Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 66

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60←Archive 64Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68→Archive 70

Small error in Q2

In the second hook in Queue 2 (the St Leonards-on-Sea churches), an asterisk has gone missing. Christ Church, St John's and St Peter's Anglican churches are Grade II listed buildings should read Christ Church, St John's and St Peter's Anglican churches are Grade II* listed buildings (with an asterisk after the "II", referring to Grade II "Star"). The other reference to "Grade II" in the final clause is correct. Thanks, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics

The outstanding performance of Euthanasia Coaster in getting 86,300 views despite not being in the lead slot (May 3rd) makes it the 2nd most-viewed ever DYK. Yet because it was not in the lead it does not appear in the main table, joining another 8 hooks discriminated against in this way! Nor is it in the table for May. We should add non-lead hooks with over 20k views to the main table, with or without pictures - personally I think with, but with a note saying they were non-lead hooks. I might add I had nothing to do with the article beyond defending it at AFD. Johnbod (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we need another table of all hooks (lead & non-lead) with greater than (say) 50,000 views. Or perhaps we should just have one table of all hooks over 20,000. It wouldn't get much bigger than the existing lead table because only about 8 non-lead hooks would make it to this table. BTW I've also added the article stats to May. —Bruce1eetalk 08:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Bruce1ee added that hook to May stats, which is fine, should be done earlier, but duplicating non-leads in two tables would be a waste of space of an already lengthy page (which we'll need to cut off some time in the future, when it inevitably increases to the point of featuring the "Blue Wikimedia Screen of Death" when saving edits). Materialscientist (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
A proposal to revise the non-lead hook table threshhold was made here last month. —Bruce1eetalk 08:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Page size limit is uncertain, and the blue screen (or similar length-related problems) might be a note that something must be done. Until then, nobody would benefit from shortening the page, but many would oppose removing their achievements. Materialscientist (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Native American Languages Act of 1990

Whoever proofread this for DYK needs to pay closer attention. The spacing and ref placement/punctuation was really sloppy. BarkingMoon (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles in contentious topic areas

Unfortunately, we have a growing problem with articles in this topic area. In the last couple of weeks, we have had several articles that were the subject of considerable controversy, notably the Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle article, which resulted in a farcical "icon war" at T:TDYK,[1] and which was also added to and pulled from the queue several times. But in the same period we also had Hamas school bus attack, which was rejected. We also had a number of others that could probably have used more scrutiny. Now we have a new one, Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls, which looks to me as if it has been written almost entirely from the POV of an Israeli think tank, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

DYK exists in order for contributors to get some recognition for their work in creating new articles. But it's become increasingly clear that some editors want to misuse this project as a WP:SOAPBOX for their political views. I'm not suggesting that users don't have a right to contribute on topics they find of interest, but where it becomes a problem is when articles in highly sensitive topic areas fail to provide an appropriately NPOV presentation of the events in question, and in many cases, the authors of these articles clearly have strong political views that make it difficult for them to author balanced articles.

I think the time has come for us to recognize that this problem has reached a level where we must take some remedial action, not only to prevent substandard, POV content reaching the main page, but also to ensure that we do not have repetitions of the farcical situation last week over Start-up Nation. IMO, we need to both clarify some of our rules, and consider adding some new measures for dealing with articles in contentious topic areas.

Firstly, it's become very clear that we have a COI problem with users who belong to a particular political faction attempting to verify articles submitted by their ideological buddies. It ought to be transparently obvious that this is inappropriate behaviour, but since it clearly isn't, I think we need to explicitly add something to the rules to prevent this happening in future. As a minimum, I would suggest adding something along the lines of:

  • Editors who are involved in contentious topic areas may not use the verify icon to verify articles in the given topic area. Nor may they add endorsements to a thread at T:TDYK involving such articles, except where a challenge to the article, specifically use of the "possible" or "reject" icons, has occurred. Users who repeatedly violate this rule may be subject to blocks or, if necessary, bans from participation at T:TDYK. As scrutiny of submissions at T:TDYK is a vital part of the DYK process, users may always challenge a hook or article at DYK, whether involved in a related topic area or not.

I should add that we have also had a problem with users verifying articles of their ideological buddies that are not immediately related to the topic area, for example, Broccolo's serial approval of articles submitted by Mbz.[2] Users really should not be verifying articles submitted by their buddies, period. I'm not sure how that could best be phrased, perhaps by an advisement rather than an outright ban.

The above proposals however only address a relatively minor aspect of the overall problem. We still have the problem of lack of sufficient scrutiny of articles in contentious topic areas in general.

The main problem as I see it is that the existing five-day window for promotion or rejection, give or take a few days, is really not sufficient to cope with articles that have substantial POV disputes. We need a more robust process for such articles.

Given that we already delay some articles, at times for long periods, for example, for hooks related to anniversaries or for special occasions like Halloween or April Fool's, I think the time has come for us to consider waiving the normal requirements for articles in contentious topic areas as well. I'm thinking that we should create a subpage for such articles, or for any article with a current POV dispute. Articles will stay on that subpage, and not be moved to T:TDYK, until all participants agree that all substantial disputes have been resolved. We may also need to include some soft of secondary process in cases where agreement has not been reached after a given period of time. We might, for example, have a process whereby, if agreement has not been reached after, say, a month or six weeks, the article comes back to this page for a poll, where only uninvolved users are permitted a !vote. It wouldn't be foolproof but it would certainly be a more thorough and transparent process than what we have now, where heavily POV articles can be approved and moved to the queue in minutes with almost no scrutiny at all. Gatoclass (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"Editors who are involved in contentious topic areas may not use the verify icon to verify articles in the" ... area of their expertise? As about POV disputes, yes, the existing policy tells that such articles should not be nominated. Some articles have been rejected during the process? That's OK. That is why we need the process. Some people show a lot of activity in DYK area? This is great. We need more people, and we must encourage, not discourage their participation. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The existing policy says that POV articles should not be nominated. The problem (pointed to by Gatoclass) is that often people don't recognize as "POV" a particular POV they strongly share. For example, consider some comments on the the AfD for Blame Israel First, an article with major POV problems according to many editors and yet ... none at all according to Broccolo, speaking at the AfD, who also nominated it for DYK. This is not a problem just with P/I editing. I myself submitted a DYK with POV I had not noticed, but changed article and hook after being warned by Mbz1.[3] Wikipedia and DYK benefit when articles and hooks get approved by editors outside the author's personal or political circle. betsythedevine (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
There were many editors who did not vote "delete" this article (and one of them was Jimbo if I remember correctly). Regardless, creating an article that has been deleted is not a crime. Yes, some people are frequently followed by others who have the same or opposite views. This actually helps to create better articles, as for example, Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle. I do not really have any DYK experience, but judging from AfDs, it actually helps to have a serious discussion, even if conducted by partisan editors (unless they are engaged in personal attacks). And frankly, everyone has his/her POV, and therefore the partisan editors are normally a part of consensus, including voting.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I mentioned the AfD only to show that people's opinion on article POV can differ widely. POV, not AfD, is the topic at hand. Gatoclass did not suggest that partisans in a topic area could not be part of article discussions. He suggested that partisans should be asked not to put the verify icon on articles in "their" area of partisanship. We already ask that the article's creator, nominator, expander, etc. not verify their own submissions -- is this a violation of WP:AGF or is it not just a sensible way to deal with normal, predictable, human behavior? betsythedevine (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The article's creator and nominator do not vote if I understand correctly. As about "expanders", they can vote. Why not? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

<-- (unindent)We already ask people to recuse themselves from verifying DYK articles where they have a mild COI. DYK policy should also recognize the emotional pull of "controversial areas", as witnessed by many blocks and bans every year for people whose eagerness to promote POV in "their" topic area generated inappropriate behavior. As WP:AE points out, people with problems in these areas are not trolls or vandals. We aren't assuming people are trolls or vandals when we ask them not to verify their own DYK articles. 22:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I like Gato's proposal as a start, but I also think a more comprehensive solution is needed. The problem is a general one, yes, but the recent trouble has centered around our very pro-Israel friends using the DYK process to promote POV articles that either wave Israel's flag or that cast Israel's opponents in a negative light. We shouldn't be shy about saying so, in my opinion. I don't know what the solution is, but I know there needs to be one.
I also know, as other users rightly observe, that this whole business of one's POV fellows automatically green-lighting articles and hooks has to stop. The simple requirement that there has to be an immediate and prominent talk-page notification when a DYK nomination is made, or better yet, before one is made, would go a long way. Also, whether canvassing for support in the process occurs via e-mail or on talk pages, as in this instance, we need to find a way to stop that in its tracks. Note, btw, the canvassed party in this instance did not respond as requested, and the article went to AfD shortly after the request was made, if I have my timeline straight in this instance. But we can't allow such requests, regardless of how they're made.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I have written up OhioStandard's proposal for early notification, which I think is a good idea, into its own section on this page. As for GatoClass's and OhioStandard's other ideas, it would be good to draft one simple policy change and get consensus for that. If there is consensus on A, make the change. That would be time enough to ask for consideration of a separate policy change B. I also urge that we discuss policy proposals without pointing to individual editors whose behavior would have been forbidden if a new policy A or B had been in force. The point is not to embarrass individual editors who were acting in good faith to create and nominate articles they thought would benefit DYK, and we should avoid hurting the feelings of other editors if we can.betsythedevine (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Gatoclass' post is a "leading" question as they have been in editorial opposition to certain parties. Just making others aware. As long as Wikipedia has no academic peer review of its content, any content in any arena of geopolitical contention can be accused of being less than reputable content and editors accused of supporting same. What you propose would appear to allow for censorship of anything that editors can be accused of agreeing on. I suggest working on making existing policies work without introducing new ones. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I'd agree, though, on, say, a two week waiting period instead of 5 days to allow for more eyes on. People have lives, too, and I've never seen a DYK that was time-sensitive. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I think one should WP:AGF about Gatoclass's policy suggestions and consider that past editorial conflicts with certain parties were based on a very real policy concern for NPOV, a goal he is also trying to forward here. I also think Vecrumba's suggestion for a two-week waiting period is excellent. If contentious articles had their own timeline, it might solve the perceived problem of such articles lacking scrutiny from neutral editors, without requiring anyone to specify who is neutral enough on a topic and who is not. This would certainly be worth trying as a non-contentious step in improving the current contentious situation. betsythedevine (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
It's simpler to make it a two week wait period regardless. There's no train leaving the station regarding the types of tidbits which DYK's advertise. Identifying any area as one of "contention" and subject to special treatment will only increase the level of "contention." Trust me on this one. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
It didn't take me long to figure out wiki is a hotbed for warriors in the real world to foment their cause of choice on the Internet. This is an effort to build an encyclopedia of quality, not an effort to foment someone's cause of choice. The more we can do to stop these problematic/contentious editors, the better. Therefore, I support GatoClass's proposal. BarkingMoon (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
In the example given above, where a hook was warred over, maybe we should add to the DYK rules stating that such warring may result in the article not appearing on DYK at all, thus adding a disincentive to that course of action. Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
That'll work too, ie, the article must be stable and without ongoing uncontentiou.BarkingMoon (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Mjroots, though I see where you're coming from, I'd be concerned with that proposal that that would actually create an incentive for certain editors to war in an effor to block perceived pro- or anti-whatever news from appearing on the front page. I do agree with Gato's three proposals as I understand them: 1) discouragement of verifying articles by editors the article's creator regularly works with; 2) discouragement of verifying articles by editors regularly engaged in the given controversy; 3) a longer window of editing on controversial subject matter. All seem reasonable and very helpful for the sort of disputes we've been seeing. -- Khazar (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that it would be unfair to penalize submitters for the misbehaviour of others. Gatoclass (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Balance of hook lengths in Queues 2 and 3

So looking at the queues, I was struck by how long the hook I nominated on the six Canadian MPs (college students Borg, Dubé, Freeman, Liu, Nicholls, Dusseault) in Queue 2 looks. There's already a fairly long lead hook in Queue 2 as well. Queue 3's hooks look a bit shorter than Queue 2's hooks, so might I suggest that my Canadian MP hook switch places with a Queue 3 hook to make the sets more equal in length? OCNative (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Q2 has only 6 hooks and the set looks fine on preview on my monitor screen. Instead, I've swapped 1 short hook on Q3 for a long one on Q4. Now, each hook set on Q2, Q3 & Q4 occupy 19 lines on my screen. Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, the problem was Queue 3 was short not Queue 2 was long. That makes sense. OCNative (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

oil well hook in q6

Seems a bit off. Surely the oil well is decorated to resemble the bird not "disguised" as a bird? "Disguised" implies an attempt to conceal identity, I doubt anyone is intended to believe that there is really an enormous bird that sits in the same lace all day moving its beak up and down in a perfect imitation of an oil pump. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Changed. Materialscientist (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Murdered or killed?

In Template:Did you know/Queue/2, "that Czech actress Anna Letenská was murdered by the Nazis for her alleged participation in the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich?" "murder" usually means a crime. I'm glad Heydrich is dead and wish Letenská were alive, but should we call her death a crime? Perhaps at the Nuremburg Trials it could have been, but at the time we might define "crime" as violating the laws of the existing government, which was Nazi. Nazis presumably broke their own laws in the death camps, but then I would think a Nazi court would have little problem with openly sentencing Letenská to death. Art LaPella (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it. Gatoclass (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hook production is diminishing again

It appears that the rate of hook production has fallen again. I think it's time to go back to an 8-hour rotation. What do other folks think? --Orlady (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Wiki is almost a decade old now, so most of the easy/obvious stuff is already put into an article. So it's harder to come up with new stuff, especially if it's from an English-speaking country. There're more reasons I'm sure, but I won't belabor it. The question is, is this dip permanent or temp? That'll give us the answer we need. BarkingMoon (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, BarkingMoon, the rate of hook production for DYK rises and falls from week to week and month to month. It does not seem to be a result of people not finding topics to write about, so much as it does people not having time to contribute at the moment. --Orlady (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
You should do 8 hours as needed. If needed now, do it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Yep, it's time to go back to 8 hours. Schwede66 20:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
With the date requests currently in the queue, the 00:00 17 May 2011 update (currently in Prep 1 waiting a move to Queue 5) looks like the earliest convenient time for the change. I will plan to update the time between updates once this set is loaded if no serious objections are raised before then. --Allen3 talk 20:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is NOTFINISHED, there's so many ships, churches and windmills to write about, and that's just three fields of many. Length of time on MP can fairly easily be adjusted up and down as the need arises. Mjroots (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Prep 1

A page featured in this prep, Jihadi tourism, is full of bare URLs. Yoninah (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Amina Bokhary controversy

This article Amina Bokhary controversy is not a new article and it is focused on negative aspects of a living person. You can see there is very little change in the article since more than four months ago. It is certainly not a five times expansion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amina_Bokhary_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=428458902&oldid=409476248

This breaks two of the Did You Know rules. But then why is an admin moving this article to the front page of Wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3ADid_you_know&action=historysubmit&diff=429218310&oldid=429218218

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1&diff=prev&oldid=429219004

I put an objection in its "Did You Know" nomination to point out the above but this administrator Allen3 has completely ignored my question. The only response was from one of the editors Deryck Chan who is trying to hype up this controversy. Can someone please respond to this. This is very inappropriate. 61.18.170.164 (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate very much if you can explain what you meant by "Deryck Chan who is trying to hype up this controversy." Deryck C. 13:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This is getting rather aggressive and unpleasant – verging on the personal attack. An admin should consider seriously whether the IP editor should be allowed to continue to m:troll this or any future discussion. As is pretty obvious from the article history, Dereck has no vested interested in this article one way or another. He's made a grand total of 15 edits to the article, of which 12 were minor; what's more, he's 5,000 miles away from the geographical location of controversy. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 17:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Looking back at the history of this DYK nomination, I don't see anybody raising a concern that the article had a POV or BLP problem. The concern that was raised was with DYK criteria that articles must be new. The nominator responded to that concern on May 11, no further issues were raised, and the article was moved to prep on May 15, apparently it is now in Prep 1. Obviously, it would be good if potential issues with BLP or POV had been raised at DYK earlier. Does some more experienced person wants to move it back to T:TDYK for further consideration? Or if not, waht would be the proper course here? betsythedevine (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Returned to T:TDYK, mostly per lack of expansion (article userfied after standing for almost a year in the main space). Materialscientist (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Qualification of new/old mixes

I'm in the process of extracting sections from a particular page, adding to them significantly, and creating a new page out of that. What sort of expansion do I need to qualify for DYK? I have a feeling I won't achieve 5x expansion, but, if you removed the "old" text, would be enough to qualify as the "new article" is sort-of is. I hope I've been clear enough. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You need to expand the extracted text five-fold to qualify for DYK. Schwede66 22:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

San Marino hook in Queue 5

Just a quick note to say that the San Marino hook in Queue 5 was changed from the original nomination and is now wrong. It should read "has won a single international..." and not "never won", as they beat Liechtenstein 1-0 in 2004 which is cited in the lead of the article. Miyagawa (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Tweaked. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Much work has been put in those tables, but this article should not have been promoted/nominated because its text is a fork of San Marino national football team (it could well be merged into the parent article with collapsed tables), and we don't feature tables and lists. I am hesitant to unilaterally remove it, thus leaving a note. Materialscientist (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Removed from Q5. Sorry. It is much work, but its sole addition is a list of losses of the San Marino football team - an ideal case for those who name us "do you care?" project (the draws, wins, achievements, ranks, etc. were all present in San Marino national football team). Materialscientist (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course, if the text was copied from the parent article it should be (should have been) checked for 5x expansion, but beyond that I'm not sure what the problem is. We have used, and as far as I know, still do use list articles in DYK, as long as they meet all our normal criteria (keeping in mind that we evaluate the length of the readable prose). List of Michigan Wolverines head football coaches and Grammy Award for Best Polka Album are two list articles that come to mind as having been used at DYK, and I know there have been many more. If you're arguing against the existence of this list article, that should be taken up at AfD (which, of course, would delay appearance at DYK until resolved). cmadler (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't really argue - although it was written seperatly from the main San Marino football article, they do feature similar themes as San Marino's poor international record pretty well has to be the main point of any article about the team. It's no biggie, I've got other DYK noms in the works and I've got to do a little more work on the sorting in the table to take this to Featured List Candidates (as well as find a picture). Miyagawa (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

16:00 update never happened

Something went wrong with the bot. Not sure if it has something to do with switching from 6-hour to 8-hour updates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Argh! I did a manual update from Queue 1, and as soon as I had finished the first steps, the bot showed up and did an update from Queue 2! We'll need to readjust the queue to put Queue 1 back into the rotation. Sigh... --Orlady (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The dust has settled for now... --Orlady (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like you and the bot were looking at different time pages. I'll run around and make everything target Template:Did you know/Next update/Time instead of Template:Did you know/Time. Shubinator (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like we'll need a half-hour adjustment as the next update is scheduled fro 10:30 London time. Mjroots (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I've tweaked the bot to resync with 00:00 UTC over time. Shubinator (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed rule amendment per recent case

The recent decline of Amina Bokhary controversy from DYK has set an important precedent for an area of DYK rules that were previously unclear: it essentially ruled that an article that reuses any content from a previously deleted article is ineligible for DYK. (see T:TDYK#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_May_8 and #Amina Bokhary controversy above for discussions) To prevent future confusion and controversy (pun intended) over submissions regarding deleted and rewritten articles, I think it is necessary to amend WP:WIADYK with the following change: For purposes of DYK, a "new" article is no more than five days old, and may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing or deleted article. --Deryck C. 13:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This case is rather unusual (first in my memory) in that a reasonably well-composed article was speedied after almost a year in the main space (over BLP issues). We have tolerated rewrites of short-lived and disastrously composed articles in the past. Materialscientist (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Materialscientist. Common sense dictates that an article which existed for 9 months, then spent 8 days in user space, and then was returned to article space is not new. It would be wrong to extrapolate from this case in the manner suggested. cmadler (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, if we decide that this case is the exception rather than the rule, I'm fine with it and have only myself to blame for stumbling upon the exception... --Deryck C. 07:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Queues are empty

Just wanted to draw attention to the fact that the Queues are empty, and the next update is in 7.5 hours. There are three full sets in the Prep Area. Could an admin move any or all of the Prep Areas to the Queues? OCNative (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

swap queues?

Is there anyway to swap the New York City related "Clinton Street Restaurant" dyk that is now in queue 1 with that in another queue? It relates to a NYC-specific entity. But is set to run at the precise time that NYC is asleep. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Queue 1 is set to load at 12:45 midday (NY time), not midnight. —Bruce1eetalk 15:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
My bad. Thanks much Bruce -- you are absolutely correct.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles for Creation

Resolved

The article Opimian Society was nominated for DYK. It is an article created at WP:AFC and replaced an existing article created last year. It is an expansion, but not x5 according to DYK check. It appears to have been created from scratch, so should it qualify as a newly created article under DYK rules? Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Was the original article deleted? Mjroots (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: It looks like there was a misunderstanding. It wasn't a preexisting article, just an article that spent many months in draft status at AFC. The ten month gap between draft creation and article launch made me think there were two different articles instead of one slowly incubating one. Gamaliel (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorted.  Chzz  ►  22:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

BabbaQ's sockpuppets

BabbaQ's sockpuppets verified at least five of BabbaQ's hooks:

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

How was this proven? BarkingMoon (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
If you click on the "sockpuppets" link that Mandarax provided above, you will see it leads to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BabbaQ/Archive. OCNative (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Yet another good reason DYK-newcomers should not verify contentious articles, as per the policy change proposed above. betsythedevine (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Murder of Sian O'Callaghan made it to the main page on 8 April 2011 while Jenny Silver made it to the main page on 16 April 2011. Ädelfors folkhögskola, Dagens man, and Sofi Fahrman were stopped. OCNative (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Local time updates

Can someone set the local time update chart so that it meshes with the actual updates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The bot was resyncing with 00:00 UTC, hence the discrepancy between the table and the actual updates. The bot has finished syncing, so the table should be accurate now. (And there's no good way for the chart to automatically predict the bot's syncs.) Shubinator (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarification request

I was wondering if someone well-versed in the subtleties of list-related DYK rules would mind having a quick look at Talk:Glossary of association football terms#DYK?. We know what further work needs to be done to the article itself before a DYK nom, but we're not quite sure what can and cannot be a hook. Would a listed item be eligible, or would it need to be incorporated into the lead? Would the hook need to directly relate to "glossary of association football terms", or would a(n original) glossary term be acceptable? That kind of thing. As an aside, the article is a great advert for collabourative editing, so I'd encourage people to take a quick peek in any case. Thanks in advance, —WFC— 03:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, an item doesn't need to be in the lede to be used for a hook, and you're free to use an interesting term rather rather than something about the whole article topic itself. I've often seen "list of..." articles go through with a hook that is about a single item from the list, rather than about the list in general. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Rjanag is correct. The hook can come from any cited portion of the article. OCNative (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I've weighed in on this at Talk:Glossary of association football terms#DYK?, but a second opinion would be helpful on whether the {{dynamic list}} tag would violate D7 of the Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules, which states, "There is a reasonable expectation that an article which is to appear on the front page, even a short one, should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress. Therefore, articles which include unexpanded headers are likely to be rejected..." For clarification, the {{dynamic list}} tag adds
This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.
to the top of article. OCNative (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help so far. Another thing that has struck me is that there isn't really a primary contributor to the list, and seven or eight people have done similar amounts of work. Is there any precident for crediting more than four authors? —WFC— 06:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The template doesn't credit more than four users, but after you've made the nomination, you can go in to manually change it to credit all eight. This isn't a perfect analogy, but it shows what you basically need to do with the DYK make template and with the "created by" line: this monstrosity I nominated had seven users working on six different articles. No one user had worked on all six articles. When it was uploaded into the queue, it caused a very lengthy set of credit tags. OCNative (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I think {{dynamic list}} shouldn't preclude a DYK appearance, as long as the list is reasonably thorough. I do think that each entry in the glossary probably needs an in-line citation. cmadler (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks, and I agree citation wise. We went for a quantity first, quality later approach, which was clearly the right thing to do, and are now moving into the "later" phase. The list is less than 48 hours old, so I'm pretty confident it'll be up to scratch within the DYK time limit. Half of the inline citations would simply be an individual page reference in the laws of the game, so there should be less work involved than it might first appear. —WFC— 13:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Further to the above comment about notification, could someone please check that I have correctly credited people with this edit. I believe I've formatted it correctly, but only four names are showing up. —WFC— 05:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"Use common sense here, and please avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. "

Proposed simple change, based on discussion above, to relevant DYK policy H2, which currently reads "You are not allowed to approve your own hook or article."

A revision that would answer some of the concerns raised above about DYKs for articles in contentious areas:

You are not allowed to approve your own hook or article. DYK novices are strongly discouraged from confirming articles that have been flagged as subject to active arbitration remedies, as are editors active in those areas. Use common sense here, and please avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. A valid DYK nomination will readily be confirmed by a neutral editor.

The "appearance of conflict of interest" quote is from the DYK rule for selecting nominated hooks, and I think it is good advice worth repeating. betsythedevine (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Now it is interesting. An editor who is involved could decline an article but an editor involved from the opposite side cannot confirm it. Really?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
An involved editor can never block a good DYK, as witness recent tag-warfare on contended articles. A DYK can be rejected or questioned by one editor but then marked good to go by a different editor. [4] [5][6] :
You are not allowed to approve your own hook or article. DYK novices are strongly discouraged from confirming or rejecting articles that have been flagged as subject to active arbitration remedies, as are editors active in those areas. Use common sense here, and please avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. A valid DYK nomination will readily be confirmed by a neutral editor.
Does that mean, with this change, you will support the proposal? betsythedevine (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need to add the "or rejection" clause. I don't see much of a problem with any user adding a rejection icon, given that in almost all cases it will not be taken at face value but will be contested and discussed. This is not the case, unfortunately, with the approval icon, which is why there needs to be a tightening of the rules in regards to its use. Gatoclass (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

<--I agree, but treating the two cases even-handedly sounds fair. The proposed rule change will not prevent anybody from leaving comments of caution or praise. betsythedevine (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it's still a solution looking for a problem. We haven't had a problem with people leaving reject icons on articles before, so what problem will this addition solve? On the other hand, we've had a longstanding problem with COI editors attempting to approve articles, so I think we should stick to addressing that. If we start getting problematic rejections, we can always address that at a later date, but it just isn't necessary right now. Gatoclass (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with either formulation of Betsy's proposal, which seems common sense and effective. Khazar (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added betsy's original proposed text to H2 on the basis that I think it's a completely uncontroversial and common sense addition. Consensus has yet to be established on the "or rejection" clause and so I have omitted that, and will continue to oppose any proposal to include it as I think it unnecessary and unhelpful. Gatoclass (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Julien Hoffman & Julien Hoffmann

Assuming they both pass review for DYK, does anyone have any thoughts on whether Julien Hoffman and Julien Hoffmann should be posted as consecutive hooks in the same set, different sets separated by days, or something in between? (Hoffman is a South African-American cardiologist while Hoffmann was a Luxembourgian composer, and both articles were nominated on the same day.) OCNative (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If only there were enough for a whole set. Miyagawa (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It may be a moot question, since Julien Hoffmann is currently at only 1389 characters. (I ran into a similar situation when I sorted out the people named Victor Gold -- I was only able to get one DYK from the group.) --Orlady (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
This is moot. By default it will be different sets separated by days since the cardiologist already appeared on the main page and the composer is still on the nominations page. OCNative (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Q5

Death of Charlotte Shaw, which is going to be predominantly of interest to British readers, is currently in Queue 5 and scheduled to appear on the MP at 1AM tomorrow morning UK time. Would another admin (it's my hook, so I'm clearly INVOLVED) please move it to a queue (preferably 6 or 1) that'll be on the MP when most of the UK will at least be awake? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Much obliged. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Prep area 4 - nit picking

For the lead hook in current Prep area 4, shouldn't it be "that the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission is named for the only Holocaust survivor (pictured) ever to serve in the United States Congress?", rather than having the "pictured" at the end of the hook? It's not the US Congress that is pictured.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I've moved "(pictured)". Thanks. —Bruce1eetalk 06:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

My hook was approved..

..now what happens? I posted a DYK yesterday which was approved without any problems, should I take any further action (such as moving it into the queue myself) or just wait until bots and clerks sort it out? How long does this normally take? Thanks! (and sorry about the newb-ish questions) Bob House 884 (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Times vary enormously, it depends on whether it catches someone's eye when they're putting together a set. Generally older hooks get promoted before newer ones, but there is no rule about this. You should let someone else promote your hook to one of the prep areas and don't be concerned if it takes several days. Mikenorton (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay thanks for the help. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Beyoncé 4

Can there really be an intention to put the phrase "planned to create her own music genre" on the main page of an encyclopaedia, when the artist herself said "I wouldn't say I'm inventing a new genre." Even if it were not denied, it would be a claim by the artiste and her promoters, not the response of respected reviewers, so it would be wp:POV and wp:peacock. Kevin McE (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Tried to clarify. Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Salter's Duck

The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform, not to mislead. It is not April Fools' Day any more, so there is no justification for deliberately misleading readers with the ambiguity of the word spine. Salter's duck is a generator, and the blurb should say so. Kevin McE (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Returning to T:TDYK (via a horribly slow connection). Materialscientist (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Prep 2: Kenkoy

Hi, I just reviewed a similar Filipino comic book article, Hal Santiago, on the DYK talk page. For both articles, the main source is a blog; this one also sources IMDB and other blog pages. I think this should be sent back to the nominations page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Returning. Materialscientist (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK retention is pretty short. Proposal: an expandable box, or a buffer page

Current DYK retention times are either 8 or 6 hours. This means that 1/3 to 1/4 of the world has no chance to see some DYK notices, since a batch of DYKs are only up while they're sleeping. I propose two alternatives:

  1. Make the DYK column dynamically resizable using CSS and a "expand/shrink" link at the bottom right. It will function as in {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and others. When expand is clicked, the box resizes, showing 24 hours (or 48) worth of DYK notices, and the shrink link. When shrink is clicked, the box returns to the standard coumn size.
  2. Create a More Did You Know? page, automatically updated with 24 (or 48) hours of content. Link to this page from the current DYK column.

If this was already discussed, sorry. --Lexein (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There's already a link to the DYK archives in the DYK section on the main page. I don't see the need for additional pages. Gatoclass (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but it's a very large page to load (>317KB at the moment), which confronts the user with a visually massive table of month and year links, when only the last day of actual DYK entries is what I was talking about.
Anyways, may I suggest renaming that "Archives" link "Recent", which better describes the target page (which happens to also link to archives)? --Lexein (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I've never much liked "Archives" myself, it sounds kind of unappealing. On the other hand, "Recent" sounds a bit vague - recent what? If someone can come up with an appropriate descriptor, it might be worth considering. Gatoclass (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem with first entry in Prep 1

The hook for Palaeochiropteryx in Prep 1 has a couple of issues. First it makes no sense to say "the extinct 48-million year old bats, Palaeochiropteryx, probably drowned...". The whole genus? A few individuals yes but not two or more species. Second the article does indicate even the few found were probably drowned after being knocked out by poisonous gasses; it instead says

The fossils recovered are usually of healthy adults with full stomachs, making the reasons why they ended up at the bottom of a lake a bit of a mystery.

Rightly I would say as it seems very unlikely this could be deduced from fossils.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? It's in Queue 4 now so will go live in about ten hours. As noted it's not just that the hook doesn't match the article but it asserts or implies a couple of things that just can't be deduced from fossils of animals that died tens of millions of years ago.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion? Those bats seemed to be restricted to that lake and those who analyzed the remains had their reasons to believe poisonous fumes (or something) was likely there. The hook is not about truth but about a hypothesis. (not that I'm defending it, but I see no reason to pull it off) Materialscientist (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Your change have fixed the first issue, though I'd lose the definite article. For the second issue the following would be more correct, but adding all that in one sentence makes it seem a bit less encyclopaedic/a bit more conversational.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • ... that studied examples of the extinct 48-million year old bats, Palaeochiropteryx (life restoration pictured), were probably drowned in the Messel lake, maybe knocked out midair by poisonous volcanic gases?
    My connection is not good at all. How about
  • ... that studied examples of the extinct 48-million year old bats, Palaeochiropteryx (life restoration pictured), were suggested to have drowned in the Messel lake after being knocked out midair by poisonous volcanic gases? Materialscientist (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    That works: it loses the 'probably drowned' but reads much better.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I've given it an additonal tweak, as follows:
  • ... that the many examples of extinct 48-million year old bat genus Palaeochiropteryx (life restoration pictured) found in the Messel lake may have drowned after being rendered unconscious in flight by poisonous volcanic gases? Gatoclass (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    Reads better to me. Materialscientist (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

    Dainton Connell

    There is no citation that this self professed thug was a leader: the cited article says He has been described as a “main face” and “the top lad” amongst the ranks of Arsenal hooligans at the time. But these accounts have been contested, with Mr Connell concerned that he had been unfairly named. Kevin McE (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

    Dainton Connell is currently in Prep 1. —Bruce1eetalk 06:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, I know: that's why I'm flagging up an issue with it on the talk page for that area. Kevin McE (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    (ec) See this for why he had contested that. There is no strong reason to disbelieve he was a prominent member. Materialscientist (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    "No reason to disbelieve that he was" is not an encyclopaedic standard, and prominent membership is not the claim. Nothing cited in the article makes the claim that he was "a leader". Requirement is The "Did you know?" fact must be mentioned in the article and cited with an inline citation Kevin McE (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    Read MatSci's link. (And note it's been added as a ref to the article.) Shubinator (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    Thank you: I already had, and would not reply without doing so. It does not affect the objection: no cited article says he was a leader, or even that such a gang has anything that can meaningfully be described as leadership: the contention that he was a prominent member was contested, and as such is not established as fact. Kevin McE (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    MatSci's link explicitly says The undisputed leader of the gang (in reference to Connell). Shubinator (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    Is a local paper considered a Reliable Source, even when its contention is disputed? Kevin McE (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    When it gives the most thorough account of said contention, including Connell's response (which doesn't rise to disputing the contention in my opinion)? Yes. Shubinator (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    The fact that a local rag is the only thorough source of the contention makes it something that scarcely demands Front Page attention on a high profile encyclopaedia. I am at a loss as to how the phrase Accounts in the book have been contested and Mr Connell was reportedly concerned that he had been unfairly named leaves tenable the opinion that it doesn't rise to disputing the contention. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

    Drymoreomys

    The article does not say that this animal is usually found on the ground, it says that most specimens were collected in pitfall traps on the ground. That sounds more like evidence of relative effectiveness of traps than analysis of where the animal spends its time. Kevin McE (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

    The way I read it, "usually found on the ground" → "usually found by humans on the ground" → "usually examined by humans on the ground" → "usually collected by humans on the ground" → "most specimens were collected in pitfall traps on the ground". Feel free to suggest less ambiguous wordings though. Shubinator (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    I would contend that that is making an interpretation of the claim that is inspired by knowledge of the true situation, not considering the truthfulness of the immediate impression made by the claim. Again, the claim is not what the citation says. Kevin McE (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    I agree the wording is ambiguous. Do you have a suggestion for a less ambiguous, but equally concise, wording for the hook? Shubinator (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    Kevin is right; it's ambiguous. I have changed "found" to "captured" to remove the ambiguity. Ucucha 06:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

    Motocycle

    False contradiction between motor and engine, exacerbated by fact that link on motor points to engine. What on Earth is an automobile without a motor: second half of the blurb is a truism. Kevin McE (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

    Removed the last bit. Materialscientist (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

    Jungle Versace dress

    Deliberately misleading hook. There is no evidence in the public domain to suggest that David Duchovny suffers from paranoia, so the phrasing is seeking to mislead the reader by associating that condition with the experience of an actor on a red carpet. Hook absent from article, no mention of Fox Mulder in cited material Kevin McE (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

    Removed, also because it was defocusing the hook. Materialscientist (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

    So many headshots...

    Queues 1, 2, and 3 all have headshots as pictures (a photo, a painting, and a statue, respectively). Could we swap other stuff in to cut down on the three consecutive headshot pictures? OCNative (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

    Queue 6 doesn't, and neither do prep areas 3 and 4. I am not familiar with queue order, but it might just be easiest to flip two queues with each other now and then another later when we complete the prep areas. I have not been active in organising DYK for a long time and it has changed alot...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

    Phoenix Suns

    Readers on the Main Page should not be left to guess what sport the Phoenix Suns play. No reason for capitalisation of president in that sentence, and the tenses are rather mixed. Kevin McE (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

    Better. Changed to ALT1. I wasn't (and still not) sure President should be capitalized there, as it is a complex and uncommon title. Materialscientist (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    H10: Don't falsely assume that everyone worldwide knows what country or sport you're talking about. Examples of previous poor practice do not excuse it, per wp:otherstuff. Kevin McE (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    In this particular hook, it doesn't really mater what sport (obviously a team sport). Materialscientist (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

    First 6 googlehits on ""Phoenix Suns President" all use lower case: ESPN, CBS, NYMag, Huffington Post, ESPN again and Ball don't lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin McE (talk • contribs)

    Looks like it - Phoenix Suns president is not that title which is capitalized. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    I'm really not wedded to whether the "P" should be capitalized or not, so if someone feels that strongly about it, make it a lowercase "p" then. OCNative (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    A few hours earlier you were absolutely asserting it: I'm left to wonder what evidence you did so with... Kevin McE (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    Are you trying to bait OCNative? I can't see any other purpose for this comment, especially when OCNative laid out his reasoning fairly clearly above. Shubinator (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

    Four queues are empty

    Four queues have been empty for hours, c'mon admins.... BarkingMoon (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

    I've added a bit to prep area 4, but have to go off now. Anyone is wlecome to finish that page up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks.BarkingMoon (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

    Olivia Ward hook needs updated

    At the time I wrote this hook, it said "is a contestant". Last night, 24 May, she won the contest and the show is over. I've updated the article. Since this is now in a queue, can an admin update it to say something like "Ward won season 11"? Thanks.BarkingMoon (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

    Updated. Materialscientist (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks! BarkingMoon (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

    Utaawase

    (currently in Prep 1)

    It is by POV and by no means encyclopaedic to say that it is shocking for anyone to write poetry without knowing Genji; it is however, trua and appropriate to say Fujiwara Shunzei once opined that "it is shocking for anyone to write poetry without knowing Genji" Kevin McE (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

    Agree and added Fujiwara Shunzei to the hook. Materialscientist (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

    Hook(er) in Queue 5

    The last hook of Queue 5 is:

    ... that according to the Parks and Recreation episode "Road Trip", actress Rashida Jones looks very good dressed like a prostitute?

    That should say "the character played by actress Rashida Jones". I'm also not thrilled with the wording. The character said that she looks good wearing the outfit which was worn by Julia Roberts while portraying a prostitute. That's not really the same thing as saying she "looks very good dressed like a prostitute". There's no denying that the current wording is "hookier" than the alternatives, and I guess I could live with that wording, but at least let's not say that the actress looks good dressed as a prostitute. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

    I have to agree. This hook is libelous. BarkingMoon (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    Naturally, we could say that "actress Rashida Jones's character" looks good dressed as a prostitute, but I think it may be hand-wringing. I'm assuming she does not look horribly different in and out of character. I'm fine with adding "character", but I do have some concerns. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    Added "character". Assuming she does not look horribly different in and out of character is generally incorrect - actors often do. Materialscientist (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

    Prep area 2

    The bottom hook of prep area two (the travelling army one) had an image, but for some reason has been added without it. Could an admin please move it down to prep area 4, with the image? The image information can be found in this diff. Thanks in advance, —WFC— 10:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

    Not all pictures can be used with their hooks. There are too many of them and there's only one picture-slot per DYK set. The prep-loaders will feature pictures they find interesting at 100x100px, and will reject those they don't think are suitable at that resolution. —Bruce1eetalk 12:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    Plus the bottom hook is a rather prime position - its often the quirky snappy hook at the bottom, and in my experience generates far more hits than being placed in the middle. Miyagawa (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    I suggest this DYK itself is delayed until such a time the image can be associated with it. The image is essential to the hook making sense. Perhaps the "prep-loaders" didn't quite get that? (I think the point is that this article is a quintessential "old-school" example of what makes Wikipedia great, a dozen or so users contributing hundreds of edits in a few days to an article which is of interest to literally a billion people....) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    I fully support this.The image is vital to the hook and a collaborative effort of such a scale deserves top billing. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 00:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
    The DYK rules require images to be "suitable, attractive, and interesting at a 100x100px resolution." This strongly implies the images are also recognizable at the indicated size. The image was not selected because at the resolution used for DYK it appears to be either a fire at a flag factory or the aftermath of an avalanche. This is rather confusing when paired with a hook that is clearly describing sports fans. It is not until the image is viewed at a much higher resolution than the 100x100px used by DYK that people become clearly visible, and the majority of these people are security personnel instead of the "traveling army" mentioned in the hook. The group people the image is supposed to be showing are hidden behind a thick smoke screen. Given how problematic this image is, one of the many other options was selected. --Allen3 talk 00:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

    Small issue in Queue 1

    In Queue 1, for Salter's duck, the hook says "up to almost 90%". As discussed when it was at T:TDYK, the "almost" should be removed to make it sound better. SilverserenC 02:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

    Changed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

    Proposed DYK header wording change

    Discussion is at Talk:Main Page#Truth in advertising. Please add any comments there, not here, to keep the conversation in one place. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

    Question on the Rules

    I am currently working on a major overhaul of Thomas Bridges (Anglican missionary). The article has been on Wikipedia for almost 4 years and I am not expanding it I am reworking it in a way to make it readable on Wikipedia and sourcing it. Will this still be eligible for DYK? Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

    At this stage of the project, we don't accept reworked articles, but require 5x expansion (or 2x expansion for unreferenced WP:BLP articles). You could aim at promoting the article at WP:GAN, and then at WP:FAC. This would provide an even better feedback than DYK. Materialscientist (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    Echoing Matsci: No, this article will not be eligible. DYK is for new or expanded articles; for improved articles, consider WP:GAN. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

    Multiple article hooks

    I am currently working on 5/6 new/expanded related articles, which I would like to include in one hook. In these circumstances, can the hook be longer than 200 characters? Will I be required to review the same number of other articles as new articles in the hook? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

    The length rule for such hooks is as follows. Compose a hook. Remove all bolded items but one. Count the length. it should be within 200 chars. As I recall, you're required to review one nom per one nom of yours (single or multiple; correct me if ..). Materialscientist (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    Edit conflict, the following question now answered above, thank you,
    To my knowlege: the hook may be longer, and you have to review hook for hook, not article for article. I was granted a longer hook for three singers (for example) as a suggestion of the reviewer, but I don't know exactly how much longer the hook may be. Is it somewhere in the rules? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    We're a little flexible on multis, but there are very few hooks that require more than 200 characters minus the bolded article names above one. If your hook has more than that, it could probably use some trimming in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

    Finishing prep 2

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    never mind, finished it myself after sleep etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

    I've been adding to prep area 2, and am running out of time before I have to get to sleep (late here) and there are a couple of chores elsewhere I must attend to. Anyone is welcome to hoe in and finish prep area 2. thanks, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:13, 30 May 2011 (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.

    Competition redux

    It's been almost three years since I suggested a competition looking for candidates for broader hooks. Might be worth thinking about again in the face of comments about esoteric or boring hooks. If folks can scour a few areas and list a few areas where there are still stubs of less than, say, 150 words of text (or possibly bigger but are really an easy 5x expand). Shall I relist the categories again for thinking about? Okay then....(NB: Some of the old candidates are still unexpanded - as before, maybe leave off expanding to just get a feel for hwat is actually out there....)Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

    And look, I've been on wikipedia for five years and I'd never seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks (!!!) - I suspect some exploring there will find some interesting tidbits. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
    Just a thought, but perhaps this could be a potential expansion to the DYK project along the lines of a "requested articles" section seen in WikiProjects. I would say calling it along the lines of "Potential expansions" or somesuch would be suitable. I remember a couple of years ago a similar thing being done for the Christmas DYKs and it was very helpful (as has this been, as I've picked up a couple more article expansions from looking for ones to add here). This could help counter the issues with hooks becoming uninteresting. Miyagawa (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

    Halloweeny-type things

    Haha, good call :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

    Bastille Day (i.e. French things for the 14th July)

    (I slotted a spot for this one the suggestions page) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

    Any other special occasion possibilities

    Biggest city/town/suburb/hamlet/village (by population)

    Most prominent geographical feature

    Most notable public figure

    Most notable writer

    Most important literary work

    Most widely eaten food or culinary-type thing

    Most important plant

    Most notable animal

    working yellow-crowned bishop now.BarkingMoon (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    Black Bishop now. BarkingMoon (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

    Most notable unreferenced BLP

    Prep 3

    Can someone pull the lead hook off Prep 3 and place it in the holding area to be added on June 19? The person who placed it there didn't read the fine print. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

    I removed it myself but that batch needs a new lead hook. Perhaps we need something eye-catching when doing noms that a certain suggestion has to be moved to the holding area. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    Or just move it to a hold area yourself and when you remove a lead hook, replace it yourself and let people know without the snarky comments.BarkingMoon (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    Getting lead hook now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    Look, I don't move hooks to prep area, not that I can't do it, but I just don't want to screw up (and I hadn't done it before). Hence I left this message to point out that one of the prep areas don't have a lead hook.
    I thought I can't edit it, then I found that I can, so I just left this notice just the same so that everyone's notified. Perhaps in the DYK nom template there should be a separate parameter for suggesting a suitable date, formatted in a way that you can't miss so that the person moving it to the prep area is notified.
    P.S. I won't apologize for the snarky comments which are the truth. If it hurts you ask someone to ban me. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    No it's not true, but at least we know what you are now. BarkingMoon (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    Sheeesh! It was ignored plain and simple. What else what that? It was pseudo-ignored? lol–HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

    I chose one with a plant image that looks nice small. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

    4 empty queues

    There are again 4 empty queues. Can an admin please fill them from the prep sets? Tks. BarkingMoon (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

    Done - images protected over on commons. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

    The House of Lame

    Sorry to be a bore again, but on one of my rare visits to the main page today I saw this:

    "Did you know ... that Gidleigh Park, a hotel-restaurant in Chagford, Devon, England, is located in a Tudor-style country house (pictured) set in 54 acres of gardens and woodlands?"

    Well, I never ... how amazing.

    It is a significant problem that the framing of DYK hooks is premised on the unusual, the surprising, the striking: "Hey, did you know ...?" Now, the fact that some hotel is a Tudor-style country house, and OMG more surprising, it's set in a large garden and woodland, might belong on a spin-doctored tourist brochure—where readers are apt to expect exaggeration to meet a commercially driven purpose to sell accommodation; but the main page of WP is quite different. There is nothing striking or unusual about the fact paraded as intrinsically unusual or noteworthy, and it is a let-down when the hook fails to live up to the theme.

    If editors want to retain the narrow scope of new articles alone (why, I've never worked out), they need to bear the consequence that it's not easy to find a mass of suitable hooks in the frame that is currently used. Better to either (1) drop the expectant "Did you know?", which is what creates the expectation in the first place, and use "New articles" or "From our newest articles" or similar; or (2) ration the hooks to those that do work with such an expectation.

    It wouldn't be The House of Lame if the expectation weren't set up. It's all wrong. Now bag me as much as you want for being a wet blanket, but I'm only telling you what the readers experience. Tony (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

    Tony, it is no surprise to me that we promote boring hooks (I might have put this up to the queues, because the queues were empty). It would be more helpful if you posted such comments, in a brief form, for any hook you find boring on T:TDYK. Materialscientist (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
    Material Scientist, thanks, I might have posted it there, but I think this is a generic issue. It could be solved by promoting fewer and allowing slightly older articles to be the subject of hooks, too. I suppose people are wary of promoting fewer, because DYK might come under pressure to yield space on the main page. That problem could be managed by collaboration with whoever manages the whole page. I know these matters have come up before, and there has been no consensus to do anything about it. This is disappointing. Tony (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
    (i) The reality is a DYK nom is fired and is sitting, waiting for feedback; picking that nom "slower" or "later" doesn't solve the problem of proper reviewing. (ii) T:TDYK is wide open to everyone, even anons. If you see any way to promote its existence, add extra links somewhere, please do. Only emergency problems can be solved when the hook hits the main page. Materialscientist (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • OK, I hear you. I note that the selection criteria include: "Try to pick articles that are ... interesting to a wide audience." Hmmm. For the record, here's my lame-index for the current display, from 1 (very lame) to 10 (highly suitable). Anything 6 or above passes the interest test, in my view:
  • ... that according to Hindu mythology, the god-king Indra was cursed with having a thousand vagina marks on his body for having extra-marital sex with Ahalya (pictured)? [10]
  • ... that after World War II the 8th (Midlands) Parachute Battalion had to deal with riots in Tel Aviv? [7]
  • ... that the 10th or 11th-century Old Bulgarian Enina Apostle is the oldest Cyrillic manuscript currently part of a Bulgarian collection? [2 ... isn't there anything else that could explain why this is interesting?]
  • ... that during his student days, working on spermatogenesis, UCSF Medical Center pediatric cardiologist Julien Hoffman developed a close relationship with Sydney Brenner and Phillip V. Tobias? [1 ... and these guys went on to produce something great??? At the moment, who cares?]
  • ... that when the 5,800-seat Four Seasons Arena was built at Montana ExpoPark in 1979 it lacked air conditioning? [1 ... so it's a harsh climate or what? In the 70s, aircon wasn't nearly as common as now. I don't get it.]
  • ... that Elastica's 1995 song "Waking Up" resulted in the band being sued for plagiarism? [7 ... could be a higher index is more info were given.]
  • ... that the Classic Aircraft Aviation Museum in Hillsboro, Oregon, once bought a fighter jet from a car dealership? [10 ... nice. I'll go look at that article.] I think editors should consider one or more of the following:
    1. Push the interest bar higher: this is the overriding one. The interest criterion is not being met in too many hooks.
    2. Bigger pool of articles to choose from ("New", Criterion 1, needs to be loosened up).
    3. Fewer hooks at any one time.
    4. Keep the good ones there for longer. (Nom page might specify longer and shorter durations.)
    5. Allow some hooks to be longer, since many lame hooks might be acceptable with just a little more information. Tony (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    Allowing some hooks stay longer is not feasible, mostly for technical reasons (the bot swaps entire set and will likely mess up formatting if we design a system with individual timing for every hook). Fixed hook length urges concise formulation, and we can usually reformulate any long hook into less than 200 chars; when there is no easy way to do that we can (and do) allow longer hooks. Main page balance is a factor. We are flexible and the number of DYK hooks varies between 6 and 10 to keep that balance. Posting fewer hooks will inevitably reduce the variety of topics, which is important. Bigger nomination pool overloads reviewers and lowers the quality of selection. Some hooks are universally boring, like Julien Hoffman; for some we can't apply "I don't get it" arguments. For example, I believe many of our readers were not born yet in the 1970s and can't imagine a 4-season indoor sports arena without an aircon system. I'm not a specialist in Old Bulgaria, but I recall their alphabet was developed in the 9th century. Maybe writing was exotic then, and a 10th century manuscript is quite unique in this sense. There are many more factors which I either forgot or didn't mention. That said, I do agree that we should be tougher to boring hooks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    I also agree that we should be tougher on boring hooks. But the problem is, as has been often mentioned here before, what's boring to some people can be very interesting to others. Until we can find a way of resolving this dichotomy, there will always be "boring" hooks. —Bruce1eetalk 08:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    So it's a boring encyclopedia? And on the main page, the In the news section is full of boring bits? And the featured content is boring? There are indeed ways of ensuring that commonplace associations do not make it onto the main page. For example, "... that Marga T's novel, Badai Pasti Berlalu, spawned a critically acclaimed film, album, and song?" I mean, give me a break. This is one of thousands, isn't it? What is special about it? Could we start by seeing things from the readers' point of view? DYK is not for editors' gratification. Tony (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    I agree some hooks are objectively substandard. Any hook which highlights an unexceptional, everyday fact instead of an unusual one is a prime candidate for rejection. Unfortunately, this project in general does not have enough oversight. Gatoclass (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    Sometimes it might require more inventiveness on the part of the nominator or reviewer or others. I am not sure I agree with Tony1's ratings of the above. I thought the aircon one was alright....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    Maybe I've been in too many nice sports arenas or maybe it's because I was born in the 1980s, but I also liked the air conditioning hook. Maybe it's the history major in me, but I thought the Cyrillic manuscript hook was interesting. The Hoffman hook should have explained why the close relationship mattered. So I see the Hoffman hook as boring and the other six as interesting, so in the example set above 1 out of 7 hooks was boring. OCNative (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
    I was notified of this discussion by Dahn, and given that one of my recent hooks was rated a 2 out of 10, I was prompted to express my opinion. Some people may find this disappointing, but it is not among the main goals of an encyclopedia to be interesting. Yes, some facts are boring and some articles consist solely of what many may consider boring facts. Yet, these articles may well be useful, encyclopedic and well-written.
    As OCNative wrote above, another way to look at things is that different facts are interesting to different people. Like Dahn and OCNative, I honestly don't understand what's so terribly wrong with my hook about the Enina Apostle. In fact, I welcome anyone who feels they can extract a better hook from the article text to do this.
    Perhaps Tony found it boring because he has little personal interest in Bulgaria, Balkan history and linguistics or Cyrillic religious manuscripts? For some readers, that is to be expected, but we cannot discard certain topics just because a fraction of all people do not like them. I don't really read much about maths and physics, does that mean new articles related to these topics should be discouraged because I personally find them boring by default? This is highly subjective.
    I believe authors and nominators do their best to come up with an engaging hook: after all, who doesn't want their article to reach a broader audience via DYK? And let's not forget that reviewers are welcome to suggest revisions to the hook or a new hook altogether. There's nothing wrong with the DYK process as it currently is, and I believe Tony's points above are highly subjective. I'm not denying that some hooks may be poorly chosen and bland, but I do not think the process in any way promotes this. Or maybe I just have a vast variety of interests :) — Toдor Boжinov — 17:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
    Personally, I would have given that hook a 5. It meets the unusual test, but just barely. However, I think for anyone interested in the topic it would be sufficient to pique interest, and that's another factor to be taken into consideration. Gatoclass (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    Considering that we have a lack of hooks, having to set the bar high will slow the DYK to a crawl. Now, I understand that some hooks, like mine indicated by Tony, are "objectively boring", but considering the fact that that was a 5 article hook, it can probably be overlooked. The Hall of Fame is full of those kinds of hooks. Personally, I think saving the "hookiest" hook for last is usually enough. Also, I must wonder about the rules for "misrepresentation". Some hooks just need a little creative phrasing to be interesting... Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    I agree with the editors above who point out how subjective any rating of "lame" is. For example, the Badai Pasti Berlalu hook that Tony trashes above as being only for the editor's gratification is the only one of that batch that I clicked through to read, both because I'm interested in international literature, and because it struck me as rare to have a critically-acclaimed novel generate a critically-acclaimed song. ("One of thousands"? Seriously?) I also liked the Bulgarian one that got a "2" above. I rarely click on specialized astronomy, botany, or physics topics, but I don't think we should censor them, either; for me, the esoterica is half the fun. I see the point that some hooks are hooky-er than others to a general audience, but I don't see any practical way to enforce the Tony-scale short of asking Tony for a more thorough list of his personal interests that we could post for other editors. I vote to keep the system as is. Khazar (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    Just a side note: Although Tony's ratings up there were generally indicative of the response received (i.e. under 5, less than 1000 hits, over 5, more hits), they were not perfect. The parachute platoon (a 7) got 3,600 hits, compared to 2,900 for the aviation museum (a 10). I think this proves that the "lame factor" is truly subjective. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    I'm amazed that my ratings would be born out in the relative hits. They're only to an accuracy of ± 1, hee.

    Crisco, why not aim to boost the average number of hits for DYK overall? What proportion of hits on the main page lead to a DYK link hit, I wonder? To me, one obvious improvement would be to have fewer DYKs and leave them there for longer: one or the other or both. And having, say, one hook fewer at any particular time would allow the pic to be just a little bit larger, which would be so much more effective in drawing the eye down to the section. Some of those pics are ruined by microscopic size (like the current 12 man nom: it's a great pic, but hey, give me a magnifying glass. DYK needs to be sold to the readers. It's too passive at the moment. Tony (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

    I think something that should not be overlooked is the way in which DYK acts as an incentive for editors to write articles of a decent length and quality rather than leaving them as stubs. Making it harder to get an article to DYK by having fewer appear or throwing out the ones considered by some to be too boring won't help matters on that front. A better way would be to relax the rules on so called "misleading" hooks. In the past some of the hooks I've suggested, that have started off as sounding quite interesting, have become so watered down by the time they've reached the main page that I wouldn't even have read the articles myself. Take a look at this current nomination for example, the wording is quite correct in context but because it uses a common term in an unfamiliar way there are calls for it to be changed - Basement12 (T.C) 13:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    I agree completely with Basement insofar as making DYK harder to achieve could make people unwilling to develop articles, and his call for reform to the so called "misleading hooks". I remember clearly suggesting "... that during the bombing of Darwin in World War II, a gunner's hearing was so acute that he detected approaching Japanese aircraft before they showed up on radar?" but it was considered too misleading, even though it would have drawn more hits. It got 6.4K hits with the hook it used, but I think it could have gotten more with a little more oomph.
    Tony, if we were to have fewer DYKs we'd end up with a pretty big backlog. Besides negating the Swahili rule, it would make more work for us. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

    Just a passing comment: I agree with thinking about the "reader's perspective". But exactly who are the readers? I have seen no analysis of that anywhere, seen no data and frankly I have no idea. A newspaper such as NY Times has various models of who the readers are, and TV stations have chart after chart of viewer characteristics, demographics, etc. by time of day. There is none of that for Wikipedia, so I can not know. Are the readers mostly students? Retired people? Airline pilots having drinks? I do not know. Does anyone? Or is everyone just guessing? Do we even know the readers by continent from IP addresses? E.g X% in the US, Y% in EU, Z% in Asia? Anyway, just a thought. History2007 (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

    I honestly don't know if those are tracked. Probably not, for privacy reasons. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    At least these are tracked: [7]
    How about leaving the boring ones on for half the time? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

    June 2nd

    There is an item in the special holding area for June 2nd (Thursday), and may need attention, whoever has the modification rights for the queue etc. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

    Actually, there are two items for Ascension day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    Ok, no problem, they can of course both run. But i do not know if non-admins can pop them into the queue, else I would do it. History2007 (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    First step is prep, no admin needed, but you should not move your own. I hesitate to do it at all, because I don't feel familiar enough with the rules to arrange a set. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    Those two hooks are now in the queue, BUT. The one with a pic (not mine) about art (!) is in q1 without the pic, just saying "example pictured", which should at least be "examples pictured", because the article has more than one, and the commons have more than I am willing to count. The hook would make more sense with the pic, instead of a green plant in the same set. Also it will appear very late, at least in Europe the day is almost over then. Worse for the other one, prep4 at present, which will not make the feast day for most of the world. Could that be swapped? Nathaniel Merrill (q1) would be a possibility. - Ascension Day is an important feast, which I hope can be acknowledged exactly because it is not observed as a holiday in many parts of the world. Bach scored more complex than for Christmas! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

    Small issue in Prep area 1

    The last hook reads [...] W.D. Childers [...]. But according to title format, it should be [...] W. D. Childers [...] Also as I have moved the page, W.D. Childers is a redirect. Please fix. GaneshBhakt (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

    Anybody can edit hooks in the prep area, so you don't need any admin support. Schwede66 17:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

    Ascension 2 June soon

    Anybody can edit prep, as said above, but q1 still has "example pictured" with no picture, as said before. The rest still applies. Ascension starts in an hour where I live. The German Wikipedia will have the Bach cantata on the Main page right then, this is the first time that "en" is "behind", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

    Self-nom rules

    Just chucking in an idea for consideration. I fully agree with the requirement for reviewing another hook when self-nominating. The system is working well. However, it does sometimes lead to a difficulty in finding hooks to review. Therefore, I'm putting up for discussion that reviewing another hook or nominating a new article would also be acceptable. The nominator should have no previous involvement with the article, although minor clean-up would probably be OK. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

    I would accept multiple reviews (if they are substantial) of the same nomination. Too many reviews miss obvious problems. IMO, the major overlooked issues include (i) hook phrasing, (ii) referencing, (iii) checking the article for prose and style. Materialscientist (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    I disagree with Mjroots' proposed change. There is plenty of room for additional reviews, as evidenced by the almost constant stream of corrections posted here, queued hooks pulled back to the nominations page, and mundane hooks that could be improved upon. Of course, anyone can nominate a new/expanded article they haven't worked on, and in such cases the requirement to review another hook is waived. cmadler (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

    4 empty queues again

    Need an admin on this again. BarkingMoon (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

    Two empty now. BarkingMoon (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

    What should happen before a brilliant bot-maker does this?

    Our DYK bot already posts on a DYK article's talk page after its DYK shows up on the front page--and that's a great feature! W:User:OhioStandard has proposed an earlier notification on an article's talk page.

    Such a notice would be triggered when the article is nominated for DYK. The notification could be something like:

    "This article Name of Article has been nominated to be linked to from Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column using the hook "Did you know ... (text of hook proposed?" The DYK discussion will be here (a link to article's discussion at DYK)."

    Would this be a difficult project for a bot-creator? Do others support the idea of such notification? For most articles, it would just be a friendly notice that the DYK nomination had successfully registered. For contentious articles it would avoid the situation where some editors are prepping the page to showcase their favored version at DYK in the very near future but some other editors are in the dark about any timeline for moving toward NPOV. betsythedevine (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

    I'm not sure that would be necessary. As far as I know, in the vast majority of DYK noms there's only one editor working on the article and this message would just be telling the editor something he/she already knows. For the exceptions, maybe we could just have an expectation that people should notify other editors if the article is contentious, or reviewers should check the talk page and invite other editors to comment if the nominator has not already done so. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    Probably not necessary most of the time, but very helpful in a few cases and not harmful in any. It would also be a real benefit to new authors/nominators. I know it took me a while to figure out how to find "my" article's discussion section -- I would go to T:DYK, search for my sig, and check to see if anybody had said anything yet, pro or con. But I think Rjanac's other suggestions are very good, especially if nobody wants to bot-ify notification. betsythedevine (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    I support the creation of such a bot. We do need to consider how and when such a notification would be removed (or if it would just stay on the talk page until archived). cmadler (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    The idea sounds good, but the bot that delivers it also needs to be coded to remove it once the actual DYK notice has been posted on the article's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 06:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
    I support a DYKNomAlertBot (for non self-noms) because it will alert page creators that their page has had some traffic, and will have more interest soon (time to tidy up, cite sources, add that image or graphic they've been meaning to add & such). If the notification message is small (just 2 lines, with no ==header==) there'll be no need to delete it afterwards. --Lexein (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
    Is anything happening with this? cmadler (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

    <--I hear consensus for a small notice on an article talk page at the time it is posted to DYK. I proposed simple wording, above, which nobody objected to. Shubinator is the person in charge of the DYKUpdtateBot, so I will post a message on his talk page pointing to this discussion and asking his advice on creating such a bot. Because I am traveling for the next week-plus, my internet access may be chancy some days. betsythedevine (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

    Sounds good! I will add that, while the proposed wording is fine, I disagree with Lexein's suggestion that it should not get its own section heading. I'd suggest a section heading of ==DYK nomination== cmadler (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    I also think the small header would not be intrusive. Surely the notice could be left on the article talk page if nobody cares about it, or removed to its archives manually if anybody cares to do so. I don't think getting the notice removed afterward is something that needs to be coded into a notice-leaving bot before it begins. betsythedevine (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    A header is essential. There might already be talk page traffic. Adding some text without a header might look like adding to the latest discussion. Schwede66 17:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

    ←A bot for this is feasible. The way I see it, the bot would add a notice (with its own header, and therefore its own section) on the talk page. The notice wouldn't be removed from the talk page later. There's one piece that's still niggling at me though: how will users interpret the bot not placing a notice on the talk page? Will they assume it's a bug in the bot, or a problem with the syntax of the nomination? I'm also concerned about users using the talk page notice as "proof" that the nomination is syntactically correct (but I don't foresee this being much of a problem). Shubinator (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

    I don't have good answers to those questions-- And new questions may arise later too, but could you deploy the bot and see what happens? I think the bot will solve bigger problems than it creates, and I am grateful to you for working on it. betsythedevine (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    I agree; even if some such issues arise, I think this will be a net improvement. cmadler (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
    I dislike starting a project with vague areas not filled in; the answer to the questions would affect how I make the bot. I'll put it on my to-do list though...I'm fairly busy for the next few months, so I'm not sure when I'll be able to get to it. Shubinator (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
    <--Perhaps it would solve some of the issues you mention if the bot also posted an informative notice to the talk page of the person who filed the DYK, for example saying:

    "Thank you for nominating Name of Article for Wikipedia's Did you know? column. Please check its DYK discussion [redacted]will be here (a link to article's discussion at DYK) to be sure it is formatted correctly and to keep track of input from other users."

    Thanks again for considering adding this to your already-substantial contribution to Wikipedia. betsythedevine (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

    That would work; it shifts the responsibility of finding syntax errors off of the bot. I'll probably add the "formatted correctly" disclaimer to the article talk page notice, since figuring out who nominated a DYK isn't straightforward. Shubinator (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

    US National Archives DYK collaboration

    Hello, denizens of DYK! This summer I am serving as the first Wikipedian in Residence at the US National Archives (see Signpost article and WP:NARA for more information).

    One of the first projects I would like to try would be related to the National Archives' "Today's Document" feature. I have written up a proposed editing challenge at Wikipedia:GLAM/NARA/Today's Document challenge. The National Archives will offer high-resolution images of documents as well as some kind of link back to the Wikipedia article from the National Archives' site and credit for the author, or even the chance to select a document for the National Archives to feature. In return, they would like to be able to stimulate content creation by Wikipedians related to the National Archives' holdings—either about documents themselves or about things the documents are needed to describe—and DYK seems like a useful benchmark to use for this project.

    This project is still very much just in the idea phase, and I would like to solicit feedback from the DYK regulars. Basically, the main questions I have are "Do you like the overall idea?," "Do you have any specific suggestions for improvements to the process I've outlined?," and "Would you want to help publicize, or even write content, for this project?" If you have any comments, or questions of your own, please feel free to discuss here or at the project's talk page. Thanks! Dominic·t 13:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

    Rush request for June 1

    Howard P. Perry, first USMC recruit, part of desegregation in the United States Marine Corps

    Responding to the above announcement, I just put together a National Archives article which relates to a photograph that will be featured tomorrow, June 1. I would like somebody to quickly approve Desegregation in the United States Marine Corps and slot it into Queue 4 for a noon appearance in New York. Is that possible? Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

    Wow, that's awesome. I can certainly upload a high-res version of that image and have the National Archives page updated to reflect your article in time for tomorrow. Hopefully the DYK folks can accommodate the short notice as well. Way to go! Dominic·t 21:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    See the above request, please. I would love to have the article Desegregation in the United States Marine Corps placed in queue 4 with its image, pushing the current prep 4 lead hook to a different queue. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    We should get consensus on hook approval on the suggestions page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    The original reviewer settled upon ALT1. Does that work? Binksternet (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    If this rush request can be placed into queue 4, bumping the current queue 4 lead hook, then there is one hour in which to carry out this process. Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    I have posted to the administrators' noticeboard, since some of the admin watchers here seem to be offline. If it doesn't make it, it's not the end of the world. We're still planning on featuring this in the National Archives' website/Tumblr. Dominic·t 15:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
     Done as Binksternet suggested. The lead hook that was in Q4 before is now in P4. NW (Talk) 15:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    If this could be done, how about improvement for 2 June, as suggested above? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks to all who jumped in on the rush job! Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks to all who got Bach cantatas in prep at the right time for all of 2011 so far! But the one for the Feast of the Ascension certainly came too late, a simple swap could have helped that. Well, the one for next Sunday is already in prep, let's look forward. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

    Prep2

    I've returned Nazi talking dogs from Prep2 to the noms page. The article doesn't mention the hook fact at all; ALT6 had been chosen. Can somebody please add a quirky hook to Prep2 to plug the gap? Schwede66 20:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

    Dots and spaces

    Could someone pass by T:TDYK and give a ruling on whether the dots and spaces before the hook count towards the 200 characters. (see May 20 Will June)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

    I've always understood it that the dots and the space before the "that" don't count towards the hook length (see previous discussions here and here). From what I can see, there is no mention of this in the DYK rules, but perhaps it should be added somewhere. —Bruce1eetalk 08:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
    One way to really get the discussion going is to stick some draft words into the rules, and I've just done so. Please find it as C8 in the additional rules. C4 might be a more logical spot to it, but I didn't know whether turning the existing rule C4 into C5 etc would break any links or references. Schwede66 20:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
    I agree with Art LaPella's past comments that we do not count the ellipsis nor the leading space, but do count the question mark. I personally do not count "(pictured)" and the like, but this is not settled (see additional rule E5). cmadler (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

    Hans Vogt

    The composer was nominated and approved a while ago. His 100th birthday was in May, Maifestspiele were/are mentioned. Changes to his opera (article created by Voceditenore) made me tweak the hook. Does it need another approval? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

    The New Girl in Town

    I just expanded this article to 15,000 bytes, does it still qualify for DYK? AJona1992 (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

    Yes, it's well over a 5x expansion of prose (lists and tables don't count) within the last 5 days and has over 1500 char prose per DYKcheck. An article needs to meet that or be a new article with over 1500 char of prose. It can't ever have been at DYK or ITN before either. Those are the basic requirements. You can nominate it at T:TDYK. BarkingMoon (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
    Ok, thanks! I have included it there. AJona1992 (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

    Shuffle Q4 hooks?

    Might it make more sense to switch the positions of the third hook and the final hook in Queue 4 since the third hook is far quirkier than the final hook?

    (The third hook is: ... that Tennessee governor Newton Cannon's animosity toward fellow Tennessean Andrew Jackson, who was U.S. president during his governorship, may have started with gambling losses at Jackson's racetrack?)

    (The last hook is: ... that Lola Sanchez was a spy during the American Civil War who provided information to the Confederate Army, which led them to a victory over the Union Forces in the "Battle of Horse Landing"?)

    OCNative (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

    Seconded. Any mops available? Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    Reshuffled. Materialscientist (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

    Nazi Dog DYK

    Currently in Prep Area 1, shouldnt this DYK say the Nazi's "trained" a dog? I mean, it's not like they bought the parts off ebay and put the dog together with some glue.--v/r - TP 15:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

    I don't see anything wrong with it. It doesn't say they "made a dog"; it says "they made a dog call Hitler 'Mein Fuhrer'." rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

    Stalled nom?

    Jewish response to The Forty Days of Musa Dagh was nominated on May 29th, but appears yet to receive a review beyond the one from a user who was subsequently blocked for hounding the article's creator. Anybody care to take a look? I'd do it myself, but I started working on the article to help with issues raised in the negative review. Khazar (talk)

    I'll review it after I'm done building the preps. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

    "Nazi talking dogs" hook

    In queue 1, the hook
  • ... that Nazi scientists claimed to have trained a dog to call "Adolf Hitler" as "Mein Führer"? is a hook supported by all tabloid references, with the only non-tabloid reference being ref nine, and arguably ref 2 is alright. Is this O.K? Albacore (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    This is certainly a controversial hook. The way I see it, the sources are repeating information found in a book (although in a much more sensationalist way). I'd love for Nazi documentation to turn up (for verifiability, of course) to help develop the article further, but I wouldn't be able to read it if it did turn up and it would probably be difficult to find. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    See the talkpage for the article. This has been accepted for DYK and put in a queue twice now. Meanwhile, seeing the discussion here and on the proposals page, I looked for German refs and found enough (in response to the press coverage of the book, but in one case including a report of a phone interview with the author; and one of the German sources I found is Süddeutsche Zeitung, which is solidly reliable) that I would have rewritten the article in a way that does not totally depend on (mostly but not entirely tabloid) reports about the chapter in the book and focuses on and moved it to a more neutral title - the name of the school, which was founded in 1930. The facts that Nazis wished to utilise the school's research and that one dog is reported to have vocalised "Mein Führer" are both adequately supported, IMO, and I didn't want to cause a big disturbance after the article was approved and put in the queue the second time. But I do think this article should be rewritten to make use of the German stories and to broaden its scope from "Nazis". And either the book or the English-language newspapers have at least one error: it wasn't some place called Leutenburg near Hanover, it was Leutenberg in Thuringia, a good long way from Hanover. - But I didn't get a response on the talkpage and it got put in a queue again, so I was waiting till after it ran on DYK to rewrite and move it. Which I am still inclined to do, including the geographic correction - I don't have the book and it seems likely that's what the book says. The article has been judged by several people to be a fair representation of what the book says and what the author has said in clarification (sources on the last including the BBC; I tracked that down and checked it). Yngvadottir (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

    Link to dab page in Queue 2

    The last hook of Queue 2 links to disambiguation page Irish. The link should be removed (my preference) or disambiguated to Ireland or Irish people. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

    Delinked. Materialscientist (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

    Disappeared hooks

    I recently noticed that a prep I build was cleared, possibly by accident. I may have moved too quickly to build it, but now none of the hooks I originally added are in either the prep or on T:TDYK. The prep has been repopulated with different hooks. Could somebody either return the hooks I selected to T:TDYK or revert to the prep I built? I'd do it, but I have class in a little bit and don't quite have the time. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

    Note that it had already been cleared before I built the prep. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    The edit [8] you linked says "Clear, moved to Queue/3". So I went to Q3 and found your set there. Preps are cleared after the composed sets are promoted to the queues. Is there anything I missed? When composing a set, please add {{inuse}} in the preparation page (e.g. between the image and the first hook) and remove when done - this would help others understand the timing. Materialscientist (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    Darn, you're right... never mind. I was confused because right now Prep 1 (which I worked on but is now Queue 3) was in front of Prep 2, which I also worked on but is still intact, and after Prep 4 (which I also worked on). Aren't preps supposed to be moved to the queue in order? :-s Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    Better ask the one who moved it - there could be various reasons for not promoting sets in order.

    Once we are here. Can we have a discussion on the lead of Q3 (which I would not let live as is and either return or update as uninteresing). What were your thoughts when promoting it? Materialscientist (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

  • ... that the conservation status of Grey Crowned Cranes (pictured), found in wetland-grassland habitats of Eastern and Southern Africa, including Tanzania, is listed as vulnerable?
    Of the accepted alts, that one looked best in my opinion because of the picture. The others, such as "... that the wildlife of Tanzania includes some plant species unique to Tanzania, such as the African violet (pictured)?" weren't very hooky either. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    In general, don't hesitate leaving a ? template, with a note that the hook(s) does not sound interesting (promotion does include some evaluation), and try another nom at T:TDYK. Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    Certainly. I'll readd it to T:TDYK, but could you remove it from the queue? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    Maybe leave it be and wait for other comments (alt hooks - e.g., maybe just saying that it is found in that country will do). Materialscientist (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    Leave it in the queue or at T:TDYK? If you prefer just saying that ALT4 ... that the vulnerable Grey Crowned Cranes (pictured) is found in wetland-grassland habitats in Tanzania?", that would be okay too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    I've updated the hook in Q3 with what first comes to mind, anything better is surely welcome. Materialscientist (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

    DYKSTATS reform?

    So a couple weeks ago, Johnbod expressed this concern that non-lead hooks with over 20,000 views in DYKSTATS were being relegated to a lesser table of "Non-lead hooks with over 11,000 views" instead of being seen in the "Lead hooks with over 20,000 views" table; he pointed out that Euthanasia Coaster was the second-most viewed hook ever but was in the lesser table simply because it was a non-lead hook. (There are 8 non-lead hooks with over 20,000 views, by the way.) In that discussion, one proposal was discussed but was unable to gain traction due to it resulting in the creation of a new table and making the page longer.

    Looking at the DYKSTATS page today, I thought of a new way to solve the problem Johnbod described without lengthening the page. What if one table were titled "Hooks with over 20,000 views" and the other table were titled "Non-lead hooks with 11,000–20,000 views" on DYKSTATS? This would have the net effect of simply moving 8 hooks from the second table to the first table. OCNative (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

    Works for me, but why distinguish btwn lead and non-lead at all? Just have a column for the pic and if it was lead, put in the pic, if not, don't put in the pic.BarkingMoon (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    @BarkingMoon - not to confuse the editors (the threshold for inclusion is different for different categories), @OCNative - why debating over one hook (it is a very rare event that non-lead gets >20k views; only happened recently)? Materialscientist (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    Sorry about my muddling the issue, Materialscientist, my explanation on Euthanasia Coaster was to provide background context. What I meant to convey is that the way the tables are set up due seem to diminish the success of the 8 non-lead hooks with over 20,000 views (kind of like how there's adults' tables and kids' tables at weddings). I believe your note about how "it is a very rare event that non-lead gets >20k views" is a reason why we should make the change. These 8 hooks should be acknowledged for their extraordinary accomplishment (by the way, five of them were from 2011, and 1 each from 2010, 2009, and 2008). OCNative (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    The "non-lead" table is not a "lesser" table, it's just the non-lead table. Putting the non-lead hooks in the existing lead hook table will diminish their achievement in my view, rather than highlight it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    Say what you like, it is at the bottom of the page, and it's likely that far fewer people get it in their "view" at all. This is the old argument about the womens' galleries in synagogues ("closer to heaven") and so forth. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    There's a good reason for having separate lists: One table has a slot for images, while the other one does not. Regardless, if you ask me, a place at the top of the non-lead hooks list is a place of honor -- and, anyway, DYKSTATS doesn't really matter, does it? --Orlady (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
    The 8 non-lead hooks being placed in the first table would show their extraordinary accomplishment because they would stand out by not having pictures. I should note the month by month tables of hooks with over 5,000 views do mix lead and non-lead hooks. Also, there are 83 hooks in the first table (lead hooks over 20,000) and 132 in the second table (non-lead hooks over 11,000); moving these 8 would make it 91 hooks in the first table (all hooks over 20,000) and 124 in the second table (non-lead hooks between 11,000-20,000). OCNative (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
    I'm with OCNative on this. Schwede66 10:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
    "Non-lead hooks between 11,000 and 20,000" sounds like a pretty odd categorization to me. One alternative might be to change the first table to "Hooks with over 20,000 views" and leave the second table as is, then list the non-leads with over 20k views in both tables. Gatoclass (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
    I would not oppose this proposal, but I believe the previous discussion objected to that proposal (or at least one similar to it) although this thread seems to have attracted far more commenters than that last one. OCNative (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

    Dan Savage

    Just my personal opinion, but is it necessary to have Dan Savage in 3 different DYKs in a single day? It's as if we're advertising his books for him.--v/r - TP 21:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

    Absolutely not IMHO, these are currently in queues 2,3, and prep 1. Can an admin fix this? Perhaps make a combined hook? Not only is it over promotion, and article is only eligible for one DYK/ITN ever. Thanks for catching this! BarkingMoon (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
    None of the hooks are for the Dan Savage article specifically. They are for 3 different books of his and each contain a link to his article. I think a combined hook with all three of his books would be great.--v/r - TP 02:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
    It's still over promotion and may have been intentional. A combined hook is the way to go here. BarkingMoon (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

    Hold on. Many of our regular and prolific contributors keep submitting articles, at a reasonably high rate, on the same topic. Also, to the better or worse, we regularly feature hooks on commercial products and services (books, songs, hotels, cars, bikes, tourist destination, etc., etc.), which all might be perceived as a promotion. We have no policy at the moment against that. Thus scrutinize individual articles and hooks, and avoid promoting them one after other, but I see no reason (yet) to blame the writing tendency. These 3 hooks will not all fall on the same day, I don't see an easy multihook, and thus sitting back and listening. Materialscientist (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

    I have just resurfaced from RL chores but have no idea how long I've got. I haven't seen the hooks yet. My feelings align with Materialscientist's though I will try and think of a multihook if I can. We regularly have "runs" of content - birds, mushrooms, sharks, some Australian rainforest plants are ones I've done often. Ditto historical architecture of California and the East Coast, and synagogues by others. It really depends on who is writing what. We can space them out I guess.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
    The analogy of "birds, mushrooms, sharks," isn't valid. There are many varieties of them and they don't conduct smear campaigns like this guy does. The animal analogy would only be valid if we ran a set on the same species.BarkingMoon (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
    If each hook's main article is a topic of its own and shouldn't be merged, and neither the article or the hook are written in a promotional tone, then they are valid. The best way to avoid the "overpromotion" would be simply to space them in the queque. One, then one or two runs of other DYKs without it, the second, another group, and the third. Cambalachero (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
    A new thread has started below on this very group of Dan Savage hooks for very similar concerns. OCNative (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

    Lead hook?

    Please see this discussion. Thank you. Diego Grez (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

    Responded.BarkingMoon (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    I'd actually love more input. Diego Grez (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Yeah. I wonder if this is... somewhat related to this... anyways, I still think that the Pichilemu elections article, which is way more complete than the one occupying the spotlight, should have been the lead hook. But then, it is not going to happen, and so, I'll fuck off. Diego Grez (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    Toolserver maintenance

    Toolserver is undergoing system-wide maintenance tonight, which means the server hosting DYKUpdateBot and DYKHousekeepingBot will be down temporarily. I'll move DYKUpdateBot onto my computer for tonight so DYK will update with no interruption. Both bots will be restarted on Toolserver before the 16:00 UTC update. Shubinator (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

    Toolserver maintenance complete, bots restarted, and everything's back to normal. Shubinator (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

    Main image nominated for deletion

    I have recently nominated an article written by someone else, but I noticed a detail that I overlook: the image used in the article is nominated for deletion. I mean, I did realize it, but I forgot to consider the relation between both things (it was a busy day). The article itself seems right, the problem is just with the image's licence. I did not propose it as hook image, but what should I do with the image in the article? Leave it there while the discussion is going on, or remove it and restore it to the article in the case it survives the nomination? Cambalachero (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    It depends on the problem with that image. It would help if you specified the image and the article. Materialscientist (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    Backlog

    Queue backlog is at four now. Any mops to fix that? Preps are full. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    (Four empty queues) Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    This seems to be becoming the norm, 2-3 queues empty for hours even most of a day, 4 is not at all unusual either.BarkingMoon (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    It is indeed normal. Queues and preps do not have to be all filled at all times. It is even better to leave one prep for reshuffling. It takes five minutes to compose a set, provided the reviews are well done. Reviews are the priority. One more (arguable) point: when the hook is moved to preps, it will sit for a few days before going live. If that hook was sitting at T:TDYK, together with its whole review, more people could spot errors. Materialscientist (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    Very well. I am just worried about possible backlog at T:TDYK. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    Normal doesn't mean okay. And no they don't have to filled every minute but they also shouldn't sit empty for long periods of time. When over half the queues are empty, that is not good, we could easily end up with an empty main page DYK slot, for one thing. We should go to 8 hooks and 6 hour queues too because the noms page is getting more and more backlogged.BarkingMoon (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    You can always calculate how many hours will pass until then, and our wonderful bot does that too and posts a message here 2 hours before that happens. Adding more or less prep sets has no effect to the T:TDYK backlog, which is mostly regulated by the number of hooks/set, the update frequency, and the number of valid submissions. Yes, the switch to 6 hour update was forthcoming (248 noms at T:TDYK at the moment, and the tendency is to grow). Any objection to the 8→6 hr change? Materialscientist (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    What about 7? Seems we just changed from 6 to 8 a couple weeks ago. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    (EC) Six is good. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    We did. Six hours and 7 hooks is not good. I thought it was a mistake to go to 8 hours and I'd just "arrived" so I didn't say anything. We should go to 8 hooks too. I didn't say increase the number of prep sets. One of the big problems I see is hooks sitting on the noms page for weeks due to people arguing about wording, which is better etc. The longer it goes on and the more there is to read, the more likely reviewers will just ignore it, exacerbating the situation. The bottom line is the amount of time it takes to get a 'new' hook on the main page is ridiculous, sometimes almost a month. BarkingMoon (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    Adding new sets to prep areas will not make the update faster. As to phrasing - we do regularly feature grammar errors and just odd and incorrect hooks. Many promotions simply rely on the green tick. The pressure from outside the project is to feature less, but of higher quality, whereas we tend to promote anything borderline that fits to our basic criteria of length and novelty, no matter what is written in the hook and the article. Materialscientist (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    Again, I never said make more prep sets, I said 1) rotate the queues every 6 hours and 2) put 8 hooks in a set. The problem is that people don't agree on what is quality, or what is the best phrasing, or what is quirky, or how anally we should interpret the rules. See the DYK nom on "Black Bishop". BarkingMoon (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, a problem has developed recently of unending discussion on the suggestions page that is not moving toward a review of the article. Discussion on that page needs to focus more on whether the article is ready and if not, how to get it ready. See my response in section above. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    <indent>We change the update interval not because of the number of submissions, but because of the tendency in numbers - when it is falling, we may end up with a few dozen suggestions half of which are on buildings (happened before). Our rules are guidelines, and the reviewer is not a robot to mechanically apply them and to deem the nom (un)acceptable - xe can request improvements wherever the article shows signs of major incompleteness, grammar and referencing problems, NPOV, etc., and this contributes to a quality review. Materialscientist (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    That doesn't address my issues, but eh, I'm a nobody here so I'll move on. BarkingMoon (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    Great discussion, but is there an admin who can deal with it presently?--v/r - TP 01:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    I'll get back to queues in an hour or two. A quick scan of half of the hooks: The Marjan Bojadziev article and hook read like a resume (prep4). I don't get the quirkiness of the last hook in prep4 (perhaps because of my ignorance in the basketball tournament rules - the volcano hook reads quirkier to me). First 3 hooks in prep3 are all on Africa. The lead in prep1 is marginally Ok but spreads on too many facts instead of concentrating on some (more) essential. Troy Yocum (prep1) was trying to set a Guinness record in what? "the skeleton of the last Bosnian king ... currently lies in the Franciscan monastery of Saint Luke, Jajce" is very intriguing, but its references are somewhat old, and is it really lying open in the monastery, right now? Materialscientist (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    As I built prep 4, I will say that I found a team winning roughly 94% of their games and not going to a tournament quirkier than a video game designer drawing inspiration from nature. As for the others, don't know. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    The Yocum one is for marathon drumming, but the prep is protected so I can't add that. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    Removed protection which was set up elsewhere. Materialscientist (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    Fixed the Yocum one. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    5 queues open?

    Uhh, I heard 3 is bad, 4 is worse, but what about if 5 queues are open?--v/r - TP 00:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    Gentlemen, it takes 1 minute to update a set from preps; the bot will warn 2 hours in advance if the next queue is empty; last update happened just 30 min ago; at least 2 hooks in prep1 have problems indicated above (haven't checked others yet). In short, I am seeing too many reminders recently :-) Materialscientist (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)My bad, just wanted to make sure.--v/r - TP 00:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    Notification of Tfd

    Adding notification that Template:In use is up for discussion. Calmer Waters 05:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    Here is a more direct link to the discussion underway. - Dravecky (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    Reverting on Yellow-crowned Bishop photo

    Snowmanradio and Chienlit keep trying to insert an unprotected image from commons into this lead DYK article being used with its picture. BarkingMoon (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    he just did it again. He doesn't understand. He's been around for ages and should know better. So an unprotected image is on the main page again. I'm bowing out otherwise someone would accuse me of edit warring.BarkingMoon (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    Well, I backed you up there. Hope I did not do wrong but you sound as if you know what you are doing. betsythedevine (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    Thank you.BarkingMoon (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    We protect images which are featured on the main page, protection of images (or their cropped/wider versions) in the linked articles does not matter. Materialscientist (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    THe commons version they keep inserting is not protected on commons. And what's linked articles got to do with this particular issue? This article is the lead dyk right now.BarkingMoon (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    Am I missing something? They are trying to insert and uncropped version into the article, isn't it? The only requirement for protection is for images which you see on the main page directly, what happens in the article is a matter of routine vandalism control. In other words, click the image on the main page, try to alter it and save (add some invisible symbol) and if you succeed, go get an admin asap, otherwise, its Ok :-) Materialscientist (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    See edit history of image. This administrator is not on line at the moment to ask. It seems that he accidentally gave the small image that is going to be shown on the main page for the DYK the same name as the file in the infobox. This has the effect of showing the small image in the infobox (somehow the en wiki version takes preference over the commons version) and this looks silly. I and another user put a large image in the infobox from commons (with a different name) to look better. It really needs an administrator to fix, because the files are protected - the small image should be given a new name and this name of the small file used in the main page. When the old small image on en wiki is deleted then the proper sized image from commons will be shown in the infobox. Snowman (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    Me and another user are trying to but a full size image in the infobox. Alternately, the file on commons can be renamed, and shown in the infbox. Snowman (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    I'm staying out of this now, no comments/edits at all. I wish I'd never gotten involved in WP:BIRD.BarkingMoon (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    Gentlemen/ladies, please try to understand the mechanism of image protection - this could happen with any topic, not just birds. Only administrators can upload images from commons to en.wiki, "covering" up the commons image, and we do that to implement protection. Usually we copy, and sometimes we crop/enhance the image in the process, but this is not what has happened here - the image was already cropped. You are fighting about two different versions of one image. One (cropped) is featured on the main page; it is protected and you can do nothing about it until its gone off the main page (then the protected copy is deleted by the bot and you get access to the original version). It does not matter (for main page matters) which version is in the article (well, we have a requirement that the featured image should be present in the article in some form). Materialscientist (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    It does make a difference that the minute image is in the infobox, because it looks too small, and hundreds or thousands of viewers will see it when its DYK comes up. Actually, the version to be shown on the main page (the one currently in the infobox) is not a cropped version, is it a miniaturised image and it is masking the full size image (a cropped version of an image) in the infobox. This miniature image arises form a cropped image on commons, which in turn arises from an uncropped version, which is also on commons. Me and another user were trying to put the uncropped version in the infobox. This fits the requirements, because the version on the main page for the DYK originally came from this image. The article will look better for its big DYK moment with this uncropped version in the infobox. This still needs fixing, so can an administrator fix the file name of the miniature version or put the uncropped version back in the infobox as two editors were trying to do? Snowman (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    "Miniaturization" was a human error during upload from Commons. Corrected. Materialscientist (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    (ec)Having apparently been part of the problem here by making a requested edit without understanding the issue, I hesitate to jump in again and revert myself since I still do not understand what is happening. If somebody who actually knows what is up would put the right image into this article, let me flag this edit of mine as a possible problem, and one that is still the article's current version. Abashedly yours, Betsy betsythedevine (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    I see. Miniaturization was the mistake. It is understandable that this problem has caused confusion. Only an admin could do something with the protected page, and I am glad it has been fixed. I think that showing the uncropped image in the article infoxbox was practically the only thing an non-admin could do to temporarily improve the appearance of the article in preference to showing the miniature image that was here by mistake. Snowman (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    I hope everyone likes the photo of this bird, and I am glad it is being shown properly now. It is one I uploaded from Flickr and one taken by a photographer that kindly gives his images Wiki-friendly licences. Snowman (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    Antwerp Diamond Heist

    The Template talk:Did you know#Antwerp Diamond Heist nom is being held up. I don't understand. Apparently the refs are still unacceptable. I've done lots of DYKs with refs done with Reflinks. This is the first time I've heard it's not allowed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    You used a wrong reflinks mode which adds titles only - better add sources and dates. You could fix that in the "interactive" mode, "and Plain links" (3). There was one duplicate and dead link, which you could fix with wayback machine, and one googlebooks link which is better to format with this tool. Fixed all that. Materialscientist (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    Where have you been all my life! Why didn't anybody tell me about this tool??? Wayback is kept way back from the great firewall. Too bad. Thanks for the tip on interactive mode in reflinks. I had just posted on your talk, but you beat me to it here. If you go any faster, you'll travel backward in time. You are awesome x10 Thank you! :) :) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    Will this meet the criteria?

    I decided to create the article Imagine No Malaria only to find that it had already been created. It has been mostly untouched since moving to the mainspace and currently had 277 characters when I first viewed it. I do not know if I will be able to improve the article to the quality of a DYK article within the five day timeframe. If I edit the article in User:Ryan Vesey/Imagine No Malaria, then copy the new text over, will I meet the guidelines? Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    Not at present as per DYKcheck it's only a 2x expansion. Also, don't wholesale copy a sandbox to an existing article, better to move it in sections. I'm sure someone else can explain the intricacies better than I can. BarkingMoon (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    I didn't mean at present. I meant, if it takes me ten days to edit in my sandbox, and I move it over, meeting all other requirements. Will it still be considered a fivefold expansion within the time allotted? Otherwise, I would prefer to make the changes on the page. Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, it would count, because 5x expansion is not calculated from the date you started working on your sandbox, it's counted from the date the material reaches mainspace. Hypothetically, if the article were 277 characters now and you spent a year working on it in mainspace, then moved the material to the article after a year, expansion would still be counted from that single edit. So, given the article's current state, all you need to do is get a sandbox version up to about 2500 characters (I'm counting 525 characters in the current version) as quickly or slowly as you like, then move it over in one edit.
    As for BarkingMoon's advice regarding moving the sandbox to the article, to the best of my knowledge it has long been common practice to copy an entire sandbox over in a single edit, and I have never before heard any rule or guideline suggesting that the sandbox copy must be moved over in a piecemeal fashion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    One problem in longterm sandbox edits is if you copy in a single move, you wipe out everything changed since you started in your sandbox. Most of the edits made in mainspace would be legit and you'd have to account for that before moving it over. Also, the biggest problem in sandbox editing is if you let other users edit the sandbox and then move stuff over, the GFDL rights are lost and a history merge would need to be done, so best not to let anyone edit your sandbox. BarkingMoon (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, but attribution only matters if multiple editors have edited the sandbox article, which is not usually the case and which for the time being does not appear to be the case with this article; in any case, pasting over the article one section at a time as you suggested would not solve the problem in that situation anyway. In that situation, a better solution is to perform a history merge. In the more common situation where a single editor is the only one who has written the sandbox content and doesn't care about the individual diffs from that process, it's best just to paste over the whole sandbox in a single edit, essentially lumping all those diffs into a single diff in the article history which serves as the attribution to that editor. There is no requirement that every individual diff from that editor's revision be accounted for.
    Anyway, the short answer for Ryan Vesey is yes, the sandbox editing will satisfy the DYK requirements and yes, it is acceptable to paste the sandbox over directly when it is ready. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    In response to worries about edits to the mainspace while I am working in the Sandbox: First, this page has very few edits, so the chance is unlikely. Second, if I were to find a change that wasn't accounted for in my new edit I would A) Include the change in my edit and B) Contact any editor involved. Thanks for the advice :) Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    Edmund Ser

    This DYK has been sitting in the suggestion box for several days now and has not been reviewed, Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_June_1. Would anyone mind please taking care of it for me.--v/r - TP 00:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

    There are quite a few nominations older than yours that haven't been reviewed yet. They'll all (including yours) be reviewed in time. Shubinator (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    My bad.--v/r - TP 12:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    Got this one. Khazar (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

    Clear the old noms effort

    I'm going to begin a personal effort to clear the old noms as much as possible. By old I mean ones in the red zone. There are currently SEVEN DAYS of noms in the red zone. May 29 is in the worst shape as it has 14 noms and only 2 approvals. The whole set is full of stalled discussions, pending alt proposals vastly different from the original, etc. Any help would be appreciated. As a side note, when I build prep sets I try to concentrate on the older noms. Thanks to all in advance. BarkingMoon (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    One (May 25) was approved right away, but while it was sitting there a new article was created and the hook tweaked, no more. I told the first reviewer and the queue discussion, nothing happened. Now it's taken care of. A little late for a May festival, smile. Thanks for volunteering! Should I address you in such a case? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    Sure, post on my talk page is probably best. By the way, you do great music article work Gerda. BarkingMoon (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    You read my mind about Harte, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    I'm trying to clear a few that seem to lost in the queue also. Thanks for pointing this out, Barking. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    Ok, just took care of or moved along 8-10. Amazing how many are still left. Khazar (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks to all who posted here and those who are helping on the noms page too. I plan to make this a regular review of mine as my wiki time permits.BarkingMoon (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    No problem. If you get a chance in the next few days, Barking, I'd love your eyes on Crisco's and my June 2 hook for Ahmed Taufik and Tomy Wimata. As a doublehook dealing with sensitive BLP issues (it's literally about a libel case), it could use a good reviewer. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    Commented there. Easy fixes. BarkingMoon (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks Barking! Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    I've taken care of another 5. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    Many thanks again to all. I feel we're making real progress. BarkingMoon (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    Got about five more today, now I'm off to dinner with the wife. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

    DYK rules: queries

    I've gone through the rules, copy-editing here and there. I hope I've made no substantive changes to the meanings. Below, I've listed queries I didn't deal with in the text. The only one that concerns practice, beyond mere textual expression, is the reviewing-other-noms requirement.

    IMO, the expression of the rules could be reduced a bit to convey the same meanings (i.e., they are unnecessarily long). Why not remove almost all of the bold aside from titles and subtitles? It really makes it look messy, and bleaches the function of highlighting. I do not believe readers end up taking any notice when so much is bolded.

    I hope the surface copy-edits and these queries are helpful. Feedback from editors who know the process better would be most welcome.

    • "If an article is linked to at ITN but not the featured ITN article, it is still eligible for DYK."—This is unclear. Does it mean "If an article has been linked from ITN but not as a featured ITN article, ..."? As currently worded, it could mean an article linked from any article that is linked in an ITN article. Surely that's not the meaning. And it does mean "ever before", not "right now", yes?
    • "Articles must have a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose"—Shouldn't all character measurements specify "including spaces"? Such explicit specification is common: let's be clear about it.
    • "Cited hook – The nominated hook must contain a fact cited in the article. (See more information under The hook, below.) The fact should have an inline citation, and the article in general should use inline, cited sources." This subsection lead seems to be repeated in the subsequent points. Why not remove all but the title so that editors need read the information twice within 10 seconds?
    • I removed the "in particular" from the NPOV point, since all of the points are very important, aren't they? Why are the others demoted by not having "in particular"?
    • "please review another editor's nomination"—is the intention that both article and hook be reviewed to satisfy this requirement? If so, could it be explicit? I'm finding that most such reviews are far from thorough ... in fact, this seems to be treated as a perfunctory job by many nominators. Just writing "Reviewed blah nom" is all too easy, without even a critical comment.
    • I removed "Uncited and poorly cited articles will not be chosen." at the end. This is already dealt with, and counts as bloated text IMO. Editors are expected to read the rules, which should not have to state things twice (or three times).

    Tony (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    • "and the first sentence should end with a question mark."—I've never seen a hook of more than one sentence. Why is this indicated here? (My italics)
    • "The hook itself should be concise: fewer than about 200 characters, including spaces. While 200 is an outside limit,"—First it says "about"; then this is described as "an outside limit", which looks hard-and-fast. Which is it? A firm limit (I would prefer this), or a little fuzzy? Also, concision is different from length: a 140-character hook can be flabby (this could be clarified by saying "... concise and be fewer than ...".
    • This is repeated under "Hook", after it has been dealt with under "Selection criteria". Why the repetition? Editors should expect the rules to be as concise and well-organised as DYK hooks and articles. "The "Did you know?" fact must be mentioned in the article and cited with an inline citation. Also, can we get rid of the speckled bolding in the text? Links are not supposed to bolded, to start with, in normal text such as these rules.
    • "Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones, as long as they don't misstate the article content."—The logic is weird. Why not bin after the comma?
    • "try to avoid selecting your own suggestions"—what are "suggestions"? The word is used in two successive points: seriously, I don't know what it refers to.
    • I removed "please": suddenly we're being polite after all of those musts and do nots? Better not to swerve the tone, don't you think?
    • Should the rules on images warn nominators that an accompanying image will not necessarily be used, since only one image per set is allowed?
    • "If there are no suggestions with appropriate images, you can usually use a flag for a topic with a national connection."—Really? A bit desperate.
    • "Sounds ... should have similar qualities to pictures"—unclear. There's no corresponding requirement for vids. The section title "Images" belies these points; why not "Accompanying files", or something like that? Tony (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    I'll have a go at answering a few of those Tony...
    • My interpretation of the ITN rule is, as you say, that any article which has ever been a featured ITN article (i.e. has appeared in bold in the main page section) is not eligible. I suspect however that this would be relaxed if an article under went a large expansion after a number of years, much like 2nd DYKs for the same article are allowed
    • I think the minimum of 1,500 characters of prose rule doesn't mention spaces as it allows some wriggle room for the "In practice, articles longer than 1,500 characters may still be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting reviewers" rule. An article that's bang on 1500 when all spaces are included may well be rejected as too short. I'd say combining the two rules and adding "including spaces" is the solution.
    • A note that not all images will get used is sensible. The use of a flag is only appropriate when we are "A bit desperate" a lot desperate.
    • "your own suggestions" are any hooks you've nominated, the clue is in the navigation template which refers to Template talk:Did you know as suggestions, but this could be clearer.
    • Reviews... it should be stated that the article needs looking at beyond its compliance with DYK rules but we can't expect everyone to be an ace copyeditor so it will never be perfect
    • I'm all for any removal of repetition, the rules are far too long winded as they stand and could be quite intimidating to a new user when they are actually quite simple - Basement12 (T.C) 08:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    If we're looking at re-wording the rules, this would be a good time to add to the review requirement the point suggested above: that if you make the first comment on someone's hook, you should also review the article and hook for whether they meet the DYK criteria? Also, I'm starting to see people requiring nominators to review two articles if it's a double nomination. This is not how the quid pro quo requirement has been interpreted in the past; if it's changed, that should be put into the rule. And if not, it should be made clear that the requirement is one review per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yngvadottir (talk • contribs) 13:08, 9 June 2011 UTC
    Great job improving these rules! I was also looking at Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria, and suggest we add this to ours: "stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars." betsythedevine (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    • The meaning of the ITN rule is that articles featured at ITN, now or at any time in the past, are not eligible for DYK, but articles that were merely linked from ITN may be eligible (assuming they meet normal DYK requirements).
    • Regarding the readable prose length, I don't think its necessary to state that spaces are included -- they are characters, after all -- but since it doesn't change the meaning, I don't object.
    • No problem to remove the redundancy after "Cited hook".
    • I agree that reviews and the reviewing requirement need to be more clearly stated. The requirement is a complete review, which includes reviewing both the hook itself and the relevant article. At one time I was working on a DYK reviewing guide (draft at User:Cmadler/sandbox/DYKreviewguide) and others are welcome to pick this up and run with it.
    • Although exceedingly rare, multiple sentence hooks have been used.
    • I agree that the item on hook length should state that the hook should be no more than 200 characters (with an exception for multi-article hooks) and that the hook should be concise.
    • "Try to avoid selecting your own suggestions" refers to nominations, but should be stronger: "Do not select..."
    • I agree with your suggestion to add a warning that accompanying images will not necessarily be used.
    • The item about using a flag if there's no appropriate image can probably just be removed.
    • The proposal requiring the first commentor to do a full review is still just a proposal; more discussion is needed before it's added to the rules.
    • We have had lengthy debates about whether the review requirement would be article-for-article or hook-for-hook. Established consensus is hook-for-hook, regardless of how many articles are in either hook.
    • I agree that articles should not be subject to ongoing edit wars, but I'm afraid that a further requirement for stability might directly contradict DYK's purpose in highlighting new content; if the content is new, I don't know how it can be said to be stable. cmadler (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    5 queues are empty

    Five of the six queues are empty. Maybe we could get more admins helping at DYK.BarkingMoon (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

    Serious question: is this caused by my comments—somehow slowing down the process? Or is it a fairly frequent problem? Tony (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    This was neither caused by your comment, nor is a problem - the preparation areas are regularly filled these days thanks to a few hard-working editors, and uploading them to queues takes a minute. Materialscientist (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    Please, once the preps are up, consider to fill them with the 3 Special occasion noms for 12 June, two of them pictured, yes one of them mine, thank you. - Looking closer: the debate between summer and winter could certainly take place any day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

    Prep 4 Summer where?

    Summer where? That is my question looking at the pic of the lead hook, which talks about Sumer. The pic looks like summer in North America or Europe. I would say "inappropriate", if that term had not been used too much in a recent discussion here. - Also: Hans Vogt, nominated in May with the Maifestspiele (May (!) Festival), finally made it to a queue, q1, to appear when it is night in Europe. That's appropriate, if May should be hidden in June, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks, that (summer pictured) made me smile :-). Yes, I won't use it as a lead. Materialscientist (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

    Athenaeum, Virginia, 10 June entry

    I tried to enter Athenaeum, Virginia, but for some reason, it's not appearing like it should. Can someone help with that please? Thanks! Divide et Impera (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

    Queue 6

    Lulz Security in Queue 6 has been redirected to LulzSec. Could an admin fix the hook in Queue 2 6? Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

    Fixed redirect. What needs fixing in Q2? Materialscientist (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    Oops. I thought I got all those (I had written the wrong number). Thanks for getting it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

    I noticed that Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow still contained the wording "From Wikipedia's newest articles" (which we've replaced on the main page with "From Wikipedia's newest content"), so I updated all of the preparation areas and queues. I then observed the word "articles" returning as they were reset, which I attributed to the fact that I'd neglected to update Template:Did you know/Clear. So I did that and restored the update where it was lost. But I see that this also failed to resolve the issue, as the old wording has again returned.
    If I've overlooked a template, can someone familiar with the process please point it out and/or update it?
    If I haven't overlooked a template, I assume that the text is being copied from various editors' personal documents (in which case I'll set out to notify them). Thanks! —David Levy 12:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

    We clear preps by reverting to an old edit (the easiest way), which is why your changes were erased. I (and hopefully other promoting admins) shall keep your note in mind when clearing preps, that should fix the problem. Materialscientist (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    Ah [slaps forehead], I should have realized that. Thanks for your help! —David Levy 13:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

    Q5 cap badge image license issue

    Is this image really PD and if so with the proper type license? It's a cap badge of the Royal Army Medical Corps. The person who uploaded it did so with a "I the copyright holder release it to PD..." license. I highly doubt a private person held the right to a British military emblem. I know US gov images are PD and such a US equivalent of this would be released with "US Army PD" tag, but I don't know about British military images. Even if this is PD, it's using the wrong type of PD license tag; in such a case it should use a "British Army PD" tag. Please advise. BarkingMoon (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks. I checked it is PD, but didn't update the template (updated). Materialscientist (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    No problem. I see you fixed the temp and Commons versions. BarkingMoon (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

    Carra Castle DYK, now in Queue 6

    At Template:Did you know/Queue/6, there should be no apostrophe in "the McDonnells" in the hook now reading "... that Carra Castle was once occupied by Shane O'Neill who held Sorley Boy McDonnell as a prisoner there in 1565, and the McDonnell's later got their revenge by beheading O'Neill there?" Moonraker (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

    Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

    Adding an article after a DYK was approved?

    The periodical cicadas of Brood XIX have been buzzing up a storm in the southeastern US the past month, and my DYK just got approved with the hook ".. that a new species of periodical cicada (pictured) was discovered by studying the songs of Brood XIX, now re-emerging in 2011 after 13 years underground?" But in the meantime, I created an article about said new species (Magicicada neotredecim), so would it be ok to bold the words "new species" in the existing hook and link to that article from it, to have that be a hook for both articles? Sharktopustalk 02:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

    Bolden, add credits for the second article, and leave a note in the review section that a new article is added and needs to be checked. Materialscientist (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    Dohhh, I forgot about the part that this would get held up again for the new article to be checked. OK. Thanks for such a quick answer. Sharktopustalk 02:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    Checked, and it's good to go. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

    Appearing on ITN

    When I last worked at DYK, an article having appeared as the bolded link at ITN would preclude it being posted later to DYK as a bolded link. This remains in the WP:DYK#Rules currently, the argument being that DYK's supposed to show these articles off but if they've appeared on ITN already then it's had its chance. 61st FIFA Congress, which appeared on ITN about 10 days ago when the "election" took place, was for some reason approved despite this rule still being in place, and is currently on the main page as a bolded article for the second time. So maybe it's time for DYK to revisit this rule, or to make sure reviewers check more closely for previous ITN appearances. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

    Pulled off. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    Looks like this appeared on ITN several days after its review, so the fault appears to be the reviewers not tracking the article post-review, rather than missing it on the first pass. Khazar (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

    13 and 14 June

    As mentioned above, Special occasions has hooks which were not yet taken, sorry to be boring, one mentions Monday, one Tuesday, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

    One in Queue 4, one in prep1. Materialscientist (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

    feast or famine?

    How are we going WRT hook depth? I can never tell by looking at the pages whether we have alot, or not enough. Is it worth going to 6 hourly again for a few days? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

    We've been on a 6-hour cycle for the past 4 to 5 days now. See #Backlog above. —Bruce1eetalk 08:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    D'oh! Shoulda checked...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

    Courtesy note: DYK mentioned at ANI

    This is a courtesy note to inform DYK regulars that DYK has been mentioned in a couple of threads at ANI related to one user's behaviour here some time last year (when I was still active at DYK). The incident is regarding User:TonyTheTiger, who was involved in spamming DYK last year during the WikiCup (see also WT:DYK/WC and talk archive 58). This has been brought up at WP:ANI#Featured_Sounds_Process and WP:ANI#1:_Topic_ban_of_TonyTheTiger_from_Featured_Sounds. Please review and leave comments if necessary. Thanks, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

    Oddly enough this is the second time we've met up today, Passerby. I've left a short comment there – thanks for the notification. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

    Death of Selena

    Was there a problem that I haven't seen? I thought it was ready to go and now its archived? AJona1992 (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

    It's in Queue 3 waiting to go to the main page - Basement12 (T.C) 19:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

    Tom Kahn in Queue 2

    In Queue 2 , Tom Kahn helped Soldarity in 1980–1981 (but not in 1979–1981).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

    Changed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

    Query

    Since I'm being pilloried above for my suggestions in hook reviews, I'm posting a question/suggestion here, hoping for your advice. Since hooks are by their nature a bit less formal than, say, the FA text that lies above them on the main page, I think it would be acceptable to use contractions, but judiciously. This current nom stood out as possibility:

    ... that in one of Uruguay's hill slopes near Fuerte San Miguel, there is an outpost which includes a wall and small window, but otherwise appears natural, like a cave or animal shelter?

    "there's an outpost"? Tony (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

    Again, sorry you feel pilloried; never my intent. Anyway, your "judicious use" exception here seems sensible. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    No problem with the contraction, but perhaps the whole hook could be reworded? I don't read Spanish, so this may not match the meaning of the source, but maybe something like: ... one outpost of Uruguay's Fuerte San Miguel has a small window constructed to look like a cave or an animal burrow? Thanks, cmadler (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
    Cmadler, my Spanish is not perfect, so I think we'd need someone else to translate besides me, but I think your alt hook suggestion strays from the source. Cheers, though, for offering an ALT! --Rosiestep (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

    Queue update overdue

    According to the time table at T:DYK/Q, the queue update is 32 minutes overdue. That time table says it should have happened at 14:00 NY time and it's already 14:35. Or is the table wrong? BarkingMoon (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

    As the time stamp sig above is 18:32 and the table also says it's due at 19:00UTC, methinks the table is wrong.BarkingMoon (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    If I'm not mistaken, the table said the next update was at 19:00 London time. London isn't at UTC right now (daylight savings). Shubinator (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
    Manually updating. Thanks for noticing. Will look into what happened when finished, if not addressed Calmer Waters 18:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    It was missing a <!--Hooks-->. Admins should watchlist User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

    Nominations good, where are they?

    I nominated Death of Selena, The New Girl in Town, and Barrio Boyzz, and were all ready to go. However, Death of Selena, has now been moved to "older nominations" and still hasn't been placed on Did you know..., is there a problem that I didn't check? AJona1992 (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    There is no schedule for reviews. Although it might be frustrating to sit and wait for the review to complete, this is normal. Your nominations will be reviewed, and their moving to the "old" section on the T:TDYK page means nothing in terms of their quality or suitability. Materialscientist (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    (ec) Being in Old Nominations does not mean anything is wrong. All of them have been reviewed, and The New Girl in Town and Barrio Boyzz have already been approved. Death of Selena is waiting on a couple editors. You just have to wait; everything is okay. Hooks go to the queue starting with the oldest, so your nominations will wait a few days. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    Oh alright, thanks for responding. AJona1992 (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    You're welcome. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    By the way, there's a way to speed up the review system: review other nominations. The less unreviewed nominations when somebody is about to review something, the more chances that it will be your turn. Just make sure to do it right and consider the details that must be checked, speed up does not mean rushed Cambalachero (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    Over the past week, Tony's undoubtedly well meant efforts to raise the interest level of hooks (see "The House of Lame" section above) and extend his campaign against what he sees as overlinking to DYK hooks have exacerbated the effect that noms with lots of discussion go unreviewed. See my dual nom for Carlisle House, Soho and Teresa Cornelys for an example. No one has moved to actually review the articles. One other person has suggested an ALT4, but the differences between proposed hooks are not massive. The actual reviewing is just not happening. He also spoke up at Islanding, simply condemning the hook as without context. There was another problem there - the reviewer didn't understand the referencing style used, and I have tried to help out but don't have the knowledge to review the article myself. Tony has given at least one checkmark/tick that I saw, but actually reviewing the articles is avowedly not his main purpose in looking at DYK nominations; he left a comment to the effect, "the checkmark seems to matter here" and at one point commented that he wasn't sure what the specific rules for DYK were. Unfortunately, this effort tangential to actual reviewing is having a chilling effect - and exacerbating the existing problem that since reviewing was introduced as a quid pro quo requirement, nominators opften find themselves looking at articles on topics they don't know very much about or find very interesting. (Tony's personal scale of hook interestingness is a clear illustration of how tastes differ, as discussed in that section above, but of course everyone has their own different interests: I have a very broad range of interests by most standards, see the articles I have created let alone the DYKs I have proposed; but numerous hooks are on topics that make my eyes cross.) I think the suggestions page needs to be refocused on reviewing, maybe with a change to the statement of purpose at the top discouraging commentary not aimed at either accepting a submission or giving ways in which it needs to be improved to be acceptable. I have had a lot of DYKs; I will be sad and angry if this one gets thrown out as stale, but it won't be the end of my world or of my participation at DYK. I believe others are not so sanguine, and may however wrongly feel their contributions are being deemed unworthy when I know that isn't Tony's intention or that of anyone else who comments just about the hook or about stylistic choices. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    I reviewed your nom. Sorry it hung around for a while. I think that we should make it a rule that anyone commenting first on a hook should also review the articles. That removes this specific problem :) --Errant (chat!) 19:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    That strikes me as a sensible rule too. Khazar (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    Many thanks! And that seems like a good, easily stated fix for the problem. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    I agree with the proposed rule (you comment, you review). Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    I disagree with the proposed rule change. Editors may -- and I'm speaking from personal experience here -- quickly notice a glaring problem or a way in which a hook could be improved, but not have time to do a full review right then. Do you really think it will benefit the project to ask such editors to refrain from commenting? cmadler (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    The problem is that we have several editors cruising the page only throwing off comments about hooks without being willing to do full reviews. These comments then discourage other editors from becoming involved in reviewing those articles because it looks as if another editor is already handling it, and the discussion may become quite lengthy without a review ever being done. I've just spent most of my morning trying to catch up on the resulting backlog from this hit-and-run approach, and there's plenty left to be done. (BarkingMoon wisely initiated this, see above).
    My thinking is that if a hook has a glaring issue, it will be caught in review. If it's not, there's almost always still a full week after the hook's review before a hook hits the main page--plenty of time to point out additional issues then. Khazar (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    To the extent that editors are "cruising the page only throwing off comments about hooks without being willing to do full reviews", and to the extent that this is causing problems, I think that's a behavioral issue that needs to be addressesd with those editors, rather than by a rule change that will apply to everyone. cmadler (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    I agree. Also, pointing out problems with the hook is rightly part of the review - if the hook is misleading, i.e., doesn't match what the article said, discovering that is part of evaluating whether the hook is referenced. And one is very rarely already an expert on the topic before one reviews an article suggestion; so it's much more likely one will find factual problems with teh hook only after looking at the article. Pace Tony, those are the important issues. Whether the hook is worldstoppingly interesting to absolutely everybody is secondary. So is whether it is written in the best possible style. After all, tastes vary - in both topics of interest and English style. Also, the constraints on hooks are significantly limiting (must be a new or heavily expanded article on which the work was done in the past 5 days, and the hook must be within 200 characters - those are both going to mitigate against jeweled perfection). The focus needs to be on reviewing. Other concerns are extra. I'm sorry to say that the recent focus on these extras has had a clearly chilling effect. At least 2 nominators have clearly just stopped checking the nominations page. DYK is supposed to encourage people, and some of the editors submitting to DYK are relatively new editors. Let's make the priorities clear. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    • That's fine for editors who nominate. I don't nominate. I'm taking no notice of an inept requirement that you can't review a hook without reviewing the associated article. IMV, the requirement for nominators to "review" another editor's article is being abused: I see pretty bad articles that have been passed without comment ... just a "all checks out". It's quick and dirty. If you want to improve the system, I'd toughen up the culture of nominator reviews.

      I stand by everything I said about the Islanding issue. It just doesn't make any sense as a stand-alone to the visitor. It doesn't hook anyone to click on the article link. Weird and inexplicable hooks can sometimes work, but not it they're impenetrable and don't seem to be interesting in the first place.

      Linking: it is indeed a problem that the instructions above the edit box still say "Do wikilink words in the hook and bold the main article." Why? Are nominators being encouraged to ignore WP's style guides in this respect, where here it matters much more than in a WP article that low-value links be avoided. It is rare that I see any need to link an item aside from the DYK article, which presumably contains all the links. The wording should be "Do bold and link the main article." The free-for-all, undisciplined linking of DYK hooks raises three problems:

    1. It dissipates the effect of the link straight to the article that is the whole reason for the TFA display. Why do we want visitors to link to other articles first? Aren't those links all on the target article itself?
    2. Does anyone check that the countless other articles that are linked to within the DYK blurb are up to standard? Why are they receiving unchecked, unaudited front-page exposure, when only the DYK has been through the proper review process?
    3. It makes the main page look like a f....g mess. Tony (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

    PS And "Whether the hook is worldstoppingly interesting to absolutely everybody is secondary." That's a cheap way to try to win an argument—by exaggerating. I came here to encourage more interesting hooks because, frankly, DYK hooks have tended to be plain boring. You know it. And when you say "So is whether it is written in the best possible style.", are you encouraging poor English style on the main page? If so, please come out and say it. Tony (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

    I want to add that it's not as though I poke around issuing criticisms without helping: I have made a significant effort to improve hooks, backing up criticism with examples. Sometimes people don't like them; sometimes they improve them; sometimes they accept them. And when I do visit an article, I'm inclined to make improvements to it. I don't see other reviewers doing this. As I said to Crisco on my talk page, why not build into the rules that where a nominator's comments apply to the hook or the article alone, this should be stated? I often do, anyway. Tony (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    I found Tony's advice about my new nomination Brood XIX very helpful but of course I will be disappointed if that means my buzzing cicadas don't get bumped up to OK by somebody else. (Hint, Brood XIX is already dying out in parts of the US and they won't be back for 13 years!) Tony also caught a problem I missed in one of the two articles I reviewed. I think extra reviewing by somebody like Tony is a very good idea for oversight of a not-very-experienced reviewer and nominator like me. Sharktopustalk 10:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    I know you think you're helping, reforming, Tony. I have tried my level best to be polite while noting that your comments - which are avowedly tangential to the main issue on the suggestions page, which is moving towards accepting or rejecting the articles and their hooks under the DYK rules - are clogging up the works and (IMO) discouraging people. Like it or not, you are speaking for yourself only when you judge what's interesting; I judged it more polite to express that in terms of a general rule. I agree, more eyes on articles, more improvements to articles, and more attention to problems with hooks can only help. But your well meant critiques give the impression of imposing your tastes as an extra set of rules - and come off very harsh. And it isn't fair to not then go on to use one of the 5 symbols in an expeditious fashion, because then the person proposing the hook doesn't know where they stand, and others looking at the suggestion don't know what point the discussion is at (whether, for example, the article needs a bit of help to reach the standard, or whether it's hopeless unless someone who really knows the topic finds lots more to say or some heavy references, or whether it's pretty much ok and the hook is just being polished up). You owe it to the rest of the people working together on that page to make it clear - and to the writer to do a full review so they know where they stand. I'm also puzzled and disappointed you consider people are just rubberstamping articles and/or failing to fix them. It's already clearly stated that reviews should be thorough, and that it's not just ok but encouraged to fix problems with an article when one reviews them. I do that and so do many others. I'm glad you do too. But some people are terrible proofreaders. That's one of the reasons I don't like the quid pro quo requirement, though far from the biggest. But I think you're confusing or conflating several things when you connect that to the defects you see. I would imagine most of the problems with your perception of the DYK sub-project stem from what it is - a way to showcase new work. If you want to help, then help; whether you're a nominator and this obligated to do so by a quid pro quo requirement shouldn't matter. Many people help out here voluntarily; until recently that was the entire basis of the reviewing here. I'm afraid I can't see it as justified to use that as a rationale for throwing a spanner into the works; so I have to assume you are not seeing the effect of the spanner throw. If you would use it judiciously and not leave the engine still stripped down . . . ? - And one last point that I see as connected: DYK is to encourage, and in my opinion some classes of articles we really need to encourage, scientific ones among them. The DYK section of the main page is horribly unbalanced with respect to fields of study and human endeavour. Anyone who puts forward an article on a technical-scientific phenomenon should be praised to the skies, I think. That hook for Islanding was interesting just by virtue of being on such an under-represented topic, I think. I don't have the educational background to have been able to review it, but we should all be really leery of jumping from "I don't know anything about this" to "This is boring." And that, I am afraid, looks like what you're saying. Which is why it's good to have lots of different people reviewing :-) --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    (supporting Yngvadottir) There is a tension between what DYK is supposed to reward (creating new encyclopedia articles) and what we give incentives for (creating a lot of articles and DYKing articles that get a lot of hits). You can write articles faster and get more hits writing about Lady Gaga than about JS Bach, maybe even come up with punchier hooks as well, since Bach doesn't have a meat dress or a PR rep. Sharktopustalk 13:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    (supporting Yngvadottir) Though I've also done my best to be polite in my interactions with you, Tony, but your comments have done a lot to rub me wrong from the moment you introduced your needlessly-hostile "lame index" to tell editors how "lame" their writing is. (Why not "Interest Index"? Well, because that wouldn't have been insulting enough to the editors involved, apparently.) I respect your diligence in trying to improve hooks for the main page, and I've done my best to increase my own rigor in checking grammar and encouraging editors to make their hooks more engaging per your request. At the same time, I feel like every DYK has four steps now: 1) create article; 2) nominate article; 3) receive review; 4) argue with Tony about what he thinks is interesting/proper phrasing. You're introducing issue upon issue (interest level per the Tony Test, wikilinking in hooks, checking of related articles to the hooks) as requirements without attempting to build a consensus on any of them; rather, you just appear to insult those who don't fall into line with your new rules.
    Peraonally, I'd feel better about your efforts here if you'd start working more directly with nominators and editors to improve hooks, notifying them when you've posted concerns and suggesting alternatives rather than dropping a comment and leaving that involved process to other editors. I also wish that you'd agree to the request of multiple other editors to help out with formal reviews instead of this "hit-and-run" approach, as opposed to just calling that request "inept". (I'm getting particularly tired of reading reviews from you on the model of "I don't mean to be rude, but {insult)". Your comments imply at times that you see yourself as the gatekeeper for DYK quality--the one man standing between good hooks and the "f---ing mess" you think the rest of us are creating--but this would be a lot easier if you'd realize we're also well intentioned editors, working hard to try to build quality content within the 'pedia. I hope we can work together better in the future. Khazar (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    Now that my undue frustration has had a minute to cool, let me add that I don't think any of Tony's concerns are necessarily invalid ones. It would be useful to add a bit of guidance about Wikilinking policies for hooks ( I don't know that I'd go quite as far as he would in their removal, but that can be discussed). His concern about lousy articles getting a free ride to to the front page also makes sense, as do his efforts to add context to hooks that may lack it. And of course he's right that where possible, it's good for us all to focus on creating the hookiest hooks in Hookville, even if we dispute what those hooks might consist of. And, as virtually everyone here has noted whether frustrated with or not, Tony's made a lot of hooks on here a lot better. I guess what I'd suggest is that we try to move some of these discussions to this page, separate them into individual issues, and try to build consensus on them on the level of policy, rather than repeating their battles across a full week's worth of individual hooks. Khazar (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Tony: Perhaps you'd be willing to help create a guide to help DYK reviewers know what they should be looking for? I've got one started at User:Cmadler/sandbox/DYKreviewguide, and while I've previously issued general invitations to any editor interested in DYK to assist with this, I'll take this opportunity of specifically inviting you to help with the guide. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

    I do not agree with Yngvadottir's proposed rule. Every constructive comment is a review, even if it doesn't have a {DYKtick} in front of it, and making a rule that people can't comment on a nom unless they want to pass or fail it would not at all be conducive to collaborative editing. As for the points raised that right now lots of editors are stuck reviewing topics they aren't knowledgeable about or interested in (a point that I don't think is even relevant to this discussion) and that a lot of people comment without reviewing, both of these were true long before the "quid pro quo" system was implemented and long before Tony became active here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

    As for the point that "These comments then discourage other editors from becoming involved in reviewing those articles because it looks as if another editor is already handling it", the problem there is from other people misunderstanding the review process, not from the commenters. There is and has never been a rule that only one editor can "handle" a hook, there is and has never been a rule that other editors can't chime in or even do a full review when some other editor has commented before. This problem can be easily solved just by making newer reviewers aware of this fact, rather than by introducing some new rule barring people from making constructive comments. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

    I see your point, but I wasn't trying to say above that editors should be barred from making additional comments entirely; only that they should refrain from doing so until an initial review has taken place, particularly if they're not interested in contacting the article's nominator and working with her/him to fix the issues of concern. Since most noms are reviewed in the first 24-48 hours, that'll still allow about a week for constructive comments and double-checking from other editors. (I regularly add such comments myself).Khazar (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    I didn't propose the rule change. But I do apologise if my style in responding to points here has led anyone to think I am using this discussion as a coatrack for griping about the quid pro quo requirement. I think I may have given that impression in responding to the suggestion that there is a universal standard of interestingness in hooks. However, I don't believe anyone has suggested that people should not be allowed to comment on a nomination - the suggestion made was that the first comment should be on the merits of the nomination. I do maintain that the Suggestions page has been getting off track, which is not good for any talk page. Its purpose is for proposing articles and hooks and evaluating them/discussing how to improve them according to the DYK rules. Getting off-topic has a deleterious effect. A lot of nominations have been just sitting while tangential matters are discussed first. Elsewhere on this page people are talking about clearing the resulting backlog. This is not a good thing, and the solution to it is some form of refocusing of discussion on the Suggestions page on its purpose. Whether that takes the form of an added rule or not, I don't care. But nominations have been languishing, and I don't think the solution is to tell reviewers yet again to review things. Reviewers do have a choice of what they review. (And so they should - it would have been dishonest of me to review Islanding, I don't know the first thing about electricity installations. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I can recognise this "it's just a matter of your taste" argument from FAC five years ago. Another version is "it's subjective". Well, sorry, we'd get nowhere if we knocked over critical comments that way. When I point out that a hook lacks a focus of interest, it's usually obvious, or I'm explicit about it. There was outrage at FAC when the quality of prose, and of referencing, became a serious issue. It took a year or two, and some nominators were quite nasty about it. But we held out. People always complain at the start when others come along and make critical comments. Please don't object to critical assessments of hooks (or articles) by reviewers without saying why they are unreasonable.

      I must remind you that these hooks, and the exposure of the DYK article, is on the main page of the fifth most visited site in the world. It is a great privilege to have your DYK hook and article exposed in this way. Most WPians don't get this kind of instant exposure. Quality control needs to be better accepted in the process.

      "the person proposing the hook doesn't know where they stand"—I don't understand why not. I do notice that some nominators just slap up a hook and never return, or perhaps return once; that should be discouraged. "A lot of nominations have been just sitting while tangential matters are discussed first." Why? That's not the fault of reviewers: the nominators put the hooks there in the first place; why blame quality control? The rules should encourage both nominators and reviewers to return multiple times to address reviewers' comments, if necessary. The coloured ticks: I usually don't add one when I'm not happy with the hook or the article and have said so. I'm expecting the nominator to return and fix them, or to say, yeah, I like ALT2, etc. Then I might add a tick. There has been a practice of quick and dirty slap-up, check length of article, accept any old hook without regard to the fundamental aim of DYK, and tick. If the throughput is too high (6 hours is incredibly quick turn-around), then make it three shifts a day, not four.

      Some article are just not good DYK material, I've found. The islanding article is hard to understand; how to make a good hook out of it? The fossil article currently nominated is hard: I've thrown it back to the nominator, who knows the topic. If a nominator can't come up with an accessible, interesting, punchy hook, I say find another article.

      I had in mind producing a click-and-show tutorial page to train editors in producing interesting hooks, according to the rules. I could proceed; however, I'd need feedback, criticism, by regulars. It's not an easy thing to do, but it's important enough to invest some energy in—I think a fascinating skill-set is involved in hooking; otherwise, I wouldn't have delved into the process. Tony (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

    Points taken. Obviously I'm in favor of quality control, and would be glad to help toward that end. Already I regularly read through additional hooks and articles headed for the main page, even when they've already been reviewed, and make changes where I can. But I think part of what's causing friction here is that different editors have a different idea of what that quality control is going to entail. You seem to be raising a number of topics at once in your comments: how thoroughly the DYK articles are being checked; whether hooks on less popular/quirky topics should be included at all; how much context DYK noms should be required to give as to the rules of sports, definitions of technical terms, etc.; whether unreviewed articles should be allowed links in the hook; and even whether anything but the article title should be linked in the hook. And without attempting to build a consensus on these policies first, you've been asking reviewers to debate these with you nomination by nomination, often in aggressive and borderline-insulting language. I'd be interested to hear your proposals in all of these areas, but I think that this page might be a better place to hammer out that conversation than individual nomination threads. (I'd also suggest trying to break them into individual issues where possible for a clearer and more helpful discussion).Khazar (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    Tony: A personal reply because your responses are still all about you and your tastes. I'm afraid I have to disagree both that your taste represents what we should all aim for, and that the Featured Article programme is a valid analogy. I do not think you appreciate what DYK is about. One big difference between it and other Wikipedia projects - possibly the most important - is that it has a deadline. Articles have to have been created or massively expanded 5 or at most 6 days before. I too appreciate your motivation, and of course in this collaborative effort, one must be prepared to work with others - and should welcome their input. But you keep demonstrating that you do not appreciate the purpose of the Suggestions page discussions, saying that you generally do not give a tick or other symbol. If you do not do that - or do not look at and review the article itself - you are getting in the way of the collaborative process by interposing your own concerns. I don't think that's the best way to get your objections to the current level of DYK hooks heard, and I am still saying you in essence saying that you are the arbiter of what DYK hooks should look like, or even of what articles should make it to DYK. That is not collaborative, and makes me personally less inclined to accept your judgment that we are doing a bad job of reviewing articles or writing hooks. Also, I have personal experience of working with you on the hook for my recent double nomination. I took your comments under advisement; I suggested compromises and gave my reasons; I accepted a revised hook from you - and you still neither reviewed the actual articles nor stepped back so someone else would. I do think you mean well, but I do not think you read and thought about the DYK rules when you edited them. I don't think you understand why the 5 symbols matter, or you wouldn't be saying you don't see why editors would not know where they stand when you don't use one of them. Please consider the nature and purpose of DYK. Because you are working determinedly at cross-purposes with it and in my opinion casting unwarranted aspersions. And this is an extremely active project with numerous editors looking at the hooks; I do not think a tutorial on how to please you, personally, with hooks would be any improvement over that collaborative process, which is far better suited to interesting a wide readership. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

    I don't think it's fair to just single out Tony because he is not the only user who is commenting without doing a full review. While Tony focuses on the interest level of hooks, KevinMcE focuses on the wording of hooks without doing a full review (often demanding greater context or sports definitions). Similarly, Lightmouse often checks for technical features (such as measurement units in the article) without doing a full review (though lately, Lightmouse has been adding a helpful Unit check preface at the front of the comment to make it clear it's a technical thing). They're each trying to help DYK hooks or articles but just not doing full-on reviews. OCNative (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

    Exactly. The featured-content processes would be ghost towns if we didn't have reviewers who specialise. You can't conduct this process, either, unless the environment is more encouraging for editors to come in and specialise. Frankly, the sheer volume of noms is troubling—it's a waterfall that has been allowed to evolve without proper quality control: the first step is to encourage reviewers reviewers who will spend time travelling through the noms picking off just one or two aspects in a whole lot, then return a day or two later to carry it through. Remember, it's a partnership between reviewers and nominators. The review-all-or-nothing idea that has been espoused here as a knee-jerk reaction is guaranteed to keep reviews superficial and totally inadequate—to further shift the quality-control process towards almost total reliance on a perfunctory, mundane task that nominators feel they have to go through for the sake of eligibility. We need a combination of both inputs, but I'm keen to end the fiction that if a nominator has skimmed through an article and hasn't scrutinised the hook for the interest factor (required by the rules), it's "ready to go".

    I'm surprised at the level of hostility ("aggressive and borderline-insulting language").

    "You seem to be raising a number of topics at once in your comments ...."—Yup.

    "One big difference between it and other Wikipedia projects – possibly the most important - is that it has a deadline."—Oh, I know about deadlines. I've been roped into heavy commitments for rolling out the weekly editions of The Signpost, with a lot of humdrum fiddly cutting and pasting, fiddling; where there's a demanding and excellent managing editor (pokes at me over tiny details, journalistic misjudgements, mistakes in copy-editing—and a good thing, too), and where readers complain if the edition is 12 hours late ... not to mention criticising us for other "shortcomings". One reason The Signpost is pretty good, IMO, is because we react positively to critical comments. So please don't lecture me about deadlines.

    "your responses are still all about you and your tastes"; "I have to disagree both that your taste represents what we should all aim for"—framing critical comments as "personal taste" was a defensive technique they used at FAC for at least two years, quite ignoring the fact that the basis of the criticisms was technical; almost all DYK critical comments have a technical basis. Of course there's some room to move, some subjectivity involved, but that should be worked out by interactions among reviewers and nominators. The other reaction at FAC was "Go fix it yourself and stop complaining". That was five years ago, and fortunately, the FAC process moved on from that years ago. I can see exactly the same pattern here. Nominators need to take more responsibility for working to improve their articles and hooks, and they need to exercise their skills by more in-depth scrutiny of other noms. I do believe an instruction to both nominators and reviewers is in order, suggesting that it is sometimes necessary to return to a DYK nomination a number of times to address comments. Tony (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

    Hi Tony, you seem to have addressed my main issue with "yup" here, so let me repeat my concern and then I'll step out regardless of response. The largest issue I see is that you've declared that several new rules need to be enforced at DYK without building a consensus for them, and you're working to enforce them on individual nominations without discussing them with other editors first. Some of these aren't Wikipedia policy as the consensus on this board currently interprets it. The wikilinking is a good example of this. You raise some interesting ideas about a requirement to check non-nominated articles we wikilink to, or reducing wikilinks in a hook far below the norms of WP:LINK, but rather than open that discussion here in a more formal way, you've made us respond to your proposed reforms on this hook-by-hook in reviews, which is frustrating for other reviewers and not particularly conducive to long-term policy change.
    I understand that you feel a new set of rules needs to be developed, and as I said, I think it's a discussion worth having. If you want evidence my good faith, look no farther than the thread "A Thought" below, which I initiated as a spin-off of this conversation specifically to aid with these concerns. This proposal would make lengthier, more collaborative reviews of the type you're looking for more efficient (and therefore possible) by encouraging Watchlisting and longer threads for individual noms. All I'm saying is that I wish you would use this board as a starting point for your proposed changes and build a real consensus first, instead of trying to impose your new rules hook by hook. (Obviously, I'll be glad to abide by the views of the consensus in reviews of hooks; I just want us to get to that consensus first.) Cheers, Khazar (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, Tony, I understand that you think there are serious problems with DYK. What you seem unable or unwilling to recognize is that DYK is different from FAC. You keep saying you pushed through your changes there. That is irrelevant. Featured articles are Wikipedia's best; DYK articles are some of Wikipedia's newest. There is no reason to apply comparable standards or make arguments from similarity about the two. I am sorry you find my pointing this out to be objectionable. But makes your argument shaky, and it becomes only shakier when you continue to aver that we all must agree with your taste. I do see other people commenting on only one facet of both articles and hooks - but I don't see them setting their critiques up as a pseudo review or a mandatory extra step or saying DYK is fundamentally broken (that it "makes the Main Page look like a f...ing mess"). Nor do I see them stating repeatedly that reviewers are not doing their jobs. Yup, I welcome extra eyes on my articles. As I said in thanks to the person who finally actually reviewed my last nomination, you never know what you've missed. If you see hostility in response to you, I apologise for whatever my share may be - this is a highly collaborative part of a collaborative project, and I don't want to be rude myself right back. But your personal belief that DYK is broken is misinformed and rests on invalid assumptions and has long since crossed over into bullying. I am sure this was inadvertent and therefore continue trying to clarify the situation. I do apologise for my lack of expertise in the forms of rhetoric you expect; styles do differ, after all :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    Hardly worth replying if you're going to "step out" regardless.

    "which is frustrating for other reviewers"—Where? Who? What is the basis of this supposed frustration?

    "I understand that you feel a new set of rules needs to be developed"—I'm not sure about whether new rules are required. The overlinking thing is long-established on en.WP. We have style guides, and if they apply to the articles, why don't they apply to hooks? And last time I looked, there was no rule that you have to link everything in sight.

    Watchlisting: it's problematic that you can't watchlist

    "I wish you would use this board as a starting point for your proposed changes and build a real consensus first, instead of trying to impose your new rules hook by hook." In what respect am I imposing new rules? Which ones that don't already exist?

    "you pushed through your changes there"—well, no, it was me and quite a few others; you're painting me as some kind of obsessive, which is not fair.

    "There is no reason to apply comparable standards [to FAC] or make arguments from similarity about the two." I'm not applying similar standards ... I presume you mean to the articles? But these are getting main-page exposure, don't forget. If I see obvious things that need fixing, why am I not allowed to point them out? Or is the whole point of DYK to wave through bad articles and expose them on the main page? You're being very discouraging to me as a reviewer; it's no wonder this seems like a closed shop. Don't you want broader community input into the process?

    "you continue to aver that we all must agree with your taste"—where?

    Oh, now I'm accused of writing "pseudo" reviews, and imposing "a mandatory extra step" in the process. Ummm ... well, what is the purpose of the reviews?

    "But your personal belief that DYK is broken"—I think it needs reforming; where did I say it's "broken". You're dramatising to suppress my contributions.

    "has long since crossed over into bullying"—I rather think that you are bullying me, right here and now. Where do I bully, or is bullying just your drama-fest word for critical comments? Tony (talk) 11:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

    Hi Tony, to try to wrap this up, let me just answer the question that appears to me to be the nub here: "In what respect am I imposing new rules? Which ones that don't already exist?"
    • You've argued for a much tougher standard on "boring" hooks than previous consensus, I think. Obviously there are hooks that can be improved in this respect, and you know from reading over the page that you and I both work hard to do this, even if we don't always agree. But you've also said several times something to the effect of "some topics are just not DYK material", to which you appeared to receive a lot of resistance and little agreement when you first posted the statement. This is a conversation worth having, yet you seem to have continued to apply this standard to articles as recently as yesterday without bothering to build consensus for it first. For example, two days on a hook about a prehistoric mammal family, you voted to delete, rather than reform, the nomination with the comment: "Hook seems pointless. Blades to molars? Wake me up when it's over." (OC appears to have later switched the icon, but given the unconstructive tone of the statement, it's hard for me to see why (s)he did.)
    • Hook wikilinks have previously followed the rules at WP:LINK, I think. You've done a good job catching some overlinking, but your standards appear to be radically more stringent than those at WP:LINK. In recent days I've seen you remove links from hooks that included the name of a director of a cited movie, the city where a monument stood, or the name of a team in a Major League Baseball hook, as well as Major League Baseball itself. Other editors have then had to come by and replace these. To give an excellent "concrete" example, two days ago you took the hook
    ... that the world's largest concrete monument is a fountain located in Lincoln Park in Jersey City, New Jersey?
    And quite rightly and usefully delinked concrete and monument, but also delinked Jersey City, which is (to me) a no-brainer link to include for a Jersey City park; another editor had to then go by and add this back in. This is no big deal in one case, but it's been happening in many cases, and it's against the policy of WP:LINK as I understand it. I wish you'd open a discussion on this issue on this page and take the pulse of consensus rather than revising all the hooks based on your singular interpretation.
    • You've pushed for removing links at times by saying that unreviewed articles shouldn't go to the main page; this is a rule I've never seen listed at DYK. It's an interesting subject to raise, but not standing policy as I know it. Again, it's a discussion that's probably better to have in one centralized place and build a consensus on, rather than repeating the debate hook by hook.
    You say you're surprised that your edits haven't been received with more open arms, but if I went over to Featured Articles and told them that they were a "f***ing mess", that much of their content was regularly "lame", that they were an embarrassment to the main page, that I knew their rules better than the established editors there and had some important new ones for them too, and that I was going to start applying my new rules article by article, what kind of reception would I get? It's just not how civility works.
    So that you don't feel that I'm trying to drive you away, let me reiterate one more time that I value both your opinion and your work, and I do hope you stick around. I've tried to extend you plenty of olive branches in the above comments, noting that I admired your diligence, that I thought you'd significantly improved a number of hooks, that I'd be glad to join a discussion of your proposed reforms, and that I had even initiated a discussion of major page overhaul that would make the kind of extended nomination review you're looking for more practical. I don't feel I'm seeing much good will in return, but rather repeated suggestions that I and anyone who disagrees with your approach must just not care about quality. (Take a look over the number of hooks I've requested changes to on this page over the past two months, the number of nominations I've rewritten myself for their prose and citations, or the number of quality articles I've sent through myself, and then let me know if you still think that's the case). So I guess if I had to write a wishlist, it would be that you'd A) chill out a little bit and realize there's other well-intentioned editors here you could work with, instead of an army of evil Wikigoblins sabotaging the main page; B) acknowledge that in an area devoted to encouragement of new content, it's particularly important to be constructive with nominators while still maintaining rigor; and C) slow down for a day or two to check consensus on your interpretations of policy, such as the link issue or the "boring topic" ban. I realize we may be past the point where any of these ABCs can happen, but here's hoping. In any case, I'm long overdue for that wikibreak I promised myself (five days ago!), so I'll be out of your hair either way. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    PS To emphasize one more time how much I do admire some of your reviewing, Tony, edits like this [9] strike me as exactly what we should all be aspiring to here, and the sort of feedback I wish I was more often giving myself. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    That's a good example by Khazar, but I also think you go overboard sometimes Tony, such as I just read where you said link only the DYK article and on the copyediting comments you often seem to want to make these new articles mini-FAs. BarkingMoon (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

    I checked page views: Islanding, where Tony1 condemned the topic and the hook as hopeless, received 1.8k views (good by any standard). My double nom received 1,000 views for one article and over 1,000 for the other (split over 2 days), more than I expected for 18th-century London articles. I continue to not see Tony1's point that we should avoid links other than to the article itself: context is important for the reader especially in such a short snippet, and I do not agree that the purpose of DYK is simply to get the reader to click on the particular article. I believe it is (a) to encourage and reward new work, (b) to get clicks on anything within the hooks, (c) to make the Main Page more interesting and more representative of the encyclopedia by balancing out the news items on the other side. Moreover, when I look at the Featured Article segment of the Main Page, it's always liberally sprinkled with links. We've had a series of alerts of various sorts in recent months about the project being offputting to new editors and to people who want more collegiality, and DYK is the main locus for rewarding and being encouraging to content producers and not incidental to new editors. (I was completely unaware of it until someone nominated one of my first articles for DYK - and it was shepherded through teh process, with substitution of a less shocking hook for the one I myself would have chosen that was first proposed, all without my knowing. As a result I decided to nominate one myself when it included something I thought was interesting enough. I believe that experience is fairly typical. Now that people with 5 or more DYKs have to review a nomination, we see the newbies self-identifying and their presence is highlighted.) And I see Tony1's response above not getting the point about the purpose of DYK and that Featured Article is fundamentally not comparable. And continuing to aver that his taste is normative and that he will succeed here just because he is right, which is bullying - plain word in response to his earlier demand that I speak plainly. (Condemning people's articles and hooks just because he personally finds them boring and/or hopeless is also bullying, in my book, but I think his conduct in relation to the other DYK reviewers is a less disputable example based on his assumptions.) And conflating me and Khazar, which argues a failure to read carefully. :-) In any event, based on the arguments he's made, I think those statistics on hits for the 3 articles should be taken on board as evidence that tastes do indeed differ and DYK should not throw out its collaborative practice in reviewing and working on hooks and articles in response to repeated assertions that they're not working. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

    • My analogy with FAC concerns the tactics that nominators used for a couple of years to try to discredit reveiwers. They are exactly the tactics you are directing towards me, and they won't work. "And continuing to aver that his taste is normative and that he will succeed here just because he is right, which is bullying - plain word in response to his earlier demand that I speak plainly. (Condemning people's articles and hooks just because he personally finds them boring and/or hopeless is also bullying,"—It's that kind of aggressive language that will make people disregard what you say. Equating critical commentary with "bullying" is the oldest defence of mediocrity, and you can do better than that. And equating technical issues with "taste" is your other method; I don't buy it, and neither does anyone else who wants to raise standards here. Here, most nominators engage with criticism, especially when ALTs are suggested. On the contrary, it is you who seem to be conducting a vendetta against thorough reviewing. Tony (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_66&oldid=1139988528"