no wiser after reading it as to any detail of what it was about or why it was important, apart from being some minor local political disagreement. Laura Jamieson (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, while some reviewers favour a "light touch" when it comes to passing hooks, usually based on just checking the hook itself and ignoring the rest of the article, I'm with Laura in that the articles themselves must be up to a certain standard and not full of jargon, grammar errors, poor English, BLP issues etc. Suggest this hook is pulled and the nom re-opened. ASAP. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I was the one who reviewed this. The language is definitely sub-par. However, I searched through web news sources before approving it; and the only characterizations of the individual in question are "criminal," "gang leader," etc (all of these from sources currently in the article). The sentence TRM points out is based on the reference at the end of the next sentence. That reference, from an excellent news source, has the sub-heading "Nearly 350 families have reportedly fled from Uttar Pradesh's Kairana city since 2014 due to repeated extortion and threat calls from gangster Mukim Kala." Likewise, the language at the bottom of the page contains some native terms but which are used in the source material. My familiarity with articles on Indian politics perhaps led to my ignoring those. So pull the hook and reopen the review, by all means, but the constraints I pointed out remain. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
TRM, I've copy-edited the page, and during that added links or more detail to a lot of the local terminology. Take a look. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
This is better, but I'm still not understanding (a) why it's important, or (b) why this is even a notable topic. We don't even know that the main issue is even true; as the article says, many people dispute it and even Singh admitted he had not checked the veracity of his list (indeed source 6 says much of it is wrong, yet the lead suggests it is correct). This is the danger of having articles on local political disagreements throughout the world; sources disagree so much that writing a neutral article is very difficult, especially with ones where the facts are as unclear as this one. Laura Jamieson (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm still with Laura, it's a struggle. It's also notable that the actual country to which this is relevant (i.e. India) doesn't even appear in the lead. I still suggest taking this out and having some time to reflect on how best to present these kinds of hooks to our general audience (most of whom, let's be honest, won't get it AT ALL). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2016 (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.
... that Norwich City Football Club joint majority shareholders Michael Wynn-Jones and Delia Smith had the least net worth of any owners in the 2015–16 Premier League?
Joseph2302, Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah This claim is referenced by the Mirror and the Star, neither of which is a reliable source. The claim is probably true, but please fix the sourcing before this gets to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it is the least good of the three approved hooks, inquiring into people's net worth being a pretty low form of undertaking beloved by the reptile press. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Well whichever hook replaces it, please ensure RS's are used to cite it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The closing reviewer said that any of the hooks were fine, and frankly, the rest of the hooks were pretty ho-hum. As this is now in the queue, we non-administrators can't change the hook. Could an administrator return it to the main noms page for further work? Yoninah (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth If you think that "inquiring into people's net worth being a pretty low form of undertaking beloved by the reptile press", then why did you approve all the hooks originally then? And ALT1 and ALT2 are supported by better sources, such as broadsheet newspapers. Joseph2302 09:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Please fix this nomination so we don't have proposers arguing with promoters and bad sources being used. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Hi, I've been offline for a day and didn't see this hook in prep. Could someone please explain why the words in this hook are in quotes ... and why it is hooky?
... that Irene Barnes Taeuber "helped found the science of demography"?
It seems it's in quotes because it's word-for-word from the source. Maybe @David Eppstein: who wrote the article can offer some insight. I guess it's hooky because she and her husband Conrad Taeuber sort of invented the science of demography. Where would the census people be without it?— Maile (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
It is indeed a quote, hence the quote marks. Removing them would cause it to become plagiarism. As for why it's hooky: demography is an important area of study and practice. Did you already know who its founders were? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Just thinking of all those (millions?) of Wikipedia geographical articles that list demographics in their content.— Maile (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
What I mean is that the words are so simple, you could paraphrase them yourself. Meanwhile, I'm looking at the article and seeing the hook fact only in the lead. It is sourced, but it should be fleshed out in the body of the article, no? Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
What, I should embellish the quote, add more quotey words to it, to make a longer version of the quote that would appear in the text of the article so that the lead quote could be a summary of it? That's...not how quotes work, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Well at the least, the quote should be repeated in the main body and expanded upon, i.e. discussed encyclopedically. I agree that the hook is dull, and the quote is unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Seeking input about the notion of reducing the point size to small text for the DYKReviewBot entries in DYK nominations. Is it just me, or does the significant extra information make it more difficult to read through all of the entries on the main DYK nominations page? A reduced point size will make it easier to discern between bot- and human-generated content. Another idea is to use {{
collapsebottom}} along with the small point size for the DYKReviewBot entries in DYK nominations. Pinging Intelligentsium who developed the script. Below are examples, using content from this DYK nomination. North America1000
22:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Using small point size
No issues found with article, ready for human review.
✓ This article is new and was created on 20:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 2246 characters
✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
✓ A copyright violation is unlikely (2.9% confidence; confirm)
Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
(Note: This would look nice left-aligned, but having difficulties in accomplishing this.)
DYKReviewBot content
No issues found with article, ready for human review.
✓ This article is new and was created on 20:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 2246 characters
✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
✓ A copyright violation is unlikely (2.9% confidence; confirm)
Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
Using the {{Collapse}} template, with content expanded.
DYKReviewBot content
No issues found with article, ready for human review.
✓ This article is new and was created on 20:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 2246 characters
✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
✓ A copyright violation is unlikely (2.9% confidence; confirm)
Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
Do you think it might be helpful to move this discussion to Requests for approval/DYKReviewBot? It's in a trial phase, and this would be useful on the bot's request for approval page. — Maile (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
It's unlikely that many people will see that discussion, whereas those that are involved in DYK are highly likely to see the discussion here. So, I've added a link to this discussion on that page (diff). North America1000 22:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I'm neutral on this. If it gets shrunk, fine. If not, fine. There are a lot of nominations that have lengthy talk threads that go on and on and on. However, having the review bot make the type size smaller would have it more noticeable so it wouldn't be overlooked. — Maile (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Interesting point about the smaller point size preventing the bot content from being overlooked, which I didn't consider. This makes sense, so that the content in nominations is varied, preventing it from appearing as one long wall of text. North America1000 22:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Even better if had a little box (border) around it to set it apart, somewhat like it looks above in the box you collapsed. That might be too much to ask for, tho. — Maile (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
This can also be done. See the "Using collapse" section I just added above. North America1000 23:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
North America see this. Looks like you're not the only one with this concern. — Maile (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Thus far, I personally like the "Using collapse box" option to collapse the content entirely, which will significantly reduce the length of the nominations page and make it much easier to read. All users have to do to view the content is select "show" in the box. North America1000 23:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
One other thing brought up at the BRFA was to noinclude this section, so it appears in the review, but not in aggregated reviews. — xaosfluxTalk 23:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I share Northamerica1000's concern about wading through reams of copy to find nominations to promote, and said as much on the bot review page. A collapsible box sounds very good. Yoninah (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)nom
I'll add <noinclude> tags to prevent bot reviews from cluttering the nominations page or impacting load time for slow connections. However, I'm a bit wary of collapsing the comments, especially if there are issues that need to be addressed as I'd like those to be immediately visible to the nominator and to reviewers. I'm also open to making the font smaller if this doesn't present an accessibility issue (which other users are more qualified to comment on than I am) Intelligentsium 00:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations to me!
Thank you to The C of E who just noticed that my DYK hook for Tiffany Trump is the most viewed non-lead DYK in the history of the world! (Unfortunately, I don't think my current DYK double-review restrictions will allow me to unilaterally make edits to the stats page, so you'll have to take my word for it.) Barnstars or general salutations can be placed on my Talk page for those so inclined. This is a very positive note to retire on and I appreciate all the reviewers, promoters, admins, etc. who helped make this possible.
For the article Tiffany Trump to receive this honor just goes to show that, truly, anyone can successfully contribute to WP even with very little knowledge or, in fact, no knowledge at all. My advice to all of you is to never stop dreaming and reach for the stars. Thanks again, everyone! LavaBaron (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Very true @LavaBaron:. I remember when I once held that honour of having the highest viewed non-lead DYK (and I also held with the most viewed lead simultaneously for a little while), I knew little about American law yet was able to write a decent article on a small lawsuit that took the title. Everyone editing should heed the advice given above. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations. The bulk of the hits on that page will have been due to her appearance at the Republication convention and so LavaBaron got lucky in that DYK scheduled it at the same time. But his development of the article will have meant that all those readers – about a million of them – got to read a page which was more accurate and polished than it would have been otherwise. Kudos. Andrew D. (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I just took a look at the page and feel that it really lacks a good picture. Surely the Queen of Instagram can spare us something? LavaBaron's next challenge is to obtain a good selfie or similar which we can use on the page. :) Andrew D. (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
That sounds like a great idea, Andrew. I'll get on it. She really is our Princess Di. LavaBaron (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@LavaBaron: The page views for your hook may actually be only half as much, as Tiffany Trump was already receiving over 100,000 views the day before (and after?). You need to do the formula VX − (VX−1 + VX+1) to determine how many page views came from the DYK hook. Yoninah (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it is actually VX − (VX−1 + VX+1) / 2. EdChem (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2016 (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:
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.
Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
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
) 10:54, 27 July 2016 (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:
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.
Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
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, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
With DYKBot, how much of a review is necessary for a QPQ?
I just promoted this nomination after doing the regular double-checking for the DYK criteria. Now that we have the DYK bot listing all the criteria, I'm wondering if this reviewer's sketchy review can be considered enough for a QPQ? Yoninah (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
In general, I think it's probably a good idea for community discussion on this very subject. On the one hand, the bot is at least checking for basics. That's a good thing. Really good. On the other hand, it doesn't check for things like grammar, spelling and whether or not an article even makes sense. Does the bot check against whether or not the sources are verifiable and not OR? It's also a good idea for a human to be reviewing the copyvio check, even a spot check. Both the Earwig tool and Dup Detector sometimes miss the obvious. — Maile (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
It's definitely important to have this discussion. A major motivating factor for the bot was to shift the focus of reviews away from checking off things like "are there enough characters in the article?" / "What day was the article created?" and towards a more holistic, content-based review. The thoroughness of the review certainly should not go down - in my mind this means checking the spelling, doing a copyedit, commenting on the quality and quantity of sources, etc. (I hope it goes without saying that the reviewer should still at the very least fully read each article!). Should we think about amending the various pages explaining how to do a review (which currently emphasize the bot-verifiable criteria, the less objective criteria less so) Intelligentsium 00:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we should revise the instructions on the edit page to emphasize the things that aren't covered by the bot. I'd say the human reviewer should focus on the following:
Are the sources reliable?
Does the text reflect the sources, especially the hook fact?
Is the article neutral? Is the selection of sources unbiased?
Are there cut-and-paste or close paraphrasing copyvios not caught by Earwig?
Grammar and spelling is a really important check, I think. — Maile (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so here's a new list of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through July 16. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. As of the most recent update, 42 nominations have been approved, leaving 137 of 179 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones left over from June and early July, which continue to need a reviewer.
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) 05:40, 30 July 2016 (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:
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.
Once completed edit queue #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
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
) 22:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Now overdue. Admin needed to promote a prep to queue. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
70-article wrestling hooks
Now that MPJ-DK has graciously broken up his 70-article nom into smaller hooks, it seems that every day we're featuring a hook about a professional wrestler being shaved bald and having to remove his mask. I'm wondering if there is any way we can vary the content of the remaining hooks? Yoninah (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
They are nearly all used up, so we can just spread them out a bit. I think we made the wrong decision in turning down the 70 article hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Things should change in 2 to 3 days. The Olympics start on Friday and with the plethora of sports related hooks in the special occasion holding area it is hard to see more than a couple articles about non-Olympic wrestling making a set until after the closing ceremonies. --Allen3talk 10:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
We should just not promote hooks which aren't interesting, like many of the Pennsylvania river hooks in the past and many of the wrestling hooks now. Certainly when, like in this case, so much of the articles are copied from one to another.
So 1) You cannot have it both ways, I have bent over backwards already so I am really looking forward to another discussion - you asked for it, now you complain that you get it, sorry but not sorry at all here. 2) I proved in great detail that there is enough unique text in each article to still qualify for DYK so can we please move on from that discussion? and 3) "Boring" is so subjective it's hard to please everyone, especially considering I've had several comments that "I don't think I'd ever find a wrestling hook interesting". Sorry to sound fed up, but that's because I am close to it. What "further work" is needed on "El Castillo del Terror (December 2008)"? In this case, the fact that his lost his mask, then his hair in short order is unusual for lucha libre, and the hook by itself is just fine, because I specifically was told to flood the DYK with 60ish DYKs (I did not actually do all 70) some end up being a bit similar. Going forward any DYK I'd do would be spread out over time and not clumped together. MPJ-DK 12:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Look, it's our fault as prep promoters that these wrestling hooks are being promoted every other set. And I'm not saying the hooks are boring, just that they sound redundant. "Further work" means finding a different hook. Yoninah (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
No, they are boring, because both the hooks and the articles are just the same thing over and over again with paragraphs about what happened in the "match" (usually sourced to one website). I don't really even understand why individual matches are even notable; since professional wrestling is not a sport, but entertainment, it is like having an article about an individual run of a Broadway play, or a single concert by a band. Perhaps it's just me, I don't know. But we're certainly not educating our readers by repeating ourselves. We've had plenty already, let's put something different in DYK instead, it's not like there's any shortage of nominations. Laura Jamieson (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
So they're not boring individually but because they are close together? I get the feeling that I'm on a wild goose chase here as the goal posts keep moving on me. But at least you're clearly stating your bias by suggesting not doing Lucha Libre hooks, points for honesty I guess? MPJ-DK 14:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
And yes Yoniah I'll take a look at the Castillo hook to see what I can come up with. MPJ-DK 14:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Side note - compare each show to an episode of a TV show, I believe we've got plenty of those on Wikipedia. MPJ-DK 14:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Outdenting to delineate Hook suggestion from general discussion. Since the template is locked I did not want to update it, so here are a couple of other suggestions that may be able to replace it. MPJ-DK 14:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the new suggestions, MPJ-DK. I went ahead and reopened the nomination so we won't have to involve an administrator if the prep set is promoted to a queue. Yoninah (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
September 8: Star Trek Anniversary
Hello everyone, as you may have noticed we're starting to build up a host of Star Trek related hooks in readiness for the 50th Anniversary on September 8 (not the 9th as I've previous said here). At present there are 10 already approved, with another three currently awaiting review, and several more at GA (including one of the series) that could yet be added. Over at Today's Featured Articles, I've nominated "The Man Trap" (the first episode broadcast) for the same day. Since the success of the Frank Sinatra sets on December 12 last year (see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 119#December 12: Frank Sinatra centenary), I've wanted to see if I could get a complete day for Star Trek on the 50th anniversary. So I wanted to make sure that people were aware that this was the intention, should anyone have any objections. We need 14 hooks in total for both sets, although my intention is to go over the number in order to give the promotor the ability to tailor some good sets rather than be stuck with whatever it is they've got. Like the Sinatra sets, the remaining hooks will be drop fed into non-specific sets over the following weeks and months. Unlike Sinatra, I don't have a single hook that I would suggest should be the lead on both sets. Miyagawa (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Support. Great job, Miyagawa! Since every hook is going to say "Star Trek", it really doesn't matter what the lead image is. You may want to involve more people in creating new content by posting a list of suggested articles on this page. Yoninah (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. I have a list in userspace I was using, so I'm going to copy and paste it into a subsection below. Miyagawa (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
[majestic titan]
23:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Support. Why not? Much more fun than Frank Sinatra! Awien (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Support - I know it's frowned upon to take up the DYK with one specific subject and then "take the room" for other hooks, but I for one am glad Miyagawa found a topic that seems to be acceptable, more power to you. MPJ-DK 22:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Support
[majestic titan]
23:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Support - We have a clear precedent, though I think that was one hook per set for about 36 hours... I'd say if we can't full the sets entirely, let's actually just shoot for several in each set... as if anything has to be pulled, i would be weird to have only one unrelated hook... Montanabw(talk) 04:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Aye, my intention was always to have at least a few more than needed in case of urgent replacement for some reason. Also, just to help the sets to still have some variety. Miyagawa (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Love it! Miyagawa (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
List of potential expansions/creations
This is a list I created... oooh I think it was last December with the idea that it might prompt me to expand some of these. As you can see, I've crossed out a couple as I've already expanded and nominated them - but as expected, other articles have come up because I've worked on linked articles and so there's still several here that haven't been done. Some of these were chosen because they were so short that they'd only need to be brought to 1500 characters to be a 5x expansion, while others were a little longer already but worthy of expansion because of their importance to Star Trek. There's also several Academy Award nominees in there for Trek related work - I had the thought that these could be compiled into a multi-article hook rather than repeat effectively the same claim for five or six different articles.
But this is just a very brief taster of a list I already had. There's still oodles of possibilities out there. By all means, add to the list. Miyagawa (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
We had a hook up just now – "... that initiation fees at
WP:ERROR but nothing was done. The figures stated in the article don't seem to add up to what's stated in the hook and, in any case, these initiation fees seem quite variable/negotiable and so are not really hard facts. We could perhaps use a post-mortem as to what went wrong there. And perhaps someone can explain the user name of the nominator – I'm just seeing it as a square (Ɱ) – an unprintable character, which is puzzling too. Andrew D. (talk
) 14:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
It looks like a hook that required a bit of SYNTH that might be allowed in the article body as routine calculations, but that said, I'm really not a fan of hooks that do include even allowable synth. The core fact element should be self-contained within a single reliable source (if not repeated in others), so that there's no issue that the fact may not be verified. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
It's hard to see how the figure was arrived at even with some SYNTH. The 2001 figure is said to be 250,000 (for a family). And it seems that you might get in without a fee now. That would be a drop of 250,000 not 150,000. Perhaps it was a typo? Andrew D. (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying: at least for the DYK hook, no SYNTH, even allowable calculations, should be allowed. The core fact should be a reasonable paraphrase or the like that I can pull from a single source and understand clearly without trying to read between the lines. If it was the case that the hook was a typo that then should have been easily caught when comparing to the original source. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the user name, the character Ɱ is U+2C6E LATIN CAPITAL LETTER M WITH HOOK: http://r12a.github.io/uniview/?charlist=%E2%B1%AE. In Firefox I see a square with its hex value 2C6E. Browser support is apparently limited. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ɱ: Pinging the article creator for input. 97198 (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
See the DYK nom. I didn't put that one forward, nor do I think synth is generally a problem. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi) 21:10, 2 August 2016 (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:
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.
Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
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
) 23:38, 2 August 2016 (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:
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.
Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
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,
@EditorE and Syfuel:The source actually says ""Dreamsong" is a pioneering work". A pioneer usually refers to a person or institution. While "pioneering" usually refers to an endeavor or a product. — Maile (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
@Maile66: Very useful comment! I change "pioneer" into the quote "pioneering work" for a more accurate description. editorEهեইдအ😎 12:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
@EditorE: OK. Thank you for your quick response. — Maile (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Notiomys AGF hook (prep 5)
... that before the 1990s, owls were more efficient at catching
This hook is based on this source but (for me) only page 135 and 138 are available on line, 136-167 are hidden. Cwmhiraeth, it looks as if the hook fact is based on the final paragraph of that source (page 138, starting from "until the end of the 1990s"): if so, it doesn't match the hook but involved your reinterpretation of the bare facts stated there (e.g. no mention is made of the number of relevant owl pellets found before 1990, only that they have since been used, next to traps, to find populations, without any mention which method gave the best result even then). Perhaps another paragraph discusses the same issue, but that seems strange: can you give some quotes that support the hook?
Pages 136 and 137 are available to me. The relevant sentence states "The low trapping success in areas where owls are apparently successful at catching them suggests that trap avoidance may be related to the use of traditional baits and traps." I mentioned the 1990s in the hook because the researchers seem to have been more successful since then, as mentioned in the final paragraph you mention. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. So, basically, you have nothing that states that owl trappings were used before the 1990s, only the sentence that states that after the 1990s, more locations were found by using owl pellets (and other methods). The success since the 1990s may be because of the owls, not the opposite as your hook suggests (owls before 1990s, other methods since). Probably the owls are still more efficient in any case.
I'm not really following your arguments well. Before the 1990s, researchers tried to trap these mice, largely unsuccessfully, but knew they were present in the area because they found their remains in owl pellets. In later years, the researchers were more successful in trapping the mice and were able to record many more locations at which they were present. I thought it all quite amusing! I am happy with both article and hook, my only doubt being whether the hook should use the word "efficient" or whether "effective" would be better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
"Before the 1990s, researchers tried to trap these mice, largely unsuccessfully, but knew they were present in the area because they found their remains in owl pellets." Evidence? This is not in the sentence you quoted nor in the paragraph I referenced. "In later years, the researchers were more successful in trapping the mice and were able to record many more locations at which they were present." Evidence? Again, this is not said in either part of the source. One can just as easily read the sources and think that until the 1990s, they worked with traps and only found 8 locations, but afterwards they started dissecting owl pellets and by that method found 42 more. Or, probably, that by using traps and pellets, they found 8 populations until 1998, but with the same methods used more intensively, found another 42 since. Please indicate the sentence(s) which reveal to you that improved traps have replaced (or at least outdone) the owls as best method, as it isn't available in what I have read so far.
Well, Patton says "trap avoidance may be related to the use of traditional baits and traps", implying that modern methods would have been more successful. The hook refers to "before the 1990s" and says nothing about what has happened since. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
So you have no evidence for your SYNTH hook. This isn't the first time either (e.g. the recent bioluminescense hook, also discussed here). Please stick to the facts when writing a hook, don't present your own (perhaps correct but unsupported) interpretation of them as a hook or in the article. I'll pull the hook and reopen the discussion.
I now see that this was already on the Main Page for five hours, so I have pulled it from there and won't reopen the discussion, as it has had its moment of glory, FWIW. So, over the last days, I have raised one incorrect hook on WP:ERRORS where it stayed for five hours or so before the hook expired, without reaction: and I have discussed a hook here while still in prep, only to see it on the main page less than 12 hours later. I'll go back to "pull immediately, discuss afterwards" as that gives much better results, despite some complaints when I do this.
You have not demonstrated an "Error". I think your arguments above are entirely without foundation, and that you have acted inappropriately by removing this hook from the front page. Does anybody else have a view on this? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
You couldn't even get the length of the animal right in the article. You have demonstrated over and over again that your articles and hooks have way too many fundamental errors, and that you are hardly capable of understanding your errors when they are explained to you. Usually, after some debacle, you show some improvement, but you always return to the same behaviour. You don't even understand the difference between "before 1998" and "before the 1990s", it seems. You have not provided that even one of the 8 locations found before 1998 was caused by studying owl pellets. Sources like [11] and [12] strongly suggest that owl pellet study in this case was mainly (exclusively?) done after 1998, not before. "Based on a large sample, mostly recovered from owl pellets but including trapped individuals, we refine the known geographic distribution of this mouse (providing 20 new contemporary recording localities and four fossil occurrences)" (2008 source) There is nothing that supports your hook.
You couldn't even get the length of the animal right in the article either. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, you gave 86mm total length, I gave 137mm (quite a difference for such a small animal). [13]. All sources make it clear that the head + body is about 80-96mm, with the tail about 40-41mm.
I think the pull was fine, I think the original hook was dubious in any case. I feel sorry that Fram gets so much backchat from those who are in the wrong. This is the main page of Wikipedia we're talking about, not some kind of children's project. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I fully support any pulls
Fram makes from the main page, queues or prep areas. And along the lines of what TRM stated: this isn't some form of participatory trophy project, we're the top reference site for the entire world and we need to start acting like it. If one can't make or process hooks properly, they needn't be near the main page. There are plenty of less visible places on our site to edit for those unable to handle high editorial standards. — Coffee // have a cup // beans
// 09:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The hook is based on the source statement "The low trapping success in areas where owls are apparently successful at catching them ...". How does that not support the hook? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Because it has nothing about "before the 1990s" in it?
Ah, at last we know what error you were trying to point out (its not apparent from the previous discussion). So you would not have objected to "before the end of the 1990s" or "before 1998"? Why not point this out rather than waffling on about owl pellets and mouse trapping then? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I give up, as you seem incapable of understanding this. I "waffled on" in a vain attempt to get through to you (everyone else seems to have no problem seeing the problem). Yes, I would object to these changes as well. The dates have no connection to the owl vs. trap comparison. You are the only one making that connection.
I saw this discussion last night and considered pulling the hook then, but did not do so as it was still almost 24 hours from being featured and I assumed there would be plenty of time to resolve the issue. It is most disappointing to come back and find the hook pulled from the main page.
Fram, next time you have a concern like this and do not get a reply in a timely manner, please pull the hook from prep rather than wait for it to be featured. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk
Not at all. When it comes down to issues with unverifiable information on the main page of Wikipedia, it's pretty clear that pulling the hook is the optimal course of action so it can be dealt with without humiliating the encyclopedia. Attempting to call out some level of "involvement" is nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, though then you run the risk of humiliating the editors in the process, and wikipedia is largely written by people as dedicated as Cwmhiraeth...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Prep 1 - Hook needs pulling
The Federico Döring hook links to Videoscandals, a largely unsourced article making claims of impropriety against living people. Ridiculously, the fact this was unsourced was noted by the reviewer [14] but they were only bothered that a sum of money was inconsistent with Doring's article, not about the fact that the article is a BLP nightmare! Meanwhile, the other article linked in the hook, Víctor Trujillo, is an all-but-unsourced BLP! (in fact its only reference is a thread on a forum). It's also written in appalling English. I absolutely despair - on what planet was this hook even considered to even be remotely acceptable to put on the front page?
I have not done hook-pulling before, so if someone could do the honours please. I will only remove it myself if it gets anywhere near a Queue. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Quality and sourcing of linked articles are rarely considered by reviewers from experience. 'Is the hook cited in the relevant article? Yes - move on' is the general approach. In this case the Doring article contains the 'hook' and is cited/referenced - probably appropriately, a Spanish speaker might be able to comment on the reliability of the source. The videoscandals and Trujillo articles being of very low quality likely did not cross the reviewers mind. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
In which case they need to pull their fingers out and start reviewing things properly. As I said though, the reviewer even noted that the Videoscandals article was mostly unsourced, so why did they think linking to it on the Main Page was acceptable, regardless of its BLP issues? Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
From looking at the DYK Rules for eligibility the hook passes 3 (fact mentioned in the hook is in the article) but fails 4 (not violate BLP). The rules do not *explicitly* state that all linked articles must satisfy all criteria, rather than just the article to which the DYK is attached. This may want to be amended to make it explicit for reviewers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed; I'd say that's just simple common sense, but yes, it would be useful to update the rules. We should never, ever, be linking articles with BLP issues (or indeed unsourced BLPs) on the Main Page, and I'd say that the quality of all the linked articles ought to be at least adequate. Compare
WP:ITN where an article doesn't get on the Main Page if it's not of suffiencent quality, regardless of how notable it is. DYK should be exactly the same. Black Kite (talk)
11:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
As an aside I have just stubbed Videoscandals. Too many BLP violations, too few reliable references. The Trujillo article is in a bit better shape - mainly because it doesnt contain obvious violations - but it is largely unsourced - A quick googling reveals there are plenty of non-English sources out there, but I am not proficient enough to put them in. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Pulled (I have done a few hook pullings in the past already :-) )
I don't think we have a policy concerning potential BLP issues in non-nominated linked articles, so perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on the reviewer, but this may be something we need to look at. Gatoclass (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Assuming a reviewer pays attention to the rules, in section 4 of eligibility, replacing 'Articles for DYK' with 'All articles linked in the hook' would cover this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Reviewers seldom review past the part of the target article that forms the hook, and then tick off the other arcane regulations. The actually quality of articles, both target and other linked, is rarely given the right order of consideration. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Don't know if it's the case here, but QPQ may not be the best way to get serious reviews. The priorities of people pursuing their DYK count are different from those of people who are concerned about what is given the prominence of an appearance on the Main Page. Then, of course, there's the vexed question of whether DYK is a desirable feature at all. What's the solution, though? IDK. Awien (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I've always been completely sceptical about QPQ, and the pursuit of barnstars and other shiny things just for getting duff articles onto the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, participants who are only interested in "shiny things" will continue nominating whether or not they are required to do QPQs. Which means that the dedicated reviewers (assuming we actually have any left) would quickly be overwhelmed. I don't think the problem is QPQ, I think it's lack of accountability for poor reviewing. Gatoclass (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
here is a thought, QPQ doesn't count until hook has been listed on the main page? Right now you do a review, put the "tick" on it and can move on, you get QPQ even if there are subsequent issues prior to move to prep or after. Makes it less of a "drive by" thing. MPJ-DK 12:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
You don't need it to be that complicated. You could simply require that whenever a hook is pulled, the original reviewer (if a QPQ review) must supply a second QPQ review. However, even though this is the mildest imaginable sanction, when I suggested it last year it got no support. Gatoclass (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Its going to sound harsh, but given there are a few persistant offenders, I am not surprised the people who are most likely going to have to do extra work, opposed it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Well I think some of those folks need to realize that if DYK doesn't do anything to improve quality control, it is eventually going to collapse from sheer indifference and then nobody will be getting their articles on the main page via the DYK slot, regardless of quality. Gatoclass (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
You are right in that the article was previously not good enough, and the nominator improved the article. That's great. But they should have created a hook which did not link to BLP-violating articles. This is not churlish in any way - this is a top 10 website and cannot, ever, have links on its Main Page to articles which accuse living people of criminal activity with no sources whatsoever. However, the fault mainly lies with the reviewer, not the original nominator. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
You're right, Wikipedia is not compulsory, but
competence is expected. If individuals regularly fail to understand what is expected of them, we will expect those individuals to either improve their input or stop, particularly if their input creates extra work for others to resolve, and possible errors on the main page. You know that Andy, more than most; lightweight reviewers are the bane of this project. The Rambling Man (talk
) 19:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I was the person who reviewed this article. I did not do it as part of a QPQ review but voluntarily because there is such a large backlog of unreviewed hooks. A reviewer is supposed to check that all the DYK criteria are met. This I did, and they are. I think you will find the article satisfactory and the hook facts cited. The only criterion I omitted was the checks for copyright issues and I stated in my review "the Spanish language sources prevented me from considering copyright issues." I went further than what is required in a review and asked the nominator to make the article consistent with another article and when he misunderstood, I did that myself. So come along all you good folk, you have had your fun criticising reviewers, why don't you go and review one or two hooks yourselves? It will cut the backlog and give you an understanding of what is involved. Then you will be in a better position to suggest improvements. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
We aren't having "fun", we're flagging up a potential issue that could have had serious consequences. You read that Videoscandals article (you must have done to flag up the fact that the amount of money didn't match the other article) and yet you passed it as a suitable article to be linked on the main page despite the fact it contained many very obvious BLP violations. Following the DYK rules is not an excuse for this lapse, and if you think you did nothing wrong I'd suggest you don't go anywhere near anything that might appear on the main page again. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Seconded. Your indignation is unjustified,
David Levy
18:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Thirded. Please get a grip, the criticism here is not "fun" by any means, it's very serious. Continuing to promote garbage to the main page needs addressing. We all know what is involved, and to do the job properly takes a lot of time, time which apparently you don't have, and certainly I don't. But then again, I don't pretend to be a DYK reviewer. If we have to slow the whole process down while more reviews are made, or reviews are doubled up, so be it. But at the very least, stop attempting to defend the indefensible, it's embarrassing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I was the editor of the article and nominated the hook. My focus has been on Mexican federal legislators and new governors in 2016. Quite clearly, I made a mistake in not really thinking about the quality of the articles I was linking to. I would be willing to hold the hook and work on the other two articles to bring them up to standards before placing it on DYK.
Or alternatively create an interesting hook that focuses on something else in his career. To be honest I suspect the videoscandals article should probably be merged into one of the other articles anyway. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps Did you know? could learn from other Main Page processes. What is the review process for assessing possible problems with articles linked in the Main Page text about each day's Featured Article? What criteria are used and who is responsible for checking each linked article? Where do those people record what checks they made and the results of each check? Perhaps Did You Know could use a similar process. MPS1992 (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2016 (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:
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.
Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
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
) 10:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Preps 3, 4 and 5 are now finished and can be moved into the queues. Montanabw(talk) 21:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I've pit Prep 4 into Queue 2 - Prep 3 had one article with an uncited sentence, once that is resolved it can be put into another queue as well. Montanabw, can you check over and see whether I got everything right? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I think you fix prep 3 and put it in queue three... which article is the problem? you can pull it and swap in one from prep 4 -- the order and timing matters for the special occasion holding area. Also that notice above was for today's hooks... prep 4 to queue 4, etc... (But I'm not an admin, so I can't move preps to queues. Montanabw(talk) 22:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Fixed -- I don't think that was a mandatory requirement for DYK (the hook must be sourced, but GA-quality isn't needed) but I commented out the offending sentence and the editor can fix it later. Now put prep 3 in queue 3 and prep 4 in queue 4 -- and empty out queue 2! Montanabw(talk) 22:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I updated the prep to queue number and blanked the preps for the new set, I've neither done either one, but as an admin isn't required there, I gave it a shot. I have prep 5 done too if you want to practice moving it, clearing the prep page and updating the count. Up to you. Montanabw(talk) 00:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Another incorrect Mexican wrestling hook in Queue 5
The hook reads "... that the 2005 Guerra del Golfo was the first professional wrestling show to use that name, and would become an annual show from that year on?"
Unfortunately IWRG Guerra del Golfo which is even linked in the hook, shows that the event didn't take place again until 2008 (admittedly it was annual from that point). This either needs pulling or the hook needs fixing ("and would become an annual show from 2008"), and yet again the reviewer didn't check the hook. Black Kite (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know where you're getting that from Black Kite, the article mentions the 2005 event in several places and this source appears to confirm that it took place. Gatoclass (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Unless that source shows that it 'would become an annual show from that year (2005) on' - it is incorrect given that the next show after that was not until 2008. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I see the issue now. I tweaked the hook to say it would "later become an annual event". Gatoclass (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Minor Queue 4 edits
In the last hook of Queue 4, the apostrophe-s should be replaced with {{`s}}.
Also, the first of four "Guerra Revolucionaria" credits includes a subpage parameter; the other three should also have that same subpage parameter. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM 08:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
First edit is done. Second edit I am not sure, these other pages were discussed in the subpage for the first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
That's exactly what the subpage parameters are for, and why they should have been included. Also, you used the incorrect {{
Thanks for letting me know, BlueMoonset. I apologize, Jo-Jo Eumerus, for saying that you used the incorrect template.I guess a thing or two has changed in the many months I've been largely inactive. But I must say, this was definitely not a change for the better. I think it looks bad with the added space before the apostrophe. That's why I requested a fix. (When the "fix" didn't appear to fix it, I assumed it was just a caching issue.) I hope that this will be changed back eventually, and I encourage people to continue using {{`s}} so that it'll look correct in the archives when the proper template is restored. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM 08:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Quick review and promotion please?
I've just written
Twin Towers (Wembley) but I didn't realise that the 2016 FA Community Shield (being held at Wembley) was so soon. I've created the article and nominated it but can I ask if the community could give it a quick review and promote it so that it runs on the date of the Community shield on the 7th please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk
) 06:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I am reviewing this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
This nomination is now approved, and if anyone wants to accede to The C of E's date request, it will need to be included in Prep2. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Just giving this a bump as time is running out.
talk
) 17:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Nice article, but why does it need to run tomorrow specifically? I'm not saying it shouldn't, but a football match being held at the new stadium doens't seem an especially compelling reason. But then I'm not into football so who knows. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I have lived in the United Kingdom for quite a few years now, and I can attest that anything related to football, and also "Wembley" in particular, is hugely important to almost everyone here. I still do not understand why. But if authors of other eligible hooks do not object, I don't see why it would hurt to indulge this apparently pointless enthusiasm, and arrange for something to coincide with a significant event. MPS1992 (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Prep 1 Armistice of Bologna and Ted Schmidt both for required second review.
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.
@Dumelow and Allen3:Armistice of Bologna has been pulled from Prep 1. Per WT:DYK LavaBaron's editing restrictions at the top of this talk page, any nomination he reviews needs a second review before being promoted. LavaBaron specfically noted that on his review, so this was an oversight. Just out of curiosity, are all potential promoter's aware of this? — Maile (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
All promoters were notified via Talk; whether individual promoters choose to obey these vindictive restrictions is, presumably, their prerogative, and some may become exhausted by the ridiculous spectacle of it all. They are only enforceable against me, not against third party editors. LavaBaron (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
It's a lot less drama and more good faith to believe these two were mere oversights. But if anyone believes it is "their perogative" to follow or ignore this AN decision, they are more than welcome to address that issue with AN, or directly to Deryck C. — Maile (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Obviously, we are in uncharted waters since, the way the restrictions were requested and imposed, requires not only I follow them but - by extension - every registered Wikipedian and IP editor to actively follow them instead of simply being a passive party. So, the restrictions, in effect, constitute a site-wide amendment to our policies versus a restraint imposed on any individual editor. Again, though, I'm not disputing their validity and have faithfully followed them to the T; I'm simply making a factual observation that other editors have, thus far, not greeted this concept as warmly as you have and you may see other instances of it being completely ignored. (Which, of course, I - acting in my official capacity as the most popular DYK editor in history - do not advocate.) LavaBaron|OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED AS MOST POPULAR DYK EDITOR IN HISTORY[citation needed] 23:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Ted Schmidt has also been pulled for a second review. Same prep, same thing. LavaBaron noted the need for a second review, but it was promoted without it. — Maile (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I note that, per the restrictions, LavaBaron is required to do an extra QPQ for his nominations. This is supposedly to "balance" the QPQ requirements, given that two reviewers are required to pass one of his nominations. However, I don't see how this balances the QPQ requirements, given that an extra reviewer also has to review LavaBaron's own reviews. While arithmetic is not my strong suit, it appears to me that, no matter how many extra reviews one might require LavaBaron to do, one still ends up with a deficit of one QPQ because of the requirement that an extra reviewer checks his reviews. So it seems the requirement that LavaBaron do two reviews for every one of his nominations doesn't actually achieve its stated purpose. Gatoclass (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Great point. I recommend increasing the number of reviews I do for every nomination to "∞ + 1". Requiring I do "∞ + 1" QPQs will make these restrictions more consistent, logical, and sane than they are currently. LavaBaron|OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED AS MOST POPULAR DYK EDITOR IN HISTORY 06:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Maile has already offered the two possible approaches to this issue, and while this is all très amusant, it's not going to achieve anything whatsoever here. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. The pulled noms aren't even mine. It's other editors who are now paying the price. So not my prob, not my job. Good luck sorting this all out, gang. Buzz me if you need me. LavaBaron|OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED AS MOST POPULAR DYK EDITOR IN HISTORY 07:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Gatoclass said no matter how many extra reviews one might require LavaBaron to do, one still ends up with a deficit of one QPQ. He's right and it was a logical fault of mine to think it could be "balanced out". Any editor with the appropriate editing privileges may promote hooks, so it is expected that some would be unaware of LavaBaron's editing restrictions. From what I can read in this discussion, I don't see any bad faith action going on.
The important question is, are these restrictions serving their intended purpose of providing additional oversight to LavaBaron's contributions? We can consider rescinding some of the restrictions early - particularly restriction 2 ("extra reviewer checks his reviews", in Gatoclass's nice paraphrase) - if we think LavaBaron has improved enough to match the prevalent standard of a DYK contributor. Deryck C. 11:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Deryck Chan, I have no idea whether LavaBaron's reviews have improved or not. My main concern is that he is being asked to do two reviews for every one of his nominations, and that the extra burden might encourage, if not sloppiness, then at least a greater chance of making errors. For somebody whose reviewing skills are apparently in question, I think I would prefer to see such a person focus on doing one review well. Whether or not enough time has passed to lift the requirement for a second reviewer to confirm his reviews is a question best left to those more familiar with his recent contributions. Gatoclass (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I hardly think I'm rushing reviews. I've been sitting on Annette Lyon [15] for more than a month and have still refused to promote it despite constant pressure for me to just give it a rubber-stamp. Kinda damned if you do, damned if you don't. Further, in the month since my editing restrictions were applied, there's been an almost endless carousel of other editors having hooks pulled for the same transgressions (in the same quantity) for which I'm censured. I've basically been turned into the Southern Methodist University of DYK. LavaBaron|OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED AS MOST POPULAR DYK EDITOR IN HISTORY 21:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not accusing you of doing sloppy reviews, I thought I made it clear that I haven't been monitoring your work. My main point was simply that as the rationale for having you do two reviews for every nomination, ie that it "balances" the QPQs, appears to be erroneous, that it ought to be dropped and you should be required to do only one review. To that I attempted to add a secondary point, which perhaps I did not make entirely clear, that, given the overall frequency of reviewing errors by contributors broadly, we should not be potentially adding to the problem by overburdening participants with additional requirements. It wasn't meant as a personal comment about the quality of your work, but as a statement of general principle. Gatoclass (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, there appear to a large number of issues that reflect poorly on DYK at the moment, of which this isn't the most serious. Black Kite (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Also @LavaBaron: respectfully, I wouldn't keep putting emphasis on that most popular editor thing. You are relying on the most viewed non-lead hook which I did give you credit for (whether it was or not due to that complex mathematical formula is neither here nor there). However, by the same token when I held the title of writer of most viewed lead and non-lead hook simultaneously, you didn't see me ostentatiously bragging about it. So I would please kindly recommend that you tone that down a little because grandiose claims like that do tend to rub people up the wrong way. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Now people are bitching that I'm not being flexible enough in green-stamping erroneously formatted reviews. First I'm being too flexible, now I'm not being flexible enough. This has turned into a three-ring circus. Maybe we should just block everyone from doing any DYKs except for the three editors who, apparently, hold the deed and title to this place. LavaBaron (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Deryck Chan, I ran across a less-than-stellar review by LavaBaron today: instead of checking all of the eligibility criteria, which would have revealed that the article had just been made a Good Article and was eligible, he checked creation and 5x expansion only and failed it. While it is true that the small print said "Create/expanded by", these descriptions, which have proliferated lately, are often filled out incorrectly by inexperienced nominators, and the general practice is to check against all possible ways it could be eligible or let a process like DYKcheck do the work. (Also, as the GA icon was already on the article itself, it would have been a pretty obvious potential qualification if the article had been examined directly.) Today's was by a second-time nominator whose last DYK credit was in 2011.
My impression is that when restrictions or blocks are ended early, it is because the user has demonstrated that he or she understands the restriction, the purpose behind it and what behavior was considered problematic. I don't see that here; earlier in this discussion he called the restrictions "vindictive", and yesterday included the phrase Per a recently criticized decision in ANI, a second review of this nom is required in tworeviews.
Of all the restrictions, I think number 2 is the most important, to confirm that his reviews are done accurately and well. DYK has had situations where extra reviews were necessary, even though it unbalanced the QPQ equation, and it survived: during the Gibraltarpedia kerfuffle, all Gibraltar-related nominations had to have two full reviews; this lasted for many months, well more than the current three. If you want to reduce, I'd say number 4, the extra review, was the most expendable. Even then, LavaBaron made a useful contribution at Template:Did you know nominations/Annette Lyon, though today's was not helpful.
I've added "review again" icons to those nominations where LavaBaron has given the first review, to avoid having them being promoted before a second review is done. Hopefully this will help avoid finding ourselves again in the situation that resulted in this section's creation. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect. It was actually a review that adhered precisely to the exact letter of the law of DYK:
1. The nominee submitted Dystopia as a 5x expansion [16]. I reviewed Dystopia and found it had active tags. I also noted it was not a 5x expansion. Based on this, I failed it.
2. The article Dystopia - which was the article submitted in the hook [17] - did not have a GA icon though Bluemoonset lays into me, above, by claiming it did and I was simply too careless and obtuse to notice (a separate article that was not contained in the hook at the time I reviewed it, Dystopia (Megadeth album), was GA classed, which is the source of BM's confusion). BM - did you genuinely not notice the absence of a GA icon on Dystopia? How embarrassing. Before you start accusing others of being unattentive to reviews, you really better make sure your own attentiveness can't be called into question. Right?
3. You came along and re-submitted the review for an entirely new article - Dystopia (Megadeth album) - under entirely new criteria ... as a GA pass [18] before loudly complaining that I didn't green-stamp the original submission. It's not our responsibility - as reviewers - to assume a nominee's mangled submission is "close enough" and green-stamp it anyway. Your previous complaint with me was that I was doing this - now you're complaining that I'm not doing it. Are you just trying to be disruptive?
4. You have been nothing short of vicious and completely uncompromising since you set-upon me for a minor bookkeeping error in my very first GA submission when I was a month-old account, which Prhartcom censured you about. The notion that, in this case, you were nobly trying to help a newbie who had submitted a poorly formed DYK against my unreasonable demands for perfection is, I'm afraid, unbelievable based on the pattern of past behavior for which you've been cited. You are trying to stir the pot as anyone who has been here for more than three days can see.
I see no respect, due or otherwise, and your characterization of me as "vicious"—and your many other inappropriate characterizations—is most unwelcome. We wouldn't be here now if you'd acted responsibly at DYK. Let's take another look at that initially submitted nomination:
The title of the nomination is Dystopia (Megadeth album). The nomination page is Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Dystopia_(Megadeth_album). The Article History link goes to Dystopia (Megadeth album)'s history. The hook, unfortunately, has two major issues: first, there is no bold link, a requirement for DYK hooks. Second, the article being linked to doesn't match the nomination title: it's "Dystopia", not "Dystopia (Megadeth album)".
Looking at the contradictions here, a likely explanation would seem to be that the nominator made some errors while filling out the nomination template—it happens quite often here at DYK, especially with unexperienced nominators—and the best thing would be to clear up precisely what was intended. A query with a "?" or "/" icon, pointing out the lack of the required bold link and asking which Dystopia article was meant would be a simple and direct approach, and once the nominator made the appropriate corrections or clarifications, the review could then proceed. If anyone had attempted to criticize you for such an approach, I would have been the first to defend you, as I was the one who pointed out that Annette Lyon review you did.
The idea that anyone would think you should have "green-stamped" the nomination is laughable. I certainly wrote nothing of the kind, and for you to claim I did is also laughable. The nomination clearly needed sorting out. I'm just sorry you weren't willing or able to try. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I stand by my review of the nomination as it existed at the time I reviewed it, while acknowledging you have fixed the problems it was rightly failed for after I reviewed it. The customary way to work through this is to ping the original reviewer, notify them problems have been fixed, and politely invite a re-review ... not throw a fit in Discussion and savage the competence of other editors.
And your uncompromising behavior toward new editors, as I have repeatedly reminded you, has been cited by numerous others [see here [19], for one of several examples, in which you complain about an editor's "competence issues" in GA shortly after said editor trepeditiously tried his hand at his first GAN and in which you were then warned to stop disrespecting other editors]. You can keep the puffed chest and stoic declarations of "most unwelcome ... characterizations" (ironically while, in the very same breath, you described my contributions as "laughable" - a rude and, yes, vicious comment) but these are factual observations of the history of how you've chosen to conduct yourself, not descriptions I've conjured. The way you chose to address this very minor issue, through pot-stirring and drama, instead of a simple ping and explanation, frankly underscores this. I would love it if you would start treating me, and other editors, as though there are human beings behind these accounts instead of as inanimate objects like rice cakes or ceiling fans upon which you can simply unleash torrents of derision. LavaBaron (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I have just looked at the link you provided above:
I consider "I am asking you to do even more: To show so much restraint that you actually respect the accomplishments of editors", coupled with the personal notice left on my page by a third-party editor describing the accusation against me as an "unwarranted attack" [20], as a fairly unambiguous warning to stop disrespecting (or to start respecting, if one likes) other editors.LavaBaron (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
That comment was about respecting edits (accomplishments), not about respecting editors. And your "third-party editor" is the same editor as the previous comment (and makes it clearer why he added such an unhelpful comment at the recent ANI discussion, I didn't know you two had previous history like this). So, one person who wants more of a kintergarten atmosphere ("well done, you've made a beautiful drawing of a tree!" "Is a cow" "Right, a cow, beautiful!"). That hardly matches the description of numerous others warning about the behaviour towards "new editors" (like I said, a description which hardly fitted you when you were being criticized during your 9th GA review).
It's a bit hard to see what that barnstar from Pharthcom is about. I notice in the days preceeding it comments on your talk page like "I add my concerns here. In my opinion, your GA review of Public Storage is shockingly inadequate, and I encourage you to desist. Cullen328 07:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)" This seems tobe about
/sigh/ No, CorporateM was the involved editor who wrote that article (Public Storage was his client, apparently) - in a manner compliant with COI - not Prhartcom. I'm not going to go through and bullet-point correct the rest of this, because, you know, it's just too much work. LavaBaron (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Template:emptyqueueexpr issue
Is there a reason that
Template:Emptyqueueexpr says four, but there are actually five empty queues? Pppery (talk
) 22:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I guess I'm kind of curious why a fairly new editor is going through DYK redirects and templates, nominating some for deletion? I'm also kind of curious as to how you happen to run across these, when most people who have been at DYK for years don't see them.
Anyway, on this template, we really should ping @Shubinator: who knows more about this template.
And as for the rest, please post here BEFORE you nominate any other DYK templates, redirects or anything else for deletion. Much of these things were set up by people who aren't necessarily reading this talk page, much less the deletion nomination pages. But if it concerns this project, at least allow a discussion here first about whether or not there should even be a deletion nomination. When you nominate something for deletion, chances are that people who know nothing about it are going to weigh in. And the people who might really know something about it aren't informed. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, Pppery, there is a reason. You seem to have assumed that this template refers to the number of empty queues. My understanding (though Shubinator can correct me if I'm wrong) is that it's the next empty queue in line waiting for a prep to be promoted to it, which at this moment is Queue 4. Like Maile, I'm a bit worried that, not understanding the nuts and bolts of DYK, you might do some damage making similar assumptions on other parts of the DYK process. There are admittedly some old corners of the process that could do with cleaning up, and it's good to see someone interested in taking on the task, but it might be safest (and most efficient) to start here, before you call something an issue that is working exactly as designed. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Yes, you are correct. I misunderstood the purpose of that template. Pppery (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
El Castillo del Terror (December 2008). For starters, this is discussed in the lead, and given in a table, but the body of the article contains no description of the actual matches at all: it explains the rules, the preceding event, and later events, but actual information about the evening is missing (bar the results table). This seems to fail supplementary rule D7 (and general practices about articles). This also means that the lead is basically an unsourced section (e.g. the claim that "Arlequín was the last wrestler in the cage as Oficial 911 climbed over the top and out of the cage. As a result, Arlequín had all his hair shaved off, having lost his mask at the previous El Castillo del Terror event on November 2." is not sourced in the lead, and not repeated in the body.
The only sentence that could be said to be about the event (tangentially) is "The December 2008 El Castillo del Terror show was the ninth overall show under that name and the first year that IWRG decided to hold two El Castillo del Terror shows in the same year.[2]" Source 2 is [22], another database that actually doesn't even list the December event, so the thing that supposedly sources this sentence contradicts it...
This article simply isn't fit to be on the main page, as it has no body text at all about the actual subject of the article, and no actual indepth sources about the subject either (the only source for the actual event is a wrestling database).
I rechecked the other source in the results table, which gave a totally unrelated page[23]. Searching on that website, the best I could find matching the title given was [24] which also doesn't support the results or has any info about the event, but may point to another source which may have information. This is of course not the way sourcing is supposed to happen...
How ridiculous! I hesitate to state this because it will only heap more opprobrium upon my head, but really, this is going too far. There is no error and the article does not contravene supplementary rule D7, which refers to articles in progress. What right does Fram have to pull hooks in this way? Fram seems to be fighting a war against DYK and everybody else seems to be hiding behind the parapet. No wonder people are reluctant to build prep sets. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid Fram's accuracy rate is over 90% when he makes such pulls, and that means he's perfectly correct in doing so over 90% of the time. If that's making people reluctant to build prep sets, maybe those people aren't the right people for the job after all. If criticism which results in correct decision-making is too hard to handle, other projects are available. And for the avoidance of doubt, Fram is not alone in trying to raise the quality standards here. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Fram is right - there is information about previous events, general information about the IWRG and its events, and information about what happened after the event, but there is no information about the actual event in the article, bar an unsourced sentence in the lead. Since this sentence is the one that powers the hook, the article should not have been passed. I suspect the reviewer has got confused with the article containing information about the previous event, which led to a similar outcome and is sourced. Black Kite (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Is the article 100% fleshed out? No it is not. But to say there is nothing on the show and the hook is unsourced is wrong. The "wrestling result table" (name of the template for that specific table) does indeed reflect the second part of the hook, that he lost again. As for the source, thatvlink is wrong, not sure how that happened, I will 1) correct it and 2) try to figure out when that problem was introduced. As for the content, to understand an event you have to understand the CONTEXT of the event itself - yes it is heavier on context and lighter on match details right now, did not realize that it had to be a "completly done" article to be a DYK. Like a movie article with a plot section and all the information surrounding the movie. I agree it should be pulled until the link has been cleared up. I disagree that it does not cover the subject. MPJ-DK 12:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The main point is that I would expect the majority of the content of an article about an event that happened on 21 December 2008 to actually describe the event that happened on that date. Having some context is fine, but that's all it should be. In this article, less than 20% of the content is actually about that event, and it's all unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Once i get the link corected that is not actually true, it will be fully sourced. Lead claims are reflected in the results table, that will be fully sourced. Like I said, i agree to that it should be pulled for sourcing issues and I will address the sourcing issue today. MPJ-DK 14:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
If the article fails to discuss the actual topic in main body text, then I would certainly classify that as a violation of D7. This is a problem that crops up now and again and I have previously failed articles for the same. Also, I too can see no sourcing for the December match, which is the topic of the article.
This article is one of a large number - 70, I think - that were originally mass produced for a single mega-hook but then split over a number of hooks. When I looked at some of the articles in the original hook I noted defects like the one identified here, which are the probable result of trying to write too many articles at once. It appears that the issues have not all been rectified after splitting the hooks and I would say this series needs closer scrutiny. Gatoclass (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@
Fram: I have fixed the source, it is a "cite news" source, the URL goes to where that issue is for sale, that issue of the magazine is only available in print format, the URL is just to verify that the magazine was indeed printed, when, where etc. I used to subscribe to the magazine through 2012 and have also bought older ones off eBay which is where I get the print source access. The original link - yep that's on me, not sure how I made that copy and paste error, but it has been addressed. The sources listed in the results table covers the actual match results. Like I said, I did not produce a fully finished article, there is room for improvements and I can certainly add more about the event in prose for as well. As Gatoclass pointed out this was one of many I did and in this case it got throgh with less event detail that I usually do, but it's easily rectified - and the article will be the better for it too, so it's all good. No tude, no issues with the pull or anything, I will correct this tonight after I find the magazine to get a little more "meat" for the event section. MPJ-DK
00:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
And there we go, addressed the challenges of the article. We good now? MPJ-DK 01:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I haven't taken a close look at the article, but at first glance, that looks way better and is how the article should have looked in the first place. I would encourage you to go through the other articles in this series that have yet to be featured and make similar additions where appropriate, or we may end up back here again shortly. Gatoclass (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
List of major IWRG shows
We now have on the Main Page
... that over 50 wrestlers have lost their
major International Wrestling Revolution Group show
What seems to be missing looks to be a rather essential element: what makes a show a major show? The definition of what is to be included in this list and what is to be excluded seems never to be given, making this a rather arbitrary grouping (and thus hook). The same description is given in many articles from this group of articles, each time (as far as I could see) without any justification.
Fram, the article in question defines the term "major" as "annual shows or special one-off events". That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Sometimes facts that are very obvious are not at all easy to source precisely because they are obvious to all interested parties; per core policy, the obvious does not have to be sourced. Gatoclass (talk
) 07:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Your latter statement ("per core policy, the obvious does not have to be sourced.") does not really apply to such things. The obvious = things that anyone can verify, but that would mean a ridiculous amount of references in an article; not things only known to aficionados. When I look at thier web site, I note the following: 31 July, "Relevos de Fieras", 3 August, "Mascara vs. Mascara", 7 August, "Mascara vs. Cabellera". That's three of the next four events having a special name; the definition in the article, "special one-off events, normally indicated by a special main event match or being promoted under a special title instead of IWRG's normal Wednesday or Sunday shows." seems to indicate that these are already three "special one-off events" coming up (there clearly won't be a "relevos de fieras" every week).
I am sorry but "mask vs mask" is not a "special name", the Relevos de Fieras show may actually be a special show that could be added. MPJ-DK 10:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
So, what are the non-major names, what are the major ones, and where is that distinction decided? Which sources indicate that the ones you listed are major, but e.g. "Mascara vs. Cabellera" isn't? When I look at e.g. this source (no idea how reliabe it is), I see that the named events / TV shows match your list reasonably well for 2016; but are wildly different for 2011 (the events you list happened, but don't get a special name in that list). If we would follow that list, we wouldn't have the 50+ mask matches in major events but quite a few less. So please show how your inclusion criterion, your decision to call some events "major", is not arbitrary but based on some reliable sources?
Well good afternoon on this blessed day of the Freya, and it looks like I am triple blessed with a three-fer from Fram, three different approaches to this article. I always enough an opportunity to expand my horizon and through that possibly impart my wisdom (such as it is) on others. So let's see.
1) What makes a show major
As stated in the article " annual shows, and special one-off events, normally indicated by a special main event match or being promoted under a special title instead of IWRG's normal Wednesday or Sunday shows." - Thank you for the opportunity to showcase the definition from the article
2) Why are "Relevos de Fieras", "Mascara Contra Mascara" and "Mascara Contra Cabellera" not on the list
So here we start to get into a discussion on if "mask vs. mask" is a "Special Name" or not and I believe also where the common sense comments comes in. I don't have a source stating it is NOT a "special name", so I can definitely add them to the list. I can no more provide a source of the fact that "Steel Cage Match" is not a special name while "El Castillo del Terror" is so I will be collecting references for those shows so that at some point I can add them to the list, I smell further DYKs coming.
3) How did I compile the list, compared to the 2011 list you found, where did the names come from when they were not in the Cagematch.net link?
So I have done quite a bit of research into Lucha libre over the years (Read "Obsessive fan disoder") to help me define the starting point. I actually did look at the same page from Cagematch.net (which has a defined fact checking process and would qualify as a reliable source). I also looked at another great source of information known as wrestlingdata.com, a similar "database" approach to results - The IWRG 2011 events are listed here, here and here (a total of 113 shows in 2011). Between the two I complied the list - but then looked for independent sources as much as possible so that the list did not come 90% from the same two databases.
Also - I was tempted to just go with List of IWRG Shows, but decided to scale back from that. MPJ-DK 22:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
So, "major" show is just your own invention and can not be reliably sourced. Please remove all mentions of "major" from these articles per
Maybe it would be better to distinguish between the regular bi-weekly shows and the other events as "special" (ie annual shows and one-off events) or even simply "named" rather than "major"? Gatoclass (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
On YAY! Official permission to add 100+ shows for 2011 alone! MPJ-DK 12:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey now that's not in the list name, a wise Wikipedian looked out for the quality of this place and chose to move it to "List of IWRG shows", it is not up to me to label them as "notable", that would be original research and peacock language as I don't have source stating "this is a notable show" and I don't want to put my own definition on that, that'd be bad. Naturally beeing the conscientious Wikipedian that I am I will naturally provide a reliable source cited for each show - I mean how else can I even add them to the list to begin with? MPJ-DK 12:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I doubt that any individual events in the IWRG are truly notable. The League itself would I think be notable, along with some participants, but who is going to care about the winners of these staged events a few years' hence?
However, experience tells me that sports of this kind have their fanbase, in which case it's usually futile to try and AFD them. But where we draw the line between "notable" and not on such topics, I don't know. Certainly though, DYK is not going to tolerate hundreds more of these articles for every such event. We may have to start laying some ground rules for these articles, at least for inclusion at DYK. I would say that annual events can support their own article, and be featured here. Articles summarizing a year of events would also I think be acceptable. Beyond that, I'm not sure. Gatoclass (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes where to draw the line, that is a tricky one, I am sure it'll be the subject of much discussion after all - Personally I try to go with this specific place to draw the line - "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." - So the "who cares" comment is not really part of the criteria, nor the fact that they are staged events - who cares about scripted episodes of old TV shows after all? To me it's no different than say
Star Trek: The Original Series (season 1). And I'm sorry I did not know that the nasty, dirty, seedy lucha libre articles were just "tolerated" here? I guess you want to segregate a specific type of articles for DYK? Is that in the spirit of Wikipedia? In essence discriminate against articles that legitimately meet the current DYK criteria? *tut-tut* my good Gatoclass. Thank you though for your suggestions on future work beyond including all IWRG events on the list but no thank you, not interested. I know the whole "major event" thing is totally OR on my part but I am still only going to do individual articles on shows I personally consider major - with no discrimination against anyone else who may choose to do so, but thank you for believing in my ability to actually produce that many articles. MPJ-DK
15:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't really care if there is bias against me, pro wrestling or whatever, I deal with that on a daily basis on hee anyway, my response is to keep doing what I do and do my best to follow the guidelines (I may not always get it 100% right, but I try and then I try to be as responsive to issues as I can). To put this whole discussion in perspective here is what I would even consider (because apparently I have to explain my motives for future work or get accused of "flooding DYK with hundreds of articles"). My approach to this would be no different than the approach to the article breakdown for Star Trek: The Original Series, it is really no different in approach, only in what subject it is applied to and the attitude displayed by non-fans.
Star Trek: The Original Series = International Wrestling Revolution Group
List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes = List of IWRG shows
Star Trek: The Original Series (season 1) = List of IWRG shows in 2016 (that's a theoretical article, not planning on it right now)
"Charlie X" (Episode) = Festival de las Máscaras (2016)
James T. Kirk or William Shatner = Negro Navarro or any other IWRG wrester
Non "major" shows = No article from me. I would not even link them in the list article but I would provide sources naturally to demonstrate that it does indeed belong on the list.
So if you want to go ahead and do a presumptive "flooding ban" or whatever other "transgressions" against the rules that have not been written yet are that someone wants to address, I just ran out of caring. Put up your hoops, I'll continue to jump through them like I have been so far, heck move them and I'll adapt, light them on fire and I'll wear my asbetos underwear and keep my hair short and keep plugging away within an ever changing set of rules or guidelines, doing my best to comply with all of it. MPJ-DK 15:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
What we have here is an interesting situation. It appears that these articles are being looked over by multiple reviewers and passed; thus they each meet the DYK criteria (though I do find the similarities of the hooks to be getting repetitious). We do have to acknowledge that there IS an article for every single Star Trek episode ever filmed, pretty much every building on the
WP:N can decide that one. I know precisely jack squat about professional wrestling, but from noticing how often wrestling events appear in the Signpost's "Traffic Report," it is clear that this is a very popular topic amongst Wikipedia readers, so it may draw eyes to DYK in general and encourage clicks on other articles too. I guess my take, MPJ-DK, is to help us not be overwhelmed by your prolific work: do good qpqs for other articles so we don't have to pull hooks due to iffy reviews (this may not be a problem), try to be fun and creative with your hooks, and put up the articles at a slower pace, perhaps moving into mainspace one day at a time instead of a ton all at once, be kind to the reviewers. I see no problem if you put articles into groups of four or five, that doesn't daunt a reviewer, but remember that when you do a ton at once (like the 70-article hook), that is just plain difficult for reviewers. Perhaps also help with the other wikignoming jobs, build prep sets (you can't promote one of your own articles, but say you build one in five or so ...), resolve some of the endless reviews that need an extra reviewer or a new reviewer (we can't get qpq credit for those, so they often languish) and so on. I think if you are part of the solution to other problems, we will not fret so much. Montanabw(talk)
21:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with every single thing you've stated, thank you. And side note - beyond the 70-DYK I have not, nor do not plan on, doing multiple in a day unless the end up as a 3-4 article hook. Oh and I did not realize that the prep set building was less restricted, that's good to know. MPJ-DK 21:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Montanabw, MPJ-DK, firstly, it is not unknown for DYK to place restrictions on the number of articles featured on a particular topic, if memory serves me correctly that was done with the Gibraltar series and once or twice for other series as well. My concerns have been raised here over the fact that MPJ-DK has apparently been using an arbitrary judgement of his own with regard to what does and does not constitute a "major" event, and that when challenged, he suggests adding potentially thousands more of these articles, when the number and similarity of them have already tested the patience of some DYK regulars. So I don't think it inappropriate to canvas the potential issues, after all, we don't want MPJ-DK to go away and write 1000 articles only to discover in retrospect that DYK won't feature them.
I should add that
WP:SPORTSEVENT restricts inclusion of individual events to, for example, events that [are] widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved. Quite frankly, I'm not sure how many of the articles MPJ has submitted thus far pass the "outside routine coverage" bar, probably the annual events do but some of the others may not and if he is proposing to start writing articles about routine matches, that sounds to me very much like a potential violation of SPORTSEVENT. Gatoclass (talk
) 08:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Articles can meet the GNG or an SNG, but they do not have to meet both. --
talk
) aka Jakec 11:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Certainly, there is wiggle room with regard to what qualifies as notable, but there are nonetheless well established conventions in given areas; in sports, for example, SPORTSEVENT appears to be widely followed. Gatoclass (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
So I apologize I seemed to not be clear, adding events to the list is one thing, creating articles is another, I will still apply my own "arbitrary" rules to what articles I want to create, volume will be no different than today really - and nowhere near 70 at once, perhaps 3-4ish at a time if closely connected and yes each of them with sufficient coverage, sources etc. I won't work on something that would just end up deleted. I do wish that it was possible to get past the fact that adding a line to a list and adding an event article are major differences. Oh and side note IWRG events are not my only focus, they were the subject where so much was missing. Probably just keeping up with new IWRG events I personally deem major. Once the lasst 3-4 current IWRG hooksgo through hopefully we can all focus on more creative endeavors than talk about them. Oh but a sincere thank you for thinking I could bang out 1000 articles, my PR team would be happy to hear that ;-) MPJ-DK 13:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Let's be clear about this. Major sports events are notable, non-major sports aren't. Take, for example, major football (soccer for the Americans here) tournaments; the only games that get an article of their own are the finals. These are events that are watched by more people that Mexican wrestling by the power of 1,000 (if not more). It's the same for SuperBowl qualifying games, or IPL cricket. All of these are more notable than Mexican wresting by a factor of ... well, a lot. If we are going to start creating average-quality articles for every single event in a minor entertainment system, I think that AfD is going to come into play fairly quickly. What is clear that we shouldn't be featuring such articles on DYK. The best of Wikipedia? I think not. And whilst I think it is time to end this - the phrase "my PR team would be happy to hear that" leads me to suggest that we should be blocking any more of these from DYK. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Never said I was writing articles on them all, please change the record it is getting ridiculous here soon people will start to think I actually said I would create hundreds of IWRG articles when I never said that. And for that last comment from you, I cordially invite you to remove the stick from a certain orifice and recognize an obvious joke. Yes by all means block it because I choose to do a joke instead of getting p.o'ed... And for actions others are putting on me despite me stating the opposite (Note the sarcasm, naturally I do not advocate a topic ban for making a joke or something I have actually not done... I guess that has to be stated to avoid misinterpretations). Disclaimer: I do not have a PR team. Disclaimer: I do have a tongue in my cheek, Disclaimer: I have not transgressed against a single DYK rule intentionally, when issues have been pointed out I have done what I can to address them. Disclaimer: I am on aKindle Fire tablet, typos may happen. MPJ-DK 16:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Also the sports comparison is not 100%, just ask anyone in the sports Wikipedia project if they count pro wrestling as a sport - 95% say they don't, it falls somewhere between "sport" and "entertainment" (or
Sports Entertainment) if you will. Which is why I made the comparison to Star Trek articles above, as they're more akin to those than football, I mean I would not want to create an IWRG or Lucha Libre equivalence to 1994–95 FA Premier League, it doesn't make sense for the subject matter. I have been putting DYKs up for years, little by little, but standing out by trying to do 70 at once seems to have just stirred up a whole hornets nest of comments and negativity. Does anyone really think I would care to go through that again honestly? MPJ-DK
16:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
If you honestly believe that the notability of a wrestling show which get viewed live by a few thousand people and then gets a review in a specialized magazine a few weeks later is comparable to an episode of a TV series seen by millions of people throughout the world and repeated afterwards for years and years, then you may need to think again. Take a random episode from the first series,
So again words are pht in my mouth that I did not say, I did not say anything about the notability was comparable at all, I was talking about the fact that they aree both entertainment and how an IWRG show was more akin to an episode of a TV show than a football game. MPJ-DK 10:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
You explicitly equated the structure and detail given for Star Trek episodes to the one you use for IWRG shows, see e.g.
"Charlie X" (Episode) = Festival de las Máscaras (2016). James T. Kirk or William Shatner = Negro Navarro or any other IWRG wrester. Non "major" shows = No article from me. I would not even link them in the list article but I would provide sources naturally to demonstrate that it does indeed belong on the list." Your "major" shows don't have the notability of a star trek episode by far, making your whole rundown of when to have an article or when just to have an entry in a list useless.
So you do agree that I did not say anything about notability, "Structure" is the key word here. MPJ-DK 11:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
No. At 15:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC) you made a post comparing the IWRG and Star Trek, in reply to posts about the notability of the events, e.g. "Quite frankly, I doubt that any individual events in the IWRG are truly notable.". You said "Ah yes where to draw the line, that is a tricky one, I am sure it'll be the subject of much discussion after all - Personally I try to go with this specific place to draw the line - "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." - So the "who cares" comment is not really part of the criteria, nor the fact that they are staged events - who cares about scripted episodes of old TV shows after all? To me it's no different than say List of Bonanza episodes or the more fine grained Star Trek: The Original Series (season 1). " and then in your next post you made the specific episode of Star Trek vs event of IWRG comparison. If this was not about notability, then you did a very poor job of making this clear at the time.
notability = significant coverage, independent reliable sources. That is the breath, depth, width and girth of my stance on how to determine what goes on the list. Clearly stated and then repeated by you. MPJ-DK 14:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The pylons pictured are pylons from that line, but I could not confirm that they are the tall ones crossing the Amazon and not some of the lower ones (still 195m or thereabouts) before and after the really tall ones. As far as I could tell, the intended hook ones are red and white and made of thicker tubes, not the thin steel rods used to construct the ones pictured here. See this (mainly picture 1) and the 9-minute movie "Crossing the Amazon" you can access here (lower right corner). Sites like this seem to confirm that the red-and-white ones are the pylons we should show, and not the ones in the article.
I think we can resolve these problems by removing (pictured) from the hook and captioning the image "Pylon for a river crossing", as it is in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Well yes, but then you might as well shove any pylon in there. Whats the point? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Quite. Either we show the representative pylons in the image, or we pick another picture hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The date on the image was from when the line was being built, possibly before the power lines had been strung and the tower painted red and white. But I have to agree the picture may not be of one of the mega-towers. One option is to forget about the picture, the other is to change the hook.
ALT2 ... that the Tucuruí transmission line(pylon pictured) carries power for 1,800 kilometres (1,100 mi) through the Amazon region?
This discussion seems to belong in a reopened DYK nomination. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The red-and-white pylons were coloured from the very start (it would be rather stupid to built a 300m high tower and then start painting it). The line is more than 1,000km long and has many, many pylons, the two high ones are just the most impressive of those.
Possibly the colour is lost in the picture, where the tower is silhouetted against the setting sun. Painting them is not the sort of job I would want to do. Anyway, my vote would be for ALT2. The sub-Eiffel towers are just part of a huge engineering project. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
From googling the top appears to be configured slightly differently to the big red/white ones that cross the Amazon. However there are some aerial shots of the line which show a similar one (noting the four blocks it stands on which are in the water) but it doesnt say which river/tributory it might be crossing. Ideally if the hook is going to be about the Eiffel-ness of the red/whites, there should a picture of them. Otherwise no pic will do. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The base looks wrong too, although that may be because the river is in flood. My guess is it is the tower at 1°36′53″S52°45′23″W / 1.614860°S 52.756485°W / -1.614860; -52.756485. No way to be sure which one it is. So it is a flip of the coin: Eiffelism, no picture, versus Picture, no Eiffelism? I vote for the picture, ALT2. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Its a most dramatic image so I suggest we adopt Aymatth2's suggestion. I have returned the hook to the nominations page for the new hook to be proposed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived earlier today, so here's a new list of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through July 24. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. As of the most recent update, 41 nominations have been approved, leaving 157 of 198 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones left over from last time including the noms from June and the first half of July, which continue to need a reviewer.
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) 17:59, 8 August 2016 (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:
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.
Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
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,
It was not rated by the BBC, it was rated by the listeners in a (mostly) online poll. Furthermore, it had nothing to do with "the first 50 years of the
@Yoninah and Maile66: I just did a quick perspective correction on the image, too. Tried to upload it, but the file is protected. Could someone unprotect temporarily? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 20:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Rhododendrites Go to the image on Commons - that's the correct place to change the image. Save whatever version you want on your own computer. Then on Commons look down at the bottom of the image where it says "Upload a new version of this file". All that does, is take you to a place to upload the cropped image from your computer. It doesn't change the name or anything, just uploads your version as the most current version. — Maile (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Maile66: I know. It's protected on Commons. "This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following page, which is protected with the "cascading" option enabled: Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en". I mean, it makes sense that it would be protected. I didn't realize it was already up, though. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
You may want to upload it locally then, I doubt that changing the Commons file just for the sake of the enwiki mainpage makes sense, nor to have a file created solely for the mainpage uploaded to Commons (unless it could have other use). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, @Maile66:, but it's on the main page right now and it isn't cropped :( Yoninah (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
What I see on the main page is the cropped image. Just to make sure, I looked at this with both Firefox and IE. What do you see here? — Maile (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC) cropped image
Probably just need to purge cache. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I just went to the main page, and what I initially saw was an uncropped image. Going again in a different tab got me the cropped image. I'm not sure what caused the difference. (Note: on Safari 9.1.2; hadn't viewed the main page with this set on it.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2016 (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:
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.
Once completed edit queue #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
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
) 07:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Picture question, recognizable a good thing?
What's the proper place to ask a question about use (or nonuse) or a picture once a hook has been promoted to a prep area? I'll go ahead and ask so as to avoid wasting anyone's time, but I've no objection to someone moving this section to a more appropriate page.
I was surprised the image of Khizr and Ghazala Khan was not used in prep 5. The image of them on stage at the DNC, holding up a pocket Constitution has been featured in an awful lot of national (US) and international news over the last week, and we happen to have a copy. The image was this one, but there's also a cropped version. The image currently used in prep 5 is indeed clearer when small, so I guess I'm just asking whether recognizability/prominence of the image itself is something typically considered? Perhaps it's considered in the opposite way (i.e. it's less about driving lots of people to new articles, and more about introducing people to new subjects)? Thanks. Pinging Cwmhiraeth, who did the promotion. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
There is only one picture hook per set. More nominations are made that include images than can be used, so the prep set builder looks for a variety of images over the course of a few days. In this particular case, I thought that the Khans had had their time in the limelight, and asked their embarrassing questions, and as it is a time running up to the presidential elections, it was better not to rub salt further into the wound by making it the lead hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Yikes. I would be a lot more comfortable if you had just said "whichever looks best when smaller is really all that matters". From your response it sounds like moving DYKs into prep areas is an opportunity to exercise personal ideological judgments ("the Khans had had their time in the limelight, and asked their embarrassing questions...better not to rub salt..." -- I cannot think of a process on Wikipedia in which this sort of rationale would be appropriate). Maybe the answer to my question is "there are no real guidelines -- it's totally up to whoever moves them into prep"? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 20:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Very troubling response from an error-prone set builder. Looks like we have a problem with personal bias here, not to mention the indignation when poor hooks are pulled. I'd suggest a long break from DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I was also wondering why the Khan hook wasn't the lead hook. I swapped it to make it the lead in a different prep. We're NPOV, right? There have been enough hooks with the name Trump in the last few months to make DYK look like free publicity for one candidate. The uptick in sales of the Constitution because of the Khans has been all over the news. It's a good hook for the lead, and a good image. — Maile (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, though I'm still left wondering re: best practices :/ (somehow my last response above was made just after this, but I didn't see it and didn't edit conflict -- weird). BTW @Maile66: I did upload a cropped version of the image which you could use instead (it might show up better when small?) — Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I just switched to your cropped image. Looks better. — Maile (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Prep set builders can use their judgement in choosing which hooks and images to promote. It was a judgement call on a political topic and you folks appear to think differently. Fair enough. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Queue 5
... that Josiah Holbrook organized the first industrial school in the United States?
I have no idea what an "industrial school" is, so I looked it up on Wikipedia, and found Industrial school. I don't think this is what Josiah Holbrook organized. So, to a large number of readers, this hook is confusing. Suggest a re-word. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
From looking at the sources I believe it should link to
Manual labor school - which are sometimes referred to as industrial schools, and one of the sources does explicitly state he started the first 'industrial' school. I assumed it was some early form of agricultural college - which is what it turned out to be. Only in death does duty end (talk
) 07:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Doug Coldwell just pinging you to let you know about this discussion. I'll be bold and pipe-link industrial school to the suggested target above. If it's wrong, hopefully someone can adress that, as it'll be posted in the next couple of hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Great. I've linked the term and added a hatnote to the industrial school article to help alleviate any confusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Queue 5
... that
1988
?
We usually discourage the use of
Easter egg links, such as this one where 1988 doesn't lead to 1988 at all, but to the cup final of the specific competition that Luton won. This needs rephrasing to avoid such. The Rambling Man (talk
) 06:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I tend to disagree in this case as simple wording makes up for it. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't follow that at all. This kind of mystery linking is discouraged across Wikipedia. But hey, it's posted to the main page now, with just four other, more adequate hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Filling preps
I've been checking and adding but have some RL chores to do. Anyone is welcome to continue checking and adding. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
thanks, Cas LiberLavaBaronPromoters: Please ensure there are 2 reviews for this nomination (see my FAQ) 11:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Nomination as per
DYKPN
Hello. I nominated Member of parliament, Lok Sabha for DYK on 8 Aug 2016 as per DYKPN which clearly states that "If your article was created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations, it may still be approved" (article was created on 16 Jul 2016 and oldest date listed on DYK is 13 May 2016). A reviewer is reading only the last part of the DYKPN ("So you have at least seven days, but probably a few more") and trying to turn down the nomination which is against the stated policy of DYKPN. What is the stated and understood policy for DYKPN? Can someone clarify that please? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
No idea how you found that page (which isn't policy), but these rules don't seem to be part of the accepted DYK rules, which are outlined at
Fram, check the 2nd line under first point here. It is a part of the stated policy, and no, it is not my invention. It was always there. In any-case, we (self and the reviewer) have arrived to a conclusion on the DYK nomination page. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)
17:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't think that should be there, these things have never gotten approval as far as I can see (but I may miss something), and having even more rules apart from the rules and the supplementary rules seems unwise. In any case, it is not policy (nothing at DYK is policy, I think), and al it says is that they can be allowed, not that they will or must be allowed. "you have at least seven days, but probably a few more." doesn't sound as if it was ever intended to extend the deadline with two weeks (or two months, which would under your definition also acceptable in this case).
WP:DYKSG#D9. As I noted in my review, with about 200 active nominations (plus dozens more in the special occasion area set to run during the Olympics), we have a significant backlog of hooks. Depending on how new the nominator is to DYK, we might allow a few days beyond the seven, but not a couple of weeks. BlueMoonset (talk
I have already discussed the DYK nomination with BlueMoonset and left it there. Not talking specifically about this incident, in general, WP is full of such "rules" or "policies" that are very ambiguous in nature and can be twisted, turned and interpreted the way people like. In this particular case, had the majority wanted to pass the article for DYK, they would have taken shelter of DYKPN. Moreover, it is appalling to notice that at times how conveniently people add their own "rules" to the existing ones without any discussion. For example, out of nowhere we have now started discussing that "depending on how new the nominator is.....". Where did this "new" thing come out from? Let's not shift goalposts now. Also, who defines what is significant backlog? 10,20,50,100,200,1000? Who defines? Why cant people be more clear with the policies to avoid such confusion? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 20:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree, and this issue has previously been raised, vis a vis the fact that there are multitudes of rules and corollaries to rules spread out among no fewer than six different pages. These rules and corollaries are selectively activated or ignored as it serves a specific editor. I will support any proposal to rectify this situation. LavaBaronPromoters: Please ensure there are 2 reviews for this nomination (see my FAQ) 11:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:RS called "all-music-free.com". This means the current hook appears to be not reliably sourced and is hence not verifiable. Suggest it is reworded or pulled. The Rambling Man (talk
) 07:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
We could swap it with
Dr. Blofeld to find a source for the list, but he only found the others. --Gerda Arendt (talk
) 07:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
This is how the article looked before expansion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I've pulled the Bells hook and re-opened the nomination in order for a different, reliably sourced hook to be proposed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man et al.: A reliable source has now been found and added to the article for this original hook. Softlavender (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Softlavender! I had to be out all day and couldn't take care of it. Found a better image, but need sleep now. More tomorrow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
So, where are we now? A hook was pulled, I still got a credit (which I removed). A replacement hook was available, but was not used. A source was found (for a fact from a 2009 supporting article, a fact which was also mentioned in the blurb of the TFA). Good news: I found a better image. Can we now proceed with the nom as if all of this had not happened, or will a bot say that the article appeared already. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2016 (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:
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.
Once completed edit queue #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
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
) 22:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Now nearly four hours overdue; admin needed to promote the next prep (which includes some day-specific Olympics hooks) to queue as soon as possible. Pinging Cas Liber, Chris Woodrich, Maile, or any other administrator. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
We need more people to build prep sets, folks. I suggest the folks who review and find errors in sets need to help be part of the solution by building a few. Montanabw(talk) 04:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The "solution" could just as well be to slow down and promote less articles but with better reviews (and in some cases better reviewers). People who find errors in sets don't need to do anything apart from that very necessary work. No one needs to work on DYK, or on prep building, or on any other part they don't like or have no interest in. But if you do work on reviews or prep building or nominating articles, you need to make sure that what you are bringing to the mainspace is correct (and otherwise up to some basic standards). That's the only thing that needs to be done, everything else is strictly voluntary.
The Yankees one is supported, the article states that if the player could copy Jesus' miracle then he could wear his hair any way he wants. That last sentence gives a clear indication that in making that statement he is saying that the player will not have to follow the appearance policy. Please restore it @
Anyone else having the same problem in spotting the difference between the source and the article/hook? It's one sentence on the one hand, and a very short article on the other hand, so this should in theory not be too hard. Still, three people missed it the first time round, and one missed it again now.
What is one sentence in the source is quoted in the article and used for the hook. I'm not sure what you think you see here that's wrong? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The hook is one sentence, the source (article) for it is very short. The source article says nothing, at all, about a beard.
I was about to say, Beards. Although I think that is a leeeetle bit picky Fram. Could just remove the reference to 'beard' in the article - its a 5 second job. I have now done so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
For the Elizabeth Lachlan one, the fact is sourced, though the source does say purportedly. As such,
Fram
would you mind putting it back in with the addition of the word?
That's then supported by the source and the article. Thank you. WormTT(talk) 12:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I guess I understand the issue now. I apologize to the community I did not understand it previously and block the nomination from advancing to prep. LavaBaron (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
It is with absolute terror I must admit that, after staring at the hook and article for the last 15 minutes, I am still unable to see anything wrong with it (vis a vis Elizabeth Lachlan). I know my admitting this is probably my final strike, but I owe it to the project to be honest and steel myself for the fate that awaits me. Thanks to everyone who has made my time here at DYK an enjoyable one. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really interested in fixing hooks and articles for DYK, I would much rather have hook writers and reviewers who do more than a half-decent job. If an article states something as "possibly" and "supposedly", then the hook shouldn't present that as a certainty, and such things should never get unnoticed by the four people involved here. Similarly, when you just have to check a hook against a short source, then noticing that the hook makes a claim that is absent from the source shouldn't be too hard to see, and one would expect at least one of the three involved with that DYK to have spotted this. On the contrary, even when you make it clear that there is a difference between the hook and the source, it still remains invisible.
I often get the "that is easily fixed" reply, but this should never need to be fixed, the checking should be long done when a hook is in prep (certainly with the very short time hooks spend in queue). This week is filled with pulled hooks (we now have a five-hook DYK on the main page!). I don't know what the reason is (probably more than one), in some cases rushing things, in some cases lack of competence, in some cases simply not caring, perhaps other things as well. But the end result is that time and time again, problematic hooks get promoted (and often appear on the main page).
Fram: I do think this was a little heavy-handed on a minor thing (that not many people thought was a problem). Nevertheless I have removed beard from the Yankees hook. Please can you put it back? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk
) 12:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
You shouldn't have changed the hook here, it makes this discussion impossible to follow for anyone arriving later. And no-one said it wasn't a problem, that's exactly the attitude that is causing problems here. While I can't stop anyone else from putting it back in its corrected form, I have no interest in helping anyone with this attitude to fact-checking or corrections to get their articles or reviews on the main page. I will not put it back (nor the other, for that matter).
Thanks for holding the line, Fram. You're right to have no interest in helping anyone; DYK has basically become Roarke's Drift and you're Michael Caine and Stanley Baker rolled into one. As the victim of your restrictions proposal for committing similar egregiousness as this, I feel I can speak like a felled warrior from the grave warning off the other Zulus from approaching your well-guarded encampment lest they suffer a similar fate. LavaBaron (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Right then, "purportedly" added to one took, and "beard" subtracted from the other. I concede I missed the "beard" in source. Reminds me of "Paris in the the spring". Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@
Fram: You wrote "I'm not really interested in fixing hooks and articles for DYK." OK then Fram, why don't you stop waging war at DYK and move across to reviewing FACs instead? Your attention to detail will be more appreciated there. And by the way, you have not yet mastered the correct way of pulling hooks and returning them to the nominations page, leaving others to clear up the mess. Cwmhiraeth (talk
) 13:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
? I'm interested in keeping incorrect DYK hooks off the main page, I'm not so much interested in getting hooks on the main page. I won't achieve that by leaving DYK alone and moving to FAC review. I realise that people like you have no appreciation for "attention to detail", which is what you (and others) should leave DYK well alone. As for you "by the way", I think I have mastered it by now, thank you. By not reopening the discussions rightaway, I actually reduced the workload for anyone wanting to swiftly return the hooks to the main page. The mess is, as so often with these pulled hooks, yours.
Fram: As someone so keen on paying "attention to detail", why does the statement immediately above this contain several inaccuracies and untruths, quite apart from the grammatical errors? Cwmhiraeth (talk
) 06:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
For the grammatical errors, that's because this is a talk page and I have little interest in polishing my language here (I notice a "you" that should have been a "your", who cares?). Please indicate the "several inaccuracies and untruths" though or don't make such blanket statements.
"I realise that people like you have no appreciation for "attention to detail". How's that for an inaccurate blanket statement? The whole paragraph is an incoherent rant. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
You don't appear to have attention to detail, or else why would you post articles with no fewer than three errors in the opening line of the lead to a prep? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
"Why don't you stop waging war at DYK and move across to reviewing FACs instead? Your attention to detail will be more appreciated there." So, you want me away from DYK because of my "attention to detail". That sounds to me like a lack of appreciation for attention to detail. That you consider that paragraph "an incoherent rant" doesn't come as a surprise considering problems you have had interpreting things correctly in some recent DYKs discussed here, but that you don't even remember or understand your own statements is something of a novelty. Then again, you seem to have problems sometimes understanding even the most basic explanations[28]. Rather worrying that you seem to be the most active prep builder at the moment, it means that we basically have to rely on the nominator + reviewer to do the check right and loose one extra set of eyes to critically look at reviewed hooks.
WP:DICK if that was still active) That's not very nice to pull something because of a problem that you have seen but then refuse to restore it when it has been fixed. It seems to be unnecessarily bureaucratic and/or spiteful to act in such a manner. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk
) 13:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
You're just now noticing this? Anyway, with that comment and this error, safe to say you'll be joining me on double-QPQ duty soon. LavaBaron (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Like I have explained numerous times in the past, including most likely discussions with the exact same players: if not even the hook is right, I have very little faith in the remainder of the article and DYK check. Furthermore, in my view established DYK editors (like all of you are) who can't even get hooks right should suffer the terrible fate of having one less article featured on DYK. Get it right or don't get on the main page. Pulled remains pulled. I know that that is not a DYK rule, and that others can repromote these hooks if they are so inclined, but I have no interest in or obligation to restore hooks against my better judgment. Like I said, my goal is to keep errors off the main page, not to get DYKs on the main page. If removing errors from the main page means fewer or no DYKs on the main page, or a slower turnover rate, so be it, I see no problem with that.
Pulling hooks that can be easily rectified in situ is just needlessly disruptive. You could have fixed the hooks yourself or simply opened a discussion about them without pulling them. You are creating unnecessary work for other users when you do this.
Also, pulling hooks based on the notion that because the hook is erroneous, there might also be errors in the article is absurd. There might be errors in any article featured on the main page, but that's not a reason not to feature them. If you find an unacceptable number of errors in an article, that's a legitimate reason to pull, but speculation is not. Gatoclass (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
No, that's incorrect. Pulling hooks, even as a precaution, should be encouraged, as it maintains the integrity of the main page. If the hook gets re-inserted later, so what? There is no
deadline, so I'm not sure why there's some kind of rush (as ever) here to push as many hooks as possible, as quickly as possible to the main page. It's proving, especially lately, to be error-strewn. I defended the DYK project when others have suggested it should be removed from the main page, but if this "head in the sand" attitude continues, I'll change horses midstream and advocate for it to be excised. Please, all of you complaining about Fram et al doing this thankless task, spend your energy doing proper reviews and stop promoting garbage to the main page. It's pretty simple. If you can't manage that, do something else and stop wasting Fram's (and others') time having to double check the work of three, four or five people who say a hook is "good to go" when it's clearly not. Fix it, stop bitching about the criticism, job done. The Rambling Man (talk
) 19:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, The Rambling Man, of course hooks should be pulled as a precaution, but only when necessary. I have pulled more hooks over time than Fram, so I hardly need to be reminded of the need for doing so, but I only do it when there is no time to resolve the outstanding issue or else when the issue is clearly going to take time to resolve. Pulling hooks for minor issues that can be readily resolved is just disruption to make a POINT. You can make a point on Wikipedia effectively enough without violating the guidelines or creating unnecessary work for everybody else. Gatoclass (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
It's not "making a point" to pull hooks that are erroneous or unverifiable or plain wrong, even if the issues are minor. The process needs to improve to reduce the number of occurrences. Right now it's a shambles, you had a five-hook set yesterday, that's pathetic. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
No, Gatoclass, that's not needlessly disruptive. The DYK process is based on checks and balances. If fuor people have reviewed a hook, and I then come along and just change it at the last minute, then I would be disrupting process. Pulling a hook when I think it contains a factual error means that my opinion can be reviewed again, and that a new hook can be found (or the original hook be found to be correct after all and readded). I have tried other approaches in the past: changing a hook immediately has lead at least once to complaints that the new hook was wrong or inaccurate as well; not pulling the hook but simply discussing it here or at WP:ERRORS has lead twice last week to hooks not getting pulled or corrected at all. My experience is that the only safe method to deal with these is pulling them first, and then starting a discussion about them. The usual flak from some DYK regulars is just par for the course. "Also, pulling hooks based on the notion that because the hook is erroneous, there might also be errors in the article is absurd." No, if a hook is incorrect, then it is clear that the DYK review wasn't done properly and should be redone in all aspects. When the reviewers miss such errors, I see no reason to trust that they have done the other checks (like copyvio and so on) any better.
Fram, because you didn't express any doubt about the problems with these hooks when pulling them. Do you really need a second opinion just to remove a reference to a beard that doesn't appear in the given source? I hardly think so, you are not incompetent. And in any case, you can raise issues here without first pulling a hook. As I said to you the other week, if you don't get a satisfactory response here in a timely manner, that is the appropriate time to pull a hook, not before. But if you insist on pulling hooks prematurely, the least you could do is return them yourself when the issue is resolved, instead of leaving some other administrator to clean up after you. Gatoclass (talk
) 07:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
That hook was pulled from prep, so no admin was needed, any editor could do this. And the things you say I can do, yes, I could, but I have had bad experiences with them in the past, so I prefer not to do them. And a hook with an error is never pulled "prematurely", it has been promoted prematurely. Perhaps you should direct your suggestions to the ones actually reviewing and promoting these hooks?
Funny how everyone is only interested in getting these hooks back on the main page, and no one cares about why we have so many errors in the hooks this week (even more than usual, it seems). Thank you all for reminding me of what DYK is for and why you are all here.
(ec) Pulling hooks to prevent erroroneous and poorly sourced hooks to preserve the integrity of the main page is a thankless task. And an all-too-frequent one. You'd all be better off doing a better job on reviewing the DYKs than complaining when someone tries to keep a level of quality control going around here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@
Fram and The Rambling Man: I am very tired of the disrespect both of you keep showing to everyone participating in DYK without ever recognising any of the article development and good work being done. I would thank you for your efforts if I believed your approach was based solely on quality control, but your behaviour prevents me from reaching that conclusion. I have posted in the past hoping you would moderate your approach, but since you have not, I will be more direct: Your approach here is counter-productive because your criticisms cover the spectrum from serious problems to trivia, and your manner is provoking defensiveness-from-attack rather than appreciation for constructive criticism. I have never had a hook pulled, nor do I recall any review of mine being found to have a serious flaw. I have overturned ticks when I saw significant problems and raised concerns. My reviews often raise multiple issues. I should be your natural ally, yet you are alienating me and (I believe) many editors and contributors who care as much about quality and project integrity. Seriously, can you not find anything positive to say, or failing that, to make your comments without quite so much disdain? EdChem (talk
) 13:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm very tired of having to check every single DYK for fundamental issues of grammar, spelling etc before (and sometimes sadly, during) their time on the main page. I'm also tired of checking that the three or four people involved in each review and promotion have done their parts correctly. It's not like it's a one-in-a-hundred kind of problem either. The general attitude here is that those of us pulling hooks, fixing errors, keeping the integrity of the main page intact, are the problem, not that the continual error-strewn promotion of sets is the problem. Stop being an apologist for a system that is clearly not functioning properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I only show disrespect to those whose DYK edits and attitude towards producing content for the main page repeatedly is not deserving of respect. There are many DYK participants (like apparently yourself) who have never been criticized by me, so you are wrong from the very start of your comment. Some of the editors here never show "appreciation for constructive criticism" nor any awareness of what they did wrong, no matter how many times you explain it. I'm not interested in "finding anything positive to say", I pull hooks with factual errors in them, and present evidence of this here. Only when people produce errors again and again (as nominator, reviewer and/or promotor) or when they try to defend the indefensible (like people producing OR hooks but not recognising this after lengthy explanations, or people comparing fact checking for a one-line hook with "demanding FA quality", or any of the other recurring defenses) do I start to show "disdain". I have no problem with people making errors, I have trouble with people making the same or very similar errors again and again, or people defending such errors. They have a whole encyclopedia (and better yet, a world wide web) to toy with, so there is no need to let them produce errors for the main page again and again.
Fram, you have treated me with disdain and disrespect inside the last three months. When you cited a policy that did not apply in a criticism, your response amounted to (IMO) that you are right even when you are wrong. You need to regain some perspective because you exhibit disdain towards others far more often than the above post suggests. EdChem (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
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.
Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
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
) 21:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Prep 2 filled, ready to move. Montanabw(talk) 23:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Not ready: I had to pull one hook, and I'll be swapping the lead hooks in prep 2 and 4 in a few moments, since I believe the prep 2 lead should be saved for September 8. We'll need a new quirky hook for Prep 2 at some point... BlueMoonset (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I added a Chinchilla, then. So if you want to save a Gene Roddenbury hook for Sept 8, why wasn't it moved down there in the first place (and why is it now in Prep 4?). But whatever. Montanabw(talk) 23:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC). Also, I am going offline for a while, so if this one doesn't work either, someone else needs to fix it. Montanabw(talk) 23:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Prep 2 is now all set to go; admin needed. Montanabw, it appears that the Pan Am/Roddenberry hook was in two places at once, then; it was definitely in the special occasion section when I checked before writing my above comment. I moved it to prep 4 to quickly get it out of the way in case there had been some subsequent agreement to run it sooner that I didn't know about; that not being the case, I'll be pulling it back to the special occasion section in a few minutes. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, that was weird. I presume it's all been fixed now. Other than the new drama below. Montanabw(talk) 02:44, 11 August 2016 (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:
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.
Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
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
) 18:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Now overdue. Admin needed to promote Prep 6 to Queue 6 so the bot can promote it to the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Done I wanted to do this hours ago, but I wasn't quite sure if Fram etal. were OK with the hooks. Well, it's there now. — Maile (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Absurd. You either stick to the quick pace dictated by current consensus or you advocate slowing it down officially. Don't do something in between. Needless to say the hooks haven't necessarily been reviewed by someone with a critical eye yet, and hooks may still be pulled, regardless of your caution in promoting the set. Bottom line is, either stick to the schedule and promote whatever whenever its needed, or finally acknowledge that reviews are too quick, too poor, and slow things down to one set of eight per day. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
It's always nice to see you here. Keep up your good work. We need you here. — Maile (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Standard "I can't hear you" response. Try making the process work better, that'd be better than fruitless and sarcastic replies. You need to start thinking whether this project is worth keeping on the main page. Too many errors, too many apologists, too many incompetent contributions. Start on that, and then come back to me with your mindless chatter. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I am, in the strongest possible terms, going to ask that anyone who complains about the quality of DYK please do at least one prep set for every complaint you make (or even just promote ONE article into a prep for every complaint... a QPQ for critics, perhaps?) There are far too few people building prep sets. It takes an admin to move them to queues, so if any regular complainers are admins, please do the moves. I really would ask more people to become part of the solution. Frankly, people like Maile66 need to not live in fear of being slapped for doing their job; it's daunting. No one has the time to do a complete re-review of every DYK that is promoted; we do anticipate that the reviewed hook got a second look from some of the regulars, and again when we build preps and queues, it's clear that other eyes look them over. Maybe DYK sucks and should be abolished, maybe we need to go to once a day sets, maybe we need to go to six-hook sets; who knows? Frankly, while we have the system we have, we have to make it go, so as we say out in Montana, if you're complaining about too much shit in the barn, quitcherbitchin and pick up a shovel. Montanabw(talk) 04:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid the limited time I have I spend working on the DYK articles themselves. Just today articles are being promoted with grammar issues in the lead, typos, peacock language, reference errors etc. That's bad enough to occupy most of my availability. I imagine Fram and I (and others) will continue to try to preserve the integrity of the main page, despite all the apologists and "head-in-sand" brigade here who clearly aren't getting the fact that something is broken here. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
IMHO, if you do that, you have just done the review needed to also promote a hook -- actually promoting and moving one article to an empty prep takes no more than five minutes once the review is completed and if your name is on the edit, it would give the rest of us a bit of relief -- even one less hook helps. Though that's a approval issue that the original reviewer should have caught, and if not, then one of the other folks such as BlueMoonset or yourself, adding a "no" tag and thus removing them from the eligible for promotion list. When I build prep sets, as a rule, I start with the oldest hooks approved but not promoted, then I go to hooks or articles written/approved by the regulars here (at least the ones who are generally reliable) and then to the newer hooks that have to have more review. It's a time issue, and I prioritize the one that ought to need less review at promotion. Montanabw(talk) 22:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Great idea, Montanabw. We have only a few people spotting errors in (too many) DYKs in prep, queue or mainpage (well, recently not in queue as hooks tend to stay there for a very short while only). Let's add extra requirements for the right to spot errors to make sure that they will be less inclined to do so and we can have even more errors on the main page! You really are part of the solution here. Feel free to gather the other likeminded people on this talk page and add your rule to the DYK rules. I will ignore it anyway. If I see an error in a hook that has been promoted, I pull it. I spend too much time already in checking these hooks which have been nominated by (in most cases) experienced editors, and approved by two experienced editors, and which shouldn't need rechecking, certainly not at such an appaling rate. It's easy to note that e.g. the pylon photo had no indication of being the pylon from the hook; but if I had pulled it only with that reason, I would have been lambasted with complaints here. So I had to do the work the article creator and hook reviewers should have done, and try to find what these pylons (the highest ones) really look like. And then I should also do a QPQ review as reward for doing a better review of a hook than the regulars did? No, the logical thing would be to declare the review invalid (meaning that it can't be used for QPQ by whoever did it), the DYK unacceptable, and in the case of too-often repeat offenders DYK off-limits. Not adding extra requirements for the one person that actually did the correct review in such a case.
I would suggest, Fram, that you do your error-checking BEFORE things get into a prep set. Anything green can be promoted, and if you pull back the approval while it is still at DYK/N, that would actually be a better solution. Montanabw(talk) 22:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
You may suggest anything you want. I would prefer it it were suggestions tackling the root cause of the problems, not suggestions which would remove the systematic problems at DYK out of sight, but we're all volunteers so we can't make others do what we prefer of course. The problem is not when I do my error checking (or will you stop DYK when I'm unavailable for weeks or months, as has happened?), the problem is that such error checking is still all too frequently needed after the nom plus double check has been done.
Actually the over-riding criteria for IAR is 'does ignoring this rule improve the encyclopedia?' If ignoring any DYK-specific rule would improve the encyclopedia by removing obvious errors from the main page, I think you will find IAR applies. (Not that invoking IAR would be needed, as any specific DYK rule would not over-ride Wikipedia's basic policies for verifiability, sourcing, accuracy etc). Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
This was sourced to the paywall article[29] and AGF accepted with the explicit question " I'm assuming the source used the word "exclusive", so I put it in quotes here and in the article (please correct me if I'm wrong)" Looking at the review from other sources [30] and [31], it seems that the source does not use the word "exclusive" at all. I have pulled the hook and will reopen the discussion.
Huh? If you had access to the source and could verify that the word isn't in the source, why didn't you just remove the quotes and leave the hook in prep? Yoninah (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for making my point for me, and illustrating why I don't do this, not with this hook and not with the others. In this case specifically, there has been further discussion at the DYK nomination, making it clear that not only was I right that the word was not in that source, but the nominator had also completely misunderstood the sentence he based the hook on: removing the quotes would still have produced an incorrect hook. By simply "correcting" the hook in situ, this would probably have remained unnoticed, or else some of the same people complaining that I should simply correct the hooks would then complain that I had produced an incorrect hook. @
Well, this is certainly pointing up the futility of the AGF tick. I have the feeling that even if I waited for the page creator to answer me that the word "exclusive" was not in the source, I wouldn't have been able to pull out of him the truth about the whole quote, which you were able to do only because you managed to find the article online and were looking right at it. To my knowledge, DYK reviewers are not required to go searching for online versions of paywalled sources cited in an article. Maybe we need to rethink this AGF idea? Yoninah (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I had nothing to do with this nomination, promotion, pulling, etc.
Pulling from a prep is much better than pulling from the main page, so it's good you acted at this point rather than later.
Whether or not you are right in this case does not prove that all your pulls are correct, and some of your pulls are for trivial issues which could easily be addressed.
As I have said, several times, some of your pulls have been about serious issues and undoubtedly correct, I readily admit this. Can you admit that some weren't?
I want better reviewing, fewer issues, and a less contentious DYK. Do you want to work constructively towards any of those?
Thanks for totally missing the point. "some of your pulls are for trivial issues which could easily be addressed." Yes, and this seemed to be one of those (just remove the quotes, not even the need to actually change anything fundamental!) Turns out that it wasn't a trivial one, and that the hook was incorrect even after the quotes would have been removed. When I find an error with a hook, it is often not clear how far-reaching that error is; removing the hook and reopening the discussion to get further input (collaboration, you know?) is the solution, not unilaterally "improving" the hook which would here (and in enough other cases) not have produced a correct hook either. I pinged you to make this clear to you, not because you (or the others I pinged) had anything to do with this specific hook. Apparently this was in vain.
Fram, you could surely see the hook was incorrect, so you knew what the right course of action was, and took it. Gatoclass (talk
) 14:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and I explicitly mentioned in my section here that the hook was AGF accepted. So, I removed an erroneous hook from the preps, reopened the discussion, and explicitly indicated why I had no problem with the hook having been accepted by the reviewers. But apparently even this is somehow uncollaborative, wrong, unconstructive, and what else.
I haven't read any such accusations over this hook removal and I certainly didn't make them. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Not from you, my apologies if it came across as if I accused you of these, I meant it as a remark about others. I got a question about why I didn't correct it in the prep (this after that the DYK discussion had concluded that the remainder of the hook was wrong as well), and then Edchem spectacularly missed the point and claiming that "some of your pulls are for trivial issues which could easily be addressed." in the very section where it is demonstrated why this is a bad idea, while learning me how I should behave.
Fram, I note that you completely missed that I expressed no position on this specific hook. Also that "some of your pulls" does not imply *this* pull. I could respond to all that you write, but I recognise it is pointless and that you seem to like to get the last word, so go on believing in your own righteous perfection, throw some more disdain at me, and continue frustrating progress on your purported goal of improved DYK reviewing. EdChem (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah you missed the point again! This buried-head, defensive attitude that many DYK regulars have adopted, I.e. "No problem here, just some nit picking admins trying to own the place" nonsense is obfuscating the real issue. Too many errors are getting through too many stages of DYK to the main page, be them trivial or fundamental. The sooner you all woke up to that the better. I'm sure we've all get better things to do than rechecking everything that goes through Preps, we need to get the job done right first time round. Until then, some of us will certainly continue to pull hooks for even trivial issues, just for the very reason that Fram has illustrated twice or more in recent posts. Get used to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you missed the point again completely. Please explain how I am to know which errors are serious enough to be pulled, and which ones are trivial ones that should get corrected in situ? You may take the hook discussed here as an example.
Let's look at your examples of how to deal with errors in the preparation areas. Oh wait, you have never pulled a hook from preps, and edited the preps twice in 2016 and not at all in 2015 (none of these to correct factual errors).
Fram:Thanks as well. I had read "neural network" when I reviewed it originally ... that's why a second pair of eyes is always good. Daniel Case (talk
) 15:47, 11 August 2016 (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:
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.
Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
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,
No issues found with article, ready for human review.
Done — Maile (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}