Wikipedia talk:Did you know

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed.

Do you have a suggestion for improving DYK, or would like to comment on the suggestions of others? Have your say at Wikipedia:Did you know/2017 reform proposals.

A suggestion

At the moment there are 261 DYK nominations of which 172 have been approved. With eight hooks in a single set per day, it will take 21 days to promote all the approved hooks. Under normal circumstances the supply of newly submitted hooks is around eight and roughly balances those moved to prep, but the WiR World Contest in November, and other factors, swelled the number of submissions dramatically during that month and increased the backlog.

We could increase to two sets per day, and reduce the backlog that way, but I would like to propose that we reduce the number of approved hooks gradually by changing to having nine hooks per set. This would tend to balance the front page better as it is often overlong on the right hand side as compared to the left. A particularly short set of hooks could even have ten hooks, rather than reusing old hooks when balancing the main page. What do folks think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support nine to ten, - it often looks unbalanced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should ever feature more than eight hooks in a set. IMO, six is the ideal number, but for a number of practical reasons we usually feature more. 260 nominations isn't a huge amount, especially now that they are split over two pages, and one extra hook per day will make little impact on any backlog in any case. I'd much prefer to go to a 12-hour cycle for a few weeks to get rid of any backlog, but IMO we probably don't need to think about that until the number has gone above 300. Gatoclass (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to hear from David Levy on whether nine hooks (or even ten) is a good size for balancing the main page given the expansions to On this day; looking at the page now, we have eight hooks and a few blank lines as compared to the right side. Gatoclass, we are long past the day that a six-hook set is feasible simply in terms of main-page balance; right now we're frequently getting old hooks inserted to lengthen our section when we have many short hooks in a set of eight, or hooks are pulled. I can definitely see the point that the more hooks in a set, the less attention is paid to each one, but I don't know what we can do about it under the current circumstances. I'd certainly prefer all-new hooks to new plus reruns, and I definitely prefer snappy hooks to some of the lengthier ones.

My worry about two sets a day, even though it's the only way we'll get the backlog down, is that we're barely keeping up with getting one set per day, and we'd run out in three or four days unless we step up prep creation and the admins step up the rate of promotion—it's been quite a while since the backlog notice at the top of the Queues page was turned off for longer than a day or two. If we could get three or four queues filled at a time with at least as many preps, then we might stand a chance of sustaining a 12-hour cycle for a couple of weeks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I saw that gap on the main page today, admittedly I haven't been watching the main page much lately so don't know if this is a common phenomenon. If it is, would there be a way to change the percentage of mainpage space devoted to each project? Because I notice that for the two on the left (TFA and DYK) they seem to be getting about three fifths of the page.

With regard to the promotion rate, I don't believe nine hooks will make much of an impact on any backlog as I said, and with regard to the reported shortage of participation, I think people do tend to turn up when they are needed - and a 12-hour rate would only be needed for a relatively short period anyhow. But as I said, I'm not sure we are quite at the stage that we need to go to two sets a day in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

BlueMoonset: Under the current circumstances, an increase to nine or ten hooks per set seems prudent.

From the perspective of overall main page maintenance, larger DYK sets generally allow things to run more smoothly than multiple updates per day do. (Most of the other sections are updated daily, so is's easier to keep the content relatively cohesive and non-redundant when it's temporally synchronized.)

In this particular instance, it appears to make more sense from a DYK-specific perspective as well. —David Levy 16:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been active in set promotion in recent weeks, but I have been intending to return to the job. However, verification of even eight hooks at a time is a very laborious job that I can just about manage, nine or ten hooks per set would probably be a deal breaker for me. I also think, though, that more than eight hooks just makes the section too cluttered. A couple of decent hooks will redeem an eight hook set, but when you go to nine or ten, it makes for too many mediocre hooks and too much information. Gatoclass (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Gatoclass that anything more than eight hooks just appears too cluttered, and too laborious to verify each hook. What about reducing the width of TFA-DYK/ITN-OTD columns back to 50%/50% (right now it's at 55%/45%, kind of related to what Gatoclass is saying above), and run 6-hook sets (at 50% width, 6-hook set is enough to balance the current Main Page) twice a day (so that backlog will gradually decrease as opposed to rapidly disintegrate)? Just some different thoughts. Alex Shih (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Do we know by what rate the number of hooks is increasing each day? If there really was a sudden influx of hooks, but now each day fewer than eight hooks get suggested/promoted, then the backlog will clear itself. That is, it's only something one needs to worry about if the average number of new hooks continues to be more than eight a day. I see on the Errors page that people really care about the balance of the Main Page, and this had led to admins recycling old hooks [1] or deleting OTDs [2]. Both of these seem less than ideal. Due to DYKs featuring "new content", I'm not sure it's feasible to have a cache of emergency hooks that can be used when someone thinks the ratio is off, but it might be worth thinking about. (Personally I don't really think most people care if one column is a bit shorter than the other.) Umimmak (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment DYK is the "fun" part of the main page, it needs to flex its output to match the mature sections, i.e TFA, ITN and OTD. Limiting it to eight hooks when it's clear that every single day it's the short portion of the main page seems a little short-sighted. Increasing to nine hooks per set is trivial and would really help with the main page balance. We're not seeing a huge amount of rejection of DYKs right now through errors (well done everyone!!) so I see no good reason to limit the set to eight right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I would suggest increasing the turnaround to 2 sets a day simply because in about 16 days, the WikiCup starts up again and we are going to have a big influx of nominations coming in January so I would strongly recommend we beat the rush and make the switch now so we can chip away at the backlog before the WikiCup comes. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Well the WikiCup can wait. The pursuit for points using DYK as a soft touch is well known by now. We'd be better off stalling those nominations until proper quality control is provided. The previous commentator has created a number of bogus content forks, we need to be very cautious advocating such. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

TRM, as I recall, not so long ago you were arguing passionately and at length in favour of the opposite view. What's changed? Gatoclass (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I was arguing passionately and at length in favour of not proving proper quality control? I missed that. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to the debate about the number of hooks. I'm sure you have argued strongly in the past that we should not meddle with the number, but keep it consistent, so it's a surprise to see you apparently taking a different view now. Gatoclass (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't recall doing that either. Perhaps you're thinking of someone else? All of my concerns have always related to quality control, so actually the number of hooks is somewhat irrelevant if the number of errors is being kept down. I am 100% certain that I have expressed support for changing set sizes or cadence of sets in the recent past, so maybe you should go and dig up some diffs if it's so important to you that you felt a need to bring it up. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't realised the split down the mainpage was not midline. My preference would be to make the page 50/50 in size as it looks funny to me. My vote would be rejig the split and go to 2 hooks a day till christmas. And then go back to 24 hours as we only have seven approved hooks currently. And keep at 24 hours thru Jan until we get a feel for the quality of stuff coming via wikicup. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean 2 sets a day....? If we're now down to votes, I'd got for a set of 10, once per day, until the backlog is reduced somewhat. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Alex Shih and Casliber that if a "short" DYK section has become common, the best solution would be to alter the width of the project columns to a proportion closer to 50:50 - assuming this is achievable technically - as it's 55:45 now. I'm not sure we would need to go to full 50:50 - 52:48 might be about right - but regardless, this would be a much better solution IMO than cramming in extra hooks to try and eliminate the gap. Gatoclass (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

For the sake of comparison, 52:48, 6 hooks, 52:48, 8 hooks, 50:50, 6 hooks, 55:45, 10 hooks. Allow me to summarize: the task here appears to be 1) Eliminate the backlog 2) Find a long term solution. 12 hours for 8-hook set proves to be very short term solution, as evidenced in the revision history ([3]). My concern with going for 10-hook set permanently is that it puts undue weight on DYK (see above for example). Neither do I think we should go back to two 8-hook sets per day or maintain the status quo, as it has been proved problematic. Alex Shih (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

My guess is that it would take a full-fledged RfC to make changes in the proportions of the main page. We certainly can't do it unilaterally; even if it were to pass at RfC—I have my doubts—it would not solve our immediate problem, which is a high and growing number of hooks, including an approved backlog as I type this of 24.5 days (196 hooks), and a total of 275 nominations. (By contrast, July's 20-day stretch at two per day began with a 20-day backlog of 160 approved hooks, and September's 10-day stretch with 161 approved.) DYK has historically switched the number of sets per day as a way to regulate the backlog: two to three back when I started (and up to four during the 2012 Olympics), and more recently between one and two, something I find far less alarming than Alex Shih. Our nomination/approval rate is higher than can be supported by promoting only eight hooks a day, so we have to go to a higher burn rate, at least occasionally. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a higher burn rate is necessary, but I agree with Johnbod that it won't do any harm to leave it until sometime in January, Christmas is a busy period for most people so it really isn't a good time to be switching to two sets a day. As for column proportions, certainly it isn't something DYK could do unilaterally but I'm not sure it would require an RFC. In fact, I have been thinking that it might even be something we could consider manipulating on a day-to-day basis, as it's very doubtful anyone would even notice and it would probably be the most elegant method of balancing the main page. Certainly a lot better than constantly manipulating the number of hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Doesn't the flow of nominations and approvals slow down (like all other editing) over the holiday period? I suggest we review the situation in early January. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Johnbod's suggestion seems sensible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah...not fussed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Those of us favoring increasing the number of hooks - including myself, I think keeping the 24h-schedule is sensible to allow all hooks to be seen by people around the world - can admit that an increase by one or two hooks per day will help lower the backlog but take more time, so we should use these days of less noms and approvals to burn off some of the currently approved hooks. Even assuming that no new hooks are approved for two weeks due to Xmas and stuff, the current backlog would allow 20 days of DYK with 10 hooks per day or 22 days with 9 hooks per day. So I would suggest we start using more hooks immediately. We can always reduce the number of hooks again after all. Regards SoWhy 11:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's very simple, just nudge the number of hooks up to nine or ten. No need to redesign the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding an extra hook per day won't even make a dint in any backlog, it's a pointless exercise. Gatoclass (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I think what that proposal is suggesting, is that it's better than doing nothing and continue to let the backlog grow, which is fair. Although I remain unconvinced that overtly long list of hooks is the best solution. More time consuming to build, with less readability in my opinion. Let's see if we can have more input. Alex Shih (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding an extra hook per day won't even make a dint in any backlog this is patently untrue. It can only help, especially over Xmas when activity is traditionally very low for a week or so. You're not going to change the layout of the main page in short order, and going two sets a day is highly dangerous when few editors will be around to quality control over Xmas. So take the compromise and go to nine or ten hooks per set until the new year. Solutions, not problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Just to clarify, do you not think 9/10 hook sets would put too much weight on DYK/decrease the readability? Or is it simply because since we have been recycling old hooks to balance the Main Page anyway, the solution for now is to go for more hooks per set (fair point)? And this is going to be a temporary solution, correct? Alex Shih (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Increasing hooks/set will have two benefits: balancing the main page and getting through the backlog slowly but more quickly than currently. You'll never get an RFC to adjust the main page concluded within a couple of months, so either you have be practical and do what is (a) possible and safe (increasing hooks per set), or (b) practical and do what is possible and dangerous (go to two sets of 8 hooks per day), or (c) you do nothing until any main page balancing RFC concludes, by which time the backlog will probably be in excess of 300 hooks. I'd opt for (a) any time, and see no issue with readability. Perhaps when sets are collated, a mixture of hook lengths should be considered too in order to provide a little "whitespace" around the shorter hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

If extra length is needed, what about allowing two in the set to have a picture?70.67.222.124 (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Balancing the Main Page is only one reason to expand the set. More pictures would not solve the backlog-problem. Regards SoWhy 08:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

One extra hook per day isn't going to make a scratch on the backlog, the only way to reduce a backlog effectively is to increase the number of sets per day which is the solution we have always adopted. Going to two sets a day has the added advantage of reducing the backlog very quickly so that things can get back to normal in the fastest possible time. But as has already been pointed out, there is no hurry to go to two sets a day, it can wait until well after Christmas, when people will have more time to attend to the queues. Gatoclass (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Add two hooks per day. The rest of the main page can sustain that. That's a 25% increase in throughput. Plus, getting through the "backlog" isn't the only issue at hand. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

There isn't room for two extra hooks. Yesterday the lefthand column was actually longer than the right, today there would be room at most for one additional hook. Gatoclass (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Because we're continually dropping ITN items and/or OTD items to make up for the shortfall in DYK. There's almost always room for two extra hooks. E.g. today.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Well there's another possible option to consider - dropping an ITN or OTD item to balance the page. It certainly makes more sense than adding additional DYK hooks. But if there's "almost always" room for two extra DYK hooks, then we definitely should be looking at adjusting the column widths IMO. But again, that would be an issue better discussed after the Christmas break. Gatoclass (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Not really, the main page is about quality items, both of which are assured at OTD and ITN (to a degree), and it's quite unreasonable to limit their entries just because you "don't like" the idea of having ten hooks per set. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, we could debate this until the cows come home, but I don't have time right now as I'm trying to complete an article or two for Christmas so again, I suggest we leave this until after the Christmas break. Gatoclass (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Well I suggest we don't, I suggest we increase the number of hooks per set to ten to solve one problem and part-solve another. If you wait until after Xmas to launch an RFC, it won't have any impact on this project and its backlog and the imbalance of the main page until February. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding an extra two hooks per day will have little impact on the backlog by February either, but it will reduce the quality and attractiveness of the DYK section. But since as I said I have other things to attend to right now, I will endeavour to leave the last word at this point to you, since you always seem to insist upon it anyhow. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

No, we've had to add one or two more hooks about 50% of the time at the moment, and of course it will help stem the increase in the bcklog. I think you missed that point, we're going to have to do it manually with recyled hooks for the next two months if we don't increase new hooks per set to 9 or 10 in any case, so you're advocating re-using old hooks (which we've received a number of complaints about).... Or do nothing until February at which point your backlog will be 100 hooks more, and we'll still have been triaging the main page daily. Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

If you are already adding recycled hooks from time to time, I guess it doesn't make any difference whether it's a recycled hook or a new one. My point is that while this may be acceptable as a temporary solution, we would still do well to look for a more elegant longterm solution as sets in excess of eight hooks are unattractive as well as being harder to build, balance and verify. Gatoclass (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Surely it's better to pre-empt the problem that is known and exists now by using new hooks which would (a) reduce complaints about "I've seen that DYK before" and (b) reduce the increase in the backlog? Your longterm solution is all very dandy but won't be implementable until February at the earliest. These are problems we have had for some weeks/months (not including the backlog!) and ones we can ameliorate by increasing set hook size to nine or ten per day. I see no evidence at all that sets of nine or ten are "harder to build" (we usually have three or four preps waiting at any one time, that could just as easily be two or three preps), and there's no evidence that nine or ten hooks are "unattractive", not one reader has complained about that. Readers, however, have complained about recyled hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I see no evidence at all that sets of nine or ten are "harder to build" - you wouldn't, because you've never built one.

Building good, balanced sets gets exponentially more difficult the more hooks you have to select. Six hooks is probably the ideal, seven or eight is doable. After that, it gets increasingly difficult to find hooks on topics not already covered by one or more hooks in the set. Also, longer sets needs more good quality hooks. In my experience, you need a minimum of two good hooks in an eight-hook set, a nine hook set however requires a minimum of three good hooks, which is another problem because it increases the burn rate of quality hooks. If you have less than three good hooks in a nine hook set, the weakness of the other hooks becomes much more apparent, to the point that when reading through the set you find yourself thinking, "why am I bothering with this crap?" Good set building is an art and the more hooks you add, the harder it is to achieve an acceptable level of quality. Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with those who say that increasing the number of hooks would tend to make DYK cluttered. It already has more entries than ITN and OTD and this indicates that it's the hooks in those sections that need some pruning. And, if we still end up with some white space, this isn't a big deal. Currently, there are much larger blocks of white space around the blurb for the POTD. Andrew D. (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oh well leave it as it is, let the backlog grow, allow old hooks to be recycled, deal with the complaints. Way to go. (And here comes the WikiCup!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• I have started a thread in WP:VPR to solicit opinions about Main Page columns. Alex Shih (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, not even two weeks later, and in our slowest period, the backlog is now nearly 250 hooks, so bravo to those content to sit and watch it expand out of control. And hey, in better news, WikiCup starts in less than five days, so that's really going to help! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Confusing instructions

Yesterday, I went to submit an article for DYK, but came unstuck at the instructions, which suggest it should be categorised by "the date on which the article was created or on which expansion began, not the date on which you make the nomination". Naturally I put it under the date it was expanded, as that was the later of the two, though BlueMoonset kindly corrected it, suggesting it wasn't right. Perhaps the instruction text needs to be reviewed and reworked, so as to be clearer about which date category nominations should go to, particularly when an article is recently GA promoted? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Bungle, I've just made an edit to the nominations page that adds mention of placing GAs; please let me know whether it is sufficiently clear. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

If me simply raising the concern is sufficient enough to change the DYK policy, then I won't argue with that. It may well be de facto that this is the case, so having it formally written isn't necessarily going to cause any issues that I see (and can always be reviewed if concerns surface). It may need amending in the instructions part too further up on the page. Would this equally apply to an article that has gone through a peer review process, or even FA? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

No, it just applies to newly promoted Good Articles, which were added to new articles and newly expanded existing articles as being eligible for DYK a couple of years back. No policy has been changed here, just the explanation of a previously made change (which I've also now inserted further up; thanks for pointing that out). Peer review is unrelated to DYK, and featured articles already have their own spot on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Christ, just file each nom under the date nominated and be done with it. This fussing about the date is another relic from 15 years ago. EEng 04:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Annual Top 50 Report DYK hook

Hello. I, along with many other editors, have spent the last few days compiling an annual version of the Top 25 Report. An in-progress build can be seen here. When completed, the report, consisting of the fifty most viewed Wikipedia articles of the year, accompanied by commentary, will be moved into WP space. Per the discussion here, we have decided to attempt to put a main-page link to the complete report up on New Year's Day. Furthermore, we reached the conclusion that DYK would be the most suitable place to put such a link, with a listing like "Did you know that in 2017, the most read Wikipedia article was Deaths in 2017?".

However, as the link will be to WP space, this listing would be unorthodox. Moreover, I am not intimately familiar with the eccentricities of nominating a hook. Thus, I just wish to place some tentative feelers out at this stage to gauge the feelings of regular contributors here to this idea. Thanks - Stormy clouds (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Unless it meets the DYK criteria, we should not be making any special exceptions. We have precedence for declining such a suggestion as we had a once suggestion that one of our most regular contributors get their own hook to celebrate reaching over 1,000 credits, but decided against it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking "What a good idea!". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Even if we do disregard the qualifying procedures (which I am against us doing as I stated above), the report in its current form has rather a lot of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP issues with it. For example on President Trump it talks about the recent tax bill negatively as well as talking about a recent politician being an "accused child molester" (thought they had innocent until proven guilty over there) as one point (With the US further down having similar issues). Second you have something about The Queen with an unnecessary link to the IRA in it. Then you have "Bollywood is weird", I doubt our Indian editors would agree with that. The list goes on and on. Personally I do not think that we should be making an exception for something that in its current form, we would never have passed in that state had it come through the usual channels. The Royal C (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@The Royal C:, @The C of E:: The Top 25 Report contains commentary, the purpose of which is to be humourous and informative. As such, especially considering its placement in WP space, NPOV, unless especially egregious, is overlooked (at least in my view as a compiler and commentary author). I will add the humour tag to the report as a whole to address this and illuminate readers unfamiliar with the report to the humourous intent of the commentary. BLP's are still problematic, of course, as they can constitute slander or libel. However, none of the issues raised by you constitute a BLP violation - the word accused explicitly respects the innocent until proven guilty rule, while the link to the IRA has no implications for her highness (the write-up on her is positive) but rather on dispelling the myth that every Irish person despises royalty. (I've removed it out of courtesy). The US is not a person, and criticising it is not bias, so it does not violate either NPOV or BLP. Claiming that Bollywood is weird is an opinion, and is therefore an integral part of commentary. Most of the issues can be addressed as either opinion (entitled as it commentary), or humour (entitled as it is a key aspect of the report). I hope this alleviates your concerns. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that some of this "commentary" that is meant to be "humorous" is offensive to some and has no place on the main page. MB 18:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@MB: - such as? If I wrote some material which you justifiably find offensive, I may be willing to edit it. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It is really not acceptable for The C of E to be participating in this discussion under two different accounts/identities, The C of E and The Royal C. It isn't the first time this has happened in DYK discussions, but it needs to be last. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with BlueMoonset. Even though the account is disclosed and the comment identifies itself, it is not obvious and misleads. Alex Shih (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, in particular as it appears to have confused at least commentator here who has pinged both accounts in one reply. There's simply no need for this misuse of multiple accounts. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I had spotted it (pinged both to see which head of the Hydra would retaliate), and I also think that it is wholly unfair. It is an effective way to instantly double one's clout in terms of consensus, and while declared, is another form of sockpuppetry. The only reason that I can think of for switching so frequently between accounts is that it is a ploy designed to deceive, and so should be rooted out. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I assure you there was no intent to deceive nor "double clout". I was merely using my account for work computers/mobile devices to respond and I clearly declared who I was. It seems I made a mistake in doing so, I apologise. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

From the discussion you linked above, the report was to be "neutral and informative". Now you are saying it doesn't have to be neutral because it is meant to be humorous. I don't accept that there is a place for anything non-neutral to be linked from main page or anywhere in article space nor have I ever seen any policy that would allow it. MB 01:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The report will include a link to the raw data, the basis for the report we are working on, but that's not nearly as much fun. If the DYK regulars don't see this as a good fit, I understand that, but I think it will be interesting to people in a DYK kind of way. Are there other suggestions on how we can make it visible to readers? Thank you,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps an article in the Signpost? –FlyingAce^✈hello 00:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• In the past I have supported DYK and commentary at Top-25, but I do not think the two go together, and would oppose because of the decidedly not NPOV nature of the top list commentary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Eoarchean geology what!? and Pressure-temperature-time path

The opening sentence of this article, or just the opening phrase, doesn't make sense. These are terranes, rocks, they're not "geologies!"

This DYK has created its very own neologism, "Eoarchean geology," and uses the awkward phrase "geology are" to talk about rocks rather than the science. What is this article about? The opening statement isn't cited in any of the references, because all the sources use "rock" and "terrane" and synonyms of "rock formation" to describe Eoarchean rocks and use the term "geology" to describe the science of geology, as geologists and English speakers use these terms. Heck, as Wikipedia uses these terms! As everyone besides Wikipedia DYK uses these terms, as all the Wikipedia articles use these terms. If the opening statement is not even English, and not in any of its sources, how can this article be approved for a DYK?

--2602:306:CD1E:44B0:7D32:7D06:B9E8:AE64 (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It is a good topic for Wikipedia, so it would be nice to correct it and see it on the main page alongside the usual lame puns, but it's going to fail verification in almost every sentence. I haven't made it through the introduction and I'm finding major factual contradictions between what the article says and what the sources say.

This article should probably be moved out of main space instead of having every citation tagged with a failed verification template. IMO. --2602:306:CD1E:44B0:7D32:7D06:B9E8:AE64 (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

From the OED:

geology, n.

b. The rocks, structures, processes, etc., with which this science is concerned; esp. those of a specified locality or region.

• 1795 T. Jefferson Let. 14 Oct. in Papers (2000) XXVIII. 505 Our geology is untouched... Your views of it would have been precious to us.
• 1816 M. Keating Trav. (1817) I. 38 The geology as well as the botany of the Pyrenees ought to repay all the patience..of the enthusiasts in those sciences.
• 1833 C. Darwin Let. 11 Apr. (1985) I. 307 The geology of this part of Tierra del was, as indeed every place is, to me very interesting.::*
• 1886 C. Scott Pract. Sheep-farming 122 A study of the botany and geology of a sheep-walk is one of the first steps to successful herding.
• 1930 Pop. Sci. Monthly June 26/2 Knowledge of the geology of the Antarctic was increased by study of the Queen Maud Range.
• 1970 Nature 28 Feb. 782/1 Swamps, sandy savannas and bush have made ground-based studies of the underlying geology difficult.
• 1977 N.Y. Rev. Bks. 15 Sept. 8/4 By suggestible I mean that she considers both the surface and the geology of the admired writer.
• 1991 S. Winchester Pacific (1992) 402 One of the 600-ft cliffs with which geology had blessed the place.
• 2008 New Mexico Mag. Feb. 41 The unusual geology of Ojito lends it an ambience at times disconcerting and otherworldly.

It may be clearer to rewrite it to align with what is perhaps the more common definition, but it's not the editor's "very own neologism". The sources use "geology" to refer to the physical rocks etc., e.g.: The first evidence of an extensive older component in the geology of the Godthåbsfjord area (Fig. 1) came from field mapping in the late 1960s and The geology of the Nuvvuagittuq belt and surrounding gneisses has been reviewed elsewhere. And one also sees In Section 2, we briefly review the Eoarchean geology of SW Greenland (doi:10.1016/j.gca.2007.07.019) referring to the physical rocks etc. Plenty of Wikipedia articles use "geology" in this way as well. The geology of the Appalachians dates back to more than 480 million years ago doesn't mean the study dates back that far, just the rocks etc. See also The geology of Europe is varied and complex, and gives rise to the wide variety of landscapes found across the continent, from the Scottish Highlands to the rolling plains of Hungary. The article Eoarchean geology is not about the field of study but rather the objects of study for that field and the opening sentence should reflect that. Umimmak (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, all these sources use the term in the manner I suggest is standard. I'm not sure anyone is going to disagree with my usage issue, as it's such an unusual twist of English, so I don't see the value in quoting a dozen sources to support my argument, but, thank you. --2602:306:CD1E:44B0:F842:9971:6DAD:1A87 (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Graeme Bartlett, who nominated the article for DYK, and Cwmhiraeth, who reviewed it, so they are aware of this discussion. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

This article, which is in the queue to go on the front page is also going to be a problem; it links to igneous rocks and other words improperly, and the material in the article is not from the sources. Pressure-temperature-time path. I think these may be language barrier issues, but this article should not be on the front page without a thorough English language and geology review. Why was it approved as is? No one appears to have read for context. Both articles are encyclopedic topics, but they don't need to be in main space as is. Please review your geology better. This has been an issue in the past with geology DYK articles. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:59 (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

People here seem to be adding extra DYK requirements. English grammar problems are not a disqualification for DYK. Anyway it is better to have it fixed. I do not see any issue with the coverage for "Eoarchean geology" article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: English grammar problems are certainly an issue for articles that will appear on the main page. Another of your nominations, Template:Did you know nominations/Numerical modeling (geology), was indecipherable to anyone but a geology major. A different nomination, Vitamin C, in contrast, has a lot of scientific terminology but is a pleasure to read. Yoninah (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The grammar is not the problem, until it changes the meaning. The Eoarchean article is about rocks, specific rocks of an era. And, by definition, metamorphic rocks do not begin in igneous melts. Someone with a background in geology will know that without assigning it to a grammatical error, and that is what is needed with these articles. This is why I like to wait until the articles are on the main page, non-DYK editors fix things, DYK editors only bother to take insult and defend their lack of domain knowledge. I'll go back to the old way. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:59 (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Mindanao mountain rat

The hook is not in the article, which doesn't mention the protected area, or do mentions in the references count? Can I write a DYK article and just point out an article mentions the hook? --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:5C (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Winter Olympics

Just an FYI, the 2018 Winter Olympics are coming up from 9-25 February. This will probably lead to an increase in the number of special occasion hooks- lots of people will create articles with hooks to run in this timeframe? Can we set up a Winter Olympics holding area like we did for the 2016 Summer Olympics? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Two articles in less than 24 hours, hook not in article

Now that we've established felsic greenstones are a matter of grammar, isn't the hook required to beat least mentioned in the article? Last two sets each had an article where readers couldn't find the hook.

How can a reviewer verify that the hook is referenced, if the hook isn't in the article?

--2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:9D (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Nice to see nothing ever changes here at DYK. It's comforting, like a warm puppy. Is beat least mentioned anything like road less travelled? EEng 13:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

A little, perhaps, but without any puppies. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Other things that never changes at DYK are the lack of responsibility and the excuses. See above : so what if the article says the exact opposite geology from one paragraph to the next, that's just bad grammar. If you chase off the subject matter experts, it doesn't increase your knowledge that your errors are not pointed out. One geologist reading those articles from top to bottom could have put a stop to this. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:9D (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I was agreeing with you. Geesh. EEng 15:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

And I was extrapolating upon your agreement. Not sure what "Geesh" is about. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:9D (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Carry on. EEng 19:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Racist hook

In addition to not being in the article - what is this?

that Ghanaian engineer Benjamin Asante is one of a few black oil and gas pipeline engineers who have given expert testimony before the United States Supreme Court?

Why is this a "did you know" type comment? Not only is the colour of his skin not mentioned in the article, it uses weasel words ("a few") and is probably original research to boot. And moreover - what does the colour of his skin have to do with the article? Is the author implying that black people aren't capable of giving expert testimony? Why mention it? 174.0.48.147 (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

This quote is plagiarized from the gentleman's biography on a Ghanaian business site. US Americans do tend to celebrate firsts by Black Americans, but it may be deemed less appropriate elsewhere. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:9D (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right, the article does not mention the colour of his skin and I'd be very surprised if it did, given that he is Ghanaian. Likewise, I fail to see how it is at all notable in the context of giving expert testimony before the United States Supreme Court. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "one of a few black oil and gas pipeline engineers who have given expert testimony before the United States Supreme Court" is such an utterly stupidly narrow achievement as to border on parody. I know! Let's have a category: Categor:Black oil and gas pipeline engineers who have given expert testimony before the United States Supreme Court or Category:Black oil and gas pipeline engineers who have given expert testimony before the United States Supreme Court on Tuesdays in May. EEng 16:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Any DYK that relies upon person of skin colour (not white) doing something considered (by the ignorant) to be a white activity is going to sound racist to those of us who don't live in a socially backward society. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the foregoing, it is ambiguous, as "black oil" looks to be modifying "oil". Alanscottwalker (talk)

It has been pointed out on the article's talk page that the US Supreme Court is an appelate court, so no witnesses testify there. William Avery (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah right, so skin colour may be the least of our problems here. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, the court does have some original jurisdiction but even then it would generally appoint a special master to take the actual testimony. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess pinging the nominator, approver or promoter would be a good idea? Crosstemplejay, Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The relevant text was pulled from the article 14 hours ago (it no longer makes the claim about testifying before Supreme Court; the source, the company that has made Mr. Asante its acting CEO, reads He is one of few black Oil and Gas engineers to have testified as an expert pipeline engineer before the US Supreme High Court, and gets the name of the court wrong). What might be more useful is pinging a few admins, since a report was posted at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors at around the time the article text was pulled, yet the hook is still on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Well one of the three I just pinged is an admin, and I reiterated a request for help at WP:ERRORS in an attempt to actually do something about this rather than just sit around having a moaning festival. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• This hook is legally nonsensical. The United States Supreme Court is an appellate court, which only hears arguments from counsel. It does not hear testimony from witnesses at all (except in the exceedingly rare instance of a boundary dispute between U.S. states, which would not be relevant here). bd2412 T 17:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

  Another good reason to ping those involved in writing and approving the hook. Perhaps such "complex" legal hooks need to be checked by an expert before they get all the way to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@BD2412: Have you removed it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Pulled as demonstrably incorrect. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

thx. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Only took from 8:44 this morning. One really would expect better. But thanks for getting the error off the main page nontheless. 91.49.74.59 (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• DYK: The gift that keeps on giving. EEng 19:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

And the WikiCup has not even started. Will be hilarious soon. 91.49.74.59 (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Funny as a heart attack. I don't suppose anyone wants to join me in once again calling for junking of the "newness" nonsense in favor of running GAs instead? EEng 20:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

That rock group formed in London in 1970 might make a fine GA. 20:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Should have noted the sarcasm there on my part. Sorry for that... But even taking factoids out of good articles can lead to the same issues if reviews are simply quid pro quo with people reviewing things they have no clue about simply because they have to for getting their own nominations onto the main page. It is obviously totally fine to have no idea about some subjects but then reviewing them inevitably leads to quality issues. 91.49.74.59 (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

At least GAs aren't selected specifically for being brand new, with little time for problems to be noticed and corrected. EEng 20:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure, my point just was that it would take more than just replacing new articles with good articles. The whole process, ruleset, reviews etc probably should get nuked and built up again from the ground up. I mean, i totally agree with you in principle that it would be much better, not just from an error perspective but more importantly a reader one as well(who wants to read articles of barely any substance after all). But just switching it in the current structure is bound to lead to the same issues, just with better articles(which in itself would still be better of course). 91.49.74.59 (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, much needs changing, but switching to GAs would help. And it would reduce throughput, slowing things down, which would also help. And finally, imagine if all this reviewing effort went into GAs (which are terribly backlogged) instead of this "new content" nonsense! EEng 20:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, i guess small steps would better than nothing. And just think how much more points people could get for the WikiCup with good articles!!(sarcasm, haha)I still sadly cannot see any change like that happening, even if it would be a much better reader experience. As i said, who wants to read articles barely better than stubs. Good articles at least have some meat to it. And that is who Wikipedia is made for after all, readers. It does not exist to stroke the egos of a few people with DYK credits. 91.49.74.59 (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Prep 3 - Kirsty McGuinness

• Hook - " ... that Kirsty McGuinness plays for both the historically mostly Catholic Antrim GAA and the historically mostly Protestant Northern Ireland women's national football team?"
• Article - "This differed [sic] from men's sport where there are traditionally sectarian divides between the historically majority Protestant association football and historically majority Roman Catholic GAA, which is no longer commonplace in women's sport in Northern Ireland"
• Source for the hook here even flatly contradicts the hook with the quote ""Sectarianism has never been a problem in women's football. All the clubs I have ever known have always had a great blend of Protestants and Catholics."
• In other words, the article doesn't claim that the NI women's national team has been "historically Protestant" and the source doesn't back it up either. Also, the article says "Some of our girls come to our training with their Antrim gear on and go to Antrim training with their Linfield shirts on." which suggests that playing women's GAA and football isn't even unusual, which renders the hook immediately non-hooky. Pinging @The C of E, Yoninah, and Usernameunique:. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I realise that my opinion is pretty meaningless but... if there is doubt just pull it before it gets onto the mainpage and replace with another? Can always be fixed, clarified etc and added again, no? Better to be on the safe side in the end. Or are there some arcane rules i am missing that would not allow that to happen? 91.49.74.59 (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

No, you're right, I can (and will) do that, even if it's just swapping it with one from a later queue just to allow for more opinions and/or fixes. Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I've swapped it back to Prep 5 so it won't go live until tomorrow. Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the hook to Prep 3 so there's no risk of it being promoted to queue before this issue is dealt with. There's no reason to rush things. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2017 (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) 22:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

So... do we have a backlog or not?

The [[last]] [[two]] nominations I've reviewed have both been untimely (week→month late) and at least one has already pinned their hopes on D9 which explicitly says we should be lenient in such cases if there's not a backlog. Should we just shut down those two nominations (they should've known better)? should we pull the "backlog" banner down (line doesn't seem all that long)? or is this one of those color alert situations where we never take the banner down but should we never pay attention to it either? — LlywelynII 09:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there's a backlog (246 approved hooks, at the current utilisation rate, that's a whole month of hook spare!!). I would either follow the guidelines (i.e. fail untimely nominations) or seek to adjust the guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not a fan of the seven days rule to be honest, but if we are consistently being lenient with the rule, then perhaps it is the time to adjust the guidelines indeed. Alex Shih (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

We need s cutoff line somewhere and, if 7 days still gets us enough hooks to operate, it's fine with me. We can move it around to fit the line we've got. For my part, I don't mind a bit of wiggle room but we should be mostly consistent so people don't take it too personally. — LlywelynII 10:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. And we're just about to start the WikiCup, so added to the complete reluctance to actually do anything about the already massive backlog, the last thing that's needed is even more hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you can eliminate considering articles where the hook isn't actually in the article. Two such made the main page in the last few days. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:9D (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, that would be optimal. Especially with the advent of WikiCup (see below) where the project will be inundated with low quality grabs for points. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is any evidence that participation in the WikiCup means a lowering of standards for DYK. Nor is there the rush for DYK points you mention. In 2017, the 160 first round entrants averaged fewer than one DYK each in the two months of the round. Why don't you come and join the fun Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Lower quality than the (plagiarized) racist hook not even in its article (above) or the confused contradictory abuse of jargon of the approved Eoarchean geology that its supporter calls bad grammar? I hope Cwhiraeth is correct and they can't get worse. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:9D (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

It certainly won't be better either though. And probably a little more combative when it comes to actually getting articles onto the main page, as that is what gives points. But then again, i would be happy to be proven wrong. We will have to wait and see i guess. 91.49.92.131 (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• See my proposal in the next section. EEng 16:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

To get back to the original question, one of the hooks in question was an April Fools' Day request, which has no newness requirement beyond having been created/expanded/GAed since the previous April 1. The other is unfortunately quite late, having been expanded starting on November 8. Even with the D9 rule, we've never been that lenient even with a new submitter—a few days late, maybe even a week, sure, but not a month and a half. When it's that late, we urge them to resubmit should the article ever be made a GA, which seems a distinct possibility in this case, and to nominate (much) earlier next time. As to the backlog banner, it was put up by someone a number of months ago; I very much doubt they had any notion of the use of "backlog" in the supplementary rules under D9. Since there's always some sort of backlog, in part by design, I don't see its need. However, D9 specifically says "large backlog"; by any definition, over 200 nominations is large, so the Isabella of Aragon nomination would not have qualified for an exception beyond the typical leniency given DYK newcomers. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The WikiCup

This is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2018 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. 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, only twenty-five 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! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest we add a rule to the effect that any editor competing for the WikiCup be barred from making new DYK nominations until the WikiCup competition is over. EEng 16:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Or at the very least deduct points for bad reviews that result in pulled articles as well as for getting ones own articles pulled? Not quite as harsh and perhaps an incentive to take more care when nominating and reviewing articles. 91.49.92.131 (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposed new rule barring WikiCup participants from nominating at DYK. I do think the WikiCup—if they haven't already—should consider penalizing for pulled articles and clearly problematic reviews, even beyond disqualifying the points for the promoted-and-later-pulled DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Quality control was among the points raised during the feedback session for the 2017 Wikicup. I think it's fair to say that the judges are on board with stricter quality control, and that is pretty much the sole reason I have joined the panel. Our standards for acceptable DYK articles may be different, but I'm fairly certain that anything failing to meet a core policy is not going to receive points this year (or at any rate, the judges will make every effort to ensure that this is the case). Vanamonde (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, we'll tell WikiCup we won't ban their participants from DYK if they institute a rule penalizing 2X points for hooks that make it into prep and get pulled, 3X if it gets to Q and gets pulled, and 4X if it gets to main page and gets pulled. I've been away from DYK for I-don't-know-how-long and I can still remember the nauseated feeling I got every time I saw a nomination from a Wikicup participant (certain reliable editors excepted, I rush to note). EEng 17:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, I don't think there is any evidence that participation in the WikiCup means a lowering of standards for DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

What would be the stance on content forks if i may ask? What will happen if new articles end up as redirects after being obvious content forks, or not even that. (Wrigley Field Ivy or Fucking(sign) come to mind there as random examples. Not recent but just two "articles" that come to mind) Is there any position on penalising or disregarding points for that? 91.49.92.131 (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder how an IP that only started editing today could have knowledge of those discussions that happened early last year...? Could we have a WP:SOCK here? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Ever heard of a variable IP? My IP changes pretty much evey single day at least once. And given that i am located in germany, every day is a blank day. But funny enough that the one who created the content forks i mentioned tries to discredit me. Go on to SPI if you will, i have nothing to hide. Otherwise i would apreciate if you could strike your unsupported aspertion against me. As long as i can edit as an IP, i will do so. 91.49.92.131 (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

To add, i never had an account. I don't need an account to follow things, which i have for several years now. I don't need an account to be critical of things or have an opinion. I don't need an account to be a contributor etc. The only thing i have done is very slowly getting tired of a lot of the BS stat chasing going on in this venue so i voice my opinion more. I follow numerous other venues as well, from ANI to the burocrats page to arbcom etc. I am so tired of being accused of being a sock but because that happens regularly i just out of pride will not make an account. I am a human even if i dont have an account so treat me as such... Ah a good little rant makes one feel right better, haha 91.49.92.131 (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

As a final note, you can even see comments by me from yesterday under a bit different IP. But yes, only started to edit today only to spite you personally because if is most convinient for you *roll eyes*... Absolutely tired of the sock nonsense. Yet every time i hear it the less likely it is i will ever make an account. When i am made a right James Hunt for no reason, i will not take it with a smile and conform. I am sadly way too proud and such baseless accusations speak way more about the one making them than they do about me... And now i am done with that nonsense. I am still curious about my quesrtion before i was rudely inetrrupted. Is there anything discouraging content forks? 91.49.92.131 (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, your opinion counts. As for unnecessary content forks, I have a few users edits to check out over the course of this "competition", past performance indicates that individuals will create spin-off articles of just about anything, just to gain some points for the cup. And leave all the clearing up to after the event. Another good reason to penalise WikiCup entrants for failures to meet requirements or even to try and pull the wool over our eyes with pseudo-articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think pulling the points is enough. One article I had to trash off the main page as a WikiCup DYK still stayed in the points count for the creator even after being stubified to nothing for a copyvio (like the racist hook above) and the rewrite being removed as incomprehensible (another geology article, Wikipedians should stop being hostile to experts). The school contributing the contradictory geology articles not supported by their references should have their articles removed from the competition. Even a high school geology student would know not to promote an article with felsic greenstone terranes. BTW, why is that article still sitting waiting to be promoted to the main page? --2602:306:CD1E:44B0:5561:F9B0:6E3:FE16 (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

  That is more an issue of the quid pro quo review process. People review things they have no clue about because they kind of have to for their own nominations. Then assume good faith with whatever is presented (a fine idea in principle of course but still problematic). There really isn't anything to prevent such things, especially with topics more towards sciences. But that is a basic structural problem of DYK which would take fundamental reforms to fix. Runs far deeper than the WikiCup. 91.49.92.131 (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Death penalty for reviewers. EEng 21:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)