Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 99

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95←Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100Archive 101→Archive 105

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested deletion

Can I get an admin to delete Template:Did you know nominations/Russian monitor Smerch as I didn't realize that it had a DYK three years ago before nominating it again? I've blanked in the meantime to hopefully prevent any problems with bots and the like. Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ada Jafri

Can Ada Jafri's DYK be moved it to prep3, because prep4 will be on the main page from 3 am to 9 am in Pakistan... —ШαмıQ✍ @ 12:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes it can, but instead of moving your own hook 15 minutes after asking here, you should wait for an uninvolved editor to do it. We don't want editors to move their own hooks around in the prep-area. Btw - the prep3 will be on the main page between 21:00 and 05:00 (assuming that Pakistan is using GMT+5), while the prep4 will be on the main page between 05:00 and 13:00, are you still certain that the prep3 is the best option? Mentoz86 (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The hook that was swapped from Prep 3 into Prep 4 is about a Scottish architect, so the move means that will appear from midnight until 8am in the UK, so by moving their own hook, they have put the UK hook up throughout the night instead? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm sorry for that, I thought some administrator might move prep3 into the queue1 and I won't be able to change it then. And wasn't it for 6 hours? 2100 to 0300? And even if it is for more than that, I'm not sure if more people would see her in the morning... Tomorrow is Friday and most people will be out at work (and surely not using Wikipedia). In prep3, I can be sure she is there on the main page from 2100-0000 when most people can see her article. Well, if that is the case, Ada Jafri's article can be put into tomorrow's queue. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 13:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
How about moving this to prep1, where the hook will be on the main page from 1300 to 2100, instead of 0500 to 1300 in Pakistan. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 19:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Done. Special occasion requests scheduled for December 6 have also been shuffled to accommodate this change but will still appear on their requested date. --Allen3 talk 21:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Laura Hale revisited

Slightly over a year ago, I proposed to ban User:LauraHale from DYK because of a string of low-quality or incorrect nominations. The proposal was not accepted, but the closer stated "FYI, I have closed the discussion there as "no topic ban", but suggested that LauraHale might want to read and reflect upon the comments made (particularly by those who opposed a topic ban but could see problems with her articles); I also anticipated that DYK reviewers would in the meantime be extra-careful when looking at any nominated article of hers, in light of the issues raised. BencherliteTalk 22:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)" (Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 87#Banning Laura Hale from DYK?

Seeing a DYK of her, I became curious at the current state of affairs. I'm sad to say that I was too late to prevent it from being on the main page. This was yesterday posted on the main page, for hundreds of thousands of people to see:

The problem is that Daniel Caverzaschi never was a Spanish Paralympic alpine skier, not in 2006 and not in any other year. The fact that he was only twelve years old at the time of the 2006 Paralympics might have been a clue to this. The source for this claim, [1], doesn't make this claim, it discussed (Google translate) "Ramón Homs, Turin 2006 Paralympic and Caverzachi Daniel, one of the young Spanish securities in this sport and in tennis wheelchair." Homs participated in 2006, Caverzachi is a young talent... This isn't hard to find, but one needs to take some care in writing and researching articles of course. I don't get why User:Seattle didn't see this in the review either...

I hope that further review of other Laura Hale DYKs won't show the same problems, but it is disheartening to see that a ban proposal and one year haven't made any difference apparently, and that DYK is still not functioning as it should. Fram (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I admit that I made a mistake because of a bad Google translation. I have tried to be as diligent as possible to insure I make very few mistakes of this kind. Problems of potentially misunderstanding a source is why we have a review process though, to try to correct any unintentional insertions of non-factual information. It's also why DYK requires articles to be fully sourced. --LauraHale (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm surprised that his age didn't alert you to a need to check up on your translation, particularly as (e.g.) the long interview (in English) didn't mention his double claim to fame, which would be a point of interest for an interviewer. The Paralympic results page is another handy way of checking such things. The primary failure here is by you, not the reviewer. You must be more careful when using sources in a language that you do not understand. BencherliteTalk 14:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • older and wiser, i hope. google translate botches translations and it's unwise to use it .especially if it's for translatin more than single words, and don't use it all if ye r life depends on it. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I've seen some real horrors with Google translate. European Championships was chronically translated as UEFA. Archer was frequently translated as goalkeeper. My Spanish is good enough that I can pick up most facts, and know where there are issues. (Tios can mean aunt and uncle, or uncles. Hence, relative because source did not specify which one it was.) I also hangout in #wikimedia-es and #wikinews-es a lot asking for clarification on Spanish I do not understand. I also have access to native speakers that assist me when I ask. Plus, learning Spanish. Just sometimes things slip through and yeah, continual effort to improve. (Luckily, Wikipedia is a wiki anyone can edit and perfection is not required...) --LauraHale (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Unluckily, once a DYK has appeared on the front page it is too late to change any reputational or other damage that might have been done. Is it really a good idea for User:LauraHale to be writing so many articles where the only sources are in Spanish, if her Spanish language skills are not up to the task? Personally, I would not even review an article unless I was fairly fluent in all of the languages involved. Edwardx (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • @LH: U seem to have some safeguards, but the error in this case was as serious as it was elementary. You wer already aware that gtran botches yet still use it. it's not just wrong words, but wrong word order n other stuff. a lot can go wrong with machine translations, any of which can fundamentally alter the meaning. i often wonder at the output; sometimes get good chuckle from it. you need to revise the way u work. googletrans gives u a false sense of security so needs 2 b cut altogether. best alos not to use sources you can only half understand. -- Ohc ¡digame! 00:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This is yet another serious glitch in a long list by this user. I believe a temporary topic ban is in order. And why aren't DYK admins doing even basic fact-checking when the signals are there? Tony (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • In my experience, inept translations are a perennial problem for DYK. In some respects, I think this is something that "comes with the territory" for a feature that is intended to promote the creation of new content. I've reviewed a lot of DYK noms that were written by users who obviously had limited command of English and that relied primarily or completely on non-English sources. In my experience, that situation is more common than the situation of a native speaker of English (such as Laura Hale) writing articles based on non-English sources. There also have been some instances of articles written by a user who apparently wasn't conversant in either English or the language of the sources they used.
IMO, DYKers should not leave noms with foreign-language sources waiting around for a reviewer who can do an authoritative translation, as that seldom happens (and, all too often, those noms get "approved" by DYK neophytes who assume good faith). Do your best to try to understand the article and the sources, and ask the article creator to explain content that doesn't make sense to you or that appears to contradict your understanding of the sources. --Orlady (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, that one certainly counts as an inept translation, that created a material logical error that went undetected until well after the damage had been done. How this problem may arise might "come with the territory", but assuming that we all agree this is not acceptable, it still requires a community consensus on how to prevent recurrence. -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • My point is that (2) this is not a unique or isolated situation and (2) people should roll up their sleeves and attempt to provide thorough reviews of noms for articles that rely on foreign sources or that appear to be badly translated. All too often, when I've challenged DYK-nominated content because it didn't make sense and/or contradicted my inadequate translation of cited sources, I've discovered that the article creator had no more general background on the article subject than I did (sometimes less) and couldn't read the sources in the original language. --Orlady (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It's also been noted before that the standard of DYK reviews can also vary greatly, and this QPQ requirement doesn't help. Even if we accept that the mutual backscratching isn't a problem in itself, we're forcing potentially newbie contributors to be fast-tracked reviewers, and that it's a recipe for disaster when it comes to the Main Page. -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The fact that it's not just LH who screws up indicates that this may be systemic within DYK. Should we have a mandatory "Foreign Languages Task Force" to review such material? OTOH, in this case, it didn't require a linguist to spot the error but someone with an enquiring mind who saw a logical flaw. So the FLTF would be unnecessary bureaucracy. -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • However, Laura Hale is a serial offender, and her nominations need particular attention. I've noticed a pattern of article creation as an end rather than a means to an end: create and drop like a hot potato, let others clean up after you—that seems to have been the go in hundreds of articles. Tony (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's another indication that LauraHale shouldn't be writing DYKs, but it's still and again another failure of the DYK process to institute basic controls and checks. I have repeatedly offered to review any Spanish-language DYK that I am asked to review (I speak fluent Spanish). But quid-pro-quo reviewing, and no admin accountability, means that there is no one "in charge" to come over to my talk page and ask me to review them. Same for medical articles. It is concerning that DYK so often has repeat offenders, and nothing is done about them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI, if the issue is something as simple as lousy Google translations, I could easily verify if the Spanish sources actually say what the hooks are implying. As long as I am notified before the hook is nominated. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
↑ Naturally, that would only apply for the DYK hook nominations. I don't want to get involved in any Mr. Magoo-esque shenanigans (meaning that other parts of the article may still be inaccurate). - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you; so is there a DYK sub-page with a list of editors who are willing to review translations? Tony (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
That's an excellent idea, Tony. With, perhaps, a link within the review template itself to make it simple to access. — Maile (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
How about a link to the subpage in the "Cited hook" entry of "Eligibility criteria"? Something like "if your hook is sourced by a foreign source, please contact the users that are accustomed to that language at [subpage's name]". - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Translations redux

Over the years there have been several discussions about the actions of editors auto-translating articles from other wikis and using them to seek "credit" for their contributions. Search the talk page archives for "translation" for these discussions. A useful discussion on translated feautred article candidates is at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive33#Reliable_sourcing_from_different_languages. But one thing is clear-- it is the author's responsiblity to get it right. If the author is not fluent, she or he has no business translating, with or without machine translation. Kablammo (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone else having problems with the dablinks tool? It insists that the article I'm reviewing does not exist. Gamaliel (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I might have had this issue a few days ago. Matty.007 20:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I would guess that it's another issue related to Toolserver shutting down in favor of Labs, and this will be nonfunctional until there's a dab tool on Labs. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent additions format

The time and date in bold above each set - is that what time it was brought on or removed? It's not clear. Rcsprinter (barney) @ 09:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It's "removed" (archived), therefore often a different day from "appeared", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that answers my question.. What are those times and dates showing? Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 09:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Time of archiving, as far as I know, but this is a different question, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Admin help on moving an image file

Please see Noodles Hahn. All I know for sure, is two different images have the exact name. One is only on Wikipedia, and the other is only on Commons. The nominator wants to use the one on Commons but cannot add it to the article because of the name. I do not have file mover rights. Perhaps someone here can assist with this. — Maile (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

8 hooks?

Prep 3 has 8 hooks, intentionally so? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

they are now in Queue 2 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I've finished Prep 4, and it is now ready to be promoted to the queue, though I don't want to promote it myself in case I've missed anything. There are currently 39 accepted nominations, that should be enough hooks to build four new sets, though we need someone to have a look at these at these noms and promote them into the prep-area. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Poor quality slipping into the prep areas

Colleagues, by the time a hook and article get to a prep area, are they not supposed to have been checked out?

Prep areas 3 and 4:

  • ... that Tudor Johnny was one of the two men who designed the buildings (one example pictured), which formed the heart of The Granite City?

    This is very clunky. What is the comma doing there, and can't the ref to the pic be at the end?

  • Why is "Mexico", a commonly known country name, linked? I've unlinked it.
  • ... that the upper reaches of the Pennsylvania stream South Branch Roaring Creek has been described as "the best natural habitat in the [Columbia] county"? – First, there's a grammatical blooper. Second, can't we get around the square brackets in a hook? the [Columbia] county sounds very unnatural, another reason to recast ... does it need to be a direct quote, because if not, it can be fixed up in both respects.
  • ... that Sir William Lok brought French translations of the Gospels and Epistles from the continent for Anne Boleyn? – Hall of Lame prize for that.
  • ... that Cluny Castle, Aberdeenshire, was once owned by the "richest commoner in the northern part of the kingdom"? – again, are the quotes necessary? The hook doesn't even say who wrote or said it.
  • ... that each female Acropyga epedana ant carries a mealybug on her nuptial flight? – great hook, but who wants readers to divert to mealybug or nuptial flight before they get to the DYK article?
  • ... that Ada Jafri (pictured) is the first Urdu poetess? – Are you sure that claim holds up? The ref looks impenetrable and of uncertain reliability. Surely women have written poetry – whether published or not – in Urdu in all of these centuries? I find the bunched links at the end unforunate. Why not combine into one, piped "Urdu poetess"?
  • ... that Hugh Mosman, whose servant found gold at Charters Towers, lost his left forearm from a dynamite explosion? – possibly better "in a"? But I find the collision of ideas in this hook weird. Where's the connection?
  • ... that early in the history of veterinary medicine in the Philippines, a cattle plague began in 1888 and killed 600,000 animals from 1901 to 1902 alone? – too many years, and early in the history in 1888 doesn't work. Why not remove "began in 1888 and"?

Let's click on one of the articles – Veneration of Judas Thaddaeus (San Judas Tadeo) in Mexico:

  • what makes this a reliable source?
  • I don't know what the original Spanish was like, but the article needs serious copy-editing. "The center for this veneration is at the San Hipolito Church in the city center, for centuries the only church with any space devoted to this saint." Nice. Hyphen missing in the opening sentence, and "century" repeated within three seconds.
  • "He is considered ... He is considered". And by whom?
  • Second para (a whole section) ... every sentence is reffed to [1]. Not only is this tedious to read, I wonder what makes it a reliable source. [1]
  • "The church is one of few which allows" – it all needs work.
  • Not really an encyclopedic tone in places.
  • Date formats wrong (th).

Tony (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tony1, I'm afraid I'm responsible for nominating two of those: Tudor Johnny and Cluny Castle - I wasn't sure if the (one example pictured) could be placed at the end of the hook in case someone then felt it was one example of The Granite City? Maybe it should read (example building pictured)? I included quote marks around the "richest commoner in the northern part of the kingdom" to be on the safe side as it is a quote - but it appeared in a number of his obituaries and elsewhere. He was also referred to as "without doubt the richest commoner in Scotland" in a Times article. While I've been typing this it looks as if someone has just removed one of them from the prep area anyway! SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your constructive criticism Tony, I've done some copyedits and moved history of veterinary medicine in the Philippines to prep1, to have more time to improve the article or pull the hook from the prep-area. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Tony1... Yes, The proposition that she is the first woman to compose poetry in Urdu seems quite plausible. In the conservative society of the Mughal era and of the Imperial subcontinent, there were only men composing poetry... Never ever heard of any Urdu poetess prior to Ada Jafarey. And there are so many refs supporting the claim... She has received a good deal of awards (as the sources say) I was quite surprised when I found that she had no article on herself. We were taught in our textbooks that she was the the “First Lady of Urdu Poetry”. Satisfied? Regarding the bunch of links, I had made just one link, but VC said at the nominations page that it would be better to have two separate links. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 19:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
What's the general opinion about using quotations in hooks where they could be paraphrased? If there isn't a party line, I'm inclined to think that it should be minimised. Urdu poetess: we can only know of the published ones; and widely published at that. I find it hard to believe that no woman ever wrote poetry in the history of the language—even at a local or village level. Tony (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
In those 500+ years in the history of Urdu, poets associated themselves with the Durbars of Mughal Emperors, Nawabs, and Nizams. And all of these have been men. In the first place, women were mostly uneducated. And no folk poet (at least of those I know) has been a woman. But there is the possibility of women composing lullabies for her children... But that doesn't count. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 06:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Or publishing under her husband's or brother's name. But that doesn't count, I suppose. Tony (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:DYKSG#D9

I just realized I forgot to nominate Olivia Pope, which was expanded on November 9 because another editor got involved in expanding this article before I was really ready to do so. Thus today (December 8), I created Template:Did you know nominations/Olivia Pope‎ and applied for WP:DYKSG#D9-eligibility.

BlueMoonset has decided to my request for three reasons totally unrelated to the common method used to determine DYKSG#D9 eligibility:

  1. Tony, this is over four weeks old, well beyond the point that it might be eligible for an exception.
  2. We have 178 nominated hooks, so there is no shortage of available material; the problem is the lack of approved hooks.
  3. Worse, this is an article with a citations tag, with nothing to support the fictional biography—it's only plot sections that get a pass in articles like this—and the article still has major holes in it, including a completely blank second season section.
  • With regard to reason 1: Note that DYKSG#D9 says: "Five days old" limit should be strictly enforced only if there is a large backlog of hooks. Otherwise nominated article may still be approved if it were created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations." The date eligibility for this rule is created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations (Currently September 29). Rather than use the date eligibility stated in the rule, BlueMoonset has reinterpreted the rule saying that "four weeks is excessive" when DYKSG#D9 clearly states otherwise. DYKSG clearly states that my article is date eligible with 41 days to spare.
  • With regard to reason 2: In my experience, I have forgotten to nominate an article within 5 days probably about a dozen times. In all cases WP:DYKSG#D9 has been applied based on approved hooks although a strict reading of this rule does not say whether it is suppose to be based on approved hooks or nominated hooks. My request to employ DYKSG#D9 has never been denied when there was a shortage of approved hooks. Currently, there is a shortage of approved hooks leading us to employ 12-hour runs rather than the more standard 8-hour runs. I don't understand why BlueMoonset would employ the extremely unusual method of counting nominated hooks when what matters to keeping things going is approved hooks. DYKSG#D9 would never be possible if we ever counted nominated hooks because there are always a lot (over 100 or so) of nominated hooks.
  • With regard to reason 3: The article is not in the best shape. DYKs nomination page is for guiding people to improve articles. If we only approved articles that were perfect prior to nomination, we would have no hooks to use. I requested that he give me 48 hours to clean up the article and he summarily closed the nomination as if there is some rush to close the nomination before it is two hours old. If you want to motive me to clean up this article make it DYK eligible now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I would be very interested indeed if someone could point out a previous article that was accepted over four weeks after expansion, and from an experienced DYK nominator at that. We typically allow minor exceptions: a few days late, rarely as much as a week: this nomination was 24 days late. That's frankly beyond excessive. Since Tony is doing extensive quoting of D9, let me highlight a part that he hasn't: "Otherwise nominated article may still be approved"—that's "may", not "must" or even "should be". It's left at the reviewer's discretion. We have 178 nominations, which is a high level looking back over the past couple of years, when we regularly aimed for under 150. Finally, Tony claims that "In all cases WP:DYKSG#D9 has been applied based on approved hooks" which is simply untrue: in fact, I've never applied it that way nor can I recall any reviewer applying it that way, it's the total hooks that's mattered. D9 says "large backlog of hooks" without any qualifier like "approved": submitted hooks can always be reviewed, but if there aren't submissions, there's nothing available to approve, which is why you might want to get more hooks even if they were a bit long in the tooth. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

12 hour cycle

IMO time to go to a 12-hour cycle for a while - the queue/prep area is totally empty and there are only 23 approved hooks listed at T:TDYK. Gatoclass (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reset to a 12-hour cycle as there are very few approved hooks left at T:TDYK. It can be left at 12 hours for a few updates until the number of approved hooks increases. Gatoclass (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Why was the settings reverted to 8-hour cycle? --George Ho (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Page views would be interesting for 12-hour cycles. Tony (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

One overdue queue

We need a new set now. One of queues is filled; why is Main Page not changed? --George Ho (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 December 2013

Add a shortcut box to Template:Did you know/Queue listing T:DYK/Q. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary, as the shortcut is already listed in the {{DYKbox}}. Harrias talk 19:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
My mistake, didn't see it there. Withdrawn. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Deliberately misleading hook?

Currently in Queue 5: DYK "that Jan Metzler got Worms for his party for the first time in 64 years?" Obviously, this is an attempt for a pun on the common English word "worms". Is this really what DYK is about, making hooks funny or quirky just for the sake of it? Of course, there has been the great DYK "that Batman is half female", but that was posted on April Fools' Day, after all. Metzler's achievement, being the first conservative politician to have clinched Worms (electoral district), is definitely noteworthy, but it should simply be said so instead of artificially hiding that piece of information. What's next, taking a sightseeing guide about Worms, Germany that is simply named "Worms" and writing hooks a là "did you know that XXX is covered in Worms?"--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think that as long as it doesn't give negative associations from misleading, also, a play on words in the hook often gets more views. Thanks, Matty.007 16:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The hook is technically accurate and it gave me a smile, so I don't see anything wrong with it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
As the approver, I'm with Gatoclass and Matty Victuallers (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I thought it mildly funny, but then I'm not German. Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I am German and smiled. It's now on Portal:Germany, with your great and large pic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Addition to rules on hook?

A question came up recently (see [2] as to whether a nominator's own translation from a non-English source could be quoted in a hook (no published translation being available for the non-English source in question). An experienced reviewer, Crisco, commented that this has been allowed in the past, provided that the original non-English text was also included in the article. To make it easier for reviewers to deal with this point in future, should a statement covering it be included under 'hooks' in the DYK rules? Maybe something along the lines of: When a passage from a reliable non-English source has been quoted in an article and translated by the nominator because no published translation is available, a few words from the nominator's own translation can be quoted in a hook. I have a few qualms about this because there's really no way for a reviewer to know how reliable a nominator's translation is, but if it's being permitted on a judgment-call basis anyway, it might be better to have it covered in the rules. NinaGreen (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You can look at a machine translation and see if the editor's translation is sufficiently similar or appears inaccurate. If there's a problem, you can ping another enwp editor who speaks the language for a second opinion. EdChem (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
That's not really much help if the editor has also used machine translation.
It's also not really helpful to think that a machine translation is reliable. Looking at what I get as translations from the German Wikipedia, they should not be trusted too much. Latest example: "hochdramatischer Sopran" -> "highly dramatic soprano", - close but wrong ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Isn't it a rule that hooks should not generally include quotations? Why would translated quotations be an exception? Formerip (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
If there is such a rule, it's news to me, lots of hooks contain quotations, as long as they are in quotation marks they should be acceptable. Gatoclass (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no such rule - or it is not enforced: I use citations a lot for authenticity, example --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I've temporarily added this to the DYK rules for hooks, subject to further discussion here: If a passage from a reliable non-English source has been quoted in an article and translated by the nominator because no published translation is available, a few words from the nominator's own translation can be quoted in a hook, subject to the discretion of the selecting reviewers and administrators. NinaGreen (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The last list has disappeared from this page, so I've compiled a new set of 41 nominations that need reviewing. At the moment, we have 197 total nominations, of which only 19 are approved. Thanks as always for your reviews.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Prep area 2 - 1981 Iraqi embassy bombing

I reviewed and approved the Template:Did you know nominations/1981 Iraqi embassy bombing article by Plot Spoiler yesterday and now it has been promoted to Prep 2. I came to think though, that the approved hook that the 1981 Iraqi embassy bombing in Beirut, Lebanon is considered the first modern suicide bombing? might violate the Words to Watch and that the hook should rather state "that the 1981 Iraqi embassy bombing in Beirut, Lebanon was the first modern suicide bombing?"; or that is needs to be pointed out who consider it the first modern suicide attack. The article itself of course would have to be changed accordingly. Iselilja (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"Words to watch" was written with articles, not DYK hooks, in mind, and hooks need to be brief; it isn't usually necessary to attribute a statement in the hook as long as it is attributed in the article. In this case, I don't even see much need to attribute in the article since the statement is cited to three different sources all of which are available online. Regardless, it would be unwise IMO to delete the "is considered" phrase in the hook because that would turn it into an absolute statement when we can't be sure the statement is correct. Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
After some further research it appears there are other candidates for the title of "first modern suicide bombing"[3][4] so this hook may need to be pulled. Gatoclass (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I have pulled the hook until the issue is resolved, thanks for bringing it to attention. Gatoclass (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. These kinds of "was the first" hooks seem to need special attention unless it is a first in a clear line of something (first female defense minister), as it may not be enough to have one or more inline-cited reliable sources to back up the claim; one also has to consider whether there might be other reliable sources that have other perspectives. Iselilja (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

List of participants

With this edit, I have removed all the users who have not edited for over a month.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the remaining in the non-admin participant lists, User:The Interior, is now an administrator, I believe. Iselilja (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

New date request DYK rules

The DYK Nominations page basically has two sections (1) Nominations and (2) Special occasion holding area for nomination date requests in and outside of the special occasion holding area. While the DYK rules page addressed Nominations, it did not address date requests. Through the above 11 November 2013 to 5 December 2013 discussion here,[5] a date request section was added to the DYK rules. For editors nominating a hook and who also have a request to have the hook posted, there are two separate approvals. First the hook is approved then the date request is approved. The prior main DYK concerns with a requested date seemed to be a likelihood that an editor not connected with DYK may level claims of advertising/promotion at DYK either on this talk page or some other place. The language of the hook could be OK, it just that the additional posting of the hook on the requested date might raised concern by others not connected with DYK reading the Main Page and thinking something was wrong with DYK. That possibility can never be eliminated, but having date request rules allows DYK to point to the date rules and indicate that they were followed should the need arise. A second, less common, concern was the language of the hook itself when coupled with the date the hook would appear on the Main Page. That seemed to come up if the hook had a date element in it that coincided with the requested date (e.g. Hook: "... did you know that Josh Ranger's CD '''Here and Now''' that comes out on June 8th includes a voice cameo by Burt Reynolds?" (and the hook also is to be listed on the Main Page on June 8th). -- Jreferee (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Such a hook would appear very promotional and POV-y. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Jreferee, the example you presented should have "that comes out on June 8th" removed if it wants to be on the main page on June 8th. That is promotion if you put it on the main page saying it is being released today. Without that phrase, it should not be a problem.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
By the way, which criteria are used to determine whether a hook is promotional? A few weeks back, I complained about Dayana Kirillova being featured at DYK (including an image of her) at the exact time slot of her performing at the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013. All replies I received did not regard this as main page advertising.--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
That is the point of this. Promotion is a hook that advertises or promotes a commercial element of the subject. Based on your response, it seems that we have not made progress in cleaning up the rules in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Water-gas shift reaction

Please advise. I have posted a review for the Water-gas shift reaction DYK here. The expansion is insufficient. I could probably address most of the problems and add the needed length, but what would that do from a DYK project perspective? Obviously, if I do the work, I cease to be a reviewer (and possibly become a DYK-credit-eligible editor) but then the expansion happened over a period stretching the Swahili. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The expansion is pretty impressive given the size, and the content is of the sort that is less common at DYK. If you complete a 5x expansion, tidy the article up, and wikify it a little further, then ping me, and I will complete the review. Harrias talk 10:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, that is most kind. EdChem (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed article from prep area

I have removed Turtling (sailing) from prep area 3. The article, promoted at Template:Did you know nominations/Turtling (sailing), is not fit to be on the main page IMO and should get a complete rewrite to be acceptable. At the moment, it is a mixture of a how-to and a soap-box, both unacceptable under WP:NOT.

We are supposed to present topics neutrally, not in this manner. An article where the body of text starts with "Prevention is the first priority." is a good sign of this, and the problems continue:

  • "Practice capsize drills are (and should be) part of the training of every dinghy sailor." Should be? Not our business to state.
  • "[...], boats need to be appropriate for foreseeable conditions."
  • "Prevention and delay of turtling in dinghies is the highest priority"

"This should be adopted by US Sailing and other organizations "as doctrine."

The article is filled with how-to statements, e.g. describing how to right the boat or ship, e.g. "See Hobie 16 which suggests sitting on the rear of one sponson, which will upturn a turtled Hobie." and the whole "Practice and cure" section. Fram (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

A courtesy notice has been posted on the nominating editor's talk page. — Maile (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Though I don't share the same concerns as Fram, I have had concerns about this article (which is why I chose not to build an update around it), namely, that I was concerned about possible content crossover with capsizing, an article about a similar phenomenon; also that the hook "joke" didn't work for me. Gatoclass (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, Gatoclass, I must admit that while I ran the Duplication Detector as a spot check on the sources, it never occurred to me to run it comparing linked articles. Going forward, I probably will. You have a good eye to catch this. And I guess that's why we are all a part of the checks and balances in this process. — Maile (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The only duplication of the capsizing article is material I put into it after it was put in the turtling article. The "How to" is incidental and integral to the rest of the content. Definition (it's more than just a capsize, it is a capsize on steroids and one that has gone badly), prevention and cure are integral in the sources. This article went from 1,000 bytes to 30,000, so general similarity of subject matter has nothing to do with DYK. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
7&6, this documents your edits to Capsizing edits: 5X Turtling expansion began Nov 15. Permalink to Capsizing edits Nov 18 - Dec 8. — Maile (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, but quite frankly I find the discussion of both "turtling" and "capsizing" in these two articles to be confusing, and I find myself asking why we need two articles on essentially the same phenomenon anyway. Incidentally, I'm also a little bothered by the definition of "capsizing" to include a ship rolling onto her side, AFAIK "capsize" means a 180 roll while a 90 degree roll of a ship is known as "going on her beam ends". Regardless, it might be useful to get some members of Wikiships to look over these articles before promotion. Gatoclass (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Gatoclass, I am sorry that you are confused by the crossover in the definitions of capsize and turtling. These differentiations exist in the literature, and are well laid out in the sources in the turtling article. Part of the trouble is that different speakers have different levels of experience and needs. A Naval architect will say it and mean it differently than a journalist or a sailor or an historian or someone off the street. Language and its meaning varies in context, time and place (this is what I do for a living). As someone crafting the turtling article, I only sought to let readers know the distinctions, and point them to sources (including the other relevant articles). As someone who merely wrote a wikipedia article from multiple reliable sources -- John Rousmaniere is truly an expert to whom I would defer -- I am no guarantor of their harmony. I worked with the material I found.
In interpolating the articles I found, I was able to bring to bear my own experiences as a dinghy sailor, sailing instructor and offshore racer. I know my personal experience can't be cited in an article — I didn't do that, but relied on the sources — but my experience tells me the dichotomy and ambiguity are well understood by those who are involved in the activities involved. You can take that for what it is worth.
As I already said, this was a 30X expansion (of everything including references, not a new article).
If these articles should be combined, there is a forum, time and place to propose that. And with respect, it isn't in the DYK discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
"On her beams ends" is a synonym for a knockdown where the deck is perpendicular to the water. Sometimes used synonymously with "capsize". And your point is? In any event, it has never been a synonym for "turtling".7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
My wife tells me that in the Girl Scouts "turtling" means this. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I was aware of all those definitions and that page, and made a deliberate choice not to put it in the article. {:>{)> 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Basically, you've taken the quotes and opinions of the cited articles, and accused them of not being "neutral." The article is both balanced and neutral. it is full of pro and con, all based on the sources. You want a "neuter"ed article, not a neutral one. Does anybody else have the balls to question this attempt to deliberately dumb down an article? Or are we all eunuchs here? This is not just a question of courage or bravado here. It is about editolrial integrity. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I only wanted some more eyes on this before it hit the main page. If, as it seems, my concerns are not shared by a lot of people, then I have no objection against putting it back in a prep area. I don't like it, but, while that may be enough to delay it, it's hardly sufficient to bomb it. Fram (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Fram that this article is certainly not written in an encyclopaedic fashion, and contravenes multiple Wikipedia MOS guidelines. I also tend to agree with Gatoclass, that really, this seems like a content fork of capsize, though as 7&6=thirteen suggests, this is not the correct forum to decide that. Harrias talk 08:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Sam Bailey

Hi, is there any chance that this can be reviewed so that it can go up on December 18, when the single is released? I appreciate that this is short notice, so thanks for any help. Matty.007 13:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I (in general) don't like these rather promotional DYKs at all. "that X Factor winner Sam Bailey's debut single Skyscraper is released today?" is what I expect to see (with some additional adjectives) on billboards, not on DYK. The single, for what it's worth, is also only released today in the UK, AFAIK, not glabally. In general, I would urge DYK to strictly avoid anything commercial on a significant date, to avoid the impression that people can use Wikipedia to give their commercial interest (be it a musician, an author, a movie, ...) more impact and visibility when they want it. Fram (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Given that it'll probably be number one at Christmas, would a Christmas Day appearence (and subsequent reworking of the hook) be suitable? We'll know on Sunday one way or the other, but I doubt anything else will come close this year. Miyagawa (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
(Would be nice to have a change from X factor #1s) that is probably a better idea. Thanks, Matty.007 14:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Fram: that is largely what she is notable for, winning the X factor and releasing the winner's single. The hook reflected her notability, but I can see why the release date may not be needed. Thanks, Matty.007 14:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with e.g. "that X's debut single is the 2013 Xmas #1 in the UK" if that would happen to be the case. It just gives a less spammy appearance than the "OUT NOW!" aspect of the proposed one (with the release date match). (Note: I'm talking "impression" here, not "intention", I'm not trying to make the process of any editor involved). Fram (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, I can see what you mean. Thanks, Matty.007 17:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hook count bot is not running

DYK hook count bot has not updated for about a day and a half now. — Maile (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just notified Shubinator, the bot's owner. It will be restarted when he sees that note (or this one). Thanks for pointing it out! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Heads up on the Dec 18 Great Train Robbery

I just completed my first-ever full set in Prep 1. In Prep 2, I put The Great Train Robbery, which was in the special holding area for Dec 18/19. Someone might look at that and when it will appear London time, in case it has to be swapped over into Prep 1. I just didn't want it to be missed. — Maile (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Prep 2

The hook for The Great Train Robbery was called "mundane" by the reviewer. The final reviewer approved ALT1, but didn't strike through the original hook. The correct hook should be:

... that the BBC filmed The Great Train Robbery in Yorkshire, as it was the "most cost-effective and realistic alternative" to filming in 1960s England? Yoninah (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for catching this. I changed it. — Maile (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

need someone to look at a QPQ

A QPQ was requested at Aciliu Viaduct. However, new eyes probably need to look at that recent QPQ. Would someone care to comment on one or both of those templates, so those reviews can proceed, one way or the other? — Maile (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The review was not very good, but the article is reasonably good, and approval seems OK. --Jakob (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This was a drive-by edit, just a tic to get the QPQ credit. It is not acceptable, according to the threads above about QPQs. — Maile (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
What I meant was the article was worthy of being approved with a proper review, which I have done. --Jakob (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Applause! Good for you! I'm sure the nominator really appreciates your effort. — Maile (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

In relation to the non-MEDRS-compliant DYK that just made it through review (please see [6] - it's still up as I write this), a friendly reminder that medical claims require sourcing to be compliant with WP:MEDRS. Briefly: "Ideal sources...include literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." Secondary sources from the popular press are generally not sufficient. These can do damage in the real world, so please be careful. Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Prep 1

The image used with the lead hook (Angel Guts) currently in Prep 1 is not actually included in the article - could someone check please? Thanks! SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I moved it to Prep 2 without the image and will look for a suitable replacement lead hook for Prep 1. Thank you for being a second set of eyes. — Maile (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, bot! Harrias talk 00:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK will be overdue in one hour, and nothing is in the Queue. — Maile (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
There is now, but the queue will be empty again in less than an hour if someone doesn't build a new update. Gatoclass (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
There also seems to be a scarcity of reviewed templates right now. The hook update bot has not run for a couple of days or more, so it's difficult to tell exactly what is out there on the nominations page. It sure would help if some others reviewed some, and helped build some preps. Even though it seems by the conversation above that Fram is now relenting to allow Turtling added back to a prep area, I did the review on that one and therefore can't be the one to add it back. — Maile (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
If someone would be willing to teach me how, I wouldn't mind sometimes helping with Prep areas. Thanks, Matty.007 20:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Fairly easy. Just follow the steps at How to promote an accepted hook. Before you do a "Save" on anything, be sure and do a "Preview" to see if it looks like you think it should. You know, the promoted template from the hook turns blue if it's coded right. And don't repeat my last two mistakes - make sure any image is actually in the article, and make sure the hook has an inline citation in the article. Why don't you try finishing out Prep area 2. I'm going to be offline for a couple of hours, but if you think you made an error, it won't hurt. The prep area will be checked by an Admin before going to the next queue. If you open Prep area 2 template and scroll down on the left hand side where you see a bunch of "DYKmake" templates, that's where you put the article name and the article's author. If it was nominated by someone other than the author, you also fill out the "DYKnom" template. Give it a shot. I'll be back later and look at it, if someone else doesn't beat me to it. — Maile (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Do I need to check the nomination? Thanks, Matty.007 20:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Had a go at Template:Did you know nominations/Saying Grace (painting). Matty.007 20:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
And Template:Did you know nominations/Jesuit College of Ingolstadt. I didn't use the picture as it doesn't work so well being that small (in my opinion). I may call it a day there. Thanks, Matty.007 20:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've filled it. Would someone mind checking (I am not around from now until tomorrow morning, so apologies in advance for errors). Thanks, Matty.007 21:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Maile66: was that OK? Thanks, Matty.007 12:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
You must have done everything correctly, because the admin moved the prep area up to the queue.If you were asking about not using the image, not every image offered gets used, so that was OK. — Maile (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Prep area 3

Prep area 3 needs to be filled and promoted to a queue within the next 11 hours. Three slots remain open. Hopefully, someone here will take care of the remainder of that prep area. — Maile (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I've done it, and made a start on prep area 4 as well, but we really need to be putting out a call for more help in DYK, both in terms of reviewers and people to prepare the queue. -Kieran (talk) 06:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Well I am beginning to get the hang of it. Thanks, Matty.007 12:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, me too. Those were my first DYK queue preps, but they seem to have gone live OK. I had a moment where I was worrying that the crediting going wrong reported just below was my fault, but it sounds like it's just a technical error. -Kieran (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominations

Hi, is it just me that is noticing a worrying drop in nominations over the festive period? 1 from today, 8 from yesterday, 9 the day before that... Matty.007 18:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It's probably because people are busy running around buying presents and such. I think we're OK for now, though. We have almost three prep areas filled, and enough approved hooks to fill about two more, plus plenty of unreviewed hooks that look like easy reviews. We should have enough to go through to Christmas Eve, at which point we can draw on hooks from the holding areas. After Christmas, there'll probably be a burst of activity as people go on break. -Kieran (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
An then comes the WP:CUP. Chris857 (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Prep 3

The hook about Emil Rebreanu caught my eye and I looked at the article. Many of the refs are bald URLs. Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've pulled it out. You can pull it yourself next time if you like -- you just have revert the edit to the nomination and edit it out of the prep area.-Kieran (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of Todays' DYK Hook of Antonio Jesús Martín Gaitán

In today's (20 Dec. 2013) DYK section there is a "new" about a Paralympic athlete that "introduces" without any logic to the "Duchess of Lugo" ... in my opinion this is just getting absurd. Wikipedia is not Hello Magazine, and the way an article is introduced by another is being used in the most stupid way possible.

It is just an example but it can be detrimental for Wikipedia as a trusted source of info.

Thanks.

90.244.6.71 (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a valid criticism to me. Matty.007 11:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
It's always helpful to have the hook name, Antonio Jesús Martín Gaitán, so editors can consider whether or not it needs to be addressed. — Maile (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I promoted that hook, but obviously wasn't the one to review it. However, looking at it again, it's explicitly referenced in the article, and the Duchess of Lugo seems like a pretty noteworthy person, being the eldest daughter of the King of Spain. Furthermore, this being the English Wikipedia, I suspect that many (probably most) readers weren't even aware that the Spanish aristocracy still exists, so that a link to a Spanish aristocrat could be both interesting and educational.
Sure, Wikipedia is not Hello Magazine, but neither is it a sports magazine, or a TV guide, and yet there is plenty of well referenced, high quality content on these topics that finds its way to DYK. I might accept this criticism as valid if all the DYK hooks were about current events, or sport, or television, but the range of articles both for that cycle and in general are quite varied. -Kieran (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
It just seems like an unrelated fact to go in the article, a trivia fact; like saying that Michael of Kent watched Rebecca Addlington somewhere. Matty.007 17:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I dunno -- DYK is all about trivia, really, and it's quite common for articles to be linked in the hook that generate more interest than the actually DYK article. Also, she's more equivalent to Prince Charles, and the fact that she went out to Turkey to watch Spain play lends the game (and the main fact in the hook) more gravitas. At least, that seemed to be how it was written in the article (which really doesn't look like it had much other interestingly hook-worthy material). -Kieran (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not brilliant on the Spanish royal family I'm afraid; but I do know that there are many celebrities who watch the Olympics and Paralympics. Probably the best hook though, I was more questioning the inclusion in the article rather than the hook. Thanks, Matty.007 18:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Fast track request

I was wondering if someone could review Template:Did you know nominations/2013 FIFA Club World Cup Final and if an admin could promote it so it could appear tomorrow, the day of the final? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look. Thanks, Matty.007 16:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
With thanks to Matty.007 it has been reviewed, can an admin do the necessary for promoting it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I would promote it to a Prep, but I can't because I am involved (I'll do it in 2 hours if no-one else does though, as otherwise it will miss it. Thanks, Matty.007 17:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
This might be one where an admin has to do the promoting. Tomorrow's queues are already filled, so an admin would have to swap one out to put this there. — Maile (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, that was probably me filling lots of preps. Thanks, Matty.007 18:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Done. Harrias talk 22:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Promoting hooks

Hi, when I have been promoting hooks, I put the date as December2013, as I thought that that was what I should do, as I midunderstood the instructions. Although I will not make the mistake again (I hope), will it cause problems elsewhere? Thanks, Matty.007 19:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You're not supposed to be putting December 2013? Oops. I've been doing the same thing. Then I have been confused by the instructions that tell you "for the |monthyear= fill in the month and year under which the nomination was posted (not the current date)—the format for the month and year should be, e.g., December 2013" And for instance, if it already said "November 2013", I changed it to December 2013. If we are not supposed to do that, why are we changing anything since a month and year is already there? — Maile (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I took "fill in the month and year under which the nomination was posted (not the current date)—the format for the month and year should be, e.g., December 2013" to mean when the nomination was actually nominated, goodness knows why we need to do that (doubtless a DYK regular will be able to tell me at some point), but that's what I read it as. Thanks, 20:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, dear, I see what you mean. Maybe a seasoned promoter can read this and tell us exactly what we are supposed to be doing. Kind of confusing, isn't it? — Maile (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's the problem. At the minute, Preps are being built by Maile66, Kierano, me, with the watchful eye of Sagaciousphil looking for errors (apologies if you are also building them). However, we are all quite new at prep building, so any hidden mistakes we make aren't likely to be spotted for some time. Matty.007 20:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Matty.007, Maile, as far as I am aware, the date etc are all automatically generated, the only thing you need to do when promoting a hook is add subst: before the template name (which sets all the autogenerated fields and categories) and change the passed= parameter to yes/no.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Matty.007 21:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Ditto Gilderien, just add "subst:" and change to "yes" or "no", no date needed. Harrias talk 21:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Harrias, would you mind carrying out the queue edit in the above section please? Thanks, Matty.007 21:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Gilderien or Harrias, do you think you or some other long-time person here at DYK could change the How to promote an accepted hook instructions, because they currently tell us that we need to change the date when we promote. — Maile (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I have commented it out.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The instructions are much more clear now. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Empty hook in Queue 6

The last hook is empty; should it be filled or removed? --George Ho (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Now Queue 4 has one empty hook space. --George Ho (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The incomplete set is now on Prep 2. --PFHLai (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/A Boy was Born

I re-nominated the article after original nominator withdrew it. I wonder if the damage is done already since it's no longer new as it was when it was nominated originally. --George Ho (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot generated user talk page notification for DYK is in error

Hi all! As advised by Harrias (see his talk page), I ask for a check on the bot, which generates notification on the user talk page for a DYK update at main page. The DYK notification in my talk page is in error, also in some others as I can see. --CeeGee 10:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It's also in error on my talk page. The DYKUpdateBot is malfunctioning. Looking at the DYK archives, the malfunction seems to have started with the hooks for December 18, the one where James Caudy is the lead hook.— Maile (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it's to do with "User:Ameliorate!/DYKmake" being deleted? There was a retired banner put on Ameliorate!'s page yesterday. Maybe the ever so wonderful and skilful/proficient/adept my thesaurus is just to hand so if further compliments are required just shout! Mandarax can work some magic to create a replacement? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I just put a note on Shubinator's talk page, since he operates the bot. — Maile (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Mandarax always knows what he's doing... Matty.007 13:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
SagaciousPhil and Matty.007, thank you very much for the kind words. It was a nice greeting for my return after being away for a few days. Glad to see it's all working again. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Shubinator, is there some important reason that Ameliorate!'s DYKmake was being used over Template:DYKmake? (Are they different, but named the same?) The Template:DYKnom-based notifications seem to be going out just fine, so I'm guessing that one is using the one from Template space. It looks like the "give" link on the prep and queue pages in the DYKmake section is dependent on three of Ameliorate!'s (now-deleted) subdirectories: in addition to DYKmake it also calls out "User:Ameliorate!/DYKintro" for its "editintro" parameter and "User:Ameliorate!/DYKmake-insert" for its "preload" parameter, and neither of these are in Template space. An admin—possibly you, Shubinator?—is going to need to go looking, restore that deleted material to new locations where it's safe (perhaps somewhere in the DYK hierarchy?), and update the code that generates the "give" link on the prep/queue page so it looks to these new locations. Thanks to anyone who gets us back in the notification business. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm temporarily hosting DYKmake and DYKnom within my own user space, and I have been through the recent notices and manually fixed them to transclude from there until we can get it fixed properly. Harrias talk 21:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for averting the crisis. I've made a tally of the cleanup work here, if you see something I missed, let me know :) Shubinator (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and to answer BlueMoonset's question, DYKmake and User:Ameliorate!/DYKmake are different. DYKmake is the credit template in the preps and queues, User:Ameliorate!/DYKmake is the template placed on user talk pages. Since we're replumbing this anyways, we should tweak the naming here for clarity - suggestions? Shubinator (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
How about, DYKmakecredit and DYKnomcredit for the user page credits? Gatoclass (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Queue up

How could this get back into a queue?

Template:Did you know nominations/Emil Rebreanu

I don't know the procedure, however I believe the problems are solved now and it should go back into a queue (accidently pulled).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It is currently in prep 2.--Gilderien Chat|What I've done 23:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Now on Prep 4. --PFHLai (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doug Coldwell, I replied when you asked on my talk page that I had re-added it to a prep. Thanks, Matty.007 13:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Great! We are back in business. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk)

Assistance needed with oddity on transclusion

As per the instructions on DYK How to post a new nomination, "You may post (transclude) this same nomination to the article's talkpage....", I posted the nomination Chain Reaction (sculpture) to the talk page of the creating editor Viriditas. It's fine on the user's talk page. But on the nominations page, it has no "Edit" button and is all in reduced type. What happened? — Maile (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I did it, and it seemed to work OK. Thanks, Matty.007 14:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me. I meant to say that on the Nominations page, this one entry appears (on my browser) in reduced type, smaller than the other nominations. I can open it, but the type looks wee small. And it is not browser-specific, as I get the reduced type on both Firefox and Opera. — Maile (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Using Firefox and IE, looks fine. you sure that you have zoom at normal levels? Thanks, Matty.007 15:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. Even if I change the Zoom, in or out, with either Firefox or Opera, the type on that one nomination looks smaller than the rest. Hmmm. I guess what's important is that it looks normal to everybody else. Have you done this with any other nomination that I could look at? — Maile (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean by done this with any other nomination? If you mean post it to a talk page, I have just done it with 'The Taste' for you, here. Thanks, Matty.007 15:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Fixed. The problem was actually in the nom template previous to it: someone started a "small" tag and forgot to close it. When that happens, the tag will keep running on the nominations page into the following transcluded noms until one of them has a small tag that is properly closed, which would normally occur after the line with the info about who created and nominated the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks BlueMoonset. I couldn't see any size difference, not sure why. Ah well, all's well that ends well. Matty.007 15:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, BlueMoonset. — Maile (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Final hook P3

Hi, I think that the final hook in Prep 3 is OK, but would someone mind checking it please? Thanks, Matty.007 17:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks ok as a hook, but the last slot is usually reserved for a "quirky" one - I'll have a look and see if I can swap it around.--Gilderien Talk to me|List of good deeds 18:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I know, that was why I was asking. There isn't much to pick from to be honest, given that I like the pictures for one or two. Thanks, Matty.007 19:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

QPQ timing

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but it seemed the place most likely for the question to be seen. Is there a requirement for a QPQ to be recent? I have reviewed a nomination today where the QPQ review was done in June - is there any sort of time limit around this? --Bcp67 (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that, a QPQ is a QPQ as far as I'm concerned. Harrias talk 14:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I also don't see anything wrong, just look if the QPQ was used only this one time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Concur with Gerda Arendt here. Please look back at 2012 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive_82#QPQ where a number of DYK regulars spoke in the same vein about it. Poeticbent talk 19:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies, I'll bear that in mind. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The QPQ has to be done after the nomination is made, or at least on the same day, "retrospective" QPQs are not acceptable. Gatoclass (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh god, I wasn't aware of that. All my reviews have been retrospective and I have a little storage of older done reviews. So, now I have reviewed all those in vain? Iselilja (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
No, you won't need to do retrospective QPQ's for those already accepted. In checking the current rules, it seems that older QPQs are not disallowed, but I'm sure there were discussions about this when QPQ was first implemented and the consensus was that reviews older than the nomination wouldn't count. The reason for that is that there are people who have done hundreds, even thousands, of reviews in the past and if they could rely on their old reviews, they would never have to do a new QPQ, which would defeat the whole purpose of the scheme. It also becomes very difficult to tell whether or not someone is using the same reviews they have used as QPQs previously if older reviews are allowed, so either way I think the rules need to be clarified to disallow the use of older reviews for QPQs. Gatoclass (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
@Gatoclass – Where does it say that in the DYK main or supplementary rules? Nothing in the supplementary rules state that QPQs must be retrospective. As long as the QPQ is utilized only once, it's fine. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I already acknowledged that there appears to be nothing in the rules prohibiting it, indeed on the main DYK page it seems to allow it; however, all policy pages are subject to a degree of content drift not necessarily in conformity with consensus, and I distinctly recall an earlier discussion about this matter when IIRC it was agreed that older reviews could not be used for QPQs. Even if my recollection is wrong (and I'm probably not going to have time to check it today) I still believe older reviews should be disallowed for the reasons given above. Gatoclass (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Referring to me having reviewed "in vain", I was thinking about 10 reviews that I have done, but not yet used as QPQ. These are 2 from October and 8 from November. If there are no clear rule that prohibits older QPQs, I would like to be allowed to use these 10 old QPQs for future nominations, as I have chosen these method of "QPQ storage" in good faith and I have not done these reviews for fun (I actually hate reviewing). After these 10 QPQs are finished, I will avoid "storage reviewing" and do "timely" QPQs. I can put up a list of these 10 reviews at a user-subpage and mark them as "used" when they have been used as QPQ. I will add that I have done QPQs for all of my own articles that I have nominated for DYK, also the 5 first where it was not required. Iselilja (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Gatoclass, I think you are mis-understanding the concept. I don't think any of us are talking about using a QPQ for multiple nominations. We are talking about doing a QPQ in anticipation of using it for a nomination of our own (but only one of our own).--Kevmin § 17:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, in June 2012 I asked this same question and got the opposite answer. Personally, I have an un-used stockpile of 170 reviews, and until this week had not nominated a DYK since Sept 2012. Do you mean to tell me all my past contributions don't count? Seems a bit ungrateful to me. — Maile (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I remeber that discussion as well, and will often do a review before I am fully ready to nominate an article, as a way to make sure I have one for the nomination. I will also do reviews on multiple nomination hooks to be used for several of my single nomination hooks. There never seems to have been a problem with it before now, and Im not sure why it would be a problem at all.--Kevmin § 17:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Maile66: Okay, but going back to when QPQ was being organized, this issue was canvassed and I stated my view and while few commented, nobody objected to the approach then.[7] I have always worked from the assumption that this was the agreed-upon approach, if it's not then I think it should be because otherwise QPQ is wide open to abuse. Regarding your "unused stockpile" of 170 reviews Maile, with respect if we took that approach I would have an "unused stockpile" of literally thousands of reviews, meaning I would never have to do a QPQ at all and I wouldn't be the only one. That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the rule to me. Gatoclass (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
@Kevmin - As I said earlier, one of the problems with allowing older reviews is that there is no effective way of checking whether those reviews have been previously used for QPQs or not - it's a system open to abuse. If QPQs are only allowed for reviews after the nomination, their legitimacy is much easier to verify. Gatoclass (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
As noted by Harrias, one just need to check if there are more then one Noms linking to the QPQ in question, We are suppose to AGF, and I dont think that the possibility of abuse is that probable. Can you show that there has been abuse of this process?--Kevmin § 19:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Then put it in the rules. Either direction - make it a rule. Otherwise...it's just one person's opinion vs. another and leaves the issue open to unnecessary squabbles over a review. There's another way to look at it, also - incentive. Over this last Thanksgiving weekend, I helped clear about 10 reviews just because the need was there. I had not reviewed in months. And now we're told that a QPQ is not acceptable unless it's done the day of the nomination or after. Well, heck, why would anybody bother to help out with the backlog at all. Just do one on the day you need one, and let all that backlog pile up. Never mind the teamwork. Just follow self need. — Maile (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to not allow QPQ reviews from before QPQ was introduced, but I think anything since then is fair game. If you review a lot, then you have more than done your duty to nominate an article. I similarly will generally complete a review before a nomination. And Gatoclass, it's really not that hard to check: you just go the relevant QPQ, and click on "what links here": if more than one DYK nom links there, you can check if it has been used more than once. If only the DYK nom you came from appears, then it is legit. Harrias talk 18:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, when was QPQ added as a requirement?— Maile (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
It was added to the rules in February 2011. Harrias talk 19:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been actively participating here at DYK for over a year and a half, and this is the first I've heard of same-day or subsequent QPQs being the only acceptable kind. This may have been Gatoclass's original understanding, but it hasn't been that way in practice, and I don't think it should start now. Before anything gets added to the rules on QPQ timing, we need to establish a consensus here as to what the rule should be. Just looking at the DYK nomination form, the conclusion that one draws is that there is a reasonable expectation that a QPQ has already been completed prior to the template being filled out. Indeed, it impedes the review process if it has not been done, since nominations cannot be approved until that QPQ is submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Like Gatoclass, I actively participated in the discussion that led to establishment of the QPQ rule. The stated rule is vague on timing, but the expectation when the rule was created was that QPQ reviews would be done at roughly the same time that the new DYK nom was created. I realize that some users think they can stockpile reviews for months and even years, but I see that as inconsistent with the spirit of the rule, if not its letter. I don't think that the QPQ has to be done after the nom is submitted -- I think any review done within the previous week or so is fully consistent with the spirit of the rule. --Orlady (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

New rule going forward?

  • There seems to have been an understanding among some core contributors to DYK that reviews need to be recent to be valid as QPQ. However, this has not been codified and several contributors have not been aware of this principle; some like me have “stockpiled” reviews for later use.
  • I think it would be an advantage to make explicit in the DYK rules how old reviews might be before they are moot. This rule would then apply to reviews made after the rule is codified.
  • We might for instance say that all reviews made after 20 December 2013 needs to be used as QPQ within a week (or two weeks, one month or whatever timeframe) to be valid. If the consensus is that all reviews should be valid regardless of how old they are, this should be stated.
  • Iselilja (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I would oppose this. As has been noted, its easy to verify if a QPQ has been used in a nomination already. The "possibility" of abuse is not a reason to change what has been accepted as a valid practice.--Kevmin § 19:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
That's fine. But even with your position (no time-limit), I think we should codify the rule; so all nominators, reviewers and promoters know what the rule is (whether they agree with it or now). Right now, there seems to be a confusion. (I recently got an QPQ review invalidated as too old and had to put up a new). Iselilja (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Well said, in the fact that if a QPQ has to be within a certain date - or no date at all - it should be in the rules, not some vague concept dependent on a given reviewer's judgement. RFC required on this, perhaps. For what it's worth, the original discussion to implement QPQ seems to be Nov 2010, and continued Dec 2010, and a discussion on the effectiveness of QPQ was discussed in an RFC July 2011 — Maile (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem. What is the problem exactly? Why is it relevant when reviews were completed, as long as they were done properly? Gamaliel (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Gamaliel. There's nothing wrong with stockpiling QPQs: the purpose is to make sure other articles get reviewed instead of languishing forever. As long as reviews are being carried out, the date of a QPQ is irrelevant. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem is already here. The purpose would be to avoid what happened today to Iselilja on Shirley Erena Murray. She had already done a QPQ, but was required to do a second one on the basis her QPQ was too old. This should not be happening.— Maile (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anybody agrees with what Gatoclass is saying, and it doesn't appear to be official policy anyway. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah; and to be clear: I don't have a problem with putting that one behind me (and it was old, six months). But the fact that Gatoglass, who is an experienced and prolific contributor, interpretes the rule and consensus to be that older reviews are not accepted called for a clarification. So far in this section, the consensus rather seems to be that there shouldn't be a time limit. And I am fine with that of course (though I could also see a point of having some kind of limit going forward; though more in months than days or weeks). Iselilja (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I have to respectfully disagree with Gatoclass' proposal. By instituting such a rule requiring a QPQ to be new, you're basically de-incentivizing people who visit the DYK noms page to clear away the backlog (which, until recently, has been quite large at ~250 noms). Why would we even consider reviewing backlogged noms if they won't be allowed use that as QPQ in the future? Out of goodwill? Yeah, go figure. Instituting such a rule will only help increase the backlog of DYKs. Terrible idea! —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal because I don't see the point of this. As long as they get reviews being done, I don't think the timing is really that much of an issue. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I had always understood that they had to be done after the nom, though I'm not sure how strongly I feel this should be part of the rules. I also review at least as many noms that aren't used for QPQ as ones that are, & am unimpressed by comments like "Why would we even consider reviewing backlogged noms if they won't be allowed use that as QPQ in the future?" Given we are often still backlogged, why would DYK even consider a rule change (maybe) that would reduce the supply of reviews still further? Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm calling a spade a spade. I don't give a damn whether you're "unimpressed by [my] comments." You can choose to do whatever you want with your DYK reviews (none of my business), but I think I'm speaking for most here when I say that they have added incentive to clear the backlog if they could use their review as a future QPQ. And I don't see how allowing users to store QPQs from before will "reduce the supply of reviews still further?" One way or another, you're still assisting in clearing the backlog, either a previous one or a present one. Time should not make a difference when it comes to QPQs. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, I don't believe Gatoclass made a proposal. It was Iselilja who made this proposal. I see another glitch if the QPQ requirement has to be the day of the nom or later. Most of us pick a nomination subject matter we feel comfortable reviewing. What if nothing we understand is available the day of a nom? — Maile (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Can we please have a new rule that people who use the words "going forward" are banned from the Wiki for at least a month? Ericoides (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't like the idea of specifying a precise time period for a QPQ review, but it would be beneficial for the DYK process if the rules asked nominators to participate in the review process around the same time that they submit new self-noms. The wording could say "recent" -- that would encourage reviewers and nominators to discuss the suitability of an old review that is listed. IMO, people who insist that a 6-month-old review qualifies as a QPQ should be guilt-tripped into doing a new review. --Orlady (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Some suggestions for revamping QPQ

Someone has pointed out that it's possible to check whether a review has already been used for a QPQ by checking the "what links here" link. That's a good point, but I don't think it entirely avoids the possibility of gaming since a user could delink a previous nomination so it didn't show up at "what links here". I'm thinking maybe it's time we added mutual linking between the nom and the QPQ? - ie, not only would the nom include a link to the QPQ, but the QPQ would contain a link back to the nom. Then you would only have to check the history of the QPQ to ensure it hadn't been used for more than one nom. That way, "stockpiling" of QPQs could be retained, with an appropriate level of accountability.

I have also thought for a while that for the sake of increased accountability, QPQ reviews should be identified as such. As it happens, there has also been a debate for a long time about what exactly should qualify as a "review" for QPQ purposes. I think it's probably time we stipulated that more clearly, because we are all aware of the inadequate single-comment "reviews" that some users employ. I think I would be in favour of a requirement that QPQ reviewers complete a review to the approval or rejection stage, unless the review is completed by another reviewer or reviewers first. For greater accountability, which is sorely needed for QPQs anyway and which would become more important still under such a system, I think I could additionally support invalidation of a QPQ for an approval (or rejection) of an article or hook that is later found to have failed one of the basic DYK requirements, such as length, copyvio/paraphrase, hook sourcing and so on. In other words, a QPQ approval that turns out to have failed one of the basic DYK requirements would not be considered a legitimate QPQ so the user in question would have to do another. Thoughts? Gatoclass (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

There's something which I think is more common than the delinking scenario described above. Some users have linked to the article reviewed rather than the nomination page containing the review. (Current examples, which I fixed earlier today: Basil Valentine and Musikhjälpen.) Some users have also simply listed either the article or the nom page as text without a link. I don't think any of these were done with any nefarious intentions. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. The only problem that might arise is the fact that, if we do "stockpile" QPQs, they will probably have been promoted by the time we use them. That means the discussion would be closed and have the "Please do not modify this page" and "No further edits should be made to this page" notification sign at the top. Any suggestions as to how to solve this? —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't follow that, why would edits need to be made to a closed discussion? Gatoclass (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The DYK nom we review and "stockpile" would probably be promoted before we use it as a QPQ. Promotion would close the discussion, and (if I'm not mistaken) your proposal would mutually link our nom with the QPQ we reviewed. Doing so would probably require a "re-opening" of the discussion. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I absolutely support to make the rules about QPQs clearer. I also think it’s a good idea that only reviews that ends with a approval or rejection hook should be accepted for QPQ. The idea that reviews that are later overturned by those who promote may also be good, but I will point out that it probably will lead to older QPQs since a reviewer must then basically wait till the reviewed article has been on the main page to use it as QPQ and this might take several days and sometimes more than a week, which means it can take longer than the 5 days we have to nominate an article after it is started/expansion has started. This might actually encourage stockpiling since a stock of QPQs will be the only way to know you have one ready for the day you wish to nominate an article. Iselilja (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
If I've done a perfectly valid, in-depth review, I don't think I should have to wait a week or two for the nominator to fix the issues I've raised; I should be able to use that QPQ right away, not have to wait (and to have my own nomination delayed). The notion of having to stockpile reviews in order to avoid having my own nomination put on hold is frankly ludicrous. Quid pro quo here means review for review: I have done my review. We have never required that people stick around for weeks cleaning up after a problematic nomination in order to get QPQ credit, just that they fully review the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I support that a review started can be used as QPQ. I typically start a review when I want to nominate, and almost always have questions. In most cases, the reviewed article appears before the review of my nomination even started. - We can apply some AGF, and we check how a QPQ was done. Repeating: if it's a decent review I see no need to wait for responses from the other author and completion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure, starting a review can count as a QPQ. The point is that QPQs which are not adequately completed will be invalidated, so that users who fail to complete a review appropriately will be required to do another. It wouldn't necessarily hold up the original nomination, but it would hold up the user's next nomination if he still hasn't done the extra review. For example, if a QPQed article gets pulled from the queue for copyvio, the QPQ reviewer would be required to do another review for failing to check the original article properly. Gatoclass (talk) 05:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Gatoclass's notion -- that the reviewer must carry the review to completion in order to claim QPQ credit -- is a sure-fire recipe for (1) ensuring that QPQ reviewers won't tackle reviews that look like they might be difficult and (2) encouraging substandard reviews (because the easiest way to get QPQ credit is to approve the nom without asking hard questions). Sorry, but that's the wrong way to go. --Orlady (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
My issue on the stockpiling is not that people are deliberately doing it to have a QPQ ready, but rather that people who help out with reviews should be able to use any of those for QPQ. They should not have them disqualified as a QPQ based on a date that is not defined in the QPQ rules, which is what happened to Iselilja yesterday.— Maile (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Seems to me in all the discussion that happened in Nov 2010, Dec 2010, and July 2011, I have seen the debate on what to do about a failed DYK review. Many times an editor does not take a review through the entire process, yet those who only contribute to part of the review currently get to claim it as a QPQ. If it fails, does that mean someone who spent time to contribute to part of that review has their efforts negated also? That also has come up in past threads on this talk page. What if a failed review happens AFTER someone has claimed it as a QPQ and had their own nomination on the front page? There's no chronological priority for nominations to be promoted. I think revamping QPQ necessitates a consensus via RFC, to clearly define it so that going forward it is not dependent upon individual interpretation. Possibly because this is the holiday season, some notable contributors to the original discussion are not weighing in on this. Let's not finalize this until post holidays in 2014. — Maile (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This is all ridiculous. There is no valid reason people shouldn't be able to stockpile QPQs. To add a point that I don't think has been mentioned yet, this would seriously delay the already slow approval process of multi-article hooks. The only restriction on QPQs seems like they should involve a full review and not just some drive-by comments that only highlight one selected problem. A QPQ-valid review should touch on all the basic eligibility criteria. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I think we're missing the main point of the QPQ review. It was instituted because of a continual backlog of old nominations that needed to be cleared. Requiring new nominators to review an old nomination seemed to be the solution. IMO, it is not. Most newbies write a one-line "looks good to me" and happily submit their own nomination for review. This is not reducing the backlog at all, as in 99% of cases a more experienced editor must come along anyway and re-review the hook. Meanwhile, numerous editors have taken it upon themselves to review articles in batches to help reduce the backlog. If they are planning to submit their own nominations in the near future, they'll use some of these reviews as QPQs to satisfy the new rules. I think it's insulting to tell these editors that "we don't trust you" to use each QPQ only once. And Gatoclass's suggestion to limit QPQs to the day of the nomination or shortly thereafter penalizes these editors rather than rewards them for their good work of reducing the backlog. I agree that a QPQ submitted 6 months after the fact is a bit much. I also keep records of the reviews I do in batches, and I just erased the diffs for a dozen reviews from October. But I'm keeping the diffs for the reviews I did in the last 2 weeks in case I submit a nomination this week. If we keep the QPQ system in its present form, we should decide to give a time limit to the QPQ of 2 weeks, 3 weeks, or up to a month, but no more.
However, I think we should reevaluate the efficacy of the QPQ system based on the observation that newbies really aren't helping the system all that much. Instead, incentives should be put in place to encourage experienced editors to review. Perhaps an editor who reviews in batches could be "rewarded" for their clean-up work with a free hook for every 5 QPQ reviews? Perhaps a special userbox could be offered that would keep count of this editor's contributions as they review hooks and clear the DYK backlog? An editor who is only submitting one hook should still be required to do another review (with a time limit), but cleanup reviewers should be rewarded, not penalized. Yoninah (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I opened this section to propose greater accountability for QPQ reviewers, an idea which most users seem to support, however, it's quickly becoming apparent that greater accountability will not be achievable unless and until a working definition of what constitutes a QPQ review is arrived at, and that may not be as easy as it appears. So this whole notion may need a rethink, and I'm not sure I have the time to devote to it ATM. Gatoclass (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I just posted a DYK nom that the only thing holding it up was the QPQ review. I looked at a first DYK nom, but it was not ready to be approved. I would have had to engage in perhaps a several day discussion to bring the first DYK nom to a state of being ready. I wasn't sure whether beginning a QPQ review constituted the required QPQ for my DYK nom. WP:AGF would seem to say it does since there was no reason to believe that I would not complete my QPQ obligation. I spent a lot of time writing the article and did not want it's appearance on the Main Page held up due to having to way for a QPQ review to go to completion, so I found a second DYK nom that I could immediately approve. DYK did not always have a QPQ requirement. The QPQ process is a WikiProject compelling non-members into helping it out in exchange for the WikiProject helping the nom-member out. I'm not sure if other WikiProjects have a parallel system. Non-DYK members seem fine with the QPQ requirement and DYK does need help with the backlog. I agree that the first step is a working definition of what constitutes a QPQ review. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The notion that only a fully approved or fully rejected nomination can count as a QPQ review is a Wikipedia urban legend that has no basis in the rules or in the discussions that led to creation of the QPQ requirement. The purpose of QPQ is to get contributors to participate productively in the review process. Doing easy approvals is a contribution, but it's not nearly as important as contributing to difficult reviews. Your looking at a nomination, determining that it was not ready for approval, but not adding any review comments to the nom was not productive. If you had added some notes on your work, you would have saved someone else the trouble of re-doing your review and you possibly could have moved that other nom a little bit closer to approval. Not every drive-by comment on a nomination (e.g., "not long enough!") qualifies as a QPQ review, but any thorough evaluation of a nomination should qualify -- and will gain you more good will from other DYK regulars. --Orlady (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Having just stumbled across this discussion, I admit to being one of the users who "stockpile" QPQs in advance of using them. I see nothing wrong with this approach whatsoever. At times I'm not in an article writing state of mind, so I don't create new articles or expand old ones for a long time. However, I might be in a good reviewing mode, and take time to review several articles, thoroughly. Now, I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that there should for some reason be some sort of expiry date on said reviews. That's a preposterous notion. The reviews were done, and done well. They should be fine to use as QPQs, even though it may take a good while before I nominate an article for DYK. This is just adding another level of rules and bureaucracy, and for no good reason at all. If this ridiculousness is pushed through, the net result will be fewer and less thorough reviews. Nominators will be under stress to quickly write a review of an article from amongst those available at that time, rather than doing a proper job when they have the time and inclination to do so. Manxruler (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Admin needed to pull Hook from Queue 4

1920 Alabama Crimson Tide football team was not 5X expanded. Also, the editor who did the "review" seems to be doing drive-by QPQ reviews that are not valid. This is the second one of his I've caught today. If you see any others by this editor, please double check what they did before promoting. — Maile (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I have seen one, but it was a cross (for a relatively minor issue I may add). I'll have a look now for any more though. Good catch, sorry I missed it. Matty.007 17:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
It went from 1908 to 8725, which caught me out a bit, sorry again. Matty.007 17:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Having had a look, I think that that's all of them. Matty.007 17:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
It happens. No harm done if an admin can pull it. — Maile (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Pinging Harrias, who seems to be the only DYK admin around currently. Matty.007 18:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Aren't you and I having fun learning the ropes of promoting? I flubbed a couple myself. — Maile (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
We've sure picked a good time, when there are only a few DYK regulars around... Matty.007 18:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
If it is still there at ~8:30 PM GMT, I will ping an admin to remove it. Thanks, Matty.007 19:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I have made a request at the administrators noticeboard. Pinging Yngvadottir, Gatoclass, Casliber, PFHLai.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Doing it Victuallers (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, its pulled and I have replaced it with the oldest approved hook. Looks like the next set will load OK, but I'm not sure I have tidied up correctly as its some time since I did this. Can someone have a look and see if they can see the mistakes? (You may not need to be an admin to see and flag this) Victuallers (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
(Replied on my talk)--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
There is Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed that the pulled article can be added to. In terms of the Q itself, looks fine to me. -- KTC (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all involved. — Maile (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Homologous Chromosome

In Queue 5, I promoted Homologous Chromosome. I missed the Alt hook though, so if someone could amend the hook from " that when homologous chromosomes don't separate correctly it can lead to fertility problems?" to "that when homologous chromosomes don't separate correctly it can lead to fertility problems and cancer?", that would be great. Thanks, Matty.007 08:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Harrias talk 10:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Matty.007 10:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of 38 nominations that need reviewing, since the last list is getting a bit long in the tooth. At the moment, we have 211 total nominations, of which only 10 are approved, and are badly in need of more. Thank you very much for your reviews.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

We also have an article in limbo. On Dec 13, Fram removed Turtling from prep area. So, it got pulled from the prep area, but it does not appear on the nominations page. It's nowhere. Fram said he no longer has an objection to putting it back in the prep area. I can't do that, because I reviewed it. Nobody else seems to do it. So, we have an approved nomination that is just floating in limbo. — Maile (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

  • It's back from limbo. It was the last article unpromoted (and unrejected) under November 16, and the entire date was removed (by me, as it happens) after it was promoted. Normally, an article reappears once a promotion is reversed, but every once in a while, an article is pulled back from prep (or queue, or even the main page) and the date it had been transcluded under is gone; in that case, either the whole date needs to be restored, or at least the date and the one template (I did the latter). Maile, there's nothing in having reviewed it that should keep you from doing a mechanical step like restoring the transclusion to the nominations page along with the date it had been nominated under. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you know ... that the nominations templates are "patrolled"?

After I edit on a nom template and save it, I usually do a browser refresh on the nominations page to see it there. The change always showed instantaneously with a browser refresh. Yesterday, I did a review, and it took a very long time before the changes showed up on the nominations page after doing SEVERAL refreshes on the browser. I worked on something else and came back before I could see the change. I just noticed today a little link on the bottom right hand corner of the nomination templates that says "Mark this page as patrolled". Is there some reason our nomination templates are being patrolled? And are the changes being held up until someone has the time to patrol them? Can the changes be deleted by some anonymous patroler? I think nomination templates should be exempt from the slow-moving and anonymous (and unaccountable) patrolling process. This is rather insulting to seasoned editors who are "autoconfirmed" or "autopatrolled" everywhere on Wikipedia. We have enough eyes here looking at the templates. — Maile (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

This is automatic for every new page in every namespace - new pages are listed on a page somewhere until someone "patrols" it to verify it is acceptable. This is mainly used for articles, and barely ever for other namespaces.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia does have an occasional problem with edits not showing up immediately, it's been extant for years, and it can occur in any namespace. I happen to have had the same problem yesterday, but not on a new page. Gatoclass (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, what have I broken?

Hi, I was filling in hooks in Prep 1, and went to the general queue page, but the changes weren't shown there for some reason, I could only see two hooks. Thanks, Matty.007 18:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me? Harrias talk 18:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, looks better now thanks. Matty.007 19:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Christmas eve hook

What is a Christmas eve hook doing in Prep 2? IMO it should be held over for the appropriate date, if there are no objections, I will pull it. Gatoclass (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I had it in the right prep, but it may have been moved forwards. Thanks, Matty.007 08:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, the set probably just needs to be moved back one place in the queue, I will do that when it's closer to the correct date. Does this mean we only have one Christmas Eve hook this year? Also, it looks as if we only have a dozen Christmas hooks, unless there are others which haven't been moved to the special occasion holding area yet, that is rather disappointing. Gatoclass (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Christmas Story (Schütz) could be on Christmas Eve, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
A withdrew A Boy was Born, but it could be revived if the article is improved (it's better already) and the published title can appear in the hook, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay I have reinstated the latter, thanks Gerda. Gatoclass (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I have found another half dozen Christmas-related hooks on the nom page and moved them to the Christmas section, but most of them are as yet unverified so can we please get some attention on these ASAP? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Having a look. Thanks, Matty.007 12:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

In answer to the original question, the Christmas Peace hook was deliberately placed in Prep 2, and intended for Queue 2, because the hook is about an event that occurs at noon in Finland on December 24, and is currently set to run on the main page between 0200 and 1400 Finland time on the 24th. Putting it in a later set would mean that the hook wouldn't run until after the event was over, which seemed suboptimal. Please don't move it. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Images on Chain Reaction

Please see DYK Chain Reaction (sculpture). An image copyright expert has been requested. — Maile (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Sam Bailey

Hi, please can someone review the alt so that this can go up over the festive period? Thanks, Matty.007 15:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

  • A fact template has been added to the article, and needs to be resolved first. Also, this wasn't actually on the nominations page; I had to add it there under December 15. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Last minute Christmas nomination - review request for Luzula wahlenbergii

I've made a late but hopefully not too late nomination of Luzula wahlenbergii, and it's a festive/Christmas one! I'd really appreciate it if someone could quickly review this so it can go up over the Christmas period! Thank-you so much! :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 19:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Doing. Thanks, Matty.007 19:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank-you very much @Matty.007:, I appreciate it! Acather96 (click here to contact me) 19:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
That's OK, I've read it and checked it. What we need now is an uninvolved promoter to move it to a Prep. Thanks, Matty.007 20:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Matty.007, it looks like you're precluding that very possibility by filling the final Christmas prep (late afternoon and evening in the US) with Boxing Day and non-Christmas hooks. Right now, there aren't enough for the Christmas hooks there plus the ones mentioned on this talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I filled out the preps that are going up on Christmas day in the right preps, but there is space on boxing day, or an admin could re-jig the Christmas eve ones. I said about this before looking at the preps I'm afraid. Sorry, Matty.007 20:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
As it's a festive hook, involving reindeer, how about switching it with something in Queue 3? Thanks, Matty.007 20:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Ugh. I was reading off London times. Should I move them all back a prep? Thanks, Matty.007 20:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
There we go, I moved the Prep back one so that there is more room for Christmas hooks. Thanks, Matty.007 20:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The Saint Wenceslas Church image is quite nice, and it would run from 0200 to 1400 local time December 26 if you leave it where it is. The Die Singphoniker and Basil Valentine could move to Prep 3 quite easily, and the former would have eleven of twelve hours on local December 26, and would leave plenty of room for the remaining Christmas hooks in Prep 2. One of the plant-based ones could go in Prep 1 if necessary; you could hold it for Sam Bailey, but that would leave the last two hooks (and four out of seven) as music-based, which is a bit much. On the other hand, it is Christmas, and Prep 1 is the last that will run on Christmas Day in the UK and Europe. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I've done the moving, but I can't do any more promoting today I'm afraid. Thanks, Matty.007 21:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Last minute Christmas nomination - review requested for Nativity (Christus)

I posted about this but to no response so pulled the post. Anyway the nom is Template:Did you know nominations/Nativity (Christus). Still working on it, but the hook is cited to an online source. I'll do a review when finished with this. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm curious why this is the only one moved from the special holding area? Please advise whether it will or will not be appropriate for xmas. If not, I'll stop working on it. Victoria (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Victoria, only hooks that are approved are supposed to be in the Christmas area. (I'm leaving the one unapproved one that's already there because Gatoclass will go looking for it there, and I want to be sure he finds it where he left it.) We are keeping an eye on this one under its December 23 entry, and when you tell us it's ready we'll be happy to review it. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi, thanks for explaining. Have you looked at it? I wouldn't have nominated unless I felt it was ready for the main page, and at this point I've done as much as I can in a single day. The page will grow significantly but only after lots of research - I would think as it is it meets the criteria? Anyway, I've written one and reviewed another and so now have done all I can. Sorry for bothering you. Victoria (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Two editors have weighed in on DYK Chain Reaction (sculpture). The article's author, who is also the person who took the photos, challenges that publication of those photos violates the copyright law. Can we please get another opinion on the template? — Maile (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not "take" of the photos in this article. I uploaded them from Flickr. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, sorry for that error. — Maile (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for all of the good work you do. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Sam Bailey hook in Queue 5

Should the word "screw" link to prison officer, in case people assume it refers to a screw, or even to sexual intercourse? –anemoneprojectors– 10:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Harrias talk 10:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Great. I wasn't sure if it would be necessary! Thanks. –anemoneprojectors– 10:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Christmas gifts

Late Christmas gifts: Template:Did you know nominations/Les cadeaux de Noël, written by Voceditenore on request, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

review in process, thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The review is complete, and the nom is in the Dec 25 holding area.— Maile (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, raised sourcing issues. Thanks, Matty.007 13:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I doubled one source, you could take almost any other also, if needed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Good now, all we need is someone to move it to a Prep. Thanks, Matty.007 14:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Anybody uninvolved can do that, only the queues need an admin ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
It was promoted, right about the time of Gerda's above post. — Maile (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive

Hi, this page is getting rather long, does a bot archive it, or is it manual? Thanks, Matty.007 11:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

A bot archives it, but only threads in which there has been no activity within 7 days. The page is quite active across multiple threads at the moment, hence the length. Harrias talk 11:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
It was actually trimmed earlier today: the bot sent seven sections to the archives a few hours before this section was started. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead hook in Queue 5

The lead hook in Queue 5 is as follows:

  • ... that the serving of twelve mazurek cakes (pictured) at the holiday feast would not have been out of line in Poland?

I've approved the hook set, and promoted it from the prep into the queue, but the more I read it, the more I think the wording is clunky and inelegant. For one thing, from my reading of the article, the cakes are still a common feature of Christmas (even though they are more commonly associated with Easter), so the past tense seems misleading. The hook will feature Christmas Day afternoon, so not necessarily after the "holiday feast", meaning that even in the short-term the past tense isn't particularly appropriate. I'm not against leaving it as is, but I wondered if anyone had any suggestions that might tidy it up, or if I'm just making a mountain out of a mole hill, and we should just leave it alone? Harrias talk 10:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

What strikes me as misleading is the implication that this serving of a dozen mazurek is done at Christmas. The source—based on the translation supplied—is saying that the dozen is traditional for Easter; the hook's piped link at "holiday feast" strongly implies this is for Christmas, which is simply not supported by the source. It's a bit odd, with the article turning "If the tradition is to be followed, there should be 12 mazurek cakes at Easter" into "would not be entirely out of line traditionally". In my experience, "should be" is much stronger than (and quite different from) "would not be entirely out of line". Getting back to the hook, I do think that something must be done—I suppose replacing "would not have been out of line" with something like "is known" would be okay or even with "is traditional" or "is a tradition", so long as "holiday feast" is delinked. Or something different entirely:
  • ... that mazurek cakes (pictured) are traditional in Poland at the Christmas and Easter seasons, with twelve differently flavored ones being served together at the latter holiday?
FN6 would need to be added after the sentence about the different flavors if the new hook is chosen, and I'm wondering whether "traditional" early in the hook carries enough weight to serve as context for the final clause. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Maile for leaving a note for me. I just added two more citations in English explaining that Mazurek cake is very much a Christmas tradition, not just Easter. I like what BlueMoonset suggested about grammar but the "holiday feast" part is now supported by reference and no-longer needs to be delinked. The article reads: "At Christmas, the emphasis on a symbolic number twelve is closely related to the Twelve Apostles at the Last Supper.[8]" Thanks, Poeticbent talk 18:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
While it's clear that Mazurek cake is a Christmas tradition as well as an Easter one, there is still no direct evidence that the 12 cakes served together is part of said Christmas tradition. Indeed, the sources militate against it: while there may be 12 dishes, FN8 not only says "some families present twelve dishes for the twelve Apostles", but then goes on to specify soup, fish, etc., so this clearly isn't the 12 cakes of the hook. Nor does FN1 help, since in this case it's the fruit compote being made of "twelve dried fruits" that's the link to the Apostles. The newly added statement to the article about the emphasis on the symbolic number twelve is a red herring, as it's irrelevant to the subject at hand, the cakes. And I respectfully disagree with Poeticbent about keeping the holiday link to Christmas if the original hook is retained, even with slight grammatical adjustments: the subject of the hook is "twelve mazurek cakes", and retaining a Christmas link for the practice of serving twelve remains unsupported, if not WP:SYNTH. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

How about the simpler:

  • ... that mazurek cakes (pictured) are traditionally served in Poland during Easter and Christmas?

I recommend that we try to get this tidied up one way or the other tonight, as it is unlikely that too many admins are going to be around tomorrow to get things changed and uploaded! I certainly won't be... Harrias talk 20:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

  • The article says exactly what the reference says, which is that the number twelve is "symbolic of the twelve Apostles" period. The article does not say that the twelve cakes are related to the twelve Apostles in a similar manner, because the second quotation originates from a different source which makes no such claim. To summarize: the tradition of serving twelve cakes as well as the number "symbolic of the twelve Apostles" are both supported independently, but WP:SYNTH is what comes out in our heads. If you want to pull the plug on it, you can put these two statements further away from each other, but I don't really see a major problem in here. I added a new citation. The ariticle reads now: "At Christmas, the emphasis on a symbolic number twelve is closely related to the Twelve Apostles at the Last Supper,[8] celebrated by Catholics by twelve different food offerings.[9]"Poeticbent talk 21:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Harrias, I like your new simpler hook text, it's supported in the article, and I think you should use it to replace the current hook text, which—as I've noted—has issues. Please make the change to the queue; it's better to get it done right away. There's no need to talk about twelve cakes: the picture is of more than that, and there isn't a directly sourced association between twelve cakes and Christmas. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Last minute Christmas period

Hi, would someone be able to have a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Joy (Steven Curtis Chapman album) please. I think we will miss Christmas, but maybe in the few days after Christmas... Thanks, Matty.007 10:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

And again please. Thanks, Matty.007 13:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The article has sufficient issues—and the hooks as well—that it will almost certainly have to wait until the days after Christmas. Sorry, but sometimes these don't finish getting fixed up in time. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Typo in next set

I just noticed my own error in a hook in Queue 6: Die Singphoniker recorded Singphonic Christmas (not Singphonik), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. --Allen3 talk 23:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Next set linking issue Comment

Why is Kenya linked but not Argentina - surely neither of these well-known countries should be linked? Edwardx (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2014 WikiCup will begin in January. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, 106 users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Queue 6

The article for Asbestos Man has acquired a speedy deletion template. Could an Admin check it please? It's due to move onto the main page in about five hours. Actually I think the article has just been deleted. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The article has been deleted, apparently because it was created by a sock. That same sock also created and nominated Template:Did you know nominations/List of Doctor Strange supporting characters, et al and Painter (comics). Maybe those pages will be deleted also. Does that negate the reviews done by this sock? — Maile (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
His articles seem to be being deleted at a rate of knots now the sock account has been confirmed. Another concern that may need urgent Admin checking is the hook for the article Hellcow which is currently on the main page. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The DYK nomination template itself: Template:Did you know nominations/Painter (comics) has been nominated for speedy deletion. I have contested it on the basis that it would more properly be dealt with by having DYK reject the nomination, or not. Is it justified for an editor to request Speedy Deletions for DYK nomination templates? — Maile (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
My reading of the rules on the nom page seems to indicate that it is possible for it to be deleted, but I think a fail is just as adequate. Thanks, Matty.007 19:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Reported the one already on MP here. Thanks, Matty.007 19:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I had already removed Asbestos Man from Queue 6 because there is no longer an article for it to introduce. You might want to replace it with another hook, assuming the article deletion is uncontroversial. Art LaPella (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The same user requested a speedy deletion of DYK nomination List of Doctor Strange supporting characters, et al, but without the CSD template. I have removed the CSD template from the Painter template. And on both templates, have suggested that DYK should deal with this by having a discussion on the templates, and reject the templates if necessary. I do not believe CSD is how DYK nomination templates should be handled. DYK should have the rejected templates as an archive record, not deleted from the system. Where do we draw the line if users can request speedy deletion of nomination templates? — Maile (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Art LaPella: I replied on MP errors. In the Queue, an admin needs to add a hook, and remove The Amazing Guy's credit below. Thanks, Matty.007 20:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Another good reason for consistency in handling DYK nominations by rejecting them, not deleting them from the system. This didn't happen in this situation, but it could at any point. Let's say an editor does a legitimate review and uses that for a QPQ. And the nominator later turns out to be a blocked user. If the nomination is removed from the system, there is no way do prove the QPQ. These are unique in that the articles will probably all be deleted. However, Template:Did you know nominations/Pricasso made it all the way to the Main page, and the nominator was (and still is) blocked. The blocking situation was discussed on that template, and it was promoted anyway. So, just because an editor is blocked does not mean the template should be deleted. — Maile (talk)
  • Can an admin please move a hook from one of the preps to Queue 6 to replace the one deleted? I suggest that it not be a bio hook since that would mean two bios end the set, and something at least vaguely quirky would be nice, since the hook eliminated was in the final, quirky position. (I also agree with Maile; Jakob should not be attempting to delete DYK nomination templates; we can reject them in the usual way, as happens with articles that are deleted via AfD. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Neil Combee from P2 is now in Q6 to fill the slot vacated by the deleted article. --PFHLai (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Do we have to do anything with Template:Did you know nominations/Asbestos Man? I'd leave everything as is, but I suspect someone might want to revert the promotion and reject it with an orange cross. --PFHLai (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Done. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

December 28 special occasion hook

I've just now moved the nomination for Template:Did you know nominations/Thermal Man into the special occasion holding area for December 28; it's for an article about a character that Stan Lee created, and the 28th is Stan's birthday. I think the recently filled Prep 3 (which will become Queue 5) is the ideal placement for it, but the currently empty Prep 4 would give five to eight hours of birthday coverage here in the U.S. One of the hooks currently in P3 could be moved to P4; in fact, P3 has four bios, one more than the typical 50% max, so it could displace one of those to P4. Just a thought. (I can't do it myself since I put the final tick on the nomination.) Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thermal Man is now on P3. --PFHLai (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Much appreciated, PFHLai. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, PFHLai and BlueMoonset -- Excelsior! THAT AMAZING GUY (Give your friendly bro a love note or two!) 12:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I had to take this off MainPage, because [1] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thermal Man and [2] the page creator is now a banned user. See also #Queue 6 below. --PFHLai (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Review by a sock

The review for Template:Did you know nominations/BK grilled chicken sandwiches was done by a now-blocked sockpuppet of Bonkers The Clown (talk · contribs). Is the review still eligible? Thanks, Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It needs another review. Just a quick glance of the article shows all the Trademark sources in the Notes section are external links, and there are not supposed to be any External links used as sources. I've noted it on the template and ticked it for a new review.— Maile (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Re-looking at those external links, I think the nominator used citation templates, but it does not take me to permalinks for those individual trademarks. I'll leave the "needs a new review" on the template, but I've removed my remarks about the external links. I think I erred on that point. — Maile (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I did a QPQ check for the submitter and found no previous credits (Pinging @Jerem43: out of courtesy), but there is a DYK listed on his user page and posted to his talk page here. If this is the only credit then QPQ is not an issue but I don't understand why QPQ check found nothing. Am I missing something obvious? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not the QPQ issue, as such. The review of the BK grilled sandwiches was done by That Amazing Guy, a now-blocked sock of Bonkers The Clown. Taylor Trescott is questioning if the review is invalidated because it was done by a sock puppet. Personally, I don't know if any DYK rules cover this situation. The article in question just got qualified as GA, so it's probably in pretty good shape. — Maile (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I understand that a new review has been called for on the basis of the sock's review being invalid. Part of a review is a QPQ check, whether one is required and if so, if it has been done. The link I provided should show previous DYK credits, but does not, and I don't understand why. Based on Jerem43's user page, I doubt there is a QPQ requirement but the new reviewer(s) need to check it. More broadly, if the QPQ tool is not showing all previous credits then the project has a problem that needs resolution. EdChem (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
See WT:Did you know/Archive 98#QPQ check. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 04:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The most recent list hasn't seen much action in the week it's been up, but it's so far up the page I think most people just aren't seeing it. I've compiled a new set of 37 nominations that need reviewing, almost half of which are relistings. At the moment, we're falling further behind: we have 253 total nominations, up 42, of which only 17 are approved, up 7. Thanks as always for your reviews.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Efkan Ala, Lütfi Elvan, İdris Güllüce, Fikri Işık, Ayşenur İslam, Emrullah İşler, Akif Çağatay Kılıç, Nihat Zeybekci

After my nomination of "Template:Did you know nominations/Efkan Ala, Lütfi Elvan, İdris Güllüce, Fikri Işık, Ayşenur İslam, Emrullah İşler, Akif Çağatay Kılıç, Nihat Zeybekçi", I realized that the article "Nihat Zeybekçi" was corrected to "Nihat Zeybekci". So, I changed my DYK nom accordingly renaming everything associated with it. However, now I saw that the "Review or comment" link on the new template connects to the old template, which was already deleted. Then, I recreated this initial template as a redirect page. But no success at all. Please someone help to clean that mess for me. Thanks. --CeeGee 02:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I had actually noticed the problem and fixed it a few minutes before you posted the above note. For future reference, the name of a nomination template does not matter, so there was no need to move it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, for the hint as well. --CeeGee 09:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

New rule proposal

It seems that there should be some sort of rule regarding commercial subjects. I have nominated books on their release dates, tv shows for their premier dates, movies for their premier dates and albums on their release dates at DYK. Each time there has been all kinds of confusion on what is appropriate. In most cases after timeconsuming debate, I have been able to convince people that if the hook is not promotional of the subject it is appropriate. Most recently, the hook did not run on the desired date due to this concern. Can I or someone else write a rule so that we can refer to it in the future?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the special occasion holding area is one of three Nominations subsections, I added a special occasion subsection to Wikipedia:Did you know.[8] The top of that page notes: "The DYK section publicizes new or expanded articles after an informal review. This publicity rewards editors for their contributions." The factors I listed in the special occasion subsection generally are based on that. The one reading "bringing additional publicity to the new or expanded article is more important than the additional publicity brought to the article subject" is meant to address your concern above. Obviously, the text can be modified. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
That rule does not really address the issue that has concerned reviewers and will not lessen the time wasted arguing about timely non-promotional hooks on commercial subjects. The guidance that is needed is something about how timeliness of the date request is an important element of the date request section and in cases where the subject is commercial in nature the reviewer is suppose to guide against hooks that are promotional, but not just commercial hooks that are timely. The confusion that I repeatedly have to expend energy explaining to reviewers is that reviewers think a timely commercial hook is prima facia promotional even if it does not present content that promotes the commercial content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger - It may be that reviewers in the past focused on the hook itself since there were rules for promotional hooks but no rules by which to additionally deal with the special occasion date request. Now that there is something on the Wikipedia:Did you know page that addresses special occasion date requests, nominators should be able focus more on whether an admin should list an approved hook on the date requested rather than mixing that with the separate hook review performed under Wikipedia:Did you know#The hook. I added to the section to address your concerns.[9] -- Jreferee (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Both items 2 and 3 in this section are now more a point of confusion than anything else. WTF does "whether the editor's contribution merits additional reward" (item 2) have to do with evaluating a hook. What is the additional reward that is being considered. Is having a DYK on the main page considered a reward and having it on a special day an extra reward. I have never even heard this logic in a DYK review and I have been involved in over 1000 of them. Reward? That word needs to be struck from the rule. We don't promote hooks as a reward as far as I know. Item 3 is stated in a way that is likely to lead to more time consuming debate rather than give timesaving guidance. The whole addition is written as if to preserve the right to have muddling timewasting debate on the same issues over and over. What we need is a statement that we evaluate whether the hook is promotional of the subject. That is always what the debate is about.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Evaluating whether the hook is promotional of the subject is covered by "The hook should be neutral" listed under Wikipedia:Did you know#The hook. Whether an admin should list the neutral/non-promotional hook on the date requested is what the special occasion section addresses. If a business etc. is running an advertising campaign to coincide with their special event, it is in Wikipedia's interest to not have its Main Page be made part of that external advertising campaign through a timed non-promotional hook posting on the Main Page. I revised old factor two to read "whether the editor's contribution merits listing the hook on the special occasion date" and then removed it. The present factor two is for editors like yourself so that your special date request should ordinarily be granted. That editor's 'contribution merits additional reward' information was there as of your 19:38, 15 November 2013 post above, so what's with the above WTF comment four days later?[10] -- Jreferee (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
You speak as if you feel that being neutral and non-promotional are the same thing. The problem is that inexperienced reviewers feel that if a hook mentions a commercial item it is promotional. Let's take as an example a very simple statement about a commercial item. Let's suppose a fictional song is going to be released commercially and the commercial version of the song is twelve minutes long. This is an extremely long single and a hook could say something like. "...that "song X" has a listed running time of 12 minutes and 22 seconds, making it the longest single Famous Records (or Famous Band) has ever distributed for airplay." That is an NPOV hook. It is an objective statement of fact. It does not even mention the fact that there is an impending release date for the single or a current ad campaign for its release. However, since the subject is a commercial product many reviewers would say this is promotional. Since it is not publicizing the impending release or current ad campaign it is not promotional (or at least the majority of my DYK reviewers have agreed on this type of subject that it is merely an intriguing fact about a record). Your statement above "If a business etc. is running an advertising campaign to coincide with their special event, it is in Wikipedia's interest to not have its Main Page be made part of that external advertising campaign through a timed non-promotional hook posting on the Main Page." is true but the majority of DYK reviewers in my experience have felt a hook like the one above is not making the main page "part of that external advertising campaign", which is where the rub is here. It took you four days to respond to this discussion, what is wrong with me taking four days to correct you?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
T - I'm sorry it took me four days to respond to the discussion. (Feel free to ping me in the future.) Listing on the special occasion date is a way to get additional click throughs from the Main Page to the article so that more people read the article (and people reading what Wikipedia publishes is the point of writing an encyclopedia). Editors such as yourself should not be having the problems you mentioned getting your special occasion hook on the Main Page since your goal is to get more people to read the nominated article. I thought reviewing "whether the editor's contribution merits listing the hook on the special occasion date" would be able to help you out, but realized it does not address the promotional issue directly. Writing rule language to cover all situation is not easy and will improve over time as DYK reviewers address future special occasion request. I feel that a hook being neutral and non-promotional essentially are the same thing. Since new-reviewers are not treating it as the same, I added language in the special occasion section to address it.[11] If the special occasion section needs additional/different language, please let me know. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Jreferee, the phrase "mentioning the commercial item or business on the Main Page through the hook is not promotional of that item or business" is moving in the right direction. I would add the phrase "in and of itself", "prima facia", or "per se". Furthermore, I would encourage you to remove discussion about rewarding WP with date requests. Timely hooks are a service to WP and not the editors. They make WP look good not the editors.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger - Revised and trimmed some more. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Jreferee, I would change "in and of itself is not promotional of that item or business" to "is not promotional in and of itself", but that is really still going to be confusing. First this should be in a section called date requests rather than special occasion because not all date requests are for special occasions. Also, reviewers like to say, I am failing this for WP:DYK 3b or WP:DYKSG D4. Having this extra prose off in the corner somewhere is not really going to be helpful. What would be most help for us to have a set of itemized items of consideration for date requests formatted in a sort of bullet listed format like most of the other rules that are easy for reviewers to cite.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger - I made some changes. That phrase may read better as "is not, by itself, promotional of that item or business." The items can be cited as WP:DYK DR1, WP:DYK DR2, etc. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Jreferee I don't understand 2. 3 & 4 seem redundant.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger - I revised 2. 4. only covers commercial items or business subjects + promotional. 3. is a more general statement for all subjects + non-neutral. -- Jreferee (talk) 08:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Jreferee Since I don't understand rule 2 please provide a sample fictional hook that would violate 2. Also, provide an example that would violate 3 that is not already covered by the standard NPOV rule WP:DYK EC4.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger - Rule 3 and 4 are not so much for reviewers to cite, but a way to lessen confusion on what is and is not appropriate to help focus the discussion on whether an admin should list a hook on the date requested. Rule 3 is more of a catch all. Rule 2 is a measure by which reviewers can indicted whether an admin should list a hook on the date requested. Without rule 2, that would leave a situation where an admin should list a hook on the date requested if the hook is not promotional of the subject. That would not allow reviewers to take into account the effect of listing a hook on the Main Page on the date requested. If you have an alternate wording to Rule 2, please post. I think the Date requests section is a reasonable framework that reviewers can apply. In applying it, it will be improved like all the other sections. There has been no input to this change to Wikipedia:Did you know other than you and myself. It may be worth it to open a new thread at the bottom of this page to receive additional input. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Jreferee, I now see what 2 is saying. It is saying we hope to expose Subject X rather than promote Subject X. The tone of the listed items differs greatly from the rest of the page. Let's try this. 1. Change "The editor's contribution" to "article". Reconsider my fictional hook above "...that "song X" has a listed running time of 12 minutes and 22 seconds, making it the longest single Famous Records (or Famous Band) has ever distributed for airplay." Then reexamine rule 2. I don't see how rule 2 will help to avert lots of timewasting back and forth on hooks like this. The may even preserve the right to argue about hooks like this. You still have not explained item 3 in any way that helps me understand an example of how it would apply. Please show me an example of how it would apply. Rule 4 "For hooks that mention a commercial item or a business where the nominator requests that the hook be listed to coincide with a requested date, mentioning the commercial item or business on the Main Page through the hook is not promotional in and of itself of that item or business." is way to long. Try "For hooks that mention a commercial item or a business where the nominator requests that the hook be listed to coincide with a requested date, mentioning the commercial item or business on the Main Page through the hook is not promotional in and of itself of that item or business."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger I made more revisions. For Rule 2, is the hook reviewer aware of something outside of Wikipedia to promote the subject on the requested date? In addition to that, there may be a variety of other circumstances that the reviewer needs to consider when indicating whether an admin should list the hook on the date requested. Some people maintain the position that paid editing is OK. Most do not. What standard is the hook reviewer to apply in that situation? There likely is a variety of other situation. Even if the hook is neutral and non-promotional, does listing the hook on the date requested primarily bring attention to the article. Even if listing the hook on the date requested brings attention to the article subject, that is fine as long as listing the hook on the date requested primarily bring attention to the article and secondarily brings attention to the article subject. If listing the hook on the date requested primarily bring attention to the article subject and secondarily brings attention to the article itself, then it should not be listed on the requested date, but can be listed outside of that date if the hook meets the general hook requirements. WP:COI provides a similar balance consideration is "advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia." As for examples, please provide a link to the discussion where the hook did not run on the desired date due and other hook requested dates you know of and we can run through each of the rules to see how they apply to those past situations and revise accordingly. -- Jreferee (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Jreferee Why is this written as if only admins move hooks to the prep areas? You should probably remove admin references. example 1 is the last controversial date request. This one was passively denied. Do you need me to provide a bunch of other examples?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger I made the revision. Yes, the example helps a lot, please provide a bunch of other examples, particularly the ones with detailed discussion on a date request (whether approved or not approved). The concern in example 1 above was the giving the appearance that someone is using Wikipedia's MainPage for "frontpage advertising" to promote commercial products, esp. on the first day the product is available for purchase. There probably is no way to overcome that since the person reading the main page likely won't be aware of how DYK operates. However, if an editor not connected with DYK would read the front page and then come to DYK and make such a complaint, the reply to such a complaint is to link to the nomination discussion and let them see for themselves that the issue was already considered now that the rules list a date request consideration separate from the hook consideration. Also, the new requested date section should help with deciding to move such hooks to the main page on the date requested. It's obvious that the main purpose of saving the hook for the November 5 (album release date) was to bring attention to the new or expanded article rather than the article subject. Muboshgu agreed with you. There was a discussion (so no need for a discussion on WT:DYK as requested on the bottom of Template:Did you know nominations/The Marshall Mathers LP 2). The date requested discussion did not stand out on the nomination page because it was not separately considered. I revised Rule 2 some what. -- Jreferee (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure how easy it is going to be to dig these up. Here is one about a movie on its release date: Template:Did you know nominations/In a World.... More to come.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is one about a book on its release date: Template:Did you know nominations/The Litigators.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
IIRC, I tried to make a late date request for the debut of this documentary on the talk page and it got ignored. Template:Did you know nominations/Benji (2012 film).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Jreferee, I have dug from my 500th DYK about 2 years ago to present. Will it really benefit us if I keep digging?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I think in some cases the date request element of the discussion occurred on the article talk or at DYK talk (like the first example above). I don't think I will find them all looking through the DYK discussion pages. I think there was one regarding my Tony nominees last summer on the DYK talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
That looks to be enough examples. From Template:Did you know nominations/In a World...: "timing articles to coincide with commercial releases of movies, recordings, books, etc.: it feels too much like advertising, I'd let this one run whenever it gets picked", see F10 (linking to WP:NOTADVERTISING, "run several days after the premiere or before then, otherwise it would be too easy to level claims of advertising at DYK," "consensus seems to be that having something on the main page when it is in the news (even when it is about a popular culture topic) is not advertising in and of itself." From Template:Did you know nominations/The Litigators: "will look like an advertisement if it gets featured on the front page" (Original hook read "that The Litigators is the upcoming John Grisham novel ...), "As long as there isn't much emphasis on the newness, it seems okay to me" (hook then was changed), "Getting there, but too much emphasis on the date" (All timing references were removed from hook and Alt5 approved). -- Jreferee (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger - I made more revisions.[12] From the above, it looks like the main concern is the appearance or giving perception of using the Main Page for advertising, especially on the first day the item is available for purchase, which we discussed above. There are 12,000,000[13] daily Main Page views, and you can't make everyone happy. However, consensus is that having something on the main page when it is in the news (even when it is about a popular culture topic) is not promotion of the item in and of itself. The hook probably should not include language that increases a likelihood of a Main Page reader's perception of the hook being promotional. For example, if the article is about a something new that is going to be introduced to people on a particular date, then having a timing reference in the hook (such as "upcoming", "released on October 25") relative to that introduction date may raise reviewer concern that Main Page readers might perceive the hook is on the Main Page to bring attention to the article subject and level claims of advertising at DYK. I changed rule DR2 to read "The hook should not put emphasis on a commercial release date of the article subject." -- Jreferee (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I am going to have to dig for the stuff about the Tony Awards from last summer. I wanted hooks about best play/musical and best actor/actress nominees to run at the time the Tony Awards was being broadcast nationally. I will dig through the DYK talk pages and find those threads. There were two or three, IIRC. I'll get back to you later.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Last minute Epiphany nomination – We Three Kings

Trying to get this famous carol nom (Template:Did you know nominations/We Three Kings) slotted in for January 6, the feast of Epiphany. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Done it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Extra opinion requested

There has been a request for another opinion at Template:Did you know nominations/Fermanagh Mallards F.C. about the wording of the hook on whether the football club should have "the" preceeding it in the hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Formatting and bullets

The template used to generate each nomination uses the wiki-code :* to indent various items. This is not good practice, and should be replaced using single asterisks, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

After New Year's Day, revert back to three sets per day?

We have a WikiCup filling in too many nominations and growing verified hooks. I think we should go back to three sets per day. If so, six (18) or seven (21) hooks per set? --George Ho (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say 3 lots of 7, especially given that the WikiCup starts at midnight GMT which means there will be a huge influx of nominations in the coming months. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Given we have 14 nominated today, I would strongly suggest an admin put it back to 3 lots of 7. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've changed it to 8 hour cycles, but the key to this is to keep on top of the reviews: all the WikiCup entrants (myself included) need to be aware that the only way we will churn through the updates is by getting reviews done, not just by nominating lots of articles. Harrias talk 21:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Simple nominations of other people's expansions don't qualify for the WikiCup, so most of us will be nominating our own work, and most of us are aware of the QPQ requirement. For my own part at least, I'll be zero-sum at the very least. At least one review for every nom. Resolute 21:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
May I strongly suggest that whoever just changed it to three a day revise the next time for promotion so it's midnight UTC? Otherwise, the hooks will spend the next few days resetting themselves 15 minutes later until it is, and the times the hook sets switch will be unpredictable until then. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Reset? I think? That bit confuses me a little. Harrias talk 21:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Please consider delaying the current hook set on Q3. It was meant for a much later time frame. Perhaps the hook sets currently in P2 and P1 should go first. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

25 DYKs

Given that I now have 25 DYKs, am I supposed to add myself to the list or wait for someone else to do it? Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Depends if they are all either self noms or all non self noms: you can add yourself, but you need 25 of one kind (make sure to add yourself to the right table, there is one at the top, one at the bottom). Best, Matty.007 16:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Am I understanding you to say that the 25 need to be all one kind, whichever kind it is? I'm missing on that page where it conveys that. And, who actually hands out the awards? Is this something you stick on your own talk page, or somebody actually puts it on your talk page?— Maile (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
OK. So you can get DYK credits for self noms. That is the top table. You need 25 self noms to go on the list. The bottom table is non self noms, of which you need 25 of to go on the list. You can add yourself, or (unlikely, I think) someone will add you. Awards are handed out by kindly souls I think... Matty.007 16:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
So, you have to separate them? Right now, I have 24 DYKs to my credit. They're not all one type. So, I have to separate these out, and can only put them in one table or the other if I sufficiently rack up 25 of one type or another? They can't be combined? Well, bah humbug. — Maile (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep. I have 25 non self noms, and about 23 self noms. Race you to 75 total? Matty.007 16:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Nah. Never gonna happen. I'm not that stuck on getting the DYKs. It's been over a year since I created an article that would have qualified - I got turned off by trigger-happy over-zealous types whose sole reason for being on this planet is to move multitudes of pages the second "Save page" is clicked, and all without the courtesy of a talk page discussion. Wikipedia has editors that do that all day long, click, click, click. I don't expand all that much, either. Guess I'm not that competitive. Now, if they gave out awards for actual reviews, I think I might qualify for something or other. — Maile (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah well. Maybe your approach will get there first anyway? Matty.007 16:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Wow, that list is way out of date for a lot of editors. Heck, it still has me listed at having 42 DYKs which I surpassed that mark in 2007. AgneCheese/Wine 17:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
These are self-maintained lists. It's up to you to update your own entry on those lists. (And if you don't want to be on the list, that's your choice.) --Orlady (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, I think you are misreading the two lists. The top list is for editors whose DYK articles have appeared on the main page. The bottom list is for editors who nominate other people's articles. (Projects like the WikiCup award points to DYK nominators, so this is where they get credit.) If you have 25 nominations, Jakob and Maile, you should create a subpage on your userpage to list all those DYK boxes that the bot puts on your talk page. (See my user page for an example.) Then add yourself to the top list on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. As for the 25 DYK award, I think an administrator will post it on your page. You can always ask here afterward if you don't get it. Best, Yoninah (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the top list is for DYKmake credits you've earned -- articles you created or expanded, regardless of who nominated them. The bottom list is for DYKnom credits -- hooks that appeared because you nominated some other user's work. --Orlady (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
That's what I tried to say. not sure if it was read as such. Best, Matty.007 18:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
That's what I thought you meant |Matty.007, but then I had the advantage of already knowing how it worked! Harrias talk 19:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

AfC

Three of my nominations:

have been marked as ineligible, because they were started (as drafts) in November, even though I only published them, via WP:AFC on 27 December. I've commented at each review, but should I do anything else? Do we need to modify the guidelines to make this point more clear for future reviewers? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

They should be fine now. I put the turn-around tick on all of them. The confusion was about those articles being in AFC space before you moved them out on Dec 27. Even though that point is clear in the DYK rules, people still get confused on it. I did, too, when I first started reviewing.— Maile (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The guidelines are pretty clear. I note that all three reviews were carried out by The C of E, and I suspect that user simply missed the fact that they had been transferred: once one is missed, it is easy to assume the same for the rest of them. Given that these reviews are clearly erroneous though, it would not be appropriate to use them as QPQ reviews. Harrias talk 23:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The thing that misled me was that they were marked as being "created" instead of being "moved to mainspace". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
If you use DYKcheck, it tells you when something was moved to mainspace if it started elsewhere. Since the "created"/"expanded" field is notorious for not being filled in properly—and the instructions are pretty poor in terms of help—reviewers should determine what actually happened rather than trust that the field correctly reflects what happened. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Review quality - request third opinion on one

Hi, if we see a review saying a simple "looks good to me", "good to go", and so on (I suspect we may see an influx of such reviews in the Cup, what should we do? Thanks, Matty.007 10:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You would be within the spirit of DYK to ask for more details. I've been following the lead of BlueMoonset in doing just that. In some cases, you might get resistance from the reviewer. But so what? If an editor wants credit for a QPQ, they should at least give some details on what they checked. I would think any admin that has to approve a Prep area and move it to a queue would yank any nom where the review had no details. I figure any reviewer who really checked the necessaries should be able to provide that. — Maile (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I thought, but wanted to check. Best, Matty.007 13:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I've posted on the three-article nomination where QPQ credit was claimed for the three "good to go" reviews. As I pointed out, T:TDYK#How to review a nomination states that the review should start with the appropriate icon and then indicate all aspects of the article that have been reviewed; there's no way that "good to go" can be said to do that. A list of what was reviewed can be very revealing by what is not included: I rarely see people mention BLP, neutrality, close paraphrasing, and so on. While anyone promoting a hook to prep should spot check all areas, the ones not mentioned at all deserve special attention before an approved nomination is promoted. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I've also just noted on that template that the histories on the 3 templates involved show they were signed off on within a total of 16 minutes - for all of them.— Maile (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Error in current prep 4

I've raised concerns about the accuracy of the wording of the hook at the bottom of Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 at Template:Did you know nominations/List of currencies in North America. I'd suggest that this be pulled for now. Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, sorry. Matty.007 08:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_99&oldid=1143388295"