Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 125

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 120←Archive 123Archive 124Archive 125Archive 126Archive 127→Archive 130

Analysis of the current lead hook and article (pulled from Main Page)

Template:Did you know nominations/Castle of Pambre @Nvvchar, Mike Peel, and Montanabw: (I have pinged the reviewer and promotor, but in this case the responsability lies mostly with the creator IMO).

Should articles of this quality be accepted for DYK? We have, only in the lead (8 sentences long):

  • Two sentences referenced to "Sheppard, Fionna (2011). The Weigh, The Piece and The Loaf. Xlibris Corporation. ISBN 978-1-4653-0484-1.": Xlibris is a self-publisher, this is an unreliable source, a travel account no better (for our purposes) than taking some info from a personal blog or the like
  • "It was built in Galician medieval military architectural style." No evidence that this is a separate style, the source[1] says "It is the best example of Galician medieval military architecture.", meaning military architecture from that period and in this region, not discussing any separate style. This was part of the hook, so I pulled it.
  • "The castle is about 9 kilometres (5.6 mi) away from Palas do Rei on the road that passes through the Leboreiro mountain range." is completely incorrect. This is sourced to a snippet view of [2] which reads
"[...] castle of Pambre.
9 Kilometres from Palas do Rei the Road crosses Leboreiro [...]"
  • Castle of Pambre was here the end of the previous paragraph, and the book then goes on to describe the Road (the road to Santiago) from Palas do Rei to the next village. Two unrelated facts are here connected to make up "new" information.
  • "Called as the "most complete and spectacular castle", it is on the route to Camino de Santiago, which is both a UNESCO World Heritage site and a pilgrimage site for Christians of the Catholic faith." For starters, it is not called THE "most complete and spectacular castle", it is called[3] "one of the most complete and spectacular castles" (plural). It is not on the Camino de Santiago (it should be either that, or the route to Santiago, but not both), but nearby, a few miles away.
  • "The castle houses a barn, many patios, a residential complex and a Roman Catholic chapel." Sourced to [4] (not the most reliable source either, but passons): "including inside barn, several patios, a dwelling house and a Roman chapel." here we have the opposite of the start of the article: a "Roman" chapel is a chapel in the Romanesque style, not (necessarily) a Roman Catholic one (it presumably is Roman Catholic, but that's not what this is about).

So, of the 8 sentences of the lead, six are very poorly sourced and/or simply wrong, including the hook fact. This happens all too often with hooks by Nvvchar, it seems (who is one of the most prolific DYK creators). We are not asking for GA or FA quality, but what you write should be correct; this is a basic requirement of all contributions here, and the above is not an occasional error, but the bulk of the lead of the article. This is simply not acceptable. Fram (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that nominations from this user need extra scrutiny. He is a prolific contributor but has a tendency to misstate sources. However, once again I see no need to pull the hook, all you needed to do was drop the last clause or modify it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Why would we willingly point our readers from the Main Page to a badly sourced, poorly written, and in many aspects wrong article? All I needed to do was speedy delete the article, but that is sadly not allowed within our rules. That article doesn't belong on the Main Page, and the time has come to consider whether any page written by Nvvchar belongs there, seeing how many have been pulled from preps, queues and Main Page over the last few months. Claiming that polishing the hook is sufficient here is highly irresponsible advice and equal to burying our head in the sand. Fram (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Most of the errors you identified are trivial, and could easily have been fixed by you. People correct errors that occur on the main page all the time, why is it that the only solution you can ever see is to pull the hook? Could it be because your aim is to maximize drama and main page disruption to make a POINT? Gatoclass (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
It maximises the exposure of DYK's clear ignorance of quality. After that, it's nominators and reviewers and promoters jobs to get it right. Stop looking to shoot the messengers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
No, Gatoclass. For starters, these are not trivial (trivial errors are typoes, not these things). They are easy to fix once they have been found and researched, which took me a considerable amount of time. The sentences sourced to the Xlibris book, should I simply remove them or find a good source for them? And when 75% of the lead is wrong or needs considerable work to get it right, do you believe I can just change these and skip the body of the article? Or do I need to check everything there as well? Yes, really easy, a two minute piece of cake. Fram (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
This is awful. Is DYK now advocating that as long as you have one single sentence in the target article cited, the rest of it can be incorrect? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
No of course not, the article should have been fixed before it went to the main page. But where was the necessity of pulling it once there? Surely the appropriate thing to do would be to minimize disruption by simply correcting the errors in situ and then bringing the issue up here? Gatoclass (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, that's appalling. If 75% oft just the lead has been shown to be unreferenced or erroneous, who gives a damn about the hook? It doesn't belong on the main page, does it? We are looking to maximise quality, not minimise disruption. To do this, make sure quality reviews are made, not just these passing glances which promote garbage to the main page time after time after time. Bucket of sand? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
What was disrupted by removing the hook from the Main Page? What is more problematic, leaving a severely deficient page linked from the Main Page, or removing it from the Main Page and reducing the exposure it gets by a factor 100? Your opinion is noted, but I'll continue pulling articles from the Main Page in cases like this. Fram (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I do appreciate all the work people do here, but having been not inclined to pass Template:Did you know nominations/Daisy Earles today, I fear the time is approaching to dish out some topic bans :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It is our clear policy that "Perfection is not required" and that we should not agonize over making mistakes. Every page in Wikipedia carries a disclaimer which states emphatically: "Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information." That includes the main page. We even have a page and process especially designed to deal with the expected errors on the main page – WP:ERRORS – and it is usually quite busy. If an editor is prolific then naturally there will be more opportunity for them to make such mistakes. The issues complained about above seem quite minor and, as the material has been contributed in good faith, should be accepted as such. It is quite normal for editors to quibble about the details of an article and this should be expected as a normal part of our activities. See also perfectionism. Andrew D. (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    Perhaps you didn't read the analysis closely enough Andrew. No-one is asking for perfection. We are asking for an error/unsourced claims rate of less than 75% in the lead alone. It's pretty straightforward, but if you'd like me to take some more time to explain it in further detail, don't hesitate to ask. No-one reads the disclaimer, DYK is churning out error after error, the main page is being disrupted by such nonsense. I had hoped that someone like you would understand that, but if you're not seeing it, there's little hope for this little fun project called DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    Clarification: as you know Andy, about 6,000 hits on the disclaimer (which is featured on every page on Wikipedia) for around 18,000,000 hits on the main page (which is featured on one page on Wikipedia). Suggesting that our readers are aware of the disclaimer is fantasy and thus using it as an excuse for piss-poor quality articles published on the main page is a stretch too far by far. In fact, it's insultingly weak. Why not, instead, focus on improving the detritus that DYK habitually promotes, and mandating reviewers to do a good job. Right now, they're failing and failing abysmally. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I promoted that one, so my comment for the record is that the hook looked properly sourced to me (not being familiar with architecture other than in the most general way, and particularly unfamiliar with details of medieval architecture, I totally failed to see a distinction between "style" and "period"). Frankly, if I had been the first reviewer of that DYK, even then I may not have detected that distinction. (And FWIW, I even have an undergrad degree in history, but hey, I focused on 20th century American foreign policy, so what do I know?) So on one hand, I have to say that while Fram found good points, I don't think any non-expert would have spotted any of that other than the Xlibris source, and maybe the distinction between Roman architecture and Roman Catholic. And, even so, none of it is fatal or speedy deletion material, it's just stuff that has to be fixed. (IMHO, we are too quick to apply WP:TNT when actual cleanup can fix things) Montanabw(talk) 20:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
But this brings up a question that we have to ask, which is the degree to which promoters and the admins who move articles into the queues are obligated to do another complete review of the entire article, and if so, how we get more people to do prep sets, because as it sits, there are not enough people willing to do it, perhaps because they are wary of the responsibility involved (pinging Ritchie333, who admitted as much). Usually, after BlueMoonset and Yoninah in particular have gone over an article, flagged problems in the review and the article is then verified after they've done a look-see, one would think that the article should be copacetic. A promoter does review, but often in a cursory manner -- for example, I don't run earwig bot, I don't do a GA-class review of sources, but I do check to see if the hook is sourced. Often, when I am building a prep set, I go there because the bot pinged this page that all the queues are empty; and in such cases, I try to fill as many prep sets as possible, which often means that I am going to prioritize the works of prolific DYK contributors, as we presumably are supposed to know the rules and have had multiple reviewers go over their prior articles, hence a more cursory review will do the trick. Montanabw(talk) 20:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
So, to the extent there is a problem with a particular editor (who should be notified of this discussion, @Nvvchar:), that IS a big concern and one that does need to be addressed. Like I say, on this article, I most likely, had I been an ordinary reviewer there, would have missed several of the points raised by Fram, even with a fairly thorough review. Montanabw(talk) 20:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I have noted the above discussions. I was not aware that Xlibris source is not reliable. I will make corrections to the pulled article. Any way, I have stopped contributing to DYK now.Nvvchar. 02:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (Montanabw, I had both pinged Nvvchar and left a message on his talk page, so he was notified more than enough already Fram (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC) )
Well said Montanabw, I am in complete agreement with your views. If the obligations of promoters are too great, nobody will choose to build prep sets. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Like I said at the top of this discussion, "I have pinged the reviewer and promotor, but in this case the responsability lies mostly with the creator IMO". Promotors and reviewers are not required to check the accuracy of the article beyond the hook (although it obviously is better if they do at least a basic check). But this means that we have to trust the article creators and nominators, and once it has become clear that said trust is not (fully) warranted, there has to be some mechanism to avoid problems. DYK Tbans are one option, a requirement that the articles from some editors get a "full review", not a standard review, is another (not caring that we place articles with more errors than facts on the main page is also an option supported by some apparently, but that really isn't acceptable; if that would become official DYK policy here, I predict that it will also mean that DYK will be removed from the main page completely). Fram (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
It's all very well to complain about obligations, but we all have them and promoting sets which contain the kinds of errors that Fram picks up routinely cannot be allowed to continue. Something at the core of DYK isn't functioning, perhaps it's the blind adherance to the minutiae of the QPQ which allows an article to be promoted while full of errors, poor prose, non-encyclopdic content, adverts, copyvios etc. Either way, change is needed and if that makes the DYK review process more onerous, so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi all. As the reviewer for this DYK (for a QPQ), it looked like it passed all of the DYK criteria, although evidently I didn't look at the details close enough (with the architectural style point). The rest of the article looked mostly OK to me, although some cleanup looked necessary (some of which I did after the review, and I meant to return to this but I ran out of time to work on this article). The more fundamental ref issues I have to confess to not catching, but then I didn't realise that sort of detailed check fell under the DYK criteria. Given this situation, I'll recuse from QPQ's in the future, and when I have the time I'll work on bringing this article up to scratch. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's the problem: Before qpq, people like me, who created articles, would wait forever for a DYK review because there weren't enough reviewers. qpq was instituted to get more articles reviewed in a timely fashion, and I for one would probably have never dared stick a toe into the review process had I not been required to do qpq-- so in one sense, it's a great recruitment tool. On the other hand, the review process is awkward, instructions are scattered across multiple pages, and while I hope the new bot helps the process by taking care of the time, length and qpq verification parts, one broken part is definitely the instructions and the management of a bad review--we have too much drama and not enough help. Montanabw(talk) 22:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Peel:, such checks are not necessary for a QPQ, although obviously the more detailed and thorough a check is, the better. The main problem in this case (apart from a hook subtlety that wasn't catched by the review) is the repeated problems with this particular DYK nominator, and the general error rate at DYK. A TBan may solve the first (Nvvchar has indicated that he will not edit DYK, but no idea for how long that commitment is), and discussions below try to tackle the second. I see no need for you to withdraw from DYK and QPQ, but of course you shouldn't do things you aren't comfortable with. Fram (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed highly unlikely hook from Prep 3

Template:Did you know nominations/Up in the Air (song) @Earthh, Hawkeye7, and Cwmhiraeth:

Hawkeye7 disputed this in the nomination, referring to the Voyager disc, but that was not a commercial copy. Fair enough, but the problem is that for years and years, there have been commercial copies of music, standard CDs, available on the ISS for the astronauts. See e.g. this where Michael Foreman (astronaut) discusses a Bruce Springsteen Greatest Hits CD he had with him at the ISS. Other sources indicate that they had a whole library of CDs with them (in pre-mp3 times). Fram (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC) (Thank you, TRM, but fixing a ping doesn't work, you have to make it in a new post.) @Cwmhiraeth and DivaKnockouts: Fram (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

See also the end of this document for a list of CDs permanently on the ISS in 2008 (astronauts could of course bring their own CSd as well, within limits). [5] Fram (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

And Across the Universe was sent into space in 2008.[6] Perhaps, 'sent into space' is the real problem, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks likely. Perhaps it was the first commercial song to be premiered in space? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
No, that happened in 2012 already[7]. Perhaps it was the first one to premier from the ISS, but a) when a first gets too detailed, it becomes meaningless, and b) we need good sources for this. Fram (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Or the 'commercial copy' thing is just a non sequitur, if what is meant by that is like a thumb drive or CD, because that physical thing was not 'sent into space' when the song was played on the space station, the thumb drive or cd was sent into space when the rocket took off from earth. But can't they download in space?Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Could not the hook just be abbreviated thusly? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I've looked at the article and the GA review, which also missed that this claim was unlikely (Fram, are you talking with the GA reviewer too?). I wonder if what is meant is that the first CD commercially produced was the actual one sent into space for the premiere, because the article text (which is unclear) could be read this way. (I have not checked the sources, this is supposition from reading the article.) It is a shame that Hawkeye caught that there was an issue but then gave a tick, it reminds me not to agree to a hook unless I am satisfied and to call for another opinion if a resolution is not reached. EdChem (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm for the moment staying out of GA, the standards there are often abysmal and tackling that and DYK is just too much. It's not the first time either that I have pulled a GA from DYK... Fram (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2 - "tapped" again

We've had this complained about before, the use of "tapped", and in prep 2 we currently have "...that César Camacho Quiroz (pictured) was tapped to become Governor of the State of Mexico ..." Can someone suggest a suitable alternative e.g. is "selected" appropriate? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Fourth of July specials?

I noticed nothing seems to be in the special occasion holding area for Fourth of July (Independence Day in the United States). There is at least one good candidate: Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of the United States of the Ionian Islands. - Brianhe (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Did I put this proposal in the right place? - Brianhe (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see that as a very suitable candidate for Fourth of July Brianhe, it reads more like an April Fools hook to me. Gatoclass (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps so, I raised that concern myself [8]. It will be unfortunate if we don't have anything special on that day. - Brianhe (talk) 12:03, 1 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:

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Now nearly four hours late: admin still needed to promote Prep 2 to Queue 2. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Pictures

(I know we could also use a CSS crop which links directly to the source image and avoid the whole issue, but I seem to recall that technique being frowned upon for the main page.) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I think if the nomination image is a crop of an image in the article, then the nomination image can be said to be in the article. But a few more opinions here would be useful. If consensus is that a cropped image is legitimate, then there is probably no harm in adding that as a caveat in the supplementary rules. Gatoclass (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Question on fixes and helpers

OK, so, the issues raised by The Rambling Man and others are things that have been constant complaints about DYK for pretty much the entire decade I've been here: that quality is spotty, that reviews are inadequate, that articles with problems make it to the main page without being caught, and so on. And nothing seems to actually change. So, I am wondering if there are structural fixes that are outside the box and should be considered (other than nuking DYK altogether, which has also been discussed in the past decade and is not going to happen). I am particularly curious to know what kind of a workload situation we have. It looks like Wikipedia:Did_you_know#DYK_participants is quite outdated, plus it doesn't really clarify the roles that non-admins can play in promoting hooks and prep sets, cleanup of troubling nominations, and so on. What I am realizing as a part-of-the-time DYK contributor and helper, but not someone who exclusively works here, is that one of the disconnects in the process is between 1) Need for reviewers, 2) Skill of reviews, and 3) Awareness of ongoing issues within the local DYK "neighborhood." Montanabw(talk) 03:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

So just a quick question. Who does each of these?

  • Admins who participate at DYK and routinely move prep sets to queues and updating main page:
  1. (sign here)
  • Admins who participate at DYK but rarely move prep sets to queues and updating main page:
  1. Fram (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Non-admins (or admins) who do promotions and build prep sets:
  1. Montanabw(talk) 03:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Yoninah (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. (sign here)
  • Non-admins (or admins) who clean up reviews that have had problems that need new reviewers and other difficulties that result in tags appended:
  1. Montanabw(talk) 03:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC) (but not very often)
  2. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Yoninah (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Andrew D. (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Notecardforfree (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  7. EdChem (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  8. (sign here)
  • Non-admins (or admins) who review articles above and beyond their own qpq requirements:
  1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Yoninah (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Notecardforfree (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  7. EdChem (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  8. (sign here)
  • Non-admins (or admins) who originally started DYK work because of the qpq requirement, but now do at least some more work than just qpq:
  1. Montanabw(talk) 03:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Edwardx (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC) (mostly tweaking/trimming hooks for new nominations, and suggesting ALTs)
  3. Notecardforfree (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Bcp67 (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC) (not currently doing full reviews but sometimes look at eligibilty and hooks)
  5. (sign here)
  • Non-admins (or admins) who mostly do DYK work and seldom write new content themselves:
  1. (sign here)
  • Non-admins (or admins) who do DYK work mostly or only because of the qpq requirement:
  1. Brianhe (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  2.  MPJ-DK  03:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. (sign here)

If this straw poll gives us all a sense of where we have workload problems, or where there are review problems (I am hoping the new bot is part of the solution) perhaps then we can figure out what changes to make in the guidelines for DYK that will solve them. Montanabw(talk) 03:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

If you're gathering data, then I'd like to see some KPIs. Simple statistics like: the number of DYKs that get nominated; reviewed successfully first time; reviewed successfully after some cleanup; rejected; pulled from a queue or pulled from the main page. I'm not convinced that there's a significant problem but without some statistics, our discussion is anecdotal rather than properly evidence-based. And if you don't have some measures then remediation is pointless because you can't tell if you're making a difference or not. Myself, I've been logging issues at WP:ERRORS lately and have been keeping a personal record because that page doesn't have a proper archive. That's another process that could use some stats. Andrew D. (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Well WP:DYK/Removed is a good place for you to start. Obviously the aim is to reduce the entries there to zero. Any entry indicates a failure in either a review or a review and a promotion. As you can see, a hook is being removed from the sets just before or just after being posted to the main page around about once every two days. The good news is that the majority are removed beforehand. But that simply demonstrates that the review process is up shit creek. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Zero is not a realistic goal -- even Six Sigma fanatics don't expect zero errors. Wikipedia is far from being in that mode as it's produced by volunteers for no pay and it's our explicit policy and expectation that their work will be imperfect. WP:DYK/Removed has 66 entries for the year to date which averages about 1 every three days. If that's from about 6 sets of eight then that's about 1 in 50 which is 2%. A realistic goal or target might be to reduce that to 1%, say. But there is no magic number because we are not paid or measured by such results. It will help discussion to have the numbers though. Andrew D. (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You surprise me again. Of course zero errors is unrealistic. Point is that over the last three months we've had a 4% error rate, and by that, it's 4% of hooks have been pulled after they have been sanctioned by reviewers and some of those have been pulled from the main page. Can you please check that against OTD, ITN, TFA, TFL and TFP items, how many of those have been pulled please? Aiming for 1% is a good idea, that means a fourfold improvement is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Take it from an occasional commenter here FWIW. I (barely) remember my first DYK article reviews, and I think, the impression I had was that it just needed to be OK in general (and, of course cite the hook), like a very good start or so (because newness and character numbers was important). So I doubt the real fine tooth combing is going to come from occasional/new reviewers (or perhaps anyone who does not have this page on watchlist) - who, nonetheless, it should be admitted, seem to do 'mostly' alright. I'm not sure what you do about that but it probably means you need a large corp of well practiced prep builders. Maybe create a 'DYK editorial board' - give em a hat? If you did have such a group, they could even share and schedule work. Which makes me think, a coordinator, or two would be good. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I've long been an advocate of unbundling the admin tools, and here, the ability to promote, build preps and move to queues could, perhaps, be made into a new permission, and that might allow for more people with expertise to devote the time needed. Admins would still have to do the final move to the main page, probably. I'd also like to suggest that more people get mentored to do this stuff; it's terrifying to build a prep set, it's one thing to have one article review be criticized, but to build a 7-8 hook set means you simply cannot do as thorough of a review of 7-8 articles as you could for 1 or 2, and must rely to some extent on others doing their initial work. Another idea might be to allow qpq to be met by building a full prep set with no pulled hooks... We need incentives for getting it right. Montanabw(talk) 22:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    • We could lower the protection of the queues (though not perhaps the main page DYK section) from admin to template editors. Template editors normally are highly trusted editors as well, who won't deliberately vandalize or misuse Wikipedia, and the queues are templates after all. This would mean that a few DYK regulars wuold need to apply for that user right if they don't have it already, but that shouldn't be a problem I think. In this way, no new permission needs to be created, existing technology suffices. Is this what you had in mind, Montanabw? Fram (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Global Climate Coalition

The Global Climate Coalition article was recently brought to GA status and nominated for DYK by HughD. In so doing, Hugh was violating a topic ban and has been given a six month block at AE. MPJ-DK has posted: "HMMM an article on a topic that the editor was topic banned for, insisted on going through with and then getting a six-month ban. Should that behavior really be rewarded with a DYK if it meets the criteria?" I think this is a good question, so I invite a discussion as to whether this nomination should be dealt with as usual or whether the DYK community wants to disqualify this nomination (on IAR grounds, if nothing else). Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts would be to not accept the DYK nom. The editor broke the rules and is now banned. Airing the article on the main page would be like rewarding bad behavior; granted, you don't get paid for DYK or anything, but it's a big thrill and very satisfying. Some people may suggest that the article be delisted from GA, but I don't think we need to go that far. It meets the criteria. Just don't put it on the main page. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I was just about to review this, but I agree it should be declined, as the expansion in question was done in violation of their topic ban. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Process for DYK nomination after it has been accepted

Hi all

I've recently done a DYK nomination for Prusa i3, which has been accepted. I can't find any information on how to find out when the article will appear on the front page, will I just get a notification? I don't want to miss it. Also how is it decided which media is used? I think the video I have accompanying my nomination is very strong but I couldn't find the rules about how it is decided?

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, John. I've responded to you on your talk page. Yoninah (talk) 16:00, 3 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:

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2

Template:Did you know nominations/The creation of the violin - @Cwmhiraeth, NearEMPTiness, KAVEBEAR: I've pulled this hook, as what it's saying simply isn't backed up by the sourcing. According to this story, the fiddler created the first violin and played it for the king, this entailed the new "something"... however, the hook does not relay this information, and instead gives the picture of "something" actually having happened in real life because of the story. This appears to be a clear case of trying to overdo the enticement in the hook, to a point of literal factual inaccuracies. And, even if we were to use something like "according to the fairy tale..." to preface the hook, the idea presented by the hook would still be way, way too generalized for the main page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, the hook fails to distinguish fiction from fact. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I've reopened the nomination, and there pointed out that DYK does have a rule about hooks having to involve the real world if they're about works of fiction or fictional characters, which this hook clearly does not do. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6

"... that James "Bungy" Watson's moniker was the word used at The King's School, Canterbury for a rubber?" Anyone typing "moniker" into Wikipedia will be redirected to Nickname. Would that not be a better word to use - I suggest it's better known, not to mention technically more correct. Laura Jamieson (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't have much of a problem with "moniker", but isn't "rubber" an Americanism? Wouldn't it be better to use condom assuming that is what is being referred to? Gatoclass (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
No, it's linked to eraser. It's on the main page now, by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Ouch! A people separated by a common language -- the term is not an eraser in the US. We may want to tweak that hook! In the USA, besides "rubber" being a euphemism for "condom," the archaic use (in the plural) was for a typ! of overshoe -- seriously, a generation of us grew up being told, "don't go out in the rain without your rubbers?"  :-O (Explains a lot about baby boomers, I suppose). Montanabw(talk) 20:33, 4 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 25 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all of the non-current hooks (through June 27). As of the most recent update, 97 nominations have been approved, leaving 127 of 224 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones left over from May.

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) 05:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5

  • ... that Qriously was voted "worst name in ad-tech" in an Ad Age poll, beating Vungle, Nanigans, AdsWizz, and Burt?
This is a company, not a person, but it is still derogatory. Yoninah (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
You should talk to the reviewer (@Dharmadhyaksha:), the promoter (@Cwmhiraeth:) or even the author (@Edwardx:). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
On winning the award the co-founder said "We're honored".ref Should we still consider it derogatory? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Its a fact. Its cited inline in the article. DYK has no rule covering hooks being derogatory about companies. Being in the ad business, the company may welcome the publicity because it makes the name more memorable. I think its a good hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The company acknowledge the issues with their name. As a small outfit, they are lucky to get an article, let alone a front page appearance. Plenty of tech companies have odd names, perhaps because the good ones have already been taken. Edwardx (talk) 10:39, 5 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:

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Admin needed to promote a prep: now over four hours overdue. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Largest DYK ever?

Hello, I just posted a 70 Article DYK submission on pages I have created or expanded today and no they were not all written today, I saved them up since they were all about the same topic, no one can type that fast. I believe it may be the biggest DYK ever, it's definitely a lot of work - I realize that (heck I did 70 QPQs so of course I realize that). I just wanted to state here that I am willing to do whatever it takes to help get this reviewed and to make it easier for someone to take on this monstrous task.

And think of the QPQ bank you'll build up ;-)  MPJ-DK  02:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Certainly looks like you'll be taking top spot at the DYK Multiple Article Hook Hall of Fame. Congratulations! EdChem (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Apparently not, rejected for being too long and too boring. Oh and since they were used for the DYK I cannot even donate 70 QPQs to anyone since I don't need them. That was fun.  MPJ-DK  13:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I was just about to support this nomination when I found it had been summarily rejected and archived. The character count for the proposed hook is 1069 characters, so it is no longer than any other set of hooks (maximum 1400). The creation of these articles and the reviewing of all the QPQs involved a tremendous amount of work by MOJ-DK, and his attempt to break a record in the process has been thwarted arbitrarily. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw, Wugapodes, MPJ-DK, Yoninah, Raymie, Graeme Bartlett, Pi.1415926535, and Mandarax: I have undone the close because it is factually incorrect (the hook would fit) and because I think simply rejecting a hook this size should be based on a proper WT:DYK and consensus. As I see it, the issues to be considered are:

  • There is ample precedent for hooks like these, and if we are going to reject them as boring then we should include some advice to nominators on what is and is not allowed in the way of multi-article hooks.
  • If we are to establish a new rule, is it remotely fair to do so from this nomination / hook, as the nominator could not have known about any change in rules before it happened.
  • No matter what, I believe the nominator deserves great congratulations and admiration for the work done and I am disappointed that we as a community have treated him in what I see as an overly cavalier and disrespectful manner.
  • If the conclusion is to reject the nomination with recommendation to resubmit as a series of hooks with fewer articles, a generous amount of time should be allowed to sort this out. I also am concerned that we could end up with several similar hooks which might seem repetitive. I would welcome comment from the nominator on whether this is a likely problem, which is a factor I would certainly consider in coming to a conclusion on how to handle this nomination.
  • Any other issue which others might choose to raise.

My personal view is that a rule restricting multi-article nominations to a maximum of XXX articles (with some room around XXX on a case-by-case basis) would be a wise addition to the rules. I think it unreasonable to apply such a rule retrospectively, though whether a better hook formulation is available is worth exploring. I have reached no conclusion on this hook beyond believing a proper discussion is needed here before a decision is reached. EdChem (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC) PS: I pinged everyone who had edited the nomination page, but didn't include Cwmhiraeth who commented here only. Apologies. So, @Cwmhiraeth: hope you see this too.  :) EdChem (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

My "too boring" remark is not a new rule, it is a comment on the application of this rule: "When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article". This same rule could apply to limit lengths without any strict limits. The total length of the hook could be OK if it displaces some others. It would have to knock out about 5 other hooks to give enough space if we used that one. Yet another long hook appeared in Template:Did you know nominations/Paleontology in the United States, and had similar discussion, including the amount of reviewing required, but this one passed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
We should also have a Wikipedia:Did you know/Multiple Article Hook Hall of missed Fame that lists the failures, the one I raised was Template:Did you know nominations/1 point player whose hook was called boring and too long. I even placed a GTG, but it was argued against and ultimately rejected. The articles linked in this one have remained till this day, so any merger and redirect did not come to fruition, even though I created disability sport classification. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
All right, if you're asking for rationale, here is my thinking behind this extraordinary hook. In all my years at DYK, creators of multi-hooks (2-, 3-, 4-, etc.) have been given a nod, a pat on the back, but multi-hooks haven't been something that DYK actively encourages or that nominators aspire to. Even the very large hooks, like the 54-article Template:Did you know nominations/Paleontology in the United States or the 30-article Template:Did you know nominations/Apollo 11 lunar sample display, Apollo 17 lunar sample display (both of which I helped review and also served as the closer on) have been viewed as novelties and were not given any special encouragement; instead, those nominators were forced to work hard to defend themselves and find people willing to undertake the gargantuan task of reviewing all those articles. What bothers me here is that the nominator admitted, "no they were not all written today, I saved them up since they were all about the same topic", and headed this new section "Largest DYK ever?" This smacks of self-promotion, which is not in the spirit of DYK. Yoninah (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

−

  • So you believe the 52 articles were written/expanded all at once? Yes I wanted to do something special when I realised how many articles were yet to be created. No one has actively encouraged me to do this, on the contrary it seems. I do appreciate the chance given after it was originally closed. Oh and why would it be a bad thing if it adds multiple good articles to Wikipedia? That was my main goal to expand Wikipedia with quality work. So do or don't encourage it is your choice, I just don't see how it is a bad thing to add content that is well sourced? If you are weorried of Somme sort of escalation resulting in garbage articles that is different, but nothing so far has been about the actual work, just the volume. I posted it here because I know the review would be a monster task and wanted to be clear that I realize that. And yeah maybe there is a little bit of horn tooting in it, but isn't that the same reason people display how many DYKs or GAs they havce worked on on their user pages?  MPJ-DK  13:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I don't mind a hook like that, nor tooting a horn. However, I normally advise to not even combine two articles in one hook, because the second will not get full attention. Which reader will get to clicking the 11th article, not talking the 70th? But as you like it, - if you ask me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

My contribution to consensus is, no. Part of the reason it is not hooky is that it duplicates information twice: here's a list article and here's a list. Of those two, the list article may form the basis for something hooky but not the list. Whatever, the consensus before for something like this there has also been consensus against something like this. But as for this, I say no. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

        • Apparently, you did not read what I wrote, which helps your case not at all and instills no confidence in your nomination, even beyond the fact that it is droningly boring. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Okay I resent that greatly, let's not get personal here. part of your argument was the repeated information. I tried to put that in perspective of the 1-to-69 ratio and if that helps in any way I have no problem with that. Please do not imply some sort of negativity or hostility on my part, I am trying to get to the bottom of the actual problem. And so far the main argument is "it's boring". I believe that's an appropriate summary of your position?  MPJ-DK  21:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I think you have to remember that, assuming all 70 articles are eligible, then there would be nothing preventing the nominator from nominating 70 separate hooks, one for each article, which would take up almost 70 times more room at DYK. It's much more economical and user-friendly to put a bunch of hooks about a similar topic in one long hook, because it's only on the page for 12 hours and those with no interest in the topic can simply ignore it. Gatoclass (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I do remember that but I am still, no. Editorially, while we are still in charge of making editorial judgements, even if there is not a way to prevent doing it serially, it definately makes no sense as a matter of interest to put it all up in droning repetition all at once. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
My concern is that the vast majority of these events aren't even notable. Looking at a selection, it appears to me to be equivalent to writing an article for every MLB game or Premiership Football match. Laura Jamieson (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Not a good comparison. IWRG holds multiple showsa week, the major show is on average once a month and only significant named events have articles. Example - IWRG has held 47 shows in 2016 so far,six articles or about one per month, for their major "named" events. All articles are sources, results covered by various magazines in Mexico (editorial process etc.), I would not create articles that does not have a chance of surviving an AFD vote.  MPJ-DK  17:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • My idea would be to go ahead and use the 70-article hook. It's an impressive feat, and the main page isn't going to break down because of it if we run the hook. It's unlikely that many other people, if any, will meet MPJ-DK's nomination. The next day DYK will be back to normal. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • To reiterate my opposition: the DYK criteria say that hooks should be under 200 characters and interesting. This hook is neither. I am not opposed to ignoring the criteria, far from it, but if we are going to ignore the criteria, we should do so to further the purposes of DYK, the first three of which are "To showcase new and improved content...To highlight the variety of information on Wikipedia...To present facts about a range of topics". I cannot imagine anyone would read through all 70 of the linked articles; most people would skim them. If people are skimming, that's not really showcasing. Since this would need to be run alone, it does not really highlight or present information from a range of topics, and would actually do otherwise: it would take the place of hooks that would show a variety of information. This all also ignores one of the chief concerns with this hook: it's utterly boring. I would be willing to overlook all my previous concerns if this hook were compelling, if it made me want to read it or the articles, but it is largely a wall of bold text that is imposing more than interesting. Broken down to its simplest, the claim of the hook is "These things exist" or, more generously, "The IWRG has had 69 major shows", and honestly, that pithy hook would be far preferable to the one proposed because it makes me want to click to find out what they are, rather than put them all in bold in a 1000 character long list. And while there is precedent, I would have opposed most of those other hooks in the hall of fame as well; I'd rather discuss the merits of this one as it is proposed rather than pointing out that other stuff exists.
Further, it is disingenuous to suggest that people opposing this hook do not appreciate the work of MPJ-DK. We can appreciate the work and still oppose; promotion is not the only way to show appreciation. In fact I oppose because I appreciate his work. MPJ-DK is a wonderful editor that I am proud to have interacted with before this. I say none of this as a reflection of him or his work, quite the contrary. I think it is an insult to his work to suggest that we should feature his quality contributions by promoting a hook that is boring and fails to truly feature his work. I respect his work and believe this hook is a disservice to it. That is why I, and others, have encouraged him to submit these in smaller chunks, so that they can be featured in a way that they deserve. This hook as it stands is too long, not interesting, and in my opinion summarily fails the main purpose of DYK: to showcase new content. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 22:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC) (refactored 23:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC))

The reason I closed it was perhaps too brusque, but my concerns were as follows:

  1. There are actually multiple events discussed here, each with multiple hooks, so one 70-article-long DYK is not even the best way to handle the material. I easily see 8 to 10 different DYKs here. (The hook notes: IWRG Anniversary Shows (with 6 articles), the Arena Naucalpan Anniversary shows (with 15 articles), two on the XXth Anniversary of Lucha Libre, Caravana de Campeones (8 articles), El Castillo del Terror (5 articles), Festival de las Máscaras (5 articles), Guerra Revolucionaria (3), Ruleta de la Muerte (3), Rey del Ring (2), Guerra del Golfo (2), and 13 stand-alones.)
    I agree there are multiple events, probably 60 individual shows and 10ish that covers show series, but they do all fall under the same top category "IWRG Show", so it's not like I am putting horse shoes and Airplanes together. MPJ-DK  23:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. A long list IS in fact really boring, and it's not like any reader save an aficionado of the topic will click on all 70 links. This does not draw readers to the article
    I gotta be honest, most pro wrestling hooks will proably only pull in an aficionado over 70 days, the sheer "what the heck?" factor of a one hook DYK is likely to garner more attention. Case in point, this nomination has gotten more attention than the 10 previous lucha libre show hooks I submitted. MPJ-DK  23:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. If this did run, it would pretty much be the entire DYK for as long as it's up, which is not only boring because there is no other topics listed, but also it is displacing a lot of other worthy and interesting DYKs, and that really is a concern. Spread out over multiple DYKs and multiple days, there is more interest and more articles on the main page.
    I keep hearing "boring", to me part of the appeal, part of the "Hooky-ness" is in the sheer volume - but that seems to be a minority opinion here. And it either displaces 6 other DYK for one day or a much larger number of DYKs for other days. Math wise that does not make sense to me, and the implication that I am "taking space" from someone else boggles my mind.  MPJ-DK  23:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Noting the concerns in the above sections of The Rambling Man and others over the problem of DYK promotions being of low quality, there is NO WAY a single reviewer can tackle this thing, it's too large. Many of us even avoid a two-article-hook. This needs dozens of reviewers to look over every single article; again, needs to be broken up.
    There are options that could be explored. And based on this kind of input I would have to consider 70 individual DYK hooks instead because the multi-hook submissions sit around for a longer time. MPJ-DK  23:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. We should not encourage things to be "records" of this sort, what's next? A 100-article DYK?
    So first of all don't worry it has not been encouraging at all, and if someone can put together 100 quality articles I say "good job" and I'd volunteer to take part of the reviewing process, in that case I would suggest it as a group effort where each article is checked one by one and if they all check out it could go. Not sure how the 52 hook submission was done but I suspect it was not a one man job, but like I said above, there are ways of doing it that would not require it to be a one person job. MPJ-DK  23:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. (Actually, speaking of TRM, we have The Boat Race series, 170 races, many put forth as individual DYK and GA articles, not all at once. It would be a good example of ridiculousness -- a 171-article hook? No.
    Oh don't tempt me ;-)  MPJ-DK  23:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  7. And seriously, I haven't looked at these articles, but I can't see them all up within 7 days? Heck it's not really even realistic to build them all in a sandbox and mass move them to article space (which is, I presume, how it happened)?
    I was totally up front here, I worked on the drafts for a while, research, sourcing, writing formatting etc. I use Evernote to keep the articles in and then posted them all in one day once I was happy with the results. I stated that up front and was totally straightforward on that part.  MPJ-DK  23:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  8. I also question the quality of the article creator's reviews of 70 other DYKs. How many months has this editor been accumulating them? If this is a 6-month accumulation by a regular, maybe; if it's a 6 day mass-review, well, again, we have concerns about poor quality DYK reviews (see #4 above).
    I started June 17, spread out over 16 days I did those reviews - I tackled two, three or more subject hooks and put in the work to do so. It's just over four a day on average. I am experienced DYK and GA reviewer, so I don't have to go back and check the rules and stuff. Most of the articles for DYK are fairly short, does not take that long to review really. If there is a problem with my quality please do call it out, not saying I am perfect but I am saying I did not try in any way to take shortcuts and a lot of the reviews have already been moved to preps (or main page I presume). MPJ-DK  23:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

So I hope this outlines my concerns. Montanabw(talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you for being detailed and factual, food for thought.  MPJ-DK  23:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • So let's say for the sake of argument I withdraw the 1 DYK hook and submit 70 individual ones instead. Based on the feedback and reccomendations individual hooks will get more eyes on the article, can be more "hooky" and actually also put other lucha libre articles on the main page (even if they're not in the hook they're still shown). I belive that I have shown that I am not adverse to putting in the work to do it, but it becomes a matter of time. I would have to go through each of them find a hook, ensure those 70 hooks hit the criteria and are directly sourced, put them together and submit them. I doubt I could get all of them completed by June 9, the week deadline after creation.  MPJ-DK  00:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone has recommended you submit 70 individual hooks, that would be swinging too far in the opposite direction. Some of these naturally group together, and as others have said, that could be more manageable: 13-ish multi hooks that are more closely related. And as I said, if the hooks are of a good quality (and given the extenuating circumstances) I for one would be willing to IAR and give some leniency on the time limit. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 00:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @MPJ-DK: the 7-day limit would not apply if you reformulate this hook and create new ones. The nomination was entered on a timely basis on July 2; changes that are made afterwards do not have a time limit. Yoninah (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Personally, I agree with Gatoclass. "[A]ssuming all 70 articles are eligible, then there would be nothing preventing the nominator from nominating 70 separate hooks, one for each article, which would take up almost 70 times more room at DYK. It's much more economical and user-friendly to put a bunch of hooks about a similar topic in one long hook". Given the fact that the subjects of the articles are very specialized anyways - as MPJ says, they don't generally get much attention - are we really doing the articles a disservice by running them together? No. We can talk about retiring the DYK Hall of Fame afterwards, if we're concerned that things are getting ridiculous, but it's still open.
Regarding hook length: We have WP:DYKSG #C3, which says "C3: A hook introducing more than one article is an exception to the hook length rule: subtract from the overall count the bolded characters for each additional new article beyond the first. If the result is 200 or less, the hook length is probably acceptable." Applying this matrix, the proposed hook is still fine. I think we should at least have proper reviews of these articles. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Actually, the proposed hook is not fine—once you eliminate all but the first article link from the full character count (which is 1067), what's left is 375 characters including spaces and commas and parens and a quartet of non-bold links and some regular text; anything over 200 characters requires a special exception according to C3, which seems unlikely given the discussion thus far. There's also WP:DYKSG#C9, which reads, No parentheses in the hook unless absolutely unavoidable. This hook has 11 sets, which is definitely avoidable. It also, as noted, has 1067 characters (including spaces), which would fill (overfill?) an entire hook set—the current seven-hook Prep 1 is only 989 characters including spaces. (Queue 6, at 752 characters, is significantly shorter than that.) I think this needs to be divided, though into a much smaller number of total hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • How are the parentheses avoidable without a) upping the character count and b) losing any articles? The proposed hook is certainly trimmable, like this:
...that International Wrestling Revolution Group has held numerous major wrestling shows, including the IWRG (5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th and 20th) and Arena Naucalpan (5th, 15th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 29th, 30th, 31st, 32nd, 36th, 37th), the 49th and 52nd Anniversary of Lucha Libre in Estadio de Mexico, Caravana de Campeones (2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, August 2013, November 2013, 2014, 2015), El Castillo del Terror (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, December 2008), Festival de las Máscaras (2008, 2009, 2010, 2013, 2016), Guerra Revolucionaria (2009, 2010, 2013), Ruleta de la Muerte (2009, 2013, November 2015), Rey del Ring (2008, 2009), Guerra del Golfo (2005, 2008), Prison Fatal, Legado Final, Guerra de Familias, La Gran Cruzada, El Gran Destafio (2009), El Gran Desafío Femenil - Sin Empate, Sin Indulto, El Gran Destafio (2011), Guerra de Empresas, Junior de Junior, Guerra de Campeones, La Isla and Sin Escape Con Correrás?
That knocks it down to 948, by my count. Also drops the non-link characters to well under three hundred. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The parentheses are avoidable by not having such an enormous hook: if you can't avoid parentheses or nearly 300 non-bold characters, then the hook shouldn't be created; as it is now, the hook violates several basic DYK rules. As for the newly reduced hook, it amounts to the IWRG having presented "major wrestling shows", which are then given in a massive list. I don't see how that remotely qualifies as interesting to a broad audience. One of the things the rules do is mitigate against excessively long hooks by having the 200-character max (excluding additional bold links) and restricting use of parentheses and so on. Let's not grant exceptions in extreme cases. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, removing articles would avoid parentheses. But that would also gut this nomination. Hence why I asked "how are parentheses avoidable without a) upping the character count and b) losing any articles". The hook can be massaged further, I'm sure.
As for the "interesting" objection: we have precedent for somewhat less than interesting hooks for multi-article sets. Or does "... that Napaljarri artists include Biddy, Daisy, Susie, Kowai, Wentja, Peggy, Doris, Parara, Eileen, Louisa, Lucy, Helen, Linda, Kitty, Sheila, Valerie, Maggie, Topsy, Nora, Ada, Ngoia, Molly, Mona and Norah?" strike everyone as interesting? My position is that, if we have previously allowed exceptions, we shouldn't apply the interesting criteria too strictly out of nowhere. After this hook, fine, we can nix it. We can even nix all multi-hooks over X articles. But this nomination was made when multi-hooks were allowed, and we should consider it under those criteria. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yup that is the impression I have been getting, so I've been trying to group them together, looking at 27 different DYKs, either grous or individual - hard to do a 15 article hook and keep it "hooky" so I may end up breaking some of them down further.  MPJ-DK  03:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Ideally I would prefer 70 hooks, I wonder if there is a way to set it up so that the DYK bot takes the first pass of each of the 70 artcles? Let the bot do some of the legwork, if it comes up with significant issues then I'd be okay with breaking them down in chunks, just a suggestion.  MPJ-DK  00:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The bot would be a godsend if it doesn't implode! (LOL) But seriously, I keep referencing TRM's Boat Race articles, of which he has 28 that have been through DYK and a whopping 161 are GA class. All one at a time, I think. (@The Rambling Man:, who I am holding out as an exemplar...). Indeed, you don't need 70 individual ones, but breaking it down by the different types would actually be more interesting than this wad. Montanabw(talk) 02:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I think I am at a point where I am throwing in the towel on the 70 DYK hook. Up top it there was a mention on some sort of clarification for multi-hook submissions etc, something which has not been explicitly discussed here - but I think is a worthwhile endeavor, I don't really want to end right back here if I actually manage to come up with a hook for the group of 15 articles I could theoretically put on as one DYK.  MPJ-DK  03:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • There are a lot of professional wrestling DYKs; I'd suggest you break these down and maybe try it with the ones that have four or five articles and see if you can get a reviewer to bite on those. For myself, what is daunting is doing 10 or 15 really thorough DYK reviews! (Though the qpqs would hold me for the next two years...). Montanabw(talk) 06:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I opened the DYK, opened one article at random, and started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Castillo del Terror (2004). That 11K article has a two-sentence, one-source "event" section, everything else is not about the event. I don't know if this one is representative for the others, but it shows at least one disadvantage of such a massive nomination; problems with even one article will fail the whole nomination. Fram (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, of course the articles have to be reviewed before the hook passes. But that's really a different issue. The issue here is whether a hook with this many articles is permissible under the rules, and it appears that it is. Given that, I think the choice of the nominator as to the presentation of his articles should in general be respected.
As to the charge raised above that the hook is uninteresting - I don't think I've ever read a hook about this type of wrestling that I personally found interesting, but personal preferences are not a criterion for exclusion. So long as we can assume that somebody interested in the topic is likely to find the hook interesting, it probably passes muster. But as this is nonetheless a niche area of interest, I would argue that the fewer hooks on the overall topic the better, therefore one long hook, off the main page after 12 hours, would be preferable to half a dozen similar hooks which will impose more of a burden on all those people uninterested in the topic. Gatoclass (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not a "charge", it's an editorial judgement that the hook is verbose, repetitious and mind-numbingly boring, and all those are actually DYK rules concerns that are well within the competence of DYK reviewers to make (one may disagree with those judgements but they are certainly valid judgements to make according to the rules). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
We have always had a lower bar for the interest factor for multi-hooks, because it's more difficult to come up with a great hook when looking for a common factor, and because multis help us keep the backlog down and also avoid potentially repetitious hooks. For example, if we don't run this 70-article hook, we are probably going to end up with half a dozen hooks which are very similar albeit shorter. I don't see how running a series of unexceptional hooks is better than running just one. Gatoclass (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I get your argument but I just do not agree. Other proposed hooks (even long-ones in the future) can stand or fall on their own, and people can give their editorial opinions then. We judge them as they come. Perhaps, we will have these smaller ones, as you say (and the goal of course will be that the are hooky), but perhaps not as it shakes out in review. Nonetheless, as between running a paragraph of repetitious boring or multiple hooks, interspersed with multiple hooks on different subjects, given that variety is usually seen as spice-of-life, the later is better in this particular case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Quite frankly, Alanscottwalker, I am not very comfortable with these ultra-long multis either, I'm just inclined to the view that it's better to get them off the main page as quickly as possible rather than prolonging the pain by breaking them into several smaller but still not-very-palatable hooks. And the fact is that since we made the QPQ requirement article-for-article rather than hook-for-hook, we have thankfully seen few very long multis because few people want to meet the requirement. Regardless, I am not going to lose any sleep if the consensus is to break up this set - just as long as we retain the principle that long multis can be a legitimate presentation method for nominators. Gatoclass (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
'Stupid amount' as in 'That is an unbelieveably large amount' rather than 'the content is stupid'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, no, "mindnumbing" is and was directed only at the huge repetitious hook, it's not a criticism on anything else, whatsoever. Perhaps that insults the hook? If a hook can be insulted, but that seems most untrue, given the rules that the hook is suppose to be subject to criticism. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the articles in question OIDDDE, but if articles contain insufficient original content they can be disqualified. With regard to the question of whether a series of articles would be better as one larger article, I'm inclined to concur as I have seen too many articles at DYK that look more like they should be sections within an existing article. But I also think that merger debates are an issue for the wider community and probably best avoided at DYK with the exception of obvious or egregious examples. Gatoclass (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
As another example, open up Arena_Naucalpan_29th_Anniversary_Show and Arena_Naucalpan_30th_Anniversary_Show in different tabs and flick from one to the other. Obviously noticeable if you look at the 'background' sections. I am not sure of the specifics of 'original content' if the same original content is used in multiple articles, but I would say it certainly violates the spirit of it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
With regard to original content - the rules work as follows: if a piece of text is new per the existing rules, but repeated in more than one article, it counts as new text in only one of the nominated articles and is ignored in the others. So the others would need at least 1500 characters of new text over and above the repeated text - 1500 being the minimum DYK requirement - in order to qualify. Gatoclass (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
So only the first one in the 'event group' would qualify currently from what I can see (I just checked another of the events) with the all the others in the groups needing significantly more text in each (that isnt also repeated elsewhere). I cant actually see that being possible given the sourcing involved/available. This also means that whoever does check them all will need to check each article against all the others in the group. This seems an overly large burden given the relatively low payoff. (PS) It appears from the nom page that the author intends to nominate them in small groups, which doesnt really fix this particular issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Having checked a few, it looked to me as if most would qualify and some would not, but yes, they all have to be checked carefully to ensure they meet the newness requirement. But IMO it's scarcely more onerous than running the usual DYK checks - just that in this case, there are a lot of articles to check - but that would be the case whether or not they were presented in one large multi. 70 articles is a lot of work no matter how you choose to cut it. Gatoclass (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

70 DYK Length analysis

  • Oh yes let's do go down that rabbit hole and deal with it now when it's a group of 70 instead of specific individual reviews, In the "Spirit of the rules" let's break it down now instead of having to deal with it on an individual basis when the DYKs are put up. If nothing else I can refer back to this is the question is actually specifically asked by a reviewer (that's why I put a headline on it).  MPJ-DK  20:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Most of the article have a general "wrestling is scripted" section, gotta keep it "out of universe" - and no that section is not new, that is a total of 422 k by itself. So to hit the 1,500 k of text that cannot be counted - and I did not, all articles save one is over 5,000 K long so taking 422 k off still puts them all at way over 1,500 K for every single article.
  • Can we assume that articles on "one-off shows" don't have a common "Background" section? They only have the "this is pro wrestling" section in common? So the following have no other issues with "common text"?
  • List of major IWRG shows Green tickY
  • IWRG Guerra de Empresas Green tickY
  • IWRG Junior de Juniors Green tickY
  • IWRG Guerra de Campeones Green tickY
  • IWRG La Isla, Green tickY
  • Sin Escape Con Correrás Green tickY
  • Next up is the comment that the common text gets credit in the main show series title, but not in the individual years. So that means the following are okay too from what I understand.
  • IWRG Anniversary Shows Green tickY
  • Arena Naucalpan Green tickY
  • IWRG Caravana de Campeones Green tickY
  • IWRG Festival de las Máscaras Green tickY
  • IWRG Guerra Revolucionaria Green tickY
  • IWRG Ruleta de la Muerte Green tickY
  • IWRG Legado Final Green tickY
  • IWRG La Gran Cruzada Green tickY
  • This cuts the list down some, just so that we're talking specifics instead of in general terms. So now we come the articles that are questioned. Part of the contention here is that while the text is new to Wikipedia, because it builds on the text of another new article it's not eligible, this is where the "spirit" portion is invoked since it's not clearly covered one way or the other in the rules. The section that a group of articles have overlap on is the "background" because they're all part of the same series there is a natural degree of overlap between articles, after all the history of event 4 is to some degree the same as event 3, but with more added to it. So the implication here is that there are articles that do not have 1500 k of text that's not overlapping right? Listed below is the character count for each article without the "this is pro wrestling" section and removal of whatever "background section" is repeated from a prior event.
  • IWRG 5th Anniversary Show - 3512 n Green tickY
  • IWRG 6th Anniversary Show - 3853 b Green tickY
  • IWRG 7th Anniversary Show - 6411 b Green tickY
  • IWRG 8th Anniversary Show - 3621 b Green tickY
  • IWRG 10th Anniversary Show - 4012 b Green tickY
  • IWRG 20th Anniversary Show - 3512 b Green tickY
  • Arena Naucalpan 5th Anniversary Show - 2648 b Green tickY
  • Arena Naucalpan 15th Anniversary Show - 2677 b Green tickY
  • Arena Naucalpan 21st Anniversary Show - 3565 b Green tickY
  • Arena Naucalpan 22nd Anniversary Show - 2983 b Green tickY
  • Arena Naucalpan 23rd Anniversary Show - 2700 b Green tickY
  • Arena Naucalpan 24th Anniversary Show - 3236 b Green tickY
  • Arena Naucalpan 25th Anniversary Show - 3422 b Green tickY
  • Arena Naucalpan 26th Anniversary Show - 2792 b Green tickY
  • Arena Naucalpan 27th Anniversary Show - 2674 b Green tickY
  • Arena Naucalpan 29th Anniversary Show - 2704 b Green tickY
  • Arena Naucalpan 30th Anniversary Show - 2741 b Green tickY
  • Arena Naucalpan 31st Anniversary Show - 3089 b Green tickY
  • Arena Naucalpan 32nd Anniversary Show - 2658 b Green tickY
  • Arena Naucalpan 36th Anniversary Show - 2796 b Green tickY
  • Arena Naucalpan 37th Anniversary Show - 2759 b Green tickY
  • 49th Anniversary of Lucha Libre in Estadio de Mexico (this has the original text) - 5658 b Green tickY
  • 52nd Anniversary of Lucha Libre in Estadio de Mexico ("copied text" reduced) - 4324 b Green tickY
  • Caravana de Campeones (2008) - 5033 b Green tickY
  • Caravana de Campeones (2009) - 4386 b Green tickY
  • Caravana de Campeones (2011) - 4295 b Green tickY
  • Caravana de Campeones (2012) - 8461 b Green tickY
  • Caravana de Campeones (August 2013) - 4635 b Green tickY
  • Caravana de Campeones (November 2013) - 4041 b Green tickY
  • Caravana de Campeones (2014) - 4248 b Green tickY
  • Caravana de Campeones (2015) - 4343 b Green tickY
  • El Castillo del Terror (2000) (This counts for "original" the rest are reduced for copied background) - 4870 b Green tickY
  • El Castillo del Terror (2002) - 1600 b Green tickY
  • El Castillo del Terror (2003) - 3669 b Green tickY
  • El Castillo del Terror (2004) - 3278 b Green tickY
  • El Castillo del Terror (December 2008) - 3260 b Green tickY
  • Festival de las Máscaras (2008) - 3759 b Green tickY
  • Festival de las Máscaras (2009) - 6047 b Green tickY
  • Festival de las Máscaras (2010) - 5388 b Green tickY
  • Festival de las Máscaras (2013) - 4138 b Green tickY
  • Festival de las Máscaras (2016) - 7135 b Green tickY
  • Guerra Revolucionaria (2009) - 3553 b Green tickY
  • Guerra Revolucionaria (2010) - 3380 b Green tickY
  • Guerra Revolucionaria (2013) - 3244 b Green tickY
  • IWRG Ruleta de la Muerte (2009) - 1961 b Green tickY
  • IWRG Ruleta de la Muerte (2013) - 2705 b Green tickY
  • IWRG Ruleta de la Muerte (November 2015) - 4016 b Green tickY
  • Rey del Ring (2008) - 4497 b Green tickY
  • Rey del Ring (2009) - 3456 b Green tickY
  • Guerra del Golfo (2005) - 3335 b Green tickY
  • Guerra del Golfo (2008) - 3401 b Green tickY
  • Prison Fatal (2000) - 3663 b Green tickY
  • Guerra de Familias (2012) - 3939 b Green tickY
  • El Gran Destafio (2009) (This counts for "original" the rest are reduced for copied background) - 5087 b Green tickY
  • El Gran Desafío Femenil - Sin Empate, Sin Indulto - 3497 b Green tickY
  • El Gran Destafio (2011) - 3511
@MPJ-DK: what are "b"? The DYK rules refer to characters, not bytes. Yoninah (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@Yoninah: as far as i know 1 b = 1 character, the space it takes in system code to write a character, weather it it "a" or "@" or " ". So same thing, the page size tool just gives it in bytes.  MPJ-DK  17:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • So I am seeing a challenge (imagine that) here. I am going with consensus and breaking these us in smaller chunks to avoid being "mindnumbingly boring" as it was. I put in Guerra del Golfo 2005 and 2008 as seperate DYKs because i had seperate and differnet hooks for them and they represent just 2 out of the 12 shows. Other DYKs i have put up so far are individual hooka as they are one off articles. It is not currently my intention do do 70 individual DYKs just got the easy ones out of the way. When i say "currently" it is partially becaus I am not sure i could do 10 hooks in an article and not be just as boring as the original DYK, format would be the same if shorter. If J cannot come up with a "hook" for a group the the option is individually instead, gotta balance it out and since "boring" is against the rules that will have to win out. Just saying, the two desires.for "interesting" and "submit them as groups" could be in. Conflict.  MPJ-DK  16:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4 - "first released-time seminary teacher"

Not trying to be difficult, but can someone explain what "first released-time seminary teacher" actually means? Perhaps its an American phrase or an LDS phrase, but I honestly have no idea at all what that is trying to say. As such I wonder if a handful of our dear readers may struggle to render it comprehensible. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't either, but it turned out there is a released time article, so I've added the appropriate wikilink to the hook, and will add it to the article as well. It appears to be an American concept. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Marvellous, thank you! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

'Ain Ghazal Statues

So, this is the fourth time where a hook I nominated was pulled and I am the last one to be informed. I worked hard on that article, why is my effort wasted because of another user editing the article??! We could have simply reverted all changes that were made while the hook was online. A source from the British Museum was used, and there are no claims of statues that are older than these. "Lime Plaster statues". British Museum. Trustees of the British Museum: Dating to the end of the eighth millennium BC, they are among the earliest large-scale representations of the human form.. I would appreciate if this hook is brought back online again because these hastily made decisions are unacceptable, you either refuse the hook from the moment its nominated or you accept it. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: @Andrew Davidson: @Fram: @Dweller: @Dbachmann: --Makeandtoss (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The article no longer contained the hook. That's something to take up with the wholesale changes made by another editor. DYK rules are clear on verifiable hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Then we could have just reverted. --Makeandtoss (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry about this. ERRORS needs to move fast, to protect Wikipedia's reputation, so "hastily made decisions" are totally inevitable. There's nothing to stop you bringing the hook back via DYK, other than DYK's processes, which can be changed or ignored if the participants choose to. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The error could have been simply fixed by reverting whatever was changed on the article, DYK processes=more effort=uncertain outcome just like now. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
On the detail of your point, the hook mentioned "among the oldest large-scale representations of the human form ever found" which includes a POV claim ("largest") and no mention of statues. There are of course many representations of the human form that have been found that are vastly older than these artifacts. This kind of detail needs to be sorted out before it reaches ERRORS as we don't have expertise or time to research what the RS say. I'm afraid we're not going to blindly revert what could be accurate improvements to an article just so it matches what Main Page says. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thats what the British Museum says, and that is quite exactly my point. If "largest" and "representations" are troublesome, why were they even accepted in the first place? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
1) the text in the article changed 2) if there are problems with quality control at DYK, I can't comment as I don't participate there, only at WP:ERRORS. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Again, if the text changed then we could simply unchanged it instead of pulling hook. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I answered that point above ("I'm afraid we're not ..."). Seriously, I'm sympathetic. It must be very annoying. I'd be only too pleased if you could get DYK to resubmit the hook. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate that. But here's my argument; if the text was changed then we could have just reverted the changes, but if the previous version is also unsuitable, then why was it accepted in the first place.. I'd like to resubmit the hook after we get consensus on what's "suitable". The hook is certainly verifiable, as I have already demonstrated above. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
We don't just revert text changes to keep a DYK alive. The modifications made (on the face of it) an improvement to the article, and rendered the hook as was unverifiable per the rules at DYK. Take up the issue of wholesale updates of articles on the mainpage to the people that make the changes. As for "if the previous version is also unsuitable, then why was it accepted in the first place", that's a quality control issue to take up with DYK, where hooks are routinely promoted and then modified and/or pulled from prep/queue/main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
So is there now anything wrong with the article after I edited the hook? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
There is certainly something wrong with reverting another editors's contributions on an article just so you can keep a DYK up. It is hardly editing collaboratively. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I added a source and I edited the text to match the source used, how am I not "editing collaboratively" ? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

This was a mistake, pure and simple - the hook is very clearly sourced in multiple reliable sources (most of the sources don't even give all of the qualifiers that the hook). Do we need to fully-protect article being run on DYK now, so that they won't be changed while they are running? This hook should be restored to the queue, without Makeandtoos having to go through the whole process again.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

That would be an abuse of full-protect. It would also prevent editors fixing errors on articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I took part in the discussion at WP:ERROR. I had limited time for the matter but, when I observed that the discussion had been removed, did some housekeeping, including adding the entry to WP:DYKREMOVED and notifying Makeandtoss. I have some general familiarity with the domain, having nominated Tall Jawa previously. I sympathise with Makeandtoss about the harsh treatment given to the topic and would encourage him to resubmit it, as it is a good one. WP:ERROR could use some process improvement so that discussions are not closed without the primary author being notified and given a chance to provide input. Andrew D. (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Its been already on dyk so reviewers would deem it ineligible. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Reviewers in such a circumstance should IAR --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I can't review my own nomination and I won't be able to ensure that. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
It is certainly possible for a nomination to be reopened and rerun. For example, see Template:Did you know nominations/Chinaman (porcelain). Andrew D. (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Very generous of you to highlight one of your own poor DYKs which was called out by ... Fram! Only .... three years ago! Plus ca change!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when items appear on the main page, they attract a lot of attention. This often leads to items being transformed, particularly DYKs which are generally of low quality (unless they are of the GA variety) and therefore have ample room for improvement. Unfortunately, DYK has many, many rules, one of which states: The fact(s) mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article. That stopped being the case today when the article was edited (in good faith) to such an extent that the hook was not in the article any longer. That went against the aforementioned rule. It's not fair on our readers to click on a hook and then not be able to find it in the article. That's all there is to it. Nobody died, the hook got plenty of coverage, time to move on as we certainly will not be protecting DYKs from being edited while they're on the main page. That goes against one of the principles of putting such lightweight articles there in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

My efforts died, and considering this is the 4th time, my motivation to even edit on Wikipedia is gradually dying. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
If your only motivation on Wikipedia is to get articles onto the DYK section of the mainpage and then suggest improvements to that article be reverted just because you want to keep your DYK credit, then I understand that your particular motivation here might be dying. It's a shame if that's all you're here for, as your improvements to many articles should be the raison d'etre for time spent here. I would ignore the DYK thing, nominate sure, but then just let it run its path. It's not held in high regard, it'd be better to aim for something like a GA or FA or even FL. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Nobody said my only motivation is to get articles to the DYK section. Its due to how Wikipedia responds to efforts; unappreciatively. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The article you worked on was on the main page of the fourth-most visited website in the universe, for several hours. It was then adjusted, a lot, and failed to meet the fundamental requirement of the process you engaged in. I'm not sure what that has to do with "efforts" or "appreciation", but if I had an article promoted on the main page for a while, I'd certainly feel appreciated and proud of my efforts. Perhaps you have different standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I expected a better outcome, why should I settle for less? As I mentioned, the most thing that is bothering me is that this is the fourth time this happens and it happens with an exceptionally exceptional hook. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Of course you expect a better outcome, but hey, this is a Wiki. It's a shame it's happened four times, but perhaps that's symptomatic of your nominations and those who promote them. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Symptomatic? I was in my 4th stage of sleep when all the editing happened.Makeandtoss (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow. Or perhaps you'd like DYK to slow down a little so you actually get a chance to see and update your own nominations rather than have them rush by while you're asleep? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
What I said was clear. I complied with DYK rules, the article got edited.

I just want to clarify that my above comment about full-protection was facetious - my point was that rather than removing an active DYK because the widely cited hook was removed due to the attention the article received, if the content actually is cited, it should be restored. We have a problem with errors showing up on DYK, I agree. In this case, though, there was no error.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No, we should not summarily restore the material that cites a particular DYK hook. Most of the editing public couldn't give a toss about the arcane rules of DYK, and nor should they. If they seek fit to improve articles by adding more citations, improving the language and style of the article etc, it should be encouraged. If that results in a hook becoming redundant and removed, so be it. It's only a DYK hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand your stance. "If a factual error is reported when the hooks are on the front page, try to replace the hook with another fact from the article, rather than just removing it." WP:DYK. I am going to say this again but this would have been easily fixed, either by replacing hook or restoring the hook. Considering this, I have no reason to doubt that this was completely unjustified. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
You don't understand that it had nearly 12 hours on the main page? Removing the hook was completely justified. Now time to move on, improve and do something else. This is becoming a dead horse. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
No its not justified. The quote is crystal clear "If a factual error is reported when the hooks are on the front page, try to replace the hook with another fact from the article, rather than just removing it." This has happened 4 times, and is probably going to happen a lot more. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Totally justified, especially after 11 hours. Admins attending to ERRORS are not bound by the arcane nonsense of DYK I'm afraid. The process needs to become better. And yes, this may happen again and again. That's nobody's fault, hate the haters. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually some haven't read the rules and that is their fault. "rather than just removing it." In these 4 cases, just removing it was literally the immediate option. Its either we make suggestions to improve the process and to make sure this rarely happens again, or this hook is going back online. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
As I said already, admins aren't bound by the arcane rules of DYK. They are entrusted with ensuring that unsourced or unverifiable material does not appear on the main page. What happens after that is down to the rest of WIkipedia. As noted, the hook will not be "going back online" as it was already there for a few minutes shy of 11 hours. It had its moment, now move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The main rule which The Rambling Man broke was WP:INVOLVED in that they reported the supposed error at WP:ERROR, asserting that the hook needed to be pulled, and then pulled it 75 mins later, editing through protection while discussion was ongoing but without any notification of or input from the nominator or reviewers. Andrew D. (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Not at all, I waited for confirmation that my original assertion was correct, with another admin making such confirmation I protected the integrity of the main page from yet more DYK malarky. Thanks for the stir Andy. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
What TRM did was entirely normal for ERRORS. It moves fast, necessarily. It can be a bit choppy, which is unfortunate on the excellent editors whose hard work led the DYK/FA/OTD/whatever to be on the main page in the first place, but that's unavoidable. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

What can we do?

Seeing that what happened was unfortunate: can we find ways to not repeat it?

  • Nominators: when your hook will be "on" while you sleep, find some people to watch it for changes.
  • We all: take DYK articles on our watch list and look for changes, especially regarding the hook itself (as I do for the TFA every day).
  • We all: watch ERRORS, and ping involved people if something comes up.

Next time can be ours ;) - more ideas? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I got a splendid idea; following the rules. "If a factual error is reported when the hooks are on the front page, try to replace the hook with another fact from the article, rather than just removing it." WP:DYK.
Another idea: informing the nominator/fixing whatever is wrong. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
TRM has explained this to you but you appear not to be listening. DYK rules are not binding *anywhere else on wikipedia*. No admin is required to know about, care about, or take any notice whatsoever of DYK's rules when removing articles from the mainpage. No editor is required to care about DYK when editing an article that is currently running as a DYK. DYK rules apply nowhere outside of the DYK pages. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Obviously my suggestion meant changing the rules. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Well from context it sounds like you mean changing the rules for removing content from the main page - this is highly unlikely to ever happen given the prime drive behind errors is *removing the error as quickly as possible*. Its not even required that editors/admins fix errors they spot. You are also unlikely to get any proposal to pass that would restrict admins and editors from editing/altering articles because they are subject of a DYK or that would make DYK guidelines supersede wikipedia side-wide practice. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Changing the what rules to what? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
We are brainstorming ideas, no? - No need for rules change, just plain politeness: inform nominator(s) and reviewer(s) when a hook is under discussion, even if no rule requests that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Since I "appear to be not listening", that would make them "non-binding". Makeandtoss (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Correct, DYK rules are non-binding on admins. That will always and forever be the case. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Not just admins, DYK rules are non-binding on anyone who is not participating in DYK. If someone edits an article they see on the main page and improves it, in the process removing the reason it is on the main page, it is an onerous burden to expect them to have read and understood all the DYK rules that apply before editing the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't talk about rules, but politeness: watching articles in which we are not otherwise involved, informing involved people if something happens even if no rule requests that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Only in death: that sounds odd. If DYK editors and administrators are making a sincere effort to promote hooks based on DYK rules, one would expect that the powers-that-be at WP:ERRORS should be aware of those rules before pulling, especially in a case such as this which is expressly spelled out in the DYK rules. Either a new rule should be added to the DYK rules that "An administrator at WP:ERRORS has the right to pull any hook from the Main Page at any time without notifying anyone", or a new rule needs to be added to WP:ERRORS, as stated in WP:DYK#The DYK process: "If a factual error is reported when the hooks are on the front page, try to replace the hook with another fact from the article, rather than just removing it". Yoninah (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
There's no such thing as a DYK admin. Admins who deal with errors here are under no obligation to do anything. DYK cannot start mandating rules on admins at all. Trying to replace a pulled hook is an earnest endeavour and can be fulfilled by someone else, not necessarily the pulling admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
(Putting here as unrelated to below) @Yoninah: my point was that no admins or editors are required to, or even expected to know about DYK rules. If an admin spotted an error on the main page, realistically they could pull it without even going to Errors to report it if they can verify it as an error themselves. Secondly, you will find heavy resistance to anything that would require someone to do extra work to fix anothers mistake *just to pull an error from the main page*. 'You cant pull this obviously wrong content unless you replace it with something else' is just never going to fly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

As an outsider, I'd suggest that if you put forward fewer DYKs to Main Page (smaller batches? fewer batches per day?) it might be easier to a) ensure quality in the first place (not the issue here, I know, but a very common problem at ERRORS) and b) for them to be monitored --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Or even removed, adjusted and re-added if the changes can't be made very quickly. The sets are already too small, causing the main page to be out of balance. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
In this (different from most) case, there was no quality problem of the nominated article, - the problem came with a change to that article while it was on the Main page. We are not talking DYK quality in general. Anybody is welcome to change the thread subheader to clarify that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • We should ping the nominator as soon as a hook discussion takes place, and we should make sure to hastily explore other options before removal of hook. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    Why? What's the big deal with removing the hook, even temporarily? If it's not giving our readers what they deserve, pull it until it does. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Given the complaints that arise from even minor hook changes, I expect that swapping in a whole new hook live on the fly would cause more problems than it would solve. Not to mention that this practice (if followed) results in someone unilaterally creating their own hook and "promoting" it straight to the MP without discussion or oversight of any kind. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
    Yes indeed, swapping in a new hook would no doubt cause consternation, "why did my hook only get six hours on the main page?", "why wasn't I notified?", "I was ready to watch it but when it was moved, I was asleep..." etc etc, it's just not worth the grief and the disruption to the arcane processes and delicate individuals here. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
"Delicate individuals" here? So now we are personalizing the discussion? Sure. What about other individuals who don't like following rules? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
It's simply a statement of fact. THere is a considerable amount of ownership demonstrated daily at DYK, much unlike the rest of the Wikipedia. As for "following rules", that's been explained to youu countless times now, so time to stop beating the decaying pony. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
If you are arguing that there are circumstances surrounding such rules, then the rules should be modified and the vagueness surrounding them should be reduced. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not arguing, I'm stating fact. Admins are not under any obligation to comply with the arcane and multifarious "rules" of DYK. Sorry if that's comes as a surprise. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Then the rules should be modified.. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Why? Thy are recommendations really, and while they're not good, and easily ignored, they are still considered to be a good idea. But if you are going to delete that rule, please do consider streamlining the whole process, not just this sub-portion of one aspect. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Also in Prep3

When I promoted the third hook in Prep 3 I changed the wording to

Now the nominator has changed it back to his original hook which I consider inaccurate.

I guess the nominator is looking to make it more "hooky"? Look, DYK people, what are you trying to do here with hooks, be 100% open and frank, thus preventing our readers from being misled, or are you looking for hooky hooks which can be misinterpreted but may get excitable clickbait-style pageviews? You need to make up your minds as to what you mission statement is. Please, for all our sakes. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
For my (the reviewer's) sake: please read the nominaation. If that is not enough, other nominations by Smerus. They all have a little quirky-ness in common that I support, not for statistics, but to be thought-provoking. I (the reviewer) think that "encourage" is close in meaning to "recommend (for performance)". The hook is double quirky, - the Jewish composer "for" the destruction of Jerusalem, and Jerusalem vs. Leipzig. The hook is great for those who enjoy such things, and others will pass it anyway. My 2ct --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, well part of the fun of DYK imo is to make the hook 'hooky'. Otherwise the reader's reaction is to yawn and not click. Thanks Gerda for expressing my feelings and intentions precisely. The hook as reworded I would not even have put forward. The thing here, is that if the hook is promoted it shouldn't be changed afterwards. If editors have a reservation about the hook, I believe - actually I am certain - they should discuss it before the promotion.--Smerus (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Smerus' original hook is fine, having an element of wordplay. When we have hooks being pulled for being too dull, such wit should be encouraged, not stifled. We have a formal process of reviewing hooks and so informal changes afterwards are out-of-process and therefore improper. Andrew D. (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for good wordplay, but I don't think this is a good example, because you don't "encourage" a piece of music or a work of art. You might encourage its creation, or a performance, but you can't encourage the work of art itself because it's a thing not a person. Also, the attempted deception is rather obvious. Not to mention that it can only be achieved in any case by dropping the quotation marks typically used for a piece of music, which has generally been considered a no-no except for April Fool's. Gatoclass (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI, whether it was good wordplay or not, we still had an errors report complaining about it. Just for the record, you understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, both! - For musical compositions of that says, it's italics, not quotation marks Which are reserved for songs etc.). The complaint is bearable, I think, - the hook would have been better positioned in the quirky spot, as I said before. We have try to have April Foll twice a day, every day, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Prep Area 3

" ... that each JetBlue Mint passenger gets two power outlets?". Seriously? We do advertising for airlines now? Laura Jamieson (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a much better hook could be retrieved from the article. Also the GA review looks pretty slapdash, with no comments about whether or not some of the sources are promotional in nature (which at least on first glance they appear to be), whether some of the prose is too much like an advertisement, and whether an article with just over 4K of prose really does meet the "broad in coverage" part of the GA criteria. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not entirely convinced it's even a notable subject. Surely it should just be a paragraph in the main airline article? Laura Jamieson (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah - I see you had the same idea. Laura Jamieson (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
It's a garbage hook, not interesting and poorly phrased. Incidentally and technically, one of the outlets each passenger "gets" appears to be a USB connector in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Our article seems quite restrained in its coverage. Compare with Business Insider

    The food on Mint is not your typical airline fare. The menu was curated by hip New York City restaurant Saxon + Parole, and it typically includes such inventive dishes as a corn custard and poached lobster, bison meatloaf, and herb-roasted monkfish. There's beer from Brooklyn Brewery, freshly baked pastries from Mah-Ze-Dahr Bakery, and organic ice cream from Blue Marble. You can even enjoy coffee from Brooklyn Roasting Co., made with the first espresso machine specifically manufactured for an airline. A signature Mint cocktail is made with Grey Goose, and the wine selection includes several hard-to-find California varietals. JetBlue also happens to be the first airline to serve rosé.

It's a shame they don't fly to the UK as I'm liking the sound of it. Andrew D. (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Good find, Andrew. There are about 20 interesting DYK hooks in there, in place of the dull promotional sounding one. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
As someone who flies a lot (though mostly short-haul between the UK and Europe), it sounds great (I love Grey Goose). Which is why I pointed out the terrible hook - out of all of the things it offers, we highlight a plug??? Still not convinced it's worth an article, though. Laura Jamieson (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Wonderful find Andy, just look, something like "the first espresso machine specifically manufactured for an airline" would be far superior to our current banal suggestion! Get in there, make a suggestion, let's rock this hook! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Now on the Main Page for four hours already... Fram (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK are no longer interested in interesting hooks it would appear, they are just too obsessed with self-preservation. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I thought we pulled the nom, not least because there is now a merge proposal on it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Evidentally not, but if you'd like to, you'd certainly get my backing, despite some of the hawks flying overhead right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I've pulled it. Interestingly enough, unlike many or even most DYKs that hit the main page, this article has had no edits; usually when any of my stuff hits the front there's at least one or two minor copyedits. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

What the heck, apparently editors here think that the original author does not need to be notified in such situations. The hook is accurate and has been approved. Sources that are promotional are usable when they are only used to cite facts. Even if this article did not pass GA, it would still have met DYK guidelines as a newly mainspaced article. SSTflyer 03:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The "original author" does not own the hook, nor the article, and if he/she really cared about the article/DYK they would have been watching for when it was published and subsequently removed. The article is dreadfully promotional and should be stripped down to encyclopedic facts. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
That's a bit cold, Rambling Man. DYK hooks are scheduled for all times of the day. People can't be awake for 24 hours per day... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The answer: slow the rate down. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2: Élizabeth Teissier

that Élizabeth Teissier sued the Wikimedia Foundation and lost?

Isn't this a little navel-gazing and actually quite vindictive? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you just leave out the final two words of the hook.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Or you could not, you know, deliberately try to shame a living person. Only in death does duty end (talk)
So, you're a saying that if a person is notable for a negative event, we can't mention that? Thagt's ridiculous,. and I obbject to the hook being pulled. IT's a cited cfact, it was all over the news and quite recently so, and the other thing she's famous for - the controversial sociology degree - is, if anything, more damning. And I see the alternative being suggested by the person objecting to the hook is far, far more damaging: He wantts to say that astrology works, in bsviolation of WP:FRINGE. My hook doesn't violate the core WP:NPOV policy. at least. It's a simple statement of something she's notable for, not a promotion of astrology, a fringe theory. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it's completely fair to be worried that we, a branch of the WMF, are putting a blurb about a lawsuit that intrinsically carries a negative tone about a BLP and where we, as a branch of the WMF, had won in that lawsuit. It smells like being a sore winner and thumbing our nose, even if this wasn't the intent. Perhaps though by explaining more that astrologist Élizabeth Teissier sued the Wikimedia Foundation over defamation from her article on the French Wikipedia and lost? - first, since we're en.wiki, and calling out the issue at fr.wiki, that separates us out. And second, by adding that she is an astrologist and explaining that it was about defamation, puts into perspective that sounds less posturing about WMF being victorious and more that WP articles reporting on factual aspects are considered non-defamation in courts. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Except that does not appear to have been the main issue, she demanded a right to reply on Wikimedia servers on the French Wikipedia, and the court said no, the WMF does not provide that kind of editorial service and should not be forced to, whether or not a French User defamed her. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Even if we are on strong BLP ground, and I don't think we are as UNDUE is a concern, this makes the project look petty. Gravedancing is something that is discouraged in Wikipedia culture, we should not put it on the front page. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 14:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do I bother with DYK? anything remotely interesting in a hook will be ruthlessly replaced with "Did you know Élizabeth Teissier was born in 1938?" After which, someone will complain that it gives her age, and be replaced with ""Did you know élizabeth Teissier is a human?" Because heaven forbid a freaking Did you know? section collecting interesting facts allow an interesting fact into its list. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, as you should realize, collaborative endeavors like this mean you might not always like other's opinions - just as it's an old saw in the reporting business that 'every reporter hates their editor'. So, while your frustration is understandable, it is still the nature of this thing and must be handled. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden As I noted in my original comment, the hook as I saw it was both inward looking and vindictive. I'm certain there are other hooks you could use that would be less inward looking and less vindictive. Andy has a suggestion below. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not that bothered about the hook myself but if we want another one, I suggest focussing on her role as Mitterand's astrologer as it's easy to find sources which say things like "Mitterrand consulted the astrologer Elizabeth Teissier on matters of state—even about the First Gulf War and the Maastricht Treaty". Andrew D. (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
    • That feels promotional. We could focus on the sociology thesis, butwe cannot promote astrology on the main page in any way. That's a violation of policies, so the hook can't say "look at the famous people she read for!"or "look at the predictions she claimed to make!" it's going to have to be negative, because she's primarily notable for negative things, unless we focus on her movie career - and if we're going to be so weak-willed and inane to do that, I'm kind of wondering why the hell I'm bothering to participate at DYK in the first place. I mean, I don't have to be in DYK, so screwing over your nominators, pulling their hooks at the last minute, of what, previous to this, was the first time I had had fun writing for Wikipedia for a while (there's a reason I focus on images - stupid wikidrama like this makes me hate editing) 13:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, Adam Cuerden, I think we could have a hook about the fact that she was controversially awarded a doctorate for a defence of astrology (assuming I have read the article correctly). That certainly strikes me as a very interesting and unusual fact worth highlighting. Gatoclass (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
That seems fair. It's just having a hook pulled - and replaced with a suggestion for an arguably pro-astrology one isn't exactly what one wants to wake up to, you know? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally, it's hardly stupid wikidrama, your hook was promoted erroneously, something that is reasonably commonplace here at the moment. I can only apologise for that on behalf of the process failings. But at least we'll resolve the issue favourably for all concerned and the article will get its run. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Rosie at DYK

"Why the DYK bunch choose that hook for the main page, I'll never understand......"

Just thought it was best to give everyone a head's up about Template:Did you know nominations/Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight. Rosiestep's already been told an article was created about her (I didn't start it, but figured if she was going to have an article, it might as well be a decent one) and as far as I can tell the nomination has been done in the same way any new BLP would be, and the article seems to meet the relevant policies. However, I'm still a bit twitchy that people might take exception to "one of our own" being on the front page. Does anyone have any concerns about taking this to prep + queue? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem at all if "one of us" goes on the front page. Indeed we even have precedence of Emily Temple-Wood appearing on DYK (and making DYK stats too!) and there being no issue. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
No reflection on Rosie's great contribution to the encyclopedia, but I am having difficulty persuading myself that she is sufficiently notable for her own article. If the article does get promoted here, it wouldn't surprise me to see a deletion discussion start soon afterward. Gatoclass (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Emily's survived AfD. The threshold question is if being wikipedian of the year confers notability. I think it should. Montanabw(talk) 06:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:DYKLN

Following on from the recent situation with the 70-article hook, I detect no general approval for an upper limit on number of articles. However, I think the current situation, offering no advice, is also unreasonable. So, I propose an expansion of WP:DYKLN, which is transcluded to Wikipedia:Did you know/Onepage presently reads:

L1: A hook introducing more than one article is an exception to the hook length rule. If your hook introduces more than one article, you can do a basic calculation by subtracting the number of characters in the bolded character string for each additional new article beyond the first. If having done that the hook length is still 200 characters or less, it is probably an acceptable length. If it is over 200 characters after the subtractions, it may still be considered eligible if the hook is reasonably compact and readable, but such hooks will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Perhaps to something like (addition in red for ease of reading here, would not be in actual addition):

L1: A hook introducing more than one article is an exception to the hook length rule. If your hook introduces more than one article, you can do a basic calculation by subtracting the number of characters in the bolded character string for each additional new article beyond the first. If having done that the hook length is still 200 characters or less, it is probably an acceptable length. If it is over 200 characters after the subtractions, it may still be considered eligible if the hook is reasonably compact and readable, but such hooks will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Multi-article hooks are still subject to the article qualification requirements and need an interesting hook. New / expanded content in several of the articles will only be counted towards size requirements for one single article. Hooks with many articles have been rejected as uninteresting in the past (examples 1 and 2), and contributors are advised to consider carefully whether combining a large number of articles into a single hook is likely to produce a supported DYK nomination.

Thoughts? Copy-edits? Suggestions? Plaudits and Criticisms? EdChem (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@EdChem: I don't think you need the "reject if its uninteresting" in there because as I have always stated that interest is a very subjective thing. What may be uninteresting to the reviewer may be very interesting to the rest of the wiki community. Also having a multi-article hook itself raises interest with people possibly wishing to find out why these articles have so many connections to new articles. The rest I think is common sense. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
In this case (70 articles) the sheer amount made it uninteresting. Lost in the crowd. Had it been 3 or 4 of the more interestingly named ones (Castle of Terror etc) as opposed to every single event lumped together, eyes might not have glazed over. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Only in death, I'm not looking to discuss the recent case but to provide general advice in the rules for future multi-article nominations. EdChem (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The C of E I've posted this after the above discussion Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Largest_DYK_ever? where a 70 article hook was, IMO, rejected as uninteresting. I want to add advice so that editors like MPJ-DK don't get their contributions failed without the articles even being reviewed. I'm not saying that contributions should be failed as uninteresting, I am saying it has already happened (and this was not the first time). I have added examples. EdChem (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Which just does prove my point. That was a subjective decision where something that pro-wrestling fans may have found interesting was denied just because a couple of people didn't like it. I don't think that interest should really be an overriding consideration in DYK. For example we did have "... that The Track was dusty" as a DYK before. Quite plain and dull as I'm sure you'll agree yet it got over 5,000 views in 8 hours. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The C of E, the DYK requirement is that the hook fact be interesting to a broad audience. Not a specialized audience such as pro-wrestling fans. The hook clearly failed to meet that requirement, and as a very long list of lists, it was inaccessible to just about anyone else. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: That was only an example, I could equally have said sports and drama and television fans as well as Mexican people. But my point is that one reviewer should not be judge, jury and executioner over a multi-article hook simply because they feel it is "boring" because that is a subjective viewpoint. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
But individual reviewers judge single-article hooks all the time in precisely that way, The C of E. (And, admittedly, frequently fail to apply that criterion.) What makes multi-article hooks different? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The suggested new text does little more than reiterate existing rules, so I don't see the point of it. Our rules are complicated enough already and we shouldn't be expanding them further IMO without very good reason. Gatoclass (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Nominations shouldn't be pre-emptively failed in any event; if the hook isn't interesting, then we let the nominator provide ALT hooks that are. However, since extremely large multi-article hooks cause a great strain on DYK and typically take weeks to finish reviewing, aside from being virtually impossible to meet the 200-character limit (excluding bold links beyond the first) I would fine with setting an upper limit of ten or a dozen articles per hook. Even with a dozen it's extremely hard to word an interesting hook and stay within 200 characters, but in some situations it might be possible. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it would be a good idea to have a fixed upper limit to the number of articles in a hook. However, clearly a hook should not be so long that it's too big too feature in the DYK section. And probably a DYK hook should never be so long that you can't squeeze in one or two additional hooks so it still looks like a set. Gatoclass (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Gatoclass, could you please explain why you don't think it would be a good idea to have a fixed upper limit? I'd like to understand the reasoning against such a limit. (We've certainly gone well beyond what was ever anticipated in terms of numbers of articles.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Well BlueMoonset, looking at the list of long multis at Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Hall_of_Fame#DYK_hooks_with_10_or_more_articles, many of them look fine to me. The largest multi is, I agree, not terribly engaging, but most of those that follow are, I think, sufficiently readable and interesting. So I would be uncomfortable with the notion of having an arbitrary limit - I think we would be better off sticking to treating each nomination on its merits. Gatoclass (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Gatoclass. Re-reading the list, I think I generally agree with you, though the strain on DYK has been considerable to get the longer of these processed. This one has been much easier to deal with when broken up, and the hooks I've seen have been more interesting. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK bot

At Template:Did you know nominations/Samiun dan Dasima, the new review bot tagged the article as lacking a citation for the plot section. As the film is still extant, and the plot is implicitly cited to the film (and no citation is required, per WP:DYKSG #D2, can we please add an exception to the bot's code so that sections titled Plot or Summary aren't checked? If we have a swath of film articles nominated, not having an exception coded might lead to more work for reviewers (or mislead new reviewers into thinking plot summaries need a citation). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Queue 1 typo

In the lead hook of Queue 1, the word "entrepreneur" is missing its second "r" ("entrepeneur"). Can an admin please fix this before the queue hits the main page in about seven hours? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Allen3 talk 17:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Allen3. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3 Georg Bätzing

Hello, Gerda Arendt. Sorry to bring this up, but I if don't it's surely to be mentioned by someone else. Prep 3 will be the next one promoted for the main page this evening.

... that Georg Bätzing (pictured) is the appointed bishop of the Diocese of Limburg?

Since anybody recognizing his name already will know that fact, I wonder if we might make it a little hookier. Perhaps something like:

ALT1 ... that the Diocese of Limburg bishop Georg Bätzing (pictured) was once a church organist?

Just something different than stating the obvious. — Maile (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for thoughts, but it is not so obvious. The ALT doesn't work because he is not yet bishop, only appointed. I guess that you are right about "anybody recognizing his name already will know that fact", but guess that it will be a minority. If you want something hooky, speak about his predecessor, the notorious "luxury bishop". I tried to avoid that. - The ALT also doesn't work because he wasn't a professional organist, just played the organ at times which is a different thing. - If you want something special: the pilgrimage of the robe of Jesus is unique. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

ALT2: ... that the Diocese of Limburg bishop Georg Bätzing organized the 2012 Heilig-Rock-Wallfahrt, a pilgrimage to the most important relic of the Trier Cathedral, the seamless robe of Jesus?

Like the one above, perhaps? You're correct, that is a lot more interesting. — Maile (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, again: he is not yet the bishop.
ALT3: ... that Georg Bätzing, the appointed bishop of the Diocese of Limburg, organized a 2012 pilgrimage to the seamless robe of Jesus, displayed again in the Trier Cathedral? I'd still prefer the simple hook, focused about why he is interesting now, not back in 2012. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Let me kick myself (ouch! ow! ow! ow!) for missing he's only appointed. I'm fine with the ALT3 you just wrote. Notice I didn't pull the hook. And I'm not going to. But given the history on this talk page about hooks, it seems likely someone will kick up a fuss. If you like, we can just leave your original hook in place. If someone wants to challenge it, we have your preferences right here. Let's say we leave things in place and see what happens. — Maile (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Did I not do it right?

I tried to nominate Church of the Jacobins, which I started on July 13, for DYK, but I see no sign of it on the list of nominations to be reviewed. Given my [lack of] techie cred, my question should probably be "What did I do wrong?" Help, anyone? Awien (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Checked It's there now. You just forgot to add the template to transclude it under that date. — Maile (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Maile, I appreciate it. Awien (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
(Adds) Except that I still don't see it in the list. Awien (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
It's OK now. Really. For sure. No kidding. — Maile (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Take your word for it, and thanks again. Goodnight! Awien (talk) 00:21, 16 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:

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:04, 14 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:

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Annie Rowan Forney Daugette

Hook pulled, conversation moved back to nomination template

@Z105space, Canadian Paul, and Cwmhiraeth: I just swapped Annie Rowan Forney Daugette in Prep 1 with Cynthia Cooke that was in prep 3, to give the Daugette hook time to sort out an issue before it goes to queue. The article, and therefore the hook, need clarification on the term "Independent State of Alabama". The link given in the article merely points to the Flag of Alabama. I can find nothing in my own sources that say anything formally existed (to be capitalized) by that official name. The Encyclopedia of Alabama explains that on January 11, 1861, the state of Alabama was the 4th state to sign the Ordinance of Secession from the United States. The Confederate States of America, however, did not actually officially form until February 4, 1861. Yes, Alabama had declared its independence from the United States. And it was not a state of the Confederacy. Therefore...it was not a state of anything, but was an independent nation for less than a month. The only thing that capitalizes Independent State of Alabama is the Alabama Women's Hall of Fame in listing Daugette. Temporary it was, but was not a state. And it seems inappropriate to capitalize the word "independent" in either the article or the hook. The wording needs to be corrected, and sourcing needs to be found that makes it clear in the article. — Maile (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Here you go Jan. 11, 1861: Delegates vote (61-39) to secede, becoming the fourth state to do so. The Republic of Alabama is declared.— Maile (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Maile66: Done. MWright96 (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Also - in regards to a statement in the article - I realize the article creator was going by the hall of fame information when giving credit to United States Senator J. Lister Hill for the conflict being coined the "War between the States". However, it should be noted that he was not a United States senator until 1938. According to Names of the American Civil War, it was being called by that term by some while the war was actually happening, and that some Confederate memoirs also used that term. — Maile (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, so you are the one who had me scratching my head wondering how the heck I missed reviewing one of the hooks I promoted to the queue! Thank you at least for solving the mystery. Gatoclass (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, my gosh! How weird, both of us working that prep at the exact same nano minute. — Maile (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Maile66: Note, there was a dispute a couple years ago over a user trying to make articles on the 'independent countries' that each state was prior to officially joining the Confederacy. See Special:Undelete/Template:Pre-CSA states and the associated articles. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I have pulled this hook for multiple issues, and the conversation continues on the nomination template. — Maile (talk) 13:03, 14 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:

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 13 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:

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:04, 13 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:

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit to Prep

I have just made this edit to a hook in Prep 1. I am posting here as the hook I edited was one I nominated. I have changed the description of the centipede from amphibian to amphibious as technically the former refers to a member of the class Amphibia, which this centipede is not, while the latter refers to an organism that lives both on land and in water, which is an accurate descriptor for Scolopendra cataracta. I did not add a wikilink to amphibious as that page offers only a definition of the word which I would anticipate our readers to know. Hopefully this is an uncontroversial change. EdChem (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that amphibious is better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Prep4

".. that the 2005 FA Cup Final was Patrick Vieira's last match as an Arsenal player?" An absolutely factual, if very boring, hook, but it would be less so if it were mentioned that his penalty kick actually won the game! ".... that the 2005 FA Cup Final was Patrick Vieira's last match as an Arsenal player, and his final penalty kick won the game?" Laura Jamieson (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that so much effort is being put into compliance with all the minutiae of the DYK rules that the actual hook, which is the most fundamental part of DYK, is being completely overlooked. Boring hooks are the norm. It's not even reasonable to call them "hooks" any longer as they aren't "hooking" anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
But yes, something like "... that Patrick Viera scored the winning penalty in the 2005 FA Cup Final, his final match for Arsenal?", or even "... that Patrick Viera won the 2005 FA Final for Arsenal with his last kick on his final appearance?" or similar would be a vast improvement on this. The last domestic match of the English football season is often the final game for many players for a particular club as that's when they move on, at the end of the season, so this is far from remarkable or interesting as it stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I was contemplating proposing just that sort of re-write, so heartily endorse the hook being changed so long as the verifiability is unproblematic (which I haven't checked). EdChem (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Too late. I'm beginning to think we need to ruthlessly pull such dull hooks when others are so readily available, re-start the discussion and remind nominators and promoters that one of the key elements behind a hook is its hookiness, not just a bland statement of fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
No need for admins to act like gestapo when it comes to "boring" hooks running. It always seems that you can't win either way nowadays. You make a quirky hook, someone complains its "inaccurate" on minor grounds or you make a basic hook and it's "boring". If anything do it in preps if you have to but don't pull once it's on the main page as that is unfair on the nominator and reviewer. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
People, discussions are great but someone actually has to do something or these just waste time. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

An important reminder to prep-set builders and DYK reviewers

A few things to remember:

  • When you build a prep set, please be sure to first check the special occasions area to see whether a long-saved hook is due to be promoted to the current set
  • Be sure the hook is formatted properly. The following errors are the most common of those seen in prep sets; if they are corrected at the time of the DYK review, so much the better:
  • the italics for "(pictured)" should always include the parenthesis; "(pictured)" is incorrect
  • the hook must start with three periods, not an ellipsis character
  • a space is required after the periods, before the immediately following "that"
  • the hook's sentence must end with an unspaced question mark
  • The same user should not appear in a DYKmake and a DYKnom for the same article. If they do, then retain the DYKmake and remove the DYKnom

Thank you in advance for checking during your reviews, and double-checking when promoting a hook and building a prep set. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few minutes ago, so here's a new list of the 40 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all of the hooks through July 2 (23 noms are from that last day). As of the most recent update, 103 nominations have been approved, leaving 145 of 248 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones left over from May, 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) 01:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

third review requested

A third review would probably be beneficial for this nomination. LavaBaron (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Tea Lizard

Just alerting you folks that the Tea Lizard article (currently on the main page DYK section) is nominated for deletion and looks like the consensus will be to delete. Brianga (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems to have been pulled by The ed17 (though not yet listed at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed). Brianga (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Anyone can list items there if you're so keen. It doesn't seem very helpful other than to remind us all that a hook gets pulled almost once per two sets. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for adding it, Brianga! Didn't know that page existed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, for what reason, we know not, but well done for adding it there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, TRM, I needed a little more negativity and acidity in my day. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you tell me the purpose of the removed page? Does anything actually improve knowing we have to jettison one hook in every 14 or 15 because of poor reviews? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Timeline

Looking at this, I see that the first prod occurred before the hook was promoted to the prep, so it is a shame that there was no question raised on the nomination page. Of course, the editors may not have known there was a DYK nomination in progress. TRM then tagged the article as an orphan. If there is not a "no orphan" rule, there should be, and it certainly would have been helpful for a notification to have been made at that. Despite that, we had an article promoted to prep with a tag, which should not have occurred, and the article moved on from prep to queue with the same tag. Maybe we can have a bot check all the preps and queues for tags and prods, AfDs, etc, every couple of hours? Once it was on the main page, it got more attention which likely led to the notability tagging and AfD nomination, but those issues were evident in the nomination.

As I see it, this case shows three issues for us at the DYK project.

  1. The original review considered the criteria but missed the broader policy issues.
  2. Various people moving the nomination forward did not notice or if they did, did not act on the orphan tag.
  3. None of the editors who raised issues in prodding or tagging alerted DYK project. This is one thing any of them could have done easily assuming they were looking at the article knowing it was at DYK.

Regarding the last point, in many cases the editors will not have come to the article from looking at preps / queues or even aware of DYK, but a bot could easily alert us to taggings of articles in prep and queue. Maybe Intelligentsium's new bot could also look for PRODs etc in the history to flag issues for consideration? On the policy issues, maybe we need to ask for explicit consideration of policies like N, V, and RS? EdChem (talk) 08:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if "no orphan" is one of the many arcane rules of DYK, but I did a tiny bit more than just tag the article as an orphan, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The bot currently looks for all dated maintenance tags, which include PROD, AFD, and Orphan tags in articles. Checking every revision for a PROD however is likely to slow down the bot considerably (especially for large articles or articles with a long history) and may not be particularly high-yield. Intelligentsium 14:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I obviously screwed up, so my apologies. I could have sworn I checked the edit-history; and perhaps I did, but missed the placement and removal of the PROD tag (because I was scanning for age/stability). I decidedly did not check for whether it was an orphan; if that's a rule, this is the first I am hearing of it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


I had no idea a DYK nomination was in progress when I did the initial PROD. I saw the article show up at User:AlexNewArtBot/HerpetologySearchResult soon after it was created and added it to my watchlist with the intention of eventually nominating it for deletion (I've been using my watchlist to bookmark some things that seem like flash in the pan internet phenomena that will prove non-notable once the flash dies down). I was camping with no internet the weekend of July 8-10 and after returning home I was reviewing my watchlist where I was reminded of the existence of the article by an edit from July 8, at which point I PRODed it. While I doubt many other people use their watchlists to bookmark potential deletions, it would've helped me if there had been some kind of edit to the article to note that a DYK nomination was in progress (it was certainly on my watchlist when the DYK started). New articles aren't usually likely to have many watchers, but existing articles that become eligible for DYK may have watchers that would appreciate being alerted to pending DYKs. Plantdrew (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I need some help...

I messed up on Template:Did you know nominations/Silat al-Harithiya, could anyone please tell me what I did wrong? Huldra (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be OK now. I deleted the error message, and that looks like it resolved it. — Maile (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks!! Much appreciated, Huldra (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3

Simple question really, Pokemon Go is currently in the ITN "Ongoing" section, is it still eligible for DYK? There's a very real chance it'd be bold-linked twice at the same time from the main page.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is ITN supersedes DYK, such that articles at ITN can't be DYK. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Then I would suggest the hook is pulled by someone who is certain... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
From the DYK Rules: e) Articles that have featured (bold link) previously on DYK, or in a blurb on the main page's In the news, or On this day sections are ineligible. (Articles linked at ITN or OTD not in bold, including the recent deaths section, are still eligible.) Pokemon Go isn't yet in bold at ITN. — Maile (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
So you're going to have it linked twice from the main page? Great idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Archiving help needed

I have promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Erin McLeod but am unable to archive it because the template is mucked up. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Queue 1

that John Clement Fitzpatrick (pictured) died before completing the famed 39-volume publication of the Writings of George Washington?

Having read the article and made a few changes, a note from Gwillhickers on the talk page has left me confused. It say in the blurb (above) that he died before "completing" the "famed 39-volume publication", but Gwillhickers's note states that "He completed the works, but all were not published at the time of his death." As such I think the hook is somewhat misleading. Plus I think use of "famed" is somewhat weaselish – even Gwillhickers has stated that the Writings is covered by the bio article, (so much so he removed the red link I created to it), such that this "famed" piece of work doesn't even have its own article. I'm not sure where the attribution is in the article for such a claim of "fame" in any case. Some work to be done here so I would suggest it is pulled until such a time that these issues are covered. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The red link for The Writings of George Washington isn't needed and would be sort of redundant given what little can be said of it that's not already in the Fitzpatrick article. Mention of the fame associated with these works is relative and shouldn't suggest they are comparable in fame to the Bible or some such work. It should be understood that the term famous is relative, as any sort of fame is, and used in the context of an academic setting.
The topic of The writings of George Washington, is germane to the subject of Fitzpatrick and as such is covered well in the article. Only so much can be said of the sponsorship and publication in the first place. If there is something else worth mentioning here I would welcome it. A separate article for this would no doubt be merged back with the Fitzpatrick article by another editor. The red link is not needed because the topic for it is a major chapter in the Fitzpatrick biography already. The works themselves are available in the Bibliography of George Washington. A third article that treats the GW writings is simply not needed..
The hook reads "...died before completing the famed 39-volume publication". Fitzpatrick died before the all the volumes were published. The hook is not misleading because it doesn't specifically mention the several yet to be published volumes. The 39 volume work was not completed because all the volumes were not yet published, as explained in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I removed the word "famed" before promoting this to Prep1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Since this is not germane to the point made in the hook, I can live with that. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hold on, so he completed the works themselves, they just weren't published? Then the hook should say that. He died with some of his "famed" work unpublished, not before completing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
And honestly, if the work is so notable and famed, the detail should be spun off into its own article, but that's another issue, not that relevant to this DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you do not pull this hook but instead rephrase it as
  • I'd have thought "completing the publication" was a fairly blanket expression that would cover both. How about -

@Cwmhiraeth:, either one of your ALT's is fine. Rambling Man, the publication by itself is already covered and outlined in two other articles and doesn't warrant its own article no matter how well intended. We don't need three articles to cover this one topic. Don't quite know why you're insisting it does. If you have other important information about the Fitzpatrick publication that you think belongs in its own article and not the Fitzpatrick article I'd like to hear about it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm not insisting on anything, but notable authors and their notable books generally have independent articles. Perhaps if all this author was notable for was this one work, it should be the other way round and the article should about the books and not the author. Anyway, that's not for further discussion here. The hook is now fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
No worries, you were good to note a couple points that needed better clarity, which I've addressed in the article. Many thanks for your review and scrutiny, the article is for the better of it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1

... that the cheese in cheese soup adds both flavor and nutritional value?

Really? Is this a new low in banal hooks? Could we please try to find hooks which are of interest, i.e. which are actually hooks not just plain statements of abundantly obvious and utterly disinteresting fact? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, we could include that cheese also adds color to cheese soup. Wouldn't that make it super-interesting? And texture. And aroma! EEng 20:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Two alternatives from other sourced statements in that article. 184.147.117.244 (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
... that cheese soup is traditional in America, Colombia, Switzerland and Tibet?
... that chefs use special cooking techniques to prevent cheese soup from burning?
The second is preferable for me, but honestly, we shouldn't be promoting hooks that are this poor. I guess the best way to do it without upsetting too many precious people is to undo the promotion closure and suggest some alternatives, because people get so upset when "their" "hook" about "their article" is changed "at the last minute". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I concur that this hook should not make it to the main page. It's only marginally better than "... that cheese soup is made with cheese" would have been. EdChem (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
How about that cheese shops are expected to have cheddar? EEng 20:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 Done Returned to noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4

... that Erin McLeod (pictured) played soccer in Indonesia for two years before joining the Canada women's national soccer team?

Well she lived in Indonesia and played some junior level stuff, but she didn't then move onto joining the national team. She left Indonesia in 1999 before playing in the Canadian under-19s in 2001. She didn't play for Canada proper until 2002. I submit that the hook is misleading as it implies something that isn't really true. I'd say she started her football career in Indonesia before being selected for Canada some years later. Even that, as a hook, is dull. Many hundreds of international footballers played their junior football in different countries before going on to represent their national team. We ought to be able to better here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to return it to the nominations page for reconsideration of the hook. I particularly liked the image and its indication that top level football is not exclusively a male preserve. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I know that I can return anything to the noms page, I was hoping that it could be resolved without too much bureaucracy but I guess I have little choice. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mary Mark Ockerbloom and Soccerfan1996: for input from the article creator and reviewer. — Maile (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that goalkeeper Erin McLeod, who now plays for the Canada women's national soccer team, recorded 11 shutouts in 21 games during her college career?
ALT2 ... that Canadian football goalkeeper Erin McLeod practices meditation to prepare for games?
ALT3 ... that Canadian football goalkeeper Erin McLeod is also a successful artist? 184.147.117.244 (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I like alt3, it's different from most footballer hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I like ALT3 also. It's short and catchy and hooky. — Maile (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Any way we could add "and fashion designer" onto the end of ALT3? I still like it otherwise, though. Soccerfan1996 (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
According to the cited article, she's "an investor in and brand ambassador" rather than a designer. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
ALT2a ... that Canadian football goalkeeper Erin McLeod practices meditation to prepare for games, to be a calm and comforting presence on her team? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
ALT3a ... that Canadian football goalkeeper Erin McLeod held her first solo art exhibit, entitled "Limitless", in 2013? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
ALT4 ... that while Canadian footballer Erin McLeod played goal for the Vancouver Whitecaps, the team never lost a game?
Regarding ALT1, it gives statistics from a single year during her college career, but the phrasing sounds like it's for her entire college career, so I think we'd have the same sort of issue as the original hook. ALT2 and ALT3 both seem to me to be a little too general. In particular, in ALT3 "successful artist" seems like it might be an overstatement, since one successful show does not make a successful career as an artist. I've suggested variations that give more detail specific to this person but still develop the idea of the original hook. I think ALT4 could also be fun. I've confirmed that all the possible ALT hooks are accurately sourced. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep, Alt3a gets my vote, with Alt4 a late possibility. That she could have played a couple of games of the Whitecaps means the latter is effectively "meh" territory, the former is actually of note because so few of these individuals are actually interesting outside their sport. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
This hook has now moved, unaltered, into Queue 4. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio detector

Can someone direct me to the venue for discussion of Earwig's copyvio detector, please? I'm sure it's a useful tool but we need to get to the bottom of this absurd idea it provides a "probability" or "confidence" that there's a copyvio. It's completely impossible to compute such a probability, or anything remotely like it. So where do I go? EEng 19:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Here: User talk:The Earwig. — Maile (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @EEng: One thing everyone needs to keep in mind, the tool does not show likelihood of something being a copyvio, but just that there is a certain percentage of content that matches some content elsewhere. That content might be PD, might be a WP mirror, might be album track-listings or lists of someones publications, or might just be simple declarative statements that are not copyrightable. It would be a large disservice to automatically equate a high Earwig % with being a copyvio. Rather, it is just one tool to alert us to the potential of one. It is always up to a critical and reasoned eye to actually evaluate the "match". CrowCaw 21:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I certainly do know that, which is why I'm concerned. The tool itself declares things like "Violation Unlikely -- 3.8% confidence" (whatever that means), which then causes people to say things, in DYK reviews, like "The tool says there's only at 3.8% chance of a copyvio". In fact, the little automated template that now seems to pop up in most nominations says right out, "The probability of copyright violation is 1.0%. (confirm)", which is nonsense. EEng 21:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
So I am confused here, if only a 1% of the wikipedia text is identical to a source, how is it not probably that it is not a copyright violation? I am not talking "close paraphrase" but ensuring that it's not straight up copied from somewhere else? What am I missing here?  MPJ-DK  22:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Even in low % cases, it is worth the time to compare the top couple of potential hits. I've seen low % returns end up being deleted due to enough specific words being changed to lower the score, but still keeping the identical flow and structure, thus running afoul of WP:PARAPHRASE. I agree the wording of those notices should be changed or removed altogether. As a heavy user of the tool elsewhere I've learned its quirks and its limitations. If anything, the % can often be little more than just a convenient way to rank the potential matches. I know the workload here is crippling already, but (again speaking as a heavy EW user), I would say any hit above 0.0% should be manually evaluated. Once it is used a few dozen/hundred times, a false-positive can usually be dismissed just a few seconds of comparison. I should definitely not like to see the EW % being used as a rubber-stamp in either direction. CrowCaw 22:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (ec) To MPJ-DK's question, a 1% match is in fact usually not a copyvio, but even when discounting the paraphrase options, one major place the bot can miss copyvios are in sources that make heave use of frames, or have java-based "click here for more" sections. In those cases, the bot sees enough to list (usually the title or part of the intro), but can't list the rest of the content. Like I say, 1% is usually clean, but is always worth the couple of seconds it would take to ensure that. CrowCaw 22:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Look, the point you're all missing is that nobody has been able to tell me what the 1%, 10%, or 20%, represents -- presumably there's some dividend and some divisor, yielding a quotient of x%, but I'm still waiting to hear what those are. If none of you know the answer to that question then everything you're saying is based on nothing. I've asked over at Earwig's page, to which Maile so helpfully pointed me.
To one specific comments here: if 1% of a 6000-word article (i.e. a quote of 60 words) is taken verbatim from somewhere else, without quotation, then that definitely is a copyvio. And I suspect Crow's advice about ranking, and reviewing anything above 0% (once we find out what that is) is going to turn out to be correct. This "% confidence" is misleading everyone. EEng 22:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Everything I'm saying" is based on my experience with using the tool, where I've learned that whatever the % means, "likelihood of copyvio" is not one of them. I was trying to address what I thought was your reasoning for even bringing this up, to wit: that people are putting far too much weight on the % returned. If you just want the algorithm, then yes, Earwig's page is the place to go. Out, CrowCaw 23:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I want the algorithm, after which I'd like to be sure people are using it appropriately. EEng 23:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
You can be sure that it is used inappropriately all too frequently. This was true even before the new bot was created. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Here is the tool: [15] You can probably go to the operator with algorithm questions. For me, the big advantage is that you can look at each source it flags individually and see what is the specific concern. Where you have sources flagged by the tool that match citations in the article, it's easier than dup detector (where everything has to go one page at a time) to compare them directly. No tool can catch certain types of close paraphrasing, there's no escape from human review. The biggest issue I've seen with Earwig is that it flags wikipedia mirrors sometimes and also can flag areas with a lot of direct quotations, even if properly sourced and cited. My own style in evaluating DYKs with it is to state something like "Checked with Earwig" or "Earwig tool did not reveal copyvio" without mentioning a percentage, thus making it my own assessment and not an arbitrary cutoff. Montanabw(talk) 04:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Imperial / metric conversion

The hook "that the first Sirloin Stockade restaurant had a giant 1,800 pounds (820 kg) plastic ornamental cow", currently in prep 4, contains an example of something that bugs me. Modifiers in English don't show number (or gender), so the normal way of expressing size is "a seven-foot basketball player", "a three-hundred-pound linebacker" and so on. But when the converter is used, it pluralises the modifier as above, "pounds" where it should be "pound". The only way of getting rid of that is to delete the automated conversion, and type in the values instead. Is there a way it can be adjusted? Awien (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I promoted this hook, and I had actually just used the imperial measure, but I had linked it so anybody unfamiliar with it could follow. @Yoninah: went ahead and added the conversion template. I actually would prefer the use of a single measure, for the sake of readability; but if we wanted both measures, surely we could just type them in? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
For those who have not read the documentation for Template:Convert, the option |adj=on renders the units in adjective (non-pluralized) form. --Allen3 talk 17:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
That's what I usually do for the instances I encounter, but it would be good if the source, the converter itself, could be fixed. Awien (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Oops - edit conflict. Will go see. Awien (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree, the way the conversion template pluralizes the modifier really bugs me too, but as I live in a country that uses metric, 1,800 pounds doesn't mean anything to me. Thank you, @Allen3: for that handy add-on. I was actually looking for it before I added the template. Yoninah (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2

Promoted hook:

  • ... that despite travelling to five continents as a musician, Gordon Tobing (pictured) continued to live with his father-in-law?

I changed it to avoid the suggestion of homosexuality:

  • ... that despite travelling to five continents as a musician, Gordon Tobing (pictured) and his family continued to live with his in-laws?

But really, it's not very hooky. It makes sense that the family of someone who is traveling all the time would choose to stay with family. I suggest returning this to the noms area for further work. Yoninah (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

"I changed it to avoid the suggestion of homosexuality" Er, what? That suggests homosexuality? I'm guessing you are one of the people who also thinks Clefairy is gay... Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pinging Chris Woodrich, since it's his nomination. I don't know in what culture that a man living with his father-in-law even hints at homosexuality. However, the article itself actually says "This limited him financially, and he and his family lived with his in-laws in a 3-by-15-square-metre (32 sq ft × 161 sq ft) house in Kebon Sirih, Jakarta." and was worded that way as of the nomination. "father-in-law" was not then, or now, mentioned in the article. Only Chris Woodrich can say why he worded the hook that way. — Maile (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Square feet by square feet??? Do they live in the 4th dimension? EEng 07:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, I would say that there is no real reason for "returning this to the noms area for further work". That comment is a mystery to me. There might be some editors who slip enough to warrant that, but Chris is pretty good at what he does. His work on Featured content is impressive. I don't see anything in the article or nomination that warrants yanking it out of prep. — Maile (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Then I don't understand why the two parts of the hook go together. This would make more sense to me:
Because the article specifically states "Tobing and Hutabarat continued to represent Indonesia as cultural envoys, ultimately travelling to five continents." and is sourced at the end of that sentence. The word "international" is not in the article. This is beginning to look kind of overkill for the need to come up with an ALT hook. Let it go. — Maile (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Fine. Yoninah (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Where the hell did a "suggestion of homosexuality" come from in "live with his father-in-law"? Living with someone is different than sleeping with someone. "Father-in-law" was closer to the sources (which give much less information on his mother-in-law), but "in-laws" definitely works better for the hook.
I avoided "successful" because it's a ridiculously subjective metric. International could work, but "five continents" is a more descriptive phrase (and one emphasized by the sources). International could just be "known in Malaysia". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • And it's not just his family; he did as well. The sources emphasize how simply he lived (giving the measurements of the house, going on and on about him taking the bus and refusing to play at hotels [which is where the big money was for a lot of musicians in those days] etc.).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I have been on holiday for the last week so imagine my surprise when I saw that Flag of the United States of the Ionian Islands ran on 4 July despite it being in the April Fools Day holding area and removed from the main nominations list. This appears to have happened after a comment from @Brianhe: that said it might be a good hook for 4 July. However this comment was taken as a genuine request and was moved from April Fools Day back to the general nominations page and promoted by @Cwmhiraeth: without either asking for my agreement, which I would have given a negative answer to as I felt that an April Fools Day hook on any other day would not be looked kindly upon (as has been made clear several time). And indeed after a few hours on the front page, it was reworded by @Dweller: because it was an April fools hook.

Rest assured I am not blaming anybody for anything here and it did manage to run the flag image and got enough views to go into stats, which is all I had hoped for. However I am not happy that my request was overridden without my consent or knowledge. Hence why to avoid this situation again, I propose that we have a new rule added to the supplementary guidelines stating that "nominations placed in a holding are should not be moved from there after being approved except for with the nominators consent or if there is consensus that it would not be appropriate to run on the proposed holding date". Something like this I feel would ensure that nobody feels left out or ignored. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It was a splendid hook to run on Independence Day and probably got more attention there than it ever would if mixed up with other quirky hooks on April Fools Day. I promoted it from the main nomination page and not the special holding area, and April Fools Day is nine months off you know, it would hardly qualify as a new article by then! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I suppose you may be right here, at least it guaranteed the image being used (it's a nice flag after all!). As I said, I am not having a go at anybody for it. But I do feel that it highlights that courtesy in Wikipedia could do with a little improvement. Hence why I am proposing that new rule for the supplementary guidelines. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, well that explains why it was worded like an April Fools. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The C of E here, This seems to have stalled a little here. Any more thoughts on the proposed guideline? The Royal C (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I agree that when hooks have been designated or requested to run at a specific time (which is usually accomplished by placing the hook in the special occasion holding area), then they should not be run at a different time without the original author's input. In general, when a hook has been changed, I think it is good practice to wait to hear the original author's opinion about the change; most authors will be far more familiar with technical nuances (and the sources that articles rely upon) than reviewers. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • My addition was removed by @BlueMoonset: so I'm going to do as @Notecardforfree: suggested and put out a request for consensus here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm a little hesitant about the wording (the second condition for moving it is not very clearly written) but I would support the principle of the proposed addition, to prevent a similar situation with a less pleasant outcome. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @Vanamonde93: I thought that: "if there is consensus on the DYK discussion that it would be inappropriate to run on the nominated date (eg. Swastika on Holocaust Memorial Day or Anti-Christian sentiment on Easter Day.)", that would give a little bit of leeway to the community to move hooks that would be inappropriate or insensitive if it ran on the selected day because of a recent event, religious holiday or commemoration. That way there is a way for the community to move a hook without the nominators consent but this would of course be something used sparingly with the spirit of the rule being that the nominator's wishes should be abided by in all but the most extreme circumstances given it is unlikely there will be many that will be requested to be run on a contentious date. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Explanation of proposal removal and nominator error

I removed the addition from the Supplementary rules because they clearly state that they reflect existing consensus, so adding a new rule that as yet has no consensus behind it was clearly inappropriate. There is also another point that should be made: the special occasion section is something that has developed over time, and is currently not mentioned in the DYK rules or Supplementary rules, so if we really think we need to add a rule about how the special occasion section should work in a specific situation, we should probably first codify how it is meant to work. However, I think doing so is not only overkill, but as I've just discovered when investigating the chronology of what occurred, it wouldn't even address what happened to this particular hook.

This entire section is predicated on the assumption that someone took a hook from April Fool's and moved it back to the main nominations page, from which it was promoted. The opposite occurred. Hooks proposed for April Fool's are supposed to be listed on the main nominations page like regular nominations (in order to attract reviewers) and also on the April Fool's page "Awaiting verification" section. They stay in both places until the nomination has been approved, at which point the nom is removed from the main nominations page and moved from the April Fool's "Awaiting verification" section to that page's "Verified hooks" section. The problem here was not that someone took a hook from a special occasion section or moved something from April Fool's back to the main nominations page; the reason this was promoted at the wrong time is that the hook was in two places at the same time—the April Fool's page and the regular nominations section. What happened was that The C of E copied the nomination template transclusion to the April Fool's page "Verified hooks" section with this edit on June 25, but never removed the approved hook transclusion from the main nominations page. On July 2, Cwmhiraeth, as previously stated, saw the approved hook still sitting on the nominations page (under June 17), and promoted it in good faith. Errors occur, and adding new rules aren't going to help prevent mistakes of this nature.

In my opinion, as this entire section is predicated on a false premise (and unfortunate operator error on the part of the nominator), it should be closed without further action. Should we actually run into a problem in future, that's the time to consider further rule-making. For now, the volunteers here are doing the best that they can and try to grant as many special occasion hooks as are feasible—indeed, with far more latitude than once was the case. I would oppose any additional rules on this subject at the present time. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The thing Is I specifically put a comment in there indicating that I wanted it held for AFD. I would have thought that by the approval being given, the implication was that the reviewer agreed with the request. Thus when another editor came and suggested using it for another time, the fact I didn't respond as I was on holiday was taken that I had no objections to it. I know that it may have been a short time frame but the point I was making was that my silence was taken that I consented to the change, which I it should not have been. The reason I proposed this was so that such a situation doesn't happen again and gives a little courtesy to nominators who may not be able to answer comments within a week for numerous reasons. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the last thing DYK needs are more superfluous rules like this. Nominations, like articles, are not owned by the nominator. Out of courtesy, a promoter may acquiesce to a nominator's request for a selected hook/image/date. If they don't, for whatever reason (grammatical errors/prep design/choice), I wouldn't make a big deal out of it. Waiting up to a week for a response to a personal preference after it has been accepted feels like more pointless bureaucracy for an already backlogged process. As a side note, you may be interested to learn that 3 hours into that 12 hour rotation the hook was altered based on this discussion. Fuebaey (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
DYK is a highly (ahem) imperfect process, and if you care about the fate of your nomination, the exact wording of the hook, and when and where exactly it will appear, you have to keep your eye on it throughout the process, right up to and through the main-page appearance. That's just the reality of it. EEng 18:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
That may be true, however a drive-by-comment from an uninvolved party was taken as a free licence to put it there when I had specifically noted that it was for AFD and was held in that area upon approval. The main case is that this is a minor case where we should have something that acknowledges the nominator's request while also having a system that allows for consensus to be made should there be no comment. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Don't expect DYK to be like this
Mistakes happen, things get overlooked. The process is not a clockwork you can wind up and set in motion to tick down until your automaton dances out onto the main page; instead it's a Rube Goldberg/Heath Robinson mousetrap that will nip your finger as soon as catch the mouse, and it's going to stay that way for the foreseeable future. You just have to keep an eye on your hook, and more rules will just gum things up more. EEng 23:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
This happens now and then
Normal DYK workflow

Queue 2

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.

"Don't worry ma'am, I've got the secret service on DYK, they'll get Tiff's hook pulled for ya."
... that Tiffany Trump has been called part of the "Snap Pack" for her voluminous postings to Instagram?

Trump's article is currently at AFD, so there's five hours to decide whether to run this hook or pull it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you pull it. It should not be on DYK with a deletion tag plastered across the top. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
You could replace it with this uncontroversial nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Helen Copenhaver Hanes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I would also suggest pulling it and putting it back at T:TDYK. It's highly unlikely that it will be deleted, in my view, but as Cwmhiraeth says, it should not go on the main page with a deletion tag on it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Replaced with the suggested one, along with the credit. I'll leave it to you guys to decide what to do about reopening it, adding it to Removed, and formally closing the Helen Copenhaver Hanes DYK review. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I have archived Helen Copenhaver Hanes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted the archiving of Tiffany Trump, and added a note there about the AfD. If the AfD is kept, we can look at the nomination again; if it isn't, the question is moot. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Tiffany Trump is not at AfD!!! It was snow kept today! Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, about 45 minutes after it would have been on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't realise 11:30 was 45 minutes after 12:30. A quick perusal of the AfD or the nomination template at the time this was raised would have shown that a previous deletion discussion occurred a week ago. It would've been more reasonable to note that and procedurally close the AfD, instead of partially yank a DYK hook and leave others to pick up the pieces. Fuebaey (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
My mistake about the timing. However, you might note that I replaced it while the AFD was still underway. Better safe than sorry and no harm done. Anyway, if you'd like to be of help here, please do so, it's great to see you here (very unusual, perhaps you were seeing what I was up to today?!) For what it's worth, it's not my fault DYK operates in such an arcane fashion with all the template and transclusions and hidden pages, but I certainly won't tolerate garbage like AFD'ed articles getting close to the main page. Now time for you to do something constructive, something that might benefit the readers, no? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Taking administrative actions without cursory background checks is wrong. I cannot see why an admin would not take two minutes to check if a maintenance tag/an error was valid and not a means to keep something off the main page. If pointing that out is "unconstructive" than I'd suggest you reconsider your position. If you think that DYK is coded in a way that you cannot understand, you could ask for help or leave it to someone who is familiar with the process. Fuebaey (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
You missed the point. When I made the change, the AFD was still open, therefore a valid admin action. (Or maybe the other editors who helped out are wrong too....) Of course, if you don't understand that, I can find someone to help, or someone else to help you monitor my edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure, your point was that a tag was placed on an article. A tag that required consensus to decide whether the article was suitable for deletion. Consensus was decided a week prior, to keep said article. Hence you blindly followed an invalid tag. I know it's difficult to take [constructive] criticism for one's actions, but maybe we could just accept mistakes without getting too defensive? Fuebaey (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, I'm sure you will learn from this. If an AFD tag is on an article about to head to the main page, it needs to be stopped. No matter what. You have no real pedigree that I can recommend to others in decision-making or admin actions, so you'll have to defer on this one. The sooner you stop following me and start accepting your own failures here, the better for everyone. Thanks again for your sudden interest in DYK!! P.S. Do you think you're adding any value here, now it's all done and dusted? You're the sole complainant and your motives are, well, stalkish and questionable at best. Or is DYK your new ITN? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Nice Cruyff turn, though I think Hal made a better one. I made a suggestion and you seem to have taken it a bit too personally, so I'll just leave it there. If I thought it would help, I'd ask you to take to heart what Iridescent wrote a few days ago and add that not everyone is out to get you. Stay safe. Fuebaey (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
And I think you should refrain from stalking me and go back to whatever it is you try to do here. Bye now. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Not to mention that the article is barely above stub-class and starts "Tiffany Ariana Trump is an American heiress, singer, fashion model and Instagram user." Yeah, really the stuff of an encyclopedia. Laura Jamieson (talk) 20:37, 20 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.

Holding Out for a Hero

You're all heroes in our community, and you all respect each other's work tremendously. Fab. We're done here. BencherliteTalk 19:05, 21 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.

We have a dispute at Prep 2. TRM started tinkering with the lead hook. I reverted to the hook that was hashed out in the nomination. Now TRM is edit-warring his preference back. I don't think we should be having such a free-for-all in the preps – it should just be a matter of posting the reviewed and approved hooks. Anyway, I'm pinging the parties: @Allen3, Doug Coldwell, and The Rambling Man:. Andrew D. (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Approved hooks can still be erroneous or prone to POV that still needs to be sorted out before hitting the main page. What worries me more is the initial review of that hook that you made where you missed a whole bunch of problems with the article. Still, we are, none of us, perfect, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • There were two articles in that nomination and I flagged up several issues in my first review. I looked quite closely at Chandos Scudamore Scudamore Stanhope and consider that the description of him as a "hero" is reasonable because he himself made a gallant rescue of this sort, winning a silver medal for this. When people are awarded medals for valour, it is not POV to describe them as such. As for other issues, these seem to be trivial matters such as dash/hyphen usage. Andrew D. (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm glad to see this is now rendered moot, as the nominator has agreed on the rewording by Yoninah which omits "hero". Now time to move on, but we need to watch your review quality from now on, as I saw myriad issues with that which you were going to pass once the ENGVAR was fixed. Troubling indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I get that you give very quick and weak reviews, because you feel justified in doing so by parroting DYKNOT. I, on the other hand, prefer to fix things before they get to the main page. It's no problem, I'll just keep on checking every item! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
TRM, it's hard to believe you have time for DYK at all, your abundant bonhomie putting you in such high demand for parties, tea, society lunches, and so on. EEng 18:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Isn't it? And it's amazing that you have time to spread your generous wit and indefatigable wisdom so gossamer thin over every part of Wikipedia we are all so privileged that you touch with your dilithium digits. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 21 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_125&oldid=1146682797"