Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 109

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 105←Archive 107Archive 108Archive 109Archive 110Archive 111→Archive 115

December 3

Can somebody who has more of an idea than me deal with the nomination of a non-existent page by a new editor under December 3 on the nominations page. (Thanks, love you forever) Belle (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Crisco, run for your life! These two a completely crazy! As to the picture etc., it's fine. In fact, I wrote it that way, so by definition it must be fine. Seriously, the reader's native shrewdness will inform him that it's the referent of the entire phrase Canandaigua, New York post office that's pictured. (If the link text is just post office then the link become something of an easter egg.) EEng (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Gerda: check out pansexualtity. Sorry I didn't get to the prep in time; my wife was feeling under the weather.
@EEng: "In a mad world, only the mad are sane". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 25 July 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) 08:27, 26 July 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 #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) 21:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

COI editing

(See my disclosures.) I am passing on a comment that suggests DYK's current backlog struggles further due to COI editors. I don't know if yet another rule is appropriate, but I didn't see anything in particular advising DYK reviewers to watch out for the visible effects that COI editing can have; the references to standard policy and NPOV may not be enough. I think DYK should stay open to all including COI editors, subject to the ordinary content policies, but maybe there should be guidance about promotional content, checking user history for signs of disclosed or undisclosed COI, etc. What say you? Frieda Beamy (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll stake out a position right now, as a starting point. Under no circumstances should a paid editor be making DYK nominations. Even if the project had the manpower to take on whatever additional evaluatory burden this might entail (which it doesn't right now) a substantial part of DYK's mission is to give editors -- volunteer editors -- a warm inner glow through the momentary recognition of their work. Paid editors already have the cold hard cash in their hand, and don't need any warm inner glow (assuming they're even capable of experiencing such, the mercenaries!). EEng (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC) Just kidding about mercenaries. Sort of. Mostly.
Support this position. Gamaliel (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Support this position. Cbl62 (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
And especially no DYK if they're planning a coup! EEng (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Well, then. I didn't realize there was such sentiment, but the fact that WP:DYK#Aims and objectives supports your view somehow gives me a warm inner glow. But then a few thoughts come to mind.

  • Belated thanks to EEng for promoting my DYK on Jonathan Quinn Barnett, but I guess my paid involvement wasn't obvious enough. Oops!
  • I asked about COI in general but you replied about paid COI, so I hope that other COI or close connection is okay because it's more like ordinary bias.
  • Since paid editors must disclose, a reviewer who disagrees with paid DYK on new articles would have the simple additional duty of checking the three places among which the disclosure is required.
  • Even then, if it's just a consensus sentiment and not a rule, another unconnected editor might be free to review or pass the nom based on taking a different view and independently judging the value of the hook.
  • User:CorporateM believes in working all paid articles to GA status, and I'm leaning that way. If a paid article reaches GA it's had broad support and that's quite a different story; might that qualify for DYK?
  • And if a paid editor is otherwise aboveboard and says something is not a paid article, I believe others would AGF.
  • If a paid editor wanted to suggest DYK without going to GA, might we make a list of editors willing to consider nominating on behalf of paid editors? You could announce something in an appropriate place and we could keep a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation. Frieda Beamy (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I discovered an old page where our WikiProject seems to have encouraged DYK submission by COI editors. This presents a good but implicit statement of the opposite practice and also suggests that COI editors qualify for the related award. I think the resolution should be that this page should recommend that potentially conflicted editors request DYK on the talkpages of other editors who have come forth as willing to review such requests and possibly pass them on. But having yet another layer is a bit tortuous. Frieda Beamy (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Prohibition on featuring articles about current political candidates?

Do we have any rules concerning featuring articles regarding current politicial candidates? We should have a prohibition against it, in my opinion. I'm writing about this for the Signpost but I'll give you a preview here. Cam Winton, fourth place candidate in last year's 2013 Minneapolis mayoral election, just told Minnesota Public Radio that his article was created by a friend to promote his campaign. And last October, DYK helped his campaign by putting him on the front page of one of the world's biggest websites twelve days before the election. So congratulations.

So I'm formally proposing amending the DYK rules to prohibit featuring in DYK any article about a political candidate currently running for office for six months prior to the date of the election.

  • Support as nominator. Gamaliel (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I have seen several articles that look as if they are created by the political team. This rule would also allow wiki editors to avoid coming under pressure if they are working for a candidate to write an article. The article may be written but we don't need to show it here. Victuallers (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If this gets consensus, I suggest they just be delayed until after the election, rather than rejected. That way no one looses out on DYK eligibility just because they happened to do the work near an election. Monty845 17:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, although if people only hear "Wikipedia delayed a report on [whatever] until after the election!" then that also can seem biased. Somehow I think the thing to do is completely suspend the nom -- in fact, it would be better if there isn't even a hook on the table, just an abstract "Article about Candidate X" -- all discussion held in abeyance until after the election, the nom just preserving that the nom was soon enough. EEng (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Of course, if we didn't have that idiotic "new content/7 day" preoccupation we could just say, "Don't even make such nominations until after the election."
"Check for neutrality" is a false standard. Just the fact that one candidate gets exposure on MP, while the others don't, is ipso facto not neutral, even if the hook itself is as neutral as "Candidate X's favorite ice cream flavor is vanilla." There's no such thing as neutral when exposure itself is valuable. EEng (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, just ask Cam Winton; if not for the three people ahead of him he'd be mayor thanks to DYK. Belle (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Be serious a minute, Belle. Are you saying that exposure on DYK might not make a difference, even the difference, in some cases? EEng (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure it could and I'm sure it does for all sorts of things (Is Arthur Beale selling more rope than their competitors this morning? Maybe). I'm certain we should have a rule against promotion of political candidates (and we do), I just found the chastising tone of the introduction a little out of balance with the "help" we gave Cam Winton. Belle (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but there are problems -- for one thing I'm not sure it's easy to tell who's a candidate (officially or unofficially) -- and aren't incumbents always running for re-election, so to speak (term limits aside)? Surely ITN has dealt with this, and I'm sure I've seen something somewhere re [insert some restriction -- protect articles?] N days before elections. Seems to me this conversation could be usefully had in conjunction with ITN (and maybe On This Day), and perhaps at Village Pump. EEng (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: there is already a rule about this on WP:DYK: Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates. It's basically one month rather than six, but it has been on the books for quite some time, and is usually enforced. Winton's hook should have been delayed until after the election per this rule. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As BlueMoonset states, we have had this rule for a long time. It's a good rule. Contrary to Jakec, it's important because any non-negative publicity (and possibly even negative publicity) that a candidate gets in the run-up to an election could be valuable to the candidate. The fact that the rule didn't get enforced in Template:Did you know nominations/Cam Winton was presumably due to two factors: (1) the hook wording didn't alert DYK reviewers to the political candidacy and (2) the DYK reviewer who OKed it was considered to be highly trusted and competent. Failure to enforce the rule was a case of dropping the ball, as Jakec notes. I recall that the rule was a consideration (discussed somewhere on this talk page) in connection with another Minneapolis mayoral candidate in 2013 (same DYK nominator as Cam Winton, as it happens) for a hook that ran more than 4 months pre-election: Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Andrew (politician).
I agree with Jakec that one month might be too short, but 6 months seems to be too long -- in many jurisdictions, elections aren't even announced that far in advance, so when looking at articles about potential candidates, we could get into unresolvable debates about whether an election is likely to be called within the next 6 months. --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is highlighting an issue in DYK whereby everyone gets a pass. The problem is that most of the hooks aren't even "hooks", they're just statements which aren't of any interest to anyone. While DYK claims to be all about getting new editors involved (which is factually erroneous, more later), and while it's used as an easy vehicle for WikiCup etc (more on that later), we should be looking for something interesting in DYK, or else rename it "factoids" or something else equivalently bland to some of the hooks. Who decides which current political candidate hooks are in or out? Or is it a moratorium on these nominations globally? Impossible to adequately define, impossible to implement, pointless and really, it should all boil down to interesting hooks. WP:TFP have a bird every three days or so, but it's a brilliant picture of a bird. Get it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree re many hooks are utterly dull and many others are hardly better, but I don't understand how you can't see that it's inappropriate for us to highlight a current or soon-to-be candidate (upcoming/new products might be another similar category, and there could be other categories as well). In fact, the more interesting the hook, the more inappropriate it would be. EEng (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "WP:TFP have a bird every three days or so, but it's a brilliant picture of a bird. Get it?" - No closer than seven days apart, in the past few months, and none at all in April to stop people from complaining (I get so tired of that). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
... and by EEng as well
No, it's not excessive. It depends on the race. For US presidential candidates six months might not be long enough, sad to say, though this leads to questions about how we determine who's a candidate. For the moment, though, I think we'll soon have a consensus reconfirming that some prohibition is appropriate (there already being such a rule) -- the question then will be the time period and definitional questions. EEng (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
To be honest I'm not even sure that the one-month moratorium is fully justifiable. There's no evidence that I know of that suggests Wikipedia has any political impact. The idea that a DYK article that appears on the Main Page for a few hours one day has any significant impact - that is to say, any more than the presumably significant volume of media coverage of a candidate - seems fanciful. The idea that an article that appears up to six months before an election might have any impact seems frankly outlandish. Prioryman (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. for me this isn't where the problem is. I worry more about overtly tasteless or distressing stuff (current wars, murder cases etc). For me this isn't in the same ballpark. And an interesting fact on some current figure will probably garner more interest than many other hooks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unnecessary censorship of political topics. If elections are motivating editors to write quality content on candidates, then it serves the purposes of DYK to highlight their work just as much as it does to highlight the work of other editors motivated to write quality content for any other current events. Yes, elevating exposure of one candidate may be "unfair" to other candidates, but that same principle is true for virtually every DYK nomination on any topic. Why highlight a particular species of butterfly in DYK when there are thousands? Why highlight a particular artist in DYK instead of others? The answer to these questions is because editors have volunteered their time to work on these articles and bring them to DYK. So long as every editor has an equal opportunity to work on such articles and bring them to DYK, which they do, DYK is achieving its mission of encouraging quality content generation. This principle should apply to all articles nominated to DYK. We should not discriminate against political articles and their editors. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I suspect that the argument being made here-it increases profile-could be used to prohibit company's pages being featured on DYK-I suspect all the views do lead to a rise in profits, but we can't really ban company articles at DYK. Thanks, Matty.007 20:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose; Prototime put it very well. Basically, forbidding articles from appearing on the main page for anything but their quality or physical threats of violence constitutes WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm not wild about how many military-related FAs there are and how few language-related ones, but what do I do for that? Fix it by working on language articles myself, not stifle the military editors' work under the aegis of overrepresentation. Tezero (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 4

There's a funny word, "airgonation", in the third hook, which does not appear in the article or the dictionary. Yoninah (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Added by EEng; I can't see his link, but Google (all hail) seems to suggest that the term was coined by Horace Walpole for travel by hot-air balloon and never caught on until EEng's attempt to popularise it via DYK (don't worry, maligning EEng is just my hobby, he can take it) Belle (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, and you're getting better and better at it. I learned the word years ago in the course of some research on John Wilkins. "Horace Walpole, in a 1784 letter describing an ascension balloon he had seen (terming its occupants airgo¬nauts and what they were doing as airgonation) goes on to speculate that Wilkins' "plan of an universal language" had been “no doubt calculated to prevent the want of an interpreter when he should arrive at the moon"'. EEng (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
[EC] I removed that word. It seems that User:EEng found it in a dictionary and thought it would be cute to add it to the hook in prep. --Orlady (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I put it back. I didn't find it in a dictionary -- I knew it already. Anyway, it means to travel by hot air balloon [1], and though the subject probably didn't really travel anywhere in the balloon (just went up, looked around, and came back down) I think that can be forgiven. If people really think it detracts, that's one thing, but that it might "be cute" isn't an argument that that's the case. Hooks are allowed, even encouraged, to be cute. EEng (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. I could add the word to the article if you like.
Oh no. I shortened the hook ... but now I see the hook fact isn't cited in the article. Yoninah (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is. "Alexander continued his intelligence gathering by volunteering to go up in a hot air balloon at Gaines' Mill on June 27, ascending several times and returning with valuable intelligence regarding the position of the Union Army." (cited to Alexander, Fighting for the Confederacy, pp. 115–17.) EEng (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The part that Yoninah found unsourced (and removed) was the rest of his biography. Meanwhile, please don't edit-war to get your word into the hook, User:EEng. --Orlady (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
No, those are cited too. "Finding that he no longer desired the Georgia plantation life of his youth, he taught mathematics at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, and then served in executive positions with the Charlotte, Columbia, and Augusta Railroad (executive superintendent), the Savannah and Memphis Railroad (president), and the Louisville and Nashville Railroad (president)." (citing Eicher, Civil War High Commands, p. 101.)
Of three people commenting here, only you seem to actually object. You seem to object that the word is (or tries to be) "cute", but as I said, "If people really think it detracts, that's one thing, but that it might "be cute" isn't an argument that that's the case. Hooks are allowed, even encouraged, to be cute." Let's wait to hear what others think. In the meantime, how about you not edit warring to remove it. EEng (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • So... can anybody cite that airgonation is even remotely in common use? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 9:23 am, Today (UTC−4)
(oops, sorry, lost your comment there for a minute -- now restored) No, it's clearly an anachronism. But hookes[1] routinely use weird words -- it's one way they get to be hooky. EEng (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with EEng's logic. If it says "airgonation" in the hook, it should say it in the article, per DYK rules. The uncited hook fact I was referring to was about going up in an observation balloon. A hot air balloon is not the same thing. And obscurity is not hooky, IMO. Yoninah (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
That's like saying you can't aviate in a 747 because when the word aviate was coined there were no jets. But hey, if the community think hooks are best when they're cramped and lifeless, I'll defer. EEng (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ And that would include Robert Hooke, who really used a lot of weird words, let me tell you.

The bare truth

These comments moved to the nom page, where the discussion continues

While we're on the topic of Prep 4, is everyone cool with the hook for Dylan Penn centering on her posing nude? I thought we'd decided to avoid potentially contentious hooks about living people. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

How dare you take the focus off a petty diction-ary dispute? But if you must... I wondered about the same thing, though it get's culturally complex when we start talking about whether posing nude is a "bad thing". Maybe we should pull it back and wait while it's discussed further. EEng (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. Let's go airgonate in the meantime.
Look, I don't think this is a big deal, but...
  • When TTT says there have been far more immoral acts, it's a reminder that some people might think of this as an immoral act (whether that's what TTT meant or not, or whether we think so or not) -- which makes it contentious, I think.
  • As TTT points out, she wasn't completely "exposed", but no one could know that from the hook.
EEng (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There are several things about this hook that worry me. (1) It doesn't give the subject's name, leading to the thought that she is only notable because of her parentage. (2) By mentioning Playboy and then treats!, it implies that they are similar in nature, when treats! is more artistic at least in aim. (3) Nude in this context is usually understood to mean completely uncovered, so the strategically placed handbag is important. Perhaps something along the lines of "that Dylan Penn appeared on the cover of treats! wearing only a $6,000 Fendi bag? Espresso Addict (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC) [repeated edit conflicts]
Yup. This is exactly the sort of clueless sexist drivel that will sooner or later lead to DYK being removed from the main page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you really think a model considers it negative to be told that she is so beautiful that a magazine will offer her hundreds of thousands of dollars to appear on its cover. To a model this is probably a compliment. This is an artistic magazine. She probably views it as a point of pride to have been on the cover rather than a black mark on her career. I don't think the rule that you are pointing to is relevant for a hook that highlights a point of pride for the individual. Thus, I see no need to change the hook.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that being on the cover of treats! is an indication that you as an individual are an artistic work of beauty. Thus, being on the cover (although its subjects are nude), is almost surely a point of pride for a model and not a negative thing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not the slightest bit interested in your claims to telepathic powers. A DYK hook that fails to even name the woman involved in a photoshoot while emphasising her (obscured) nudity is as clear example of the objectification of women as could be imagined. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • My original hook named her clearly. Not naming individuals in some cases increases the curiousity of the article in a way that serves the purpose of DYK, which is to get people to look at (and review) our new articles. Given her current level of celebrity and those of her parents, this type of piping is in keeping with common practices at DYK. In terms of nudity, arts magazines don't use pictures of ugly people, so I continue to assert that nudity in this fine arts magazine context is likely a prideful rather than shameful thing. In high art nudity is not objectification. If anything is objectified, in this case it is Fendi. Their bag is being used and abused in this photo. There is no way you can convince me that that bag is proud of this photo. It is being objectified.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The bag is an object. Dylan Penn isn't - and the fact that you appear not to be able to comprehend the difference merely confirms my earlier comments. And I don't give a flying fuck about what you 'bet', though I'd think it safe to say that if you were 'her man' she'd be contemplating the benefits of an alternative sexuality... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I reviewed this hook and I am sure TTT will agree I took great pains to check the article and hook satisfied BLP policy. Who says it is a "negative" aspect? That is a personal judgement. Nudity is not negative per se, especially when it is tastefully done. She did not intend for it to be a secret, obviously. Including Playboy in the hook does not suggest they are similar magazines, it contrasts the two magazines. Wikipedia should appeal to all types of people and DYK should reflect that. HelenOnline 18:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Some people think war is "negative", I certainly favour nudity over war any day of the week but I don't object to hooks about war. HelenOnline 18:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (ec) AndyTheGrump, While I try to understand the difference between an object and an individual, you should consider the difference between prideful and shameful subject matter. High art nudity in this context is not shameful to the subject. Probably everyone in her life supports it. I would not be surprised if they had a family pow wow to discuss whether to go with Playboy or treats!. Her management team and family probably thought this cover was a great get at this stage of her career. A women who can link herself to Robert Patinson and Nick Jonas in her first year as a sex symbol is not just randomly hitting the newstand in ill-conceived photo spreads. This is probably all part of her masterplan. She is almost surely pleased, if not proud of the result. Her mother is a (former) model and surely supportive of this. If it makes you and your mother proud, "F***" everybody else. This is not a negative thing to the subject, no matter how you slice it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The concern is explained by at least two editors above. This is a BLP and caution is in order. What's your hurry? EEng (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Quick

Hi, I would really appreciate if someone could review Template:Did you know nominations/Adam Peaty and it be put in a prep before tomorrow, as the 4 by 100 medley finals are tomorrow at 9:00 PM GMT, I would love it to be up then. Thanks, Matty.007 19:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Two of us are on it, but there's a sourcing problem with 'competes today' -- see nom page. EEng (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, we think this is OK but because of the hurry can a third reviewer take a look? EEng (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Neglected June 18 nomination

Template:Did you know nominations/Allan Kournikova is getting ignored because the reviewer (Storye book) has not edited in 10 days. Since this nominee is getting so old maybe someone else should take over.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Same situation and reviewer at June 15 nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Horatio Chriesman. — Maile (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, Storye book has suffered equipment failure and has been unable to log in. Both of these noms have had active "review again" icons for a couple of days now, indicating a new reviewer is needed; I'm not sure what more you're expecting should be done here. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I was only piggy-backing on the chance to mention here this one was sitting there for the same reason. Not to comment about Storye book, but in hopes someone would see it and finish off the review. And, lo and behold!, Belle came forward and took care of it. Thanks, Belle— Maile (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've stepped in (yes, like an absolute heroine; notes of thanks and gifts will be accepted by my entourage, but don't ask for autographs or photos). Horatio Chriesman I've signed off, Allan Kournikova needs a little tweak. Belle (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Move hooks from prep to queue

I am noting that no hooks are in the queues while two completed sets are in the preps. Someone needs to move at least one set before the next update time, if possible.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Note Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 includes a date request for the 29th. It would be good to get this setup for to move to the main page promptly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:33, 29 July 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) 12:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've moved one hook set to the queue. We're still on a 12-hour update schedule, so it will be a little while before the queue gets promoted. --Orlady (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

UTC please

Can someone please add a UTC column at Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Local_update_times. That is actually the most important time.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is this so important? London is UTC for a good part of the year, and UTC+1 for the rest of it. The idea for Local update times is to get a feel for when the hooks about people and places from different countries will run: most of Europe is an hour later than the UK, and so on. UTC is not a "Local" time. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
If you live in any time zone other than the 6 chosen you have to calculate differences based on knowing how different the local time is from one of the others. UTC is constant and an easier basis for such calculations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm still not sure why this is relevant to when future DYK queues will be promoted to the main page. Yours or my local time zone has nothing to do with when a hook will ultimately run (which is what the table is there for), and doesn't matter to the person assembling hook sets. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
No, TTT is right on this. In any situation where you're posting Tokyo, SF, NY, London, etc., clocks, it means you're trying to let people worldwide figure this time in their own locality. Unless the set of locations you're explicitly listing is precisely the locations you need (e.g. branch locations of a corporation) it always makes sense to include UTC. Someone who knows that his local time is e.g. UTC+5 shouldn't have the addition trouble of trying to remember if he should add 5 to London, or subtract 1 first or whatever. EEng (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Space constraints limit the number of entries in that local update times table. Anyway, the primary "update time" template is Template:DYK-Refresh, which gives the time of the next update in UTC. The "local update times" template is there only for the convenience of humans who don't think in UTC. The local update times table includes London time and it's immediately below the template that gives the next update time in UTC. With that information, it should be a trivial matter to determine whether the London times are UTC or one hour off, and convert accordingly. --Orlady (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
First of all, as TTT just explained, if someone's not one of the listed timezones they need UTC as a starting point to compute the updates times in their local zones; in that sense humans do "use" (i.e. need) UTC, and there's no reason not to give it them. I certainly hope your day job isn't being in charge of airline operations, train schedules, or anthing like that. "It's easy. First, just compare the UTC given in this box to the top entry in the London column of this box. If they're the same, then the London times are the UTC times and you're good to go. Otherwise, UTC is one hour off of the London times, so in that case just add one hour to the London times and tell all the planes to take off then. Or is it subtract one hour? OK, wait. the UTC time is one hour ahead, so London must be..."
There's plenty of width available. Just add a UTC column, preferably to the left of London since London is sometimes the same as UTC, but sometimes one hr ahead. I'd do it myself but there's some hairy code for DST and I gotto get to the li-bary. EEng (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a UTC column, and so far the sky hasn't fallen nor Jupiter left its orbit. I'd feel better if some template wizard checked me, though. EEng (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

With the last set just archived, I've compiled a new set of 35 older nominations that need reviewing. Thanks to everyone who 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) 06:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Catch and release

I agree with Gatoclass‍—‌too many fish hooks
  • 00:50, 31 July 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 #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) 22:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Cebrennus rechenbergi

I need a reviewer to close out Cebrennus rechenbergi and hopefully approve it. It was originally nominated with a host of problems, all of which I believe have been solved. OTRS has authorized the image. In addition, another editor has expanded the article to solve the length problem. I've also helped out the nominator by removing the close paraphrasing and rewriting the article and modifying the hook to remove redundancy. Although I could approve the hook, I believe the work I've done requires another reviewer to step in and look at it from a NPOV. Thanks for any help you can offer. Viriditas (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Reading that "Cwmhiraeth had approved Cebrennus rechenbergi" made me wonder whether someone's keyboard was intermittently garbling text. EEng (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Queue 1

What exactly is the significance of the lead hook in this queue? --Jakob (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The significance is that the requirement that hooks actually be interesting is completely ignored. It may be that in Sweden people would go, "Wow! You mean Elsa Billgren is the daughter ofcErnst Billgren??? Who would have guessed!" (though they'd say it I Swedish, presumably). But this is the English Wikipedia and this is a good example of a random fact that has no reason to catch the interest of the typical reader. I'm not picking on this particular hook -- it just happens to be the one that was mentioned -- I'd say at least 1/3 of the hooks coming through are like this. EEng (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Aside from the issue of hook interest (yes, I agree that it's a dull one, but I've generally been a bit more relaxed about that then others) I don't think the article itself is up to par for leading a set. I thought the convention was to ensure that the pictured hook link to a fairly well developed article, not something that just barely passes the 1500 minimum. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In regard to Crisco's last comment: In the last couple of months, I've seen several users assert that the article in the lead hook slot should be fairly well developed. However, I don't recall ever hearing of that rule before, nor do I recall any discussion about adopting it as a rule. The principle as I have understood it is that the image is the main consideration in choosing a lead hook, including (but not limited to) considerations of image quality, inherent interest, visibility at 100px, extent to which the image enhances or adds to the hook, and promoting diversity in image topics.
As for the hook in question (not on the main page), I agree that it's not a particularly interesting hook fact. However, I object to the suggestion that DYK should only feature items likely to be of interest to large numbers of English-speaking readers -- or that we should assume that readers don't care about places that use languages other than English. --Orlady (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
As usual you've misrepresented what I said, though (also as usual) I don't know whether that reflects intention, indolence, or just inability. Anyway, I didn't suggest we "should assume that readers don't care about places that use languages other than English" (Christ, I can hardly believe I have to explain this...). What I said was that hooks should have "reason to catch the interest of the typical reader". One way of doing that is to point out a little-known connection between people the reader is likely to already know about, but these two people don't fall in that category, because their celebrity is apparently limited to Sweden, so none of our readers will have any idea what's "hooky" about this father-daughter relationsip. To be interesting to an audience outside of Sweden, it needs to say something whose significance will be understood by people outside of Sweden. That's not asking too much. EEng (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I never said rule, I said convention. I don't have any diffs (it's been a while), but I recall several users stating that they prefer putting better developed articles in the first slot when possible as those are the most prominent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
We have GAs and we have 5x articles. They are better developed and should be looked after to lead the set. Not as a rule but just as a guideline set-preping editors should take care of this. For example, in the same set, Skeet Shoot is a GA and DAP Racing is quite a long article. Speeking on the Billgren hook, that's a dull one. In fact inheritance is not even a notable point. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Skeet Shoot also has no free images, and DAP is much better as a "quirky". None of the other articles have imges. Orlady does great work, and obviously from the articles in that set Billgren was the best choice... it's just that I'm not too sure the quality of the Billgren image justifies using it rather than something else from T:TDYK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't blaming the editor who assembled it. I don't even know who did it. But just wanted to point out that GAs or 5xs should be given preference for leads. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Completely disagree with the assertion that expansions or GAs should be given any preference for the leads. This has never been the case. While I prefer an article that goes beyond the minimum 1500 characters when selecting a lead, a truly stellar image will always grab me. GAs should not be allowed to get first in line. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Who asserted that GAs should get preference over, say, 5X, or new articles that are 2500 or 3000 characters? Nobody; even Dharma included 5x expansions. Personally, I'd much rather 10,000 people read an article with 3,000 characters of prose than an article with 1,500. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I feel this discussion has gone off track. I believe the OP was asking about the hook itself, not its relative position in the set. EEng (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose he was asking for both, more so because of its position. We have promoted such hooks before too, but maybe not as lead hook.
... that writer Anuradha Ramanan is the granddaughter of Tamil actor R. Balasubramaniam?
... that volcanologist Barry Voight, a former professor at Pennsylvania State University, is the brother of Academy Award-winning actor Jon Voight and songwriter Chip Taylor?
Am not sure of the current situation of pending vs available DYKs. Are they sufficient enough to run for a long time? Can we afford rejecting such lame hooks altogether? The obvious purpose of the DYK is to present something interesting. While the hidden purpose is to promote new article formation. But not every new article should get to be there. Topics might be notable to stay on wiki but they might be just average in content facts.
While some reviewers are stressing on quality of the article, the hookyness; the most important quality of the hook; is being neglected many times. We have had nominations which slumber forever on various issues and finally get rejected. Why can't "boring hook" be a good enough reason to reject articles? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's where I wind up my broken record: Putting GAs aside, I have long said we should be explicit in telling readers that these are new articles at varying levels of finished-ness, and stop worrying about article quality beyond conformance to core policies like BLP.

The hook, on the other hand, should be ironclad verified, and should be interesting, whatever that means. Yes, there are issues surrounding how to decide what's interesting, but it can be done, by crass voting if need be. I point out that both OTD and ITN manage to somehow decide what 10 things to list each day out of literally tens of thousands of potential candidates, and generally their items really are at least minimally interesting. Only DYK features pretty much everything that's nominated, refusing to dare to make any kind of subjective judgment of worthiness. <end broken record ... for now> EEng (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding grammatical errors in Paano Ang Puso Ko?

I was going over some of the articles in the queue and noticed that Paano Ang Puso Ko? is chock-full of grammatical errors. Some phrases are an easy fix, but the plot section is entirely lost on me. Should we pull it from Queue 1 until we can get it copyedited? 23W 23:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, that "plot" starts badly and gets more and more muddled. Edwardx (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Next preps

Most of the preps are filled (just one hook missing, which got pulled). I've promoted the last eight, but I'd rather not promote preps 4 and 1 myself because I have hooks in those sets. Could another admin take this one? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Megan Fletcher

Template:Did you know nominations/Megan Fletcher, now in Queue 2, has a poor hook:

It doeesn't matter what position she had on the world ranking, considering that most of the people in front of her weren't allowed to compete at the Commonwealth Games anyway. It looks as if she was ranked #5 of all possible Commonwealth competitors (may be #6, haven't checked the Commonwealth status of all these countries), which makes the "despite being ranked 40th" worthless. @Hawkeye7, Matty.007, and Cwmhiraeth: I have pulled the hook, so that a new hook can be discussed and agreed upon.

As a complete aside; why is the link to the Commonwealth Games formatted Common­wealth Games? Is it usual that we impose where the line break should happen? Fram (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I have suggested ALT3 at Template:Did you know nominations/Megan Fletcher. It would be nice to have this proceed before the Commonwealth Games becomes a distant memory. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

DYKmake subpage

What does the subpage= attribute do in the DYKmake template (as seen in this nomination: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Tabnit_sarcophagus)? I tried to find out by myself by looking at the source of the template, but it just looks like a keyboard has been sick in there. Belle (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  • It allows people to go back to an article's nomination page even when the nomination page doesn't equal the article title. For instance, one would expect Template:Did you know nominations/Akira Sasō to only be about Sasō, but his manga Kodomo no Kodomo is also included. Template:Did you know nominations/Kodomo no Kodomo is a redlink, and thus clicking on it would not help an editor reopen the nomination after pulling the hook (if it were pulled). Through the subpage parameter, editors who pull an article from prep/queue have a direct link to the nomination page of the affected article(s), meaning it's easier to reopen the nominations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you (Why couldn't the template say that? Silly template, trying to be all mysterious with its oh-so-continental curly brackets and modish #ifs.) So, in the example I linked above, it is probably (I'll go out on a limb and say definitely) a mistake, right? Belle (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It doesn't hurt to have the subpage and regular article name be the same; what caused this to happen here is that the original template was filled in incorrectly, with the Talk page bizarrely listed as the article page. I've just fixed the nomination template. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Special occasion holding area

There are two approved nominations for 9 August in the Special occasion holding area. Please add them to the preps.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:58, 8 August 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) 22:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

question re date header to put nomination under

If I started expansion on Aug 1 (but not fivefold) and got GA on Aug 7, where do I put the nomination? I'm not clear about the instructions about GA DYKs. (Article is Mendelevium.) Double sharp (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it time we just started grouping noms by the date the nom was actually made? The idea of classifying them by when the article was created, or expansion completed, or whatever, is a holdover from the long-gone days when noms were handled much more quickly. At this point it's just annoying that new noms keep appearing as much as 7 days back. Just add new ones at the end and be done with it. Or am I missing something? EEng (talk) 21:11, 8 August 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 #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) 23:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stub Contest

running again in September......take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Spectra (installation)

I've reviewed Spectra (installation), and it now needs to get in the queue ASAP please, as it will be turned off on Monday, and people attending Wikimania this weekend might like to go and see it. Edwardx (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I moved the kangaroo out of the next-up prep and slipped in spectra. Pls check the lowercase /spectra/ and also use of italics. EEng (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you (on behalf of London and Wikimania 2014). I've tweaked the article to start spectra Edwardx (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Yur wilcom. My only regret is that, but for the hurry, I would have changed "will be turned off on Monday" to "goes dark on Monday." Believe it or not I'm a great believer in verbal economy, all else being equal. EEng (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Foreign policy of Narendra Modi

can someone please review, comment or pass the soon to be oldest blurb. its been sitting idle for ages. AND its readyLihaas (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It may be the oldest, but it sure isn't ready. All three unstruck hooks have grammatical issues. The fact that you think it is ready tells me that whoever reviews it should look very carefully at the article to make sure it both hangs together and doesn't need a copyedit. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
DYKs don't need to be well-written. The hooks should be grammatically correct, but there's generally no need to copyedit the articles themselves. This is not GAN. --Jakob (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
So should we add the article at WP:GOCE to get the start? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally rhere are other hooks? Also one can correct the grammar if there are no content/sourcing issues. that is minorLihaas (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Well..... If Project DYK is changing, gaming up and raising its standards, other wiki projects should also buck up. Many editors are crying that GAs are easy to pass and are lenient than DYK. Well then they need to raise their standard. If GOCE keeps lagging they need to speed up. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow. "GAs are easy to pass and are lenient than DYK" -- what a shocking indictment of GA. EEng (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "If GOCE keeps lagging they need to speed up." - And who pays them? Nobody. They are volunteers. If there are not enough people interested (perhaps because, say, they are told they "need to speed up"), then there will be a backlog. If we lose sight of the fact that almost all editors are volunteers, then our processes grind to a halt. Nobody pays Shubinator to write / maintain the bot. Nobody pays me to write about the early cinema of Indonesia. Nobody pays TRM to write about the Boat Race. We do so because it interests us, or we want the information to be widely available, or we feel it's useful. If Wikipedia isn't fun anymore, and if the benefits don't live up to the hassles, people leave. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
"Nobody pays TRM to write about the Boat Race" -- thank God! Imagine if someone did! It's too horrible to contemplate. EEng (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC) P.S. Maybe if we switch to the Guilt of Copyeditors that would shame them to work harder.
@EEng: Is it really shocking? The part "many editors are crying" is true.
@Crisco: I know no one pays them or even the DYK nominators. That hasn't stopped DYK noms from flooding and getting reviewed. If copyediting is really being a big issue with all main-page articles then GOCE has to do something. Put on competitions, run drives, give barnstars, encourage more editors to help in, etc. If GOCE takes forever, then so be it. So will the dependant projects take. Whats the harm in nominating it there? Where will we find "fellow editor" to do the ce? Been there for over a month, the nom will stay for 2-3 more months. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed how the time ranges for pageview stats are off?

I have started up a thread about how all the page view stats being used for WP:DYKSTATS, WP:TFLSTATS and WP:TFASTATS are using 23:00 to 22:59 (UTC) rather than 00:00 to 23:59 (UTC) as the day at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#wikiviewstats_vs._stats.grok.se.2Fen_time_ranges_.2823:00_to_22:59_.28UTC.29_rather_than_00:00_to_23:59_.28UTC.29.29.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Screw you

Who agrees with me that the hook currently in Prep 1

... that the cargo liner Dominion Monarch carried all her passengers in first-class accommodation?

should go back to the nom page for consideration of a new hook

... that an important feature of the cargo liner Dominion Monarch was the quadruple screwing?

C'mon. You know it's funny. At least some. EEng (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

First, there's good and bad double entendres. This is the latter. Second, you didn't even check with the DYK nominator or article writer, and were planning on having it changed without their input? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
First, it's a quadruple entendre. Second, I explicitly suggested going "back to the nom page for consideration of a new hook" -- so no, obviously, I wasn't planning to change it without their input. I wasn't serious about this anyway (though you never know if there will be an unexpected groundswell) -- just things have been so quiet lately. EEng (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Since this has arisen

It's no secret that I believe some post here for the attention it gets. And it's the dead-on reason I haven't been posting on this talk page. I am so tired of it being sidetracked for grand standing. And if anybody thinks I am alone in that, think of the editors we haven't seen here in a long time. I take the poster's word that he "wasn't serious about this anyway", and "things have been so quiet lately". Rita Hayworth had a great line about Orson Welles, "I just can't take his genius anymore." Oh, sorry, Orson Welles really did write good dialogue.

However, for future reference, I think Ed has a point. The nominator should be consulted on the nomination template about any changes in the hook. Also, we are still awaiting APerson to work out the kinks in the bot that will notify article creators if someone else nominates their article . That would help if someone who thinks they're clever-beyond-belief wants to nominate an article and put a hooky spin on it that is offensive to the person who worked so hard to create or expand an article. But even without the bot, I don't believe there are any DYK rules that prevent anyone from creating a hook that is so offensive to others. Wikipedia doesn't censor, and there is no ownership of articles. But, man oh man, there ought to be something that says people here should take into consideration that not everyone shares their sense of what is funny. Hopefully, there's a balancing act here to prevent such an occurrence. Some people just want to help out here. And some have other reasons. — Maile (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Now for the third time: my suggestion was that the nom page might be reopened, and certainly I would ping the creator and nominator if that really happened, which I didn't expect it would.
  • I firmly believe hooks should be absolutely finalized on the nom page before the discussion is closed, but every proposal I've made in that direction (such as an enforced waiting period, for a nominally "final" hook, before promoting to prep) has been shouted down.
  • I don't foresee a day when the social interaction anywhere on WP is reduced to the least common denominator of its most deadly-humorless participants. Words and ideas are our stock-in-trade here, and the experience of millennia is that those skilled in their use enjoy applying them in novel and unexpected ways, and sharing that experimentation with others -- Shakespeare being an especially good example, and Marx being the only counterexample I can think of offhand (and see where that led -- we're talking about Karl, not Groucho, just in case that's not clear). Given a choice between the company of editors attracted by sometimes-lame wordplay, and that of editors soothed by the nose-to-the-grindstone silence of the medieval scriptorium, I'll take the former. If you don't like the jokes, skip 'em.
EEng (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Maile66, I have just put a status update at the BRFA. APerson (talk!) 22:45, 10 August 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 #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 11:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

ok done now. Load preps away.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Sri Temasek

Hawkeye7 archived the nomination, stating it had been "moved to prep area 1", but did not add the hook to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. Could this be rectified (National Day is over)? --Hildanknight (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It is in Prep Area 3. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Solly, me cock eye lah. (Singlish for "Sorry, I did not see that.") I now see it on the front page. Terima kasih! (Malay for "thank you".) --Hildanknight (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

With the last set archived days ago, I've compiled a new set of 38 older nominations that need reviewing. Thanks to everyone who 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) 05:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Stats

I did some DYKs for Wikimania and they did well enough to be included in the stats table — thanks to everyone that helped. I'm not sure about a couple of points though:

  1. How do you find out the number of hours they were up? This is needed to compute the hourly hit-rate.
  2. One was a double (Hawksmoor + Ginger Pig). Do you put these as separate entries or combine them into one, with the hit total being the sum of the two?

Andrew (talk) 08:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

In the achive, you have the time when a set was archived, - subtract the previous time from the time your articles where in, 12 hours is normal (don't count minutes, was approximately 12 for yours), but we just had a set with more than a day. The hits of a multi-article-hook are added to one entry. I suggest you look at examples. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn

I note that there is a hook proposed by Billy Hathorn on the nominations page that has been ok'd. See Template:Did you know nominations/Susie's Law. Billy had previously been banned from DYK, and I'm not sure if that ban has been lifted. Here are some of the relevant discussions: Hathorn ban ? (June 2013), Proposal to ban Billy Hathorn from DYK (August 2011). I have no stake in whether the ban is to be lifted or not, but we should make sure this is dealt with consciously. Cbl62 (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this wasn't a self-nomination by Billy. It was nominated by someone else. Does anyone recall whether that's been something that we've ok'd since the ban went into effect? Cbl62 (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The ban proposal that was passed in 2011 reads, "why not simply agree that no more nominations of Billy's articles will be accepted until he is prepared to discuss the problems properly". The way it's worded, the new nomination, although made by Rcej, is of one of Billy's articles, and therefore should not be accepted because Billy has not yet fulfilled the conditions required for the ban to be lifted. He could have done so any time these past three years, but hasn't. I'm going to put at least a temporary hold on the nomination so it isn't promoted while this is being discussed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
This might be of interest too (I saw it earlier when I was looking for something else) Belle (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Special dates

Approved for 15 August: Template:Did you know nominations/Inkpot Madonna, but I would love improvement of the hook. Nominated today: Template:Did you know nominations/Gerd Nienstedt, he died 14 August, would be nice that day, even if he can't see it (as the recent musicians celebrating an 80th and 91st birthday). Thanks for help, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Any date with you is special, Gerda. EEng (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
13 August is next, - one item here, but we probably want to show it afterwards, no advertising ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
14 and 15 solved, thanks to all who helped! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Please do me one more favour: the two hooks for 15 August are now in one set, not a good idea, both "mine", both Christian, - how about one in the next set? I vote to move the singer, - we have one in both previous sets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Gerda, I moved the Erler hook one set earlier to Prep 3 to maximize time on the 15th in Germany: it will start at 22:34 on the 14th local time and run through 10:49 on the 15th (the sets are currently running 15 minutes longer until we get back to midnight and noon UTC). If it had been moved one set later to Prep 1 instead, it wouldn't even hit the main page until 23:04 local time on the 15th, which would have given it all of 56 minutes on the proper day. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, very considerate. However, I don't think so much of Germans as the possible readers (who would sleep through most of the time anyway), - it's vespers, therefore the time in the next set would be not too bad in the US ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
This is all caused by you writing too many articles, Gerda [shakes head in pity]. Belle (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Gerda, I just noticed that you changed the wording on the Inkpot Madonna hook to a different ALT hook text from the nomination. It's one thing to request a change here, where it would certainly receive due consideration; it's another thing to change it yourself in prep when it's your hook, and as the nominator you really should not be doing any modifications. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Help

File:Lauren bacall promo photo.jpg

Apparently due to my technical backwardness, I got lost in the DYK template when I tried to create at DYK for Lauren Bacall. It would have said:

Sca (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Sca, Bacall is not eligible for DYK: nominated articles must either be new, expanded by a factor of five within the past week, or listed as a Good Article within that time period. The article is over ten years old, was just over 15K prose characters before her death and is still basically that size (it would need to be over 76K, which isn't feasible or appropriate). If the article should be brought to GA quality, submitted (see WP:GAN for instructions), and approved (which can take weeks or months), then you can resubmit it to DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I take that back: Bacall won't ever be eligible, because the article is now featured at In the News (ITN) on the main page. Once it is featured with a bold link at ITN, it can never subsequently run at DYK. The advantage to ITN is that the article stays on the main page longer than for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh. Sca (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Gunung Ambang Nature Reserve

Is it necessary that the hook fact be found in every article of a multi-article hook. The above nomination has been reviewed. The only issue is that the hook fact is not present in some of the articles.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

For that particular nomination to become a multi-article hook, each one of the species articles needs to mention that the bird is found in the Gunung Ambang Nature Reserve. --Orlady (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Two conflicting replies, but I will add the information anyway. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Editors interested in improvement drives

DYK has developed a large following of editors interested in improving content. I wonder if perhaps some of you might be interested in participating in our weekly improvement drives over at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement. Our goal each week is to improve one article up to a GA class or higher, and to have it featured as a DYK. We have a core group of editors, but are looking for other like-minded individuals to join our group. Even if you are not explicitly interested in working on our collaborations, you can still help with project coordination by helping us nominate articles to improve and select future articles from a weekly pool of 10. We are also seeking ideas on other ways the two projects might be able to ways to develop a relationship. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, NickPenguin, (I see you got the standard rush of warm greetings from DYK) you might be interested in the two proposals below, both of which are aimed at getting more improved rather than just new articles on DYK. Belle (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes Belle, I was overwhelmed by well wishes. Taking a quick glance at the proposals, I'm not really sure how they would relate to TAFI. Our improvement drives run for 7 days, so they would qualify under the 7 day rule, and I suspect the number of articles previously featured as a DYK to be very small. It is also likely the case that not all of our weekly drives will meet the other DYK criteria anyways. What would be helpful is if TAFI could be exempt from QPQ system, since it is a group and not individual achievement.
Really though, what I was hoping for was either some editors chiming in that yes, they would be interested in sharing the glory and wikilove that a DYK can generate. Or that someone might have an excellent idea on how to attract the same kind of dedicated following that DYK has. DYK can show casual readers that Wikipedia is a happening, and that they can have a spotlight shine down. I would like people to feel the same way about TAFI. --NickPenguin(contribs) 22:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Feeling guilty that you got so few replies. I used to take part in TAFI for simple:wiki but I did find that there was little acknowledgement. (DYK is pretty good at this). Have you thought about identifying an article that would fit in with DYK expansion rules .... e.g. Odessa Cathedral and that might attract DYKers to do their thing and work together for DYK and TAFI? (Good for both projects) They are good at collaboration when they want to be. Other suggestion is borrow the points system (good for your project) or one of our more uncivil members (the last suggestion would be very good for our project and you would have a lot og gratitude! ) Victuallers (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Allowing former DYKs to be re-run if expanded

The discussion above reminds me of something I've been thinking about for a while. One of the DYK supplementary guidelines (namely D1) prohibits articles that have appeared on DYK from ever being re-run: "Items that have been on DYK before (pre-expansion, for example) are ineligible."

I think this rule needs to be modified, particularly bearing in mind the aims and objectives of DYK that we collectively agreed a few months ago. As it stands, D1 has some unhelpful implications. Many DYK articles are fairly short and in a lot of cases there is room for significant expansion and improvement. However, D1 is not helpful in encouraging expansion of articles that have previously run on DYK. It has the perverse effect of enabling the recognition of the work of an editor who has contributed a 1,000 word article, but preventing any recognition of the work of an editor who has subsequently turned that brief article into a much more useful 5,000 word piece.

I think a balance has to be struck between D1's apparent objective of preventing retreads on DYK and the overall goals of DYK in promoting article expansion and improvement. At the moment, D1 focuses entirely on prohibiting retreads and does not give any recognition to former DYK articles which have been expanded.

I therefore propose to amend D1 to allow articles to appear again on DYK, provided some reasonable period of time has elapsed - I would suggest at least a year, perhaps two, and there should be a different hook. There aren't likely to be many articles that would fall into this category and allowing an expanded former DYK to appear a second time with a new hook wouldn't cause any harm. A revised supplementary guideline D1 that meets these goals could look something like the following:

D1. Items that have been on DYK before may only be nominated for DYK again if their prose portions have been expanded at least fivefold within the last seven days, if they have not appeared on DYK within the last [year/two years], and if they have never appeared in the Main Page's in the news section. A hook that has been used before may not be reused.

I'd be interested to know what others think of this idea. Prioryman (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I would support this. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, but six months or one year is fine (but with a different hook). --Jakob (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I guess an article could appear at 1.5KB and then at 7.5KB and then at 37.5KB of prose. Each article would still be mostly new. Also an article that was on the main page as an ITN should also be eligible again if it is a 5x expansion. 1 Year is fine.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure, except for GAs, which would be fine. 1 year certainly. If we don't watch out some people who now write good length DYKs might just do the minimum, with the rest after the wait period is expired. And all too clearly, many articles don't have one good hook in them, never mind two. Johnbod (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure either OK I agree with almost everything Johnbod said. The 7-day rule is already a problem as users au fait with the system develop articles in userspace and then move them just before the DYK nom, so there is really nothing new about them. I can see some editors developing their "complete" article in user space, cutting it back to 1500 characters for DYK and then rolling the full version out six months later for a second bite (I don't know why bite jumped out as the appropriate word; haven't had my breakfast; I don't want to bite anybody; fava beans and a nice Chianti anyone? [licks lips]). Repeating an article that has been improved to GA might be OK, though that too has possibilities for gaming. Belle (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that particular situation really only becomes a problem in the WikiCup where someone could create and submit something in January, wait 6 months then put it in again for double points in June. That's something that can be dealt with at the WikiCup page. As for the rest, I wouldn't see any reason why people would want to do all the work but have to wait 6 months for full credit. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I think there are a lot of awards and pseudo-awardsthat take DYK into account, so I think Prioryman's suggestion below of amending the rule to prevent the same person nominating more than once is a btter solution. Belle (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • What has changed since the discussion a year ago is that we now have an agreed set of objectives for DYK, of which the following two seem the most relevant to this discussion:
- To showcase new and improved content, illustrating to readers the continuous improvement and expansion of Wikipedia's corpus of articles;
- To acknowledge the work that editors do to expand and improve Wikipedia, encouraging them to continue their efforts and thereby contributing to editor retention and ongoing content improvement.
By definition, at least 80% of the content in an article that has been 5x expanded will be new and in practice you would expect it to be a complete rewrite. It is functionally a new article. If a former DYK has been 5x expanded, it's still "new and improved content". Secondly, it's easy to envisage a situation where an editor writes an article that appears on DYK, then a second editor expands that article 5x. What makes the first editor worthy of acknowledgement but not the second editor? The second editor has, after all, put in considerably more work than the first one.
I think the objections about gaming being raised here could be dealt with quite simply by adding a clause to state something like The same editor may not nominate the same article twice. That would prevent the scenario people are envisaging where an editor could get multiple bites at the cherry by repeatedly nominating and expanding an article. Prioryman (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it would have to exclude credit for the work too (so "may not nominate or receive credit for the same article more than once"), otherwise the editor could just get their friend to nominate it (or somebody else as part of some quid pro quo underworld plot: "You didn't need a friend like me. Now you come and say "Belle, give me a DYK nomination." But you don't ask with respect. You don't offer friendship."; that sort of thing) Belle (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
@Belle: I saw the movie 3 days ago. Today I read articles related to the Corleone Family. Is this just a co-incidence?--Skr15081997 (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Lists and tables

Seeing as you all loved my last idea (I'm still working through the backlog of thank you letters for all the gifts and kind words), I thought I'd try for opinions on scrapping another rule (just part of one this time though, so you can at least partially unravel any knickers that you were starting to get in a twist).

We currently rule out anything in a list or table from counting as part of the prose size; this is silly. Excluding straight unexpanded lists and tables is fair enough, but when somebody has included explanatory text in a table or list and used the list or table format merely to present the information in a more reader friendly format, it is just a masturbatory adherence to the rules to exclude the article on length. The argument frequently put forward to counter this is that it shouldn't be hard to add the appropriate number of characters to the "prose" (outside the list or table) portion, but this is just another example of insisting the article fit the DYK rules rather than the encyclopaedia. Thoughts? (Why not be radical and forego bolding a one word summary for the benefit of the attention span impaired; for the same reason try not to add pictures of kittens or shiny objects.) Belle (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

We can already make exceptions to the rule on lists (see WP:IAR) when circumstances warrant. However, the vast majority of articles that are created in list format would not warrant such an exception. The rule itself isn't a problem, but we shouldn't encourage "masturbatory adherence to the rules". --Orlady (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Ignoring all rules is fine until another reviewer comes by and quotes the rules at you, and then we get into the time/life-draining discussion again. We get, or are getting, more articles that need this rule ignoring than articles that need it enforcing, which suggests it might be time to retire it. Belle (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
What current nominations are you concerned about? By identifying the specific issues here, you will get more eyes on them.
As for the general rule, I don't want to scrap it because I don't want DYK to be overrun with new articles that consist of little more than an infobox and a list of bulletized incomplete sentences, submitted by people who can't understand why those aren't decent articles. --Orlady (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Normal text which has been organized into bullets for ease of reading and understanding is totally different from a bullet-list of nonsentence "items". (Of course, like all mindless policies this one just encourages people to adhere to the letter but not the spirit: "OK, I'll just run the list into a long sentence with semicolons between items -- now it counts!"). I fear the real problem here is that requiring an intelligent evaluation of the material would mean an end to clicking that mindless "DYK Check" button and getting The DYK Oracle to do the "thinking" for you. EEng (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Leigh Leigh hook

"... that no one really knows who killed Leigh Leigh?"

Currently in Prep 1. Obviously the person or persons who killed her do, so this should be appropriately amended. Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

As you say, it's obvious, so we can rely on our readers' native shrewdness to interpret it appropriately. Would you want us to say instead, "that no on really knows who killed Leigh Leigh (except of course the murderer or murderers, should he, she, or they still be alive)?" Also, maybe the murderer forgot, or didn't know whom it was he killed, or ... EEng (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This hook should be removed. Someone has confessed and is convicted for the murder, and no retrial is happening (at the moment). While the article describes possible problems and doubts, there seems to be little to no doubt that the one who was convicted really did murder her, only that there may have been others involved as well. The hook badly misrepresents the case for the sake of quirkiness and drawing in the reader. Fram (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Fram about the hook being wrong. I'm replacing it with the original hook, which was approved, but later struck in favor of this one. (I don't see any reason why it should have been; there's nothing wrong with the promoter selecting between two presumably valid hooks rather than a reviewer.) It doesn't look like this hook, which was ALT1, was actually reviewed properly; nothing was said about checking sources, for example. BlueMoonset (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect hook in Prep 3

The hook for De Materia Medica (nomination), now in Prep 3 is not supported by the reference cited [2] which says only that it "became the most central pharmacological work in Europe and the Middle East for the next sixteen centuries" (and the hook is also oddly phrased: "became the precursor"). I didn't want to pull it as it would mess up the completed prep and it might be fixable before it hits the main page (or I could come back later and find this ignored so end up having to pull it anyway and look like a right fickle cow, so thanks a bunch if you ignored this, you are going on my enemies list; alternatively, if you didn't ignore it and sorted the problem out, I'm going to give you a big sloppy kiss; no tongues though) Belle (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so nobody wanted a kiss (frankly, that hasn't happened since I was about 7 and suspected of being infected with pigelus, so it hurts, but it's your loss); I've returned the hook to the nominations page and attempted to replace it in Prep 3 with another approved hook, but since it is my first time I might have done something wrong (looks fine to me) Belle (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Belle, thanks for your conscientious work. The source indeed says "This five book study focused upon "the preparation, properties, and testing of drugs" and became the most central pharmacological work in Europe and the Middle East for the next sixteen centuries.

As was the case with many Greek medical texts, De materia medica was treated as dogma for many years. By the mid-16th century, however, his message that investigation and experimentation were crucial to pharmacology began to emerge and modern research into medicines began."

This does basically say 'it's the major precursor' but obviously not in so many words. The key claim the source makes (and the one everybody writing about Dioscorides and De Materia Medica would want to make) is that it was the main pharmacological sourcebook for sixteen centuries, so I suggest we make the hook and the article say this. I'll boldly hope everyone is happy with that and tweak them accordingly, but am entirely open to constructive suggestions and improvements. Thanks again, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed "cruise control"

User:EEng has proposed that the nominations I have been making on fossil ant genera/species need to be "cruse controlled" see initial discussion here Template:Did you know nominations/Apterostigma eowilsoni. I feel that at an average rate of less then two articles a week, it is not only unnecessary, but seems to be targeting a very minor subtopic, when there are current nomination topics that are similar or more prolific, that have not had this suggestion made for. Railroad, japanese, and WWI/WWII units topics do not have this proposal, as far as I can tell, and are of similar article nom rate, while biography topics are more prolific with no suggestion of this. What does the greater DYK community think?--Kevmin § 23:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say they "need" to be, just that it might be a good idea. I think it's in your interest, if your interest is people learning about ants, not to numb their curiosity. I happened to be moved to say something as I was looking at one of your noms, but perhaps I should have said that the same idea might be well thought of for railroads, baseball players (definitely), and several other things. Oh yeah -- Boat Race. Look, I'm saying this in the hopes it will increase click-through, but you seem to see it as an attack. I've said over and over it's something you might want to consider, not something that should be imposed on you. Just think about it, won't you? EEng (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
WHY? Ive been creating and nominating fossil articles since 2010 and I have yet to see the problem that you are describing. I have not seen it happen except with the MOST prolific of topics, where there are dozens of nominations on the same topic in a week. Fossil articles are currently running at 2 a week, we are currently on a 4 queue per day rotation. That means in one 168 hour week there will be maybe 12 hours (7.1% of the week) where a fossil ant is on the main page. --Kevmin § 00:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, don't think about it. EEng (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@EEng: As for baseball articles, I've had nine baseball player articles featured on DYK in the past month, which, not surprisingly, I don't see as excessive. It certainly doesn't appear to have negatively impacted clickthrough rates if you look at Emil Gross (26,000), Charlie Bennett (19,500), Deacon McGuire (15,700), Ned Hanlon (6,400), and Tip O'Neill (5,000). That gosh-darned Joe Quest hook we fought about last month would likely be a good one, too, if it ever gets reviewed ...  ;) Seriously, though, people naturally go through phases of high productivity in particular areas, and we ought not to discourage that unless the quantity is truly overwhelming or the quantity of the articles/hooks is poor. While we definitely need/want variety, our focus should be on ensuring quality hooks, regardless of the topic. Cbl62 (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I produced a series of half a dozen articles on wheelchair basketball players in rapid succession. It's in the nature of things that the content creators do a series on a topic area. In assembling the prep areas, I have deliberately distributed the subjects, so there is only one baseball player per prep area, and we've been staging the pictures so flags, people, birds etc cycle to provide variety. The prep areas still represent the diversity of the Wikipedia as a whole! I've been very much enjoying the fossilised ants! Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
In the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the Three Wise Men, and all the Apostles! What part of
I didn't say they "need" to be [on "cruise control"], just that it might be a good idea. I think it's in your interest, if your interest is people learning about [whatever subject], not to numb [the reader's] curiosity. ... I'm saying this in the hopes it will increase click-through ... I've said over and over it's something you might want to consider, not something that should be imposed on you. ... I'm not saying you need to slow down article creation if you're on a roll, just maybe suggest at TDYK if you could put approved noms somewhere to be metered out at a regular rate.
-- don't you guys understand? It's just a suggestion. Take it or leave it. No need to be defensive. EEng (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
What? Defensive? I'm not being defensive! How dare you accuse me of such a thing! Offensive maybe, but never defensive. Cbl62 (talk)
Well someone's being defensive, and it's certainly not me! If it's not you, then maybe it's him, or him, or HER. Certainly neither of us. I hate it when people say that. EEng (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm in rodent mode so look out for an advancing horde of rats and mice. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that for defensive purposes you're best off hoarding your horde. EEng (talk) 13:46, 20 August 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 #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Abortion hook in Prep 2

"that although abortion is illegal in Sint Maarten, it is legal and accessible "just a walk away across the border" in Saint Martin?"

Actually, abortion isn't illegal in Sint Maarten (as it says in the article) if carrying and/or giving birth to the baby endangers the life of the mother. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The body of the article explains that it is illegal with no exceptional circumstances as written in law, but a life-threatening pregnancy can essentially be used as justification to break the law. I've changed the wording in the lead to reflect this. 97198 (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
This is exactly the sort of thing that can be very embarrassing if it's even a bit off (abortion + legal advice, arguably). I urge it be pulled and really nailed down, but I'll wait to see what others think. EEng (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I would agree, pull it. It's hardly DYK stuff really, in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Posting your own hooks

Eeng has asked (via an edit summary) about choosing your own hooks and deciding which position to put them in .... not a good idea is my view. Are we really short of hooks to choose? I don't think you should do this unless there is no other choice. Thanks for asking Victuallers (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
What EEng was doing was replacing the original hook, which had not been approved by any reviewer yet promoted anyway, by the approved ALT2 hook, which he had proposed (it was another person's nomination, and that person greatly preferred EEng's ALT2). It's still a bad idea to do such a replacement yourself: post a request here if you think the wrong hook has been promoted and you have a COI (which you have, if you've created the hook you think should be promoted instead).
As it happens, I've pulled that particular hook because so far as I could tell, none of the nomination's hooks were supported by an inline source citation after the hook's key fact. So Prep 3 will need a new quirky hook... BlueMoonset (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Dogs in the United States

Hi my friends, I am experiencing great trouble in co-operating with the nominator of the above nomination. The article's content under the "status" section seem to be closely paraphrased with this source's pages=120-121 and 285-286. The 3rd, 6th and 7th para of the mentioned section have close paraphrasing issues. When I raised these issues the nominator made a few edits to these sections and added sources to these paragraphs to make the objections appear void. I had asked him to rephrase the paragraphs but he says that all of my objections are have no base and 100% wrong. Please help me.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Let us recall what you have written, "The whole 2nd last para under the "status" section is directly lifted from the book", though it is from Fox, Dr. Michael W. Dog Body, Dog Mind: Exploring Canine Consciousness and Total Well-Being. Globe Pequot. ISBN 978-1-59921-661-4.. I am wondering that how your objection aren't 100% wrong. About 3rd paragraph, most of its part refers to Soul Reflections: My Poetic Journey and Animal Breeding, Welfare and Society. Same for the 6th para which refers to the original source of USDA[4], NIH and others.[5], the whole 7th paragraph is not even referring to the book. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, please read the comment again "The whole 2nd last para under the "status" section is directly lifted from the book". Check the cited source and you will find why I am not wrong.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Skr15081997 Thanks for clarifying but the 2nd last para is of only 2 lines and they are referring to Dog Body, Dog Mind: Exploring Canine Consciousness and Total Well-Being, if you were talking about the bigger para, which is 3rd last or 7th that you referred then you may want to recheck. It comes from USDA Compliance Inspections, "Final Rules: Animal Welfare; 9 CFR Part 3 - Animal Welfare Information Center"., although the book source was no more needed so I had removed it, just like I have mentioned above. Recently mentioned about the section number. [6] Remember that this paragraph is totally rid of that book. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I raised a concern long ago with this nom which hasn't really been addressed: I'm not sure "Dogs in the United States" justifies a standalone article. But beyond that, the very serious language and organization problems remain: as of now the lead opens, "Status of dogs in the United States has been widely acknowledged by the number of observers. Notably, many dogs in the country have safely received vaccination on annual basis." And so on. EEng (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Addressed, but you haven't responded, so I am copying the same answer that I had given to you previously, you were told that Street dogs in Moscow was also a DYK. Looking this way it is clearly that we have already passed that stage. I have changed the lead and made new section about vaccination. Looks like there is nothing left to discuss here anymore. Consider writing on the DYK nomination. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
This discussion belongs back on the nom page, but note that the reviewer came here out of desperation in dealing with you. There are very serious problems here. (As to "Street dogs in Moscow", see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.) EEng (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@EEng: It seems that Skr15081997 had doubt which has been resolved. I am looking forward for others,(if there are) but for now I have to review some DYK nom first. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Kweilin Incident in Prep 2

I think the hook needs to be reworked. First, the article doesn't state that it's the first civilian aircraft to be shot down, but first civilian passenger aircraft to be shot down. I'm not sure if the former is also true, but it's not what the article says. Secondly, it says that the aircraft was rebuilt only to be shot down again. That's also not quite right: the second "shootdown" happened on the ground, when the aircraft was strafed by Japanese fighters. In fact, technically speaking, I'm not sure I'd even call the first incident a shootdown rather than the plane being fired on, forced to land on a river, and then strafed until it sunk. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I moved this hook to Prep 1 at the bottom, until it can be looked at. I think the review on Template:Did you know nominations/Kweilin Incident needs to be revisited. It seems lacking to me, but other editors might have different opinions. — Maile (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
So who is going to reopen? Pinging Hawkeye7 because he had accepted. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I've pulled it from the queue. You can continue the discussion on its page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 21 August 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) 21:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Now overdue. Looking for an admin to promote very soon; while this prep doesn't have special occasion hooks, the next one does, and it would be unfortunate if its hooks didn't run starting midday (UTC) on August 22. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Has anyone checked these hooks? One of the hooks is mine so can someone request me to do this, otherwise wait for another admin? Victuallers (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK - Olga Limburg

Unfortunately, the reported fact that "Olga Limburg starred alongside Heinz Rühmann in 49 films", which is currently featured on the main page under "Did you know", appears to be incorrect and the result of a misreading of this source. The source itself states unambiguously that Limburg had acting parts in 49 films in total throughout her acting career, including merely four alongside Rühmann: "zwischen 1919 und 1955 insgesamt 49 Filme (vier mit Heinz Rühmann)".

As I am unfamiliar with the DYK processes and don't wish to upset anything, I'll refrain for the moment from editing the article itself and am asking for guidance here on how to proceed.
-- Svenman (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - fixed. Do fix the article - thats how we work. We trust you. Victuallers (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I've edited the article in the meantime. After having read up on the rules, I was just about to report the error on WP:ERRORS, but now everything is ok.
-- Svenman (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis and hook creation

What do the current rules say about WP:SYNTH and hook creation? Recently, I reviewed a DYK that appeared to interpret and synthesize a hook from the source material rather than cite an easy to verify fact. This was made even more complicated by the fact that the nominator relied upon foreign language sources and expected reviewers to AGF rather than to verify the hooks in English. Putting aside that example, which the nominator disputes and which was passed by his close friend rather than a neutral party, I would like to discuss the problem in general; that is to say, how does DYK currently review and filter out synthesis in nominated hooks? Speaking from my own experience in both reviewing and nominating hooks, I consider a hook free from synthesis when the hook can easily be verified in the source material without interpretation, and without combining separate unrelated passages to create the hook. In other words, hook nominators should not be creating novel formulations from the source material. Due to the dispute mentioned above, it appears some nominators strongly disagree. I would like to hear feedback from the community on this matter. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis in a hook is no more acceptable than in any other form of encyclopaedic content - I'd have thought that went without saying... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Do we have explicit rules that discuss how to identify synthesis in hooks? According to at least one nominator, many of our hooks are synthesized from the source material, rather than stating facts directly. I disagree with the nominator's interpretation of our hook creation process, but he has a point, in that some editors may think synthesizing hooks is acceptable as long as the material appears in the source. Nevertheless, IMO, this is a novel formulation of material. Hooks, IMO, should be easily sourced, to the point where anyone can verify the fact at hand. I'm arguing that this may not be the case and that we may need to explicitly rule out synthesis in our hooks. Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Either a hook complies with Wikipedia policy concerning synthesis or it doesn't. Why do we need to explain the same policy again just for hooks? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. So then, let me clarify in response to the above. How much is a hook allowed to differ from the cited hook in the article? According to the same nominator, the hook can differ quite a bit. However, I thought (at one point) this was against the rules and that the hook should match the content in the article. Viriditas (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean? A hook has to be based on article content, obviously. And that content in turn has to be properly cited, and without synthesis. Certainly a hook can summarise an aspect of the article, that isn't a problem. What it can't do is state (or imply) a conclusion not supported directly by a source. The mere fact that the hook is on the main page, rather than in the relevant article, makes no difference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
For what I mean, see this discussion, where all of these points are raised by the nominator. I have no problem with summarizing an aspect of an article, but when the nominator picks and chooses what to summarize from the source material, in order to formulate a novel claim, then I have a problem. Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
From a quick look at the discussion, the nominator is stating that the 'novel claim' is in fact made in the source cited - which therefore isn't synthesis. Or rather, it is synthesis, by the author of the source material, who drew different facts together to reach a conclusion - but we expect the authors of our sources to engage in synthesis. That is a significant part of what academic writing is about. Anyway, I should have gone to bed hours ago, and I'm in no fit state to read through the whole thread in detail, and even if I do, I'm not sure why anyone would take my opinion as any sort of definitive answer. Both you and the nominator of the disputed hook seem to agree that hooks shouldn't contain synthesis, and accordingly your original question seems moot. As to whether this hook does contain synthesis by the nominator, perhaps you could ask at WP:RSN - only a single source is being cited, so the question comes down to whether it is RS for the hook. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Prep 4

The lead hook has 216 char (not including "pictured"). Yoninah (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I made some cuts to the open-crotch pants (strange as that may sound). EEng (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Full preps and empty queues - Admin needed

Can an admin move some of the full preps into the empty queues. There are no queues filled and all the preps are filled.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

1 done Victuallers (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Victuallers, you probably should have done 2 because those two queues were built at about the same time. Also, when the queues are overdue in the wee hours in the U.S. there are a lot less admins to promote a set.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Some are still awake :-) Victuallers (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Victuallers, I don't understand why you keep moving just one set. Also, what went wrong with the update? The prep areas did not rotate.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful comments and advice. It takes time Tony, but its always a pleasure :p I don't understand why you are trying to puzzle out my motives, but I'm pleased that you contribute, and thats enough for me. I'm not sure why the prep areas didnt rotate. Is that my fault as well? Victuallers (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Rotation is not automatic. But anybody can make it happen. Right above the top prep area is this line "NOTE: The next prep set to move into the queue is prep [number] "update count" So clicking on "update count" and then changing the Prep number manually rotates it. — Maile (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Telegraph (sternwheeler 1914)

This nomination appears under both August 17 and August 22. Yoninah (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

USA Women’s 3x3 Teams timeliness review

USA Women’s 3x3 Teams - This was nominated today, with a note that the 2014 event is already in progress. I don't feel knowledgeable enough to do this one myself. — Maile (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Scrapping the 7 day rule

As we are looking at proposals today, how about scrapping the seven day rule?

As far as I can see, in the olden days (when dragons roamed Wikipedia and fair maidens had to be on the look out for uncivil knights; no, not last week, a few years ago) DYK was a breeze to to get through: chuck up a few words (1000 characters back in those times before inflation) with a reference to your mate's blog at the bottom and that was about it. To control the flow of nominations of qualifying articles, somebody thought it might be a good idea to limit it to new articles, say those that were 5 days old or less. That was seen as a pretty good idea back in those lax pre-industrial days.

Fast-forward to today: (...robots rule the Earth...sorry...too far...back a bit...) to qualify for DYK an article has to meet a vast swathe of criteria, some of which make it harder than getting GA. The 7 day rule has become toothless for established editors and actually a hindrance to new editors. Editors in the know develop their articles in userspace where they are exempt from the countdown, then move them to mainspace at the last minute or alternatively rush to get the nomination in before the deadline and then work on the article afterwards. Meanwhile the poor new editor creates an article and then stumbles across DYK a month later by which time they've missed the boat.

If we removed the 7 day rule it wouldn't lead to a flood of nominations as if anybody nominated an older article, they'd have to be responsible for:

  • checking it was thoroughly cited with inline citations
  • checking the sources were reliable
  • checking there was no close-paraphrasing, copyvio or plagiarism
  • checking the tone
  • checking it was long enough
  • checking it conformed to policies

(basically like getting it ready for GA)

We might see improvement of existing articles rather than the thousandth DYK article on [insert your pet hate marginal-interest DYK topic here, come on, we know you have one].

Linus Torvalds wasn't allowed a DYK because he's a bastard.[1]

We could "quick reject" any that didn't meet the criteria (for example, if an editor submitted an older article that clearly hadn't done any work on it recently and had no inline citations or had citation needed tags or said the subject was a bastard) and slap the nominator around if they complained (the last bit is optional). Thoughts? (other than what a delight I am, because you should know that already) Belle (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, and agree that first and foremost we've got to put article improvement as the top priority. I think where we've ended up today is that DYK nominations have to meet some of the GA criteria. It should definitely meet 1 ("well written") though I might cut some slack for the lack of a lead in short articles, 2 ("verifiable with no original research"), 4 (NPOV) and 5 (stable). It doesn't need to be broad in coverage necessarily, or with images. I think we should move towards crediting people who do substantial work, and just getting core articles like piano, oak, house and Poland to B class is a major effort which ought to be rewarded here if we can find an easy and quantifiable way to recognise the work done.
One issue I have with the "5x expanded" criteria is it means I can't take a badly written and unsourced article and rewrite it to a higher quality, because invariably I'll struggle to end up with more prose than I actually started with, let alone 5 times as much. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Then I suppose you could make the case for the 2x expansion to apply to all unsourced articles or all articles under C class status. (minor comment: We have allowed a bastard on DYK before.) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
There are plenty of bastards here, some of which would make fine DYK nominations once improved. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Linus' "I'm A Bastard" speech". Linux Mailing List. 6 September 2000. Retrieved 14 August 2014.

You can't get rid of a time limit altogether because then you would effectively scrap the "new" requirement along with it. However, I agree that 7 days now seems redundant given that noms can spend months on the nom page. One could probably comfortably expand the limit to a month with little if any change to the process, and the end result might be better quality articles as those who don't use sandboxes would have longer to work. Gatoclass (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

But the "new" requirement is effectively scrapped already. An article can spend months (years? is there any limit?) in userspace and months on the nominations page. This wouldn't prevent new articles being posted, but would allow improved (not just arbitrarily expanded) articles to be featured too. Belle (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
There's already a route for "improved" articles - GA. Gatoclass (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't really answer the "how new is new?" question, though I suppose I drifted off topic first; my point is that the 7 day rule (or any time limit) favours the experienced DYK editor who knows not to write an article in mainspace, and hinders any new contributors in getting their contributions in the spotlight. Now I know we are all about the content and not the contributor, but this rule makes DYK a bit cliquey. Belle (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
It's self-correcting: a new editor should only run afoul of the seven-day deadline once, after which they know about it and can plan with it in mind. If they aren't too far beyond the seven days when they nominate, reviewers frequently make an exception for first-timers just because they hadn't known. For a "clique", it's awfully easy to join... BlueMoonset (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
That's an argument for not having the 7 day rule, as with it the progression for a new editor would be: create an article, find out too late about DYK and the 7 day rule, create all further articles in userspace and avoid the 7 day rule; the only function of the 7 day rule there is to disqualify the editor's first article(s).Belle (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose scrapping the newness rule but open to the idea of extending it a bit further. Cbl62 (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: two months ago today the change from five days to seven was implemented. There was clear opposition to scrapping the five-day rule entirely, so I don't understand why the matter is being revisited so soon after consensus for seven was seen. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think there was clear consensus not to scrap the time limit, as that wasn't presented as one of the options. Belle (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry Belle, I think this is too soon. I think the rule, although there is a long tail, still promotes "newness" or "newlyexpandedness" and that is a good thing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    But it doesn't; it encourages DYK regulars to spend as long as they like creating an article in userspace. Over the past few weeks I've seen articles created in userspace in January qualifying as "new" DYKs. Belle (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: There's no point in constantly moving the goal post until someone has figured out a way to eliminate the goal post altogether. I keep seeing comments that it's getting around the rules to develop an article in user space and then moving it to main space when completed. Isn't that why user space exists? Shouldn't WP as a whole be encouraging this method of article creation diligence? Is the suggestion that the clock should start ticking the date and time the first word of a new article is saved on user space? Maybe there's something I'm missing. Who really creates an article in main space in one sitting on one day, completely cited and error free? Most articles are a work in progress. It takes time. — Maile (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    It's quite surprising to see an "Oppose" followed by an argument that seems to be saying that the time limit is pointless. Belle (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Please do not misinterpret what I just said here. WP:MAINSPACE defines an article as being in main space. Period. User pages in and of themselves are not articles. — Maile (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I could potentially, just about, conceive (enough caveats?) an argument for extending the rule beyond the current limit but if the point of DYK is to encourage new/improved content I don't believe there are many editors who start writing/expanding an article and can't reach 1500 characters within 7 days, whether they know the rules and cliques of DYK or not; nowhere in the rules does it say a DYK article has to be thoroughly complete (I think?). Therefore the possible advantage I see for an extended limit - and this is where I think I disagree with the opion of Maile above - is that useful, part written articles may not spend extensive time hidden hoarded in userspace until they can be made ready for DYK. Personally I believe that if you can write even part of a properly referenced article it should be in the main space and available for others to read/add to etc. Getting back in my box now. - Basement12 (T.C) 23:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I really like Belle's thinking on this matter, and I would encourage people to be a little bit more open minded about whether they would consider accepting it with caveats. Unfortunately, I suspect that opposition to Belle's proposal has more to do with maintaining the status quo rather than moving DYK forward. If there's a DYK regular (not me) who is sympathetic to Belle's idea, please consider working with the user to iron the bugs out and polish the proposal. I think it has merit and could possibly improve DYK by opening it up to more editors. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you, but I fear this proposal is doomed as it isn't easy for people to change from a bolded oppose even if they do reconsider. The DYK weltanschauung seems to be that "new to mainspace" is "new" regardless of how old the article really is. That's just weird. Belle (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. One of the big benefits of DYK's newness criteria is that it quickly, efficiently, and objectively filters the millions of articles currently residing on the English Wikipedia down to a semi-manageable quantity. Can you image a situation where everyone with the ability and interest to submit a nomination was lobbying for their pet subject of the day and it required a prolonged debate to make a decision? A fast and simple means to weed out a majority of the frivolous nominations that does not generate lots of WP:DRAMA is important. While not perfect, the newness requirement eliminates 99+% of the articles on the site from consideration, can be calculated in seconds (there are even automated tools to do most of the work), and does not generate the level of debate a subjective criteria would produce. This proposal if enacted would have the consequence of turning DYK into a general trivia section and greatly increasing the workload needed to keep it running. --Allen3 talk 10:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Having a random number generator arbitrarily designate 1/100th of all articles created as eligible for DYK (should someone choose to nominate) would also "quickly, efficiently, and objectively" limit nominations as well, although the 7-day rule isn't all that objective -- what it does is reward a minority who happen to know the move-to-namespace and other silly tricks.
  • Yes I can imagine a situation in which all articles (or, at least, a much larger group) are eligible. No drama and no lobbying needed to select among many nominations. Straight voting (voting, not consensus -- every editor of 6-month's standing and 500-plus edits gets one vote per day). Period. Simple.
  • I don't see how "if enacted would have the consequence of turning DYK into a general trivia section" -- it's a general trivia section already, just one which allows undeveloped, often-really-bad articles to suddenly be in the spotlight, often with the more desperately dull hooks. Dump the newness requirement, let people vote on what's interesting, and it would be no more "trivia" than it is now, but at least it would be what a majority who case see as interesting trivia, and we wouldn't be rewarding editors with a knack for developing slapdash articles in a rush.
EEng (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Allen. Much more eloquent than what I had written and am now letting fade into oblivion because of the edit conflict. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the existence of the time limit maintains the premise that DYK showcases new content and encourages some users to aim for quality in their new content, as well as the reasons given by Allen3. Also, the rule does not unduly restrict contributors because (1) DYK is traditionally lenient to newbies who didn't understand the rule and (2) the ability to bring articles here after achieving GA provides an opportunity for DYK to show the work of users who improve articles without achieving a 5x expansion in a required time frame. --Orlady (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think this is needed quite yet. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I thought sometimes nominations were allowed through as long as they aren't older than the oldest nomination on the nominations page. Is that correct?--¿3family6 contribs 18:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose You just have to get it on the nom page soon enough, and not everything languishes for months, it is the marginal stuff that needs responses that hangs around. If we were extending I would suggest 5→7→14 (not ∞)Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support because the idea that DYK encourages new editors is a charade -- I'd be surprised if more than 20% of creators/expanders/GA-ers of nominated articles are "new" editors by any sensible definition. It's mostly a small group that's learned how to turn out often-boring just-barely-more-than-stubs. Plus see my points just above. EEng (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I suppose a support should also come with an alternative solution to keep the in floods under control. If we allow all articles, new or old to be eligible, something else has also got to be changed in the criteria. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Some of that's given in my comments a few posts up -- limit nominations per editor to X per day/week/month; straight voting on which hooks are worth putting on main page (i.e. actually interesting) -- no discussion, just a straight popularity contest. Those that "win" then move on to the stage of checking that the article is up to snuff. EEng (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per Maile and Allen. I don't see any problem in refining and perfecting new articles in the userspace. And scrapping the 7 day rule could lead to phony "expansions" completed over several months (or an entire year), defeating the purpose of having new content featured. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
What does it matter how long an expansion took? And who's ever said, "That article's much more interesting because it's new -- not like all those stale articles that have been around a while." WP's so big that almost everything's new to any given reader, since any given reader almost certainly hasn't seen it. This "showcasing new content" idea seems to be entirely self-justifying: "The mission of DYK is to showcase new content because the mission of DYK is to showcase new content." But why? Why is that useful or good or fun? Certainly not because it encourages new editors -- the bulk of DYK submission are hoary old hands cranking out one submission after another. EEng (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
EEng, I'm not against reform but whilst what you suggest above may get rid of the "hoary old hands" it will quickly generate a new set; they'll trawl through old articles on their pet topic, those which already meet whatever quality criteria are set, nominate them on a drip-feed system (dependant on how many nominations they're allowed) and get like minded users to vote them in (lobbying a guarantee). DYK would remain a selection of random, sometimes dull, trivia but now no one has to generate any new material (whatever your definition of new is) to fill it. The main argument I'm seeing in favour of change is that only a small group of editors contribute (let's ignore for a second the fact that they are the ones creating most of the content anyway) so surely we need is to attract new blood by raising awareness of how to nominate/submit an article for DYK and some effort to make the whole thing less intimidating for new users. - Basement12 (T.C) 17:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Eliminate lobbying by having a random sample of 1000 editors each day get a popup that says, "Which of these two hooks would you be more likely to click on" -- simple, and based on those statistics tomorrow's hooks are selected.
  • I don't think the way to get new editors is to try to get them to create a new article -- too steep a learning curve. IMO the best way to get new editors is to get them attracted to making a small change to an existing article, such as one featured at DYK that they're interested in. Then get them to further expand/improve the article. That's why I've also said we should worry less about article quality at DYK -- we should be frank that they're still works in progress -- "If this fact interested you, click here to help improve the article" -- now you've got a new editor!
  • Here's an idea I just thought of -- each DYK article could have a Things to Do which is displayed at its top, so when someone clicks through from main page, he sees "Glad to see you're interested in this topic. If after looking at this article you want to help improve it, here are some things it needs: blah blah blah; click here." Sometin' like that.
EEng (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Tell me again why newness is important? EEng (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure, it's keeps the number of noms at a manageable level, instead of a deluge. Now tell me why people interested in the DYK project can't simply work off-line or in userspace? I never use userspace myself, and only some of the time work off-line, yet I have never missed a deadline for DYK. If one is really interested in contributing, then the 7-day limit is absolutely no problem at all. It only creates a quite small hurdle, which prevents willy-nilly noms from flooding the project. Manxruler (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The "deluge" problem has been well-answered at several points above. And working offline is really not a good thing, in my opinion -- as an article develops others should be able to jump in if they want. Very few good articles (even early versions) are developed in one go by one person -- even just two bouncing thoughts off each other, without an arbitrary rush deadline is more likely to result in an DYK-acceptable article ready for nom without a lot of reworking. EEng (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't feel it has been well-answered, so we'll have to agree to disagree there. You're of course also free to feel whatever you like about off-line writing, but I disagree with you there too. I wrote most of a GA off-line a while back, which worked out just fine. When writing on-line, in mainspace, seven days is plenty enough to write a Start, C or B class article. And, if one is not able to do that for some reason or other, there's userspace. There really is no problem with the current system, and loads of serious potential issues with the change you support. Manxruler (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose (somewhat reluctantly) As the editor who proposed extending the 5-day rule (which led to the 7-day rule), I'm in sympathy with Belle's broad intentions. I would certainly support a 14-day rule. And EEng is right, DYK does not particularly encourage new editors. Nonetheless, our recent Feminist Film Editathon at ICA London has generated several DYK noms, most at least started by new editors. However, DYK does encourage the creation of new content, and to my mind anyway, that is its most important role - our readers don't care who created it. Having said all that, we do need more varied and clickable hooks, and some competition there might be no bad thing. Edwardx (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I think there's material in this thread for a more carefully considered proposal for change. I propose we regroup in a few months. EEng (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Any chance of a quick review to meet a centenary

Hi, I have just posted Template:Did you know nominations/Achille Pierre Deffontaines to the noms page. It is the 100th anniversary of this man's death on 26 August and would be great to get this on the main page for then. Would anybody fancy doing me a favour and reviewing this quickly? Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Might be helpful if the reviewer knows some French. EEng (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Jakec kindly reviewed this article, I don't suppose someone could place it in the relevant queue? - Dumelow (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Review done. Needs a promo. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems that you need to get this swapped into Prep Area 4 before it gets promoted to the queue 1. I'd do it, but I haven't really paid attention to the hook promotion policy since we have gone to the individual hook discussion format with Template:Did you know nominations/subject x pages.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
If Prep Area 4 gets moved to Queue 1 without swapping your article in I would Add a SUPERBOLD comment on the DYK discussion. USE superlarge font. Maybe two or three times normal size and bold or something crazy like that. Again, sorry too lazy to learn how to promote in the new environment.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I swapped it in there myself. I was hesitant to do so as, like you, I am not familiar with the new process but with 4 hours left before it was due to go up I didn't want to miss the chance. Hopefully someone can check I haven't broken anything - Dumelow (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Question on the 200 character hook limit

Does it include - in wikilinks - the length of the name of the article linked to, and the brackets, as well? For example does Cross-border Terminal count as 78 or just the 21 characters that actually appear in the DYK text? Keizers (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Only displayed characters count against the 200 character hook limit. The restriction is designed to limit the amount of screen space consumed by the hook when it is displayed on the Main page. Parts of a hook that are not displayed (e.g. wiki markup) do not affect the amount of screen space used and are not counted. Your example thus counts as 21 characters. --Allen3 talk 08:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Marian Lutosławski

@User:Antidiskriminator, do not paste your own crap using my preformatted signature in blatant disregard for Wikipedia policy/guidelines as you did at Template:Did you know nominations/Marian Lutosławski, and also, refrain from deleting other users' assessments from your own submissions as you did at Template:Did you know nominations/Jovan Albanez. Thank you, Poeticbent talk 18:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, everybody! Please help because I don't know what to do. User:Antidiskriminator just radicalized his attack into a whole bloody WP:SOAPBOX of absurdist ideas. While keeping my forged signature intact from his earlier posting, he now expanded his rant into a whole bunch of nonsensical commentaries on the history of Poland under partitions. This is a blatant abuse of our DYK rules of conduct. Antidiskriminator claims partitions did not last for as long as they did... Bolsheviks did not execute prisoners (they only “arrested” them with no proof who executed them), sentences administered days before trials were not connected to show trials, charges were not drummed up before mass killings – they therefore have been real... and so on. Please tell if in your opinion this qualifies for the Adminstrators noticeboard/incidents or perhaps we can resolve it here by ourselves somehow. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 18:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

There's indeed something weird going on there, though I can't tell if it's as innocent as mistakenly copy-pasting wikisource. I'm summoning our biggest gun Bluemoonset to kick asses and take names. Don't worry, nothing will be decided about the nom until this is sorted out. EEng (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
p.s. at least one confusing this is that a comment got moved from one nom to another. [7] EEng (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I moved comment of User:Poeticbent in which he used Template:DYK?again to point to their comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Marian Lutosławski. Since this template is used "...to indicate that a DYK nomination is ready for re-review after earlier concerns were addressed" I thought that it belongs to the Marian Lutosławski nomination so I moved it there. If I was wrong I sincerely apologize.--Marian Lutosławski (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Expressions of remorse are empty if one does not follow up on them. You have forged my signature, faked my edit, and so far, you have not removed even one word from your revisionist rant with no relation (whatsoever) to our QPQ requirements and no reasonable grounds in Polish history. Poeticbent talk 15:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Lo and behold, a new account was created today called Ustallaretevjeter (talk · contribs) and approved Template:Did you know nominations/Jovan Albanez submitted by User:Antidiskriminator using Template:DYKtick as: "Good to go" with a short note: "all fine". That's it. — User:Ustallaretevjeter also reverted me at Marian Lutosławski with the summary "tough luck..." etc, claiming that Lutosławski was born in the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria. However, the so-called Kingdom existed from 1872. Lutosławski was born in 1871. Go figure. Poeticbent talk 17:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Poeticbent, I have done a turn-around tick on that nomination. It would appear from this new user's contributions that this redlink user is approving Antidiskriminator's nomination on the one hand, and then backing you on the Marian Lutosławski template . Please be advised that you have Wikipedia:CheckUser and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations available to you if you feel this might be the case. There does appear to be something odd, but it could be neither of the two of you.— Maile (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Maile66 for trying to help, although the brown stuff will not come off on its own until Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs) gets the drift. The good-faith attempt by Ustallaretevjeter (talk · contribs) simply backfired. Poeticbent talk 16:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
QPQ review still needed. Poeticbent talk 12:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Special occasion hooks: too many "emergencies", and now a self-promotion

Lately, there seems to be an increasing number of last-minute special occasion hooks being requested. According to the note at the beginning of the section, they should be nominated at least five days in advance to give time for the normal review processes to work. Also, this is a request: DYK people are usually willing to do their best, but it is never a guarantee, and certainly not a right to be asserted.

One extreme example is currently on the main page. Template:Did you know nominations/Achille Pierre Deffontaines was nominated on August 24, less than 48 hours before its 100-year anniversary. It did pass the following day, but the nominator, Dumelow, then took the highly irregular step of inserting his or her own hook into a queue. The nomination wasn't closed properly, and I'm not about to close it myself, as this would put my name on it as the promoter and I didn't promote it. Dumelow, the instructions on how to close promoted nominations is at T:TDYK#How to promote an accepted hook; you'll need to do the actions in the third bullet. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I, who have been semi-uninvolved these days, am taken aback by the progress of the above hook to the main page. What BlueMoonset terms "...the highly irregular step..."
  • Nominated by a sysop on August 24
  • Reviewed by an editor on August 25
  • On Aug 25, another editor requested an Admin to move it directly into a Queue.
  • On Aug 25, an Admin moved it into the special holding area for August 26, where it still is since the template was not closed.
  • On Aug 26, the nominator moved his own nomination directly into a Queue himself, bypassing any Prep area, and moving what had been in the Queue slot back into a Prep area.
Uh...those with special privileges...
  • Aside from that, given the spirited debates that have happened on this talk page over the last few months, going by the "...five days in advance..." rule is not a bad idea. There have always been exceptions to that, but maybe there should now be a moratorium on exceptions. Where do you draw the line? Enough approved nominations have been questioned and some yanked from both Queues and Prep areas, that a little extra time is good for extra eyes to catch things. — Maile (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • What is the purpose of DYK? Is it to provide links to articles readers might find interesting (something topical, say, like a centenary)? Or is it to provide a tasks to keep procedure wonks happy and woe betide anyone with a special reuse that doesn't fit with the policy wonkery? Too much these days, I fell it's the latter, and DYK has lost what used to make it beautiful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, this instance could be equated with if someone with admin privileges promoted their own FLC, FAC or GAC nominations. Is it allowable in those processes for a nominator to promote their own nomination for any reason? — Maile (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
"...and DYK has lost what used to make it beautiful". I just had a few days off; I'm back now. Belle (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, Belle, and I'm starting to remember the reason I've stayed away. — Maile (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Is it my perfume? It's "Repulse" by Channel 5. The tag line says it will attract men like flies [peels back price label] round sh...what?! Belle (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
It isn't you at all. Something else. — Maile (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I have half a dozen FAs and multiple GAs to my name, and neither have the convoluted process or long lists of arbitrary rules that DYK does because both are about the quality of the article rather than the process itself. And neither promotion mechanism requires admin tools, so the comparison doesn't hold water. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
There are complaints if anything that isn't just so gets through to the main page from DYK and complaints from the nominators if their nomination isn't treated just how they want it treated; suggest which rules to cut if you think they are unhelpful ([Belle steps into time machine. Bzt. Steps out in two weeks time] "Wow, it's exactly the same!") Belle (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This all started here
This seemed like a well done article (I improved the references, citations and content myself), well referenced,and with a really good hook that was tied to the centenary of the general's death.
En passant, I would note that the articles' creator has been working on this articlce since March in his sandbox. So the "emergency" was seemingly self created.
I only asked for an Admmin to look at the article because of a concern that the tick wouldn't be noticed, and those in a position to do something might not be aware of the time 'necessity' involved.
Just so we are clear, I did not tell anyone what to do next. It was a mere request. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There was no intention to infer you did anything incorrect or improper. — Maile (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Glad to hear that. I don't even want an implication to stand. Nor am I taking any position on the propriety of anyone's actions, other than to say that the emergency might have been avoided with better planning, but it is a good article with a good hook. In that sense, all is well that ends well. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Good thing you mentioned here, so I could clarify. — Maile (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Come on guys this is ridiculous. I wrote an article (note I started this on 24 August, per the edit history of the article page and not in March as stated above) that I feel is well referenced, informative and improves the project. I then thought it would be nice, in the light of the upcoming centenary of the man's death, to have it on the main page on that day (which I think is probably appreciated by our readers). I asked for a review of the hook in order to meet this date, this was then kindly done by a third party (User:Jakec). I then asked on this page for an admin to transfer it to the appropriate queue. Unfortunately it appeared all the admins were busy (which is understandable), though User:TonyTheTiger was sympathetic but, like myself, had not promoted any hooks in the new style. With the time running out I placed the hook into the queue myself, the hook having been previously approved this appeared an uncontroversial step. Note that your rules as listed just state "finalized hook sets are moved here from "prep" by an administrator, where they wait for their Main Page appearance ... The admin moving the hooks to the live template may edit or reject any hook at their discretion." with nothing about promoting your own hook. Though I would, of course, usually leave this to someone uninvolved in this case time was of the essence. I have now closed the nomination thread in accordance with your link, User:BlueMoonset (thankyou, I struggled to find it earlier for some reason, though it was in an obvious place).
You have to ask yourself what harm came to the project because of my actions here? An informative and (I hope) interesting article was placed onto the main page at a significant anniversary for the subject. At the end of the day what do you think is more important, adhering to some unwritten rules that no-one outside this corner of the wiki knows about or actually improving the encyclopaedia for our reader? If it is the former then I am very sad for the direction this project has taken in the eight years since I started editing, the bureaucrats and policy wonks truly have wom. No wonder we are losing productive, long standing editors and not attracting any new blood.
If you'll excuse me I have wasted enough time here already - I'll be getting back to, you know, writing and improving this encyclopaedia. Please feel free to carry on with arguing over procedures, I don't know if I will bother nominating any more articles here in the future - Dumelow (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I was wrong about the article being in Dumelow's sand box. I confabulated the memory, having confused it with User:Dumelow/List of French generals who died during the First World War I apologize for my misstatement of fact. I am with him as to the worth of the article and the DYK, and only tried to work in concert with him and expedite its processing in DYK. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There has been an increased tendency at DYK recently to wikilink articles other than the featured article in DYK hooks. At some point in the distant past, there was a discussion about this. It was suggested then, and I think rightly so, that it was best to minimize wikilinks to other articles, especially where such wiklinks are likely to siphon attention away from the featured article. The theory was that our goal is to drive viewers to the new article who will in turn refine and improve it. By throwing up a multitude of wikilinks to other articles, we divert clickthroughs to articles other than the one we chose to feature. Recent examples include:

  • One of today's lead hooks reads ...that on its 2012 centenary, the Rio de Janeiro cableway (pictured) was honored with a Google Doodle in Brazil? The stats aren't in, but I bet "Google Doodle" gets more clickthroughs than the featured article.
  • A recent hook on "Sea of Trees (film)" drew 3,700 clickthroughs here while a wikilink to the non-featured Suicide Tree siphoned off almost 10,000 clikthroughs here.
  • A couple days ago, our featured hook on the Bryn Mawr Deanery drew only 1500 clickthroughs here, as a non-featured but wikilinked article here siphoned off the attention and grabbed over 10,000 clickthroughs.
  • Yesterday's Dan Casey hook included a wikilink to Casey at the Bat. The other Casey got more clickthroughs than the featured Casey. Compare featured Casey to other Casey.
  • A recent hook for Lionel Fraser drew 3,100 hits here, but a wiklink to a non-featured article on his son, "Groovy Bob," drew almost 7,000 hits here.
  • A recent hook for Winston Watts drew 3,400 clicks here, while a wikilink to Dogecoin grabbed 5,400 clicks.
  • A recent hook for Walt Disney Animation Studios drew 3,100 hits here, but a wikilink to a non-featured list drew 5,400 hits here.

This may not be a big deal on any one hook, but at a project level, we should try to minimize wikilinks in DYK hooks that are likely to divert the focus away from the article we are featuring. 14:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC) [signed... The Mystery DYK Commenter]

BTW, you misspelled "beanery". EEng (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • ("who will in turn refine and improve it" Awwwwww, it's like what a baby bird or a newborn kitten would think might happen to a DYK; who's a cute little Cbl62? Who is? Is it you? Is it? Yeeesss, it isss; yess, it is) Anyway, apart from my condescending aside (meant playfully, Cbl62, I'm sure you are an ugly streetwise bruiser in real life), I broadly agree with this. Things like Dogecoin which is baffling to normal humans might warrant a link in an article, but it is linked and explained (?!?) in the DYK article, so there's not really any need to to link it separately, as if the reader clicks on the DYK article they will have everything at their fingertips anyway. Belle (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As the nominator responsible for the wikilink to Groovy Bob (damn, did it again), I can see your point. However, I doubt that many of those 7,000 would have clicked on Lionel Fraser instead. And Groovy Bob is the more important article and the one more in need of expansion/improvement. So, from the perspective of creating new content, one could argue that it was right to link Bob. On the subject of links, what really annoys me is links to World War I or Australia - how does that help? Edwardx (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree that links serve a different purpose in hooks than they do in articles: as a reader reads an article, he's already "in" the subject and might want to branch off to something else; in a hook, the bold link is the subject, and additional links compete with it, which is undesirable (all other things being equal). I'd like to hear what others think, but my inclination is to propose a practice something like "Links should be added to hooks sparingly, primarily only where needed to avoid misleading the reader."

    And I would interpret this very narrowly. We would just about never link World War II, certainly. I'm not even sure we should link an "unusual" term. We're trying to "hook" the reader's curiosity to draw him into the (bolded) article. If the hook says ... that John Wilkins is considered a founder of latitudinarianism, and the reader wants to know what latitudinarianism is, he can click on the bold link to find out -- in the context of John Wilkins. EEng (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Unfortunately the John Wilkins article doesn't talk about latitudinarianism right now, but you get the idea.

  • In almost all of the examples here, the non-target articles were topics that needed to be linked, IMO. The exception was the Walt Disney studios hook -- the hook probably didn't need to link to the list. There's an art to crafting hooks to draw as much attention as possible to the target article rather than non-target articles in the hook. Most of these hooks were worded so as to draw attention to the target articles; if there's a problem here, it's in the choice of hook facts that rely on a secondary topic to grab the reader's attention.
I wouldn't see the Sea of Trees example as a failure -- the target hook did garner more than 5000 hits. --Orlady (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, show us how it's done. How would you re-"craft" these three of the OP's examples --
... that on its 2012 centenary, the Rio de Janeiro cableway was honored with a Google Doodle in Brazil?
or
... that the film Sea of Trees, now in production, is about the Japanese "Suicide Forest"?
or
... that in later life, baseball player Dan Casey claimed he was "Casey at the Bat"?
-- to avoid a "choice of hook facts that rely on a secondary topic to grab the reader's attention"? EEng (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I said the hooks were worded appropriately (Most of these hooks were worded so as to draw attention to the target articles). I said that if there was a problem with these hooks (note that I didn't say there was a problem), it was that the chosen hook facts relied on other article topics to draw attention to the target articles. --Orlady (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Fine. How would you recommend re-crafting these hooks to draw attention to the target articles, without "relying on other article topics" to do so? EEng (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • We've been doing this a long time and I don't see the problem. Driving eyes to the article... huh? Who said we're trying to do that?? We feature the article on the main page and that's all you get; if readers want to see the article they can (and many will) and if they want to click on other links, fine. The point beyond that is to drive readers into the Wikipedia generally, I guess. And adding limks makes for a better hook that's more useful/fun/interesting to the reader and gives them more stuff to do. And if you just have the link to the article itself, well some of these articles are pretty dull or of highly specialized interest. I look to put links into other articles in the hook on purpose to give some happy time to more, and a wider range of, readers. As to driving more readers to the article because it's new and here's a good chance to get people to improve it, dunno. Maybe. But I never heard that one, although it makes some sense. Herostratus (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The point of DYK is to highlight the new content, not to link to topics in a general and/or random way. Also, as a technical point, note that superfluous blue links are a nuisance when using a touch-screen device such as a tablet because they tend to cause misclicks. Here's some more examples of overlinking from the current batch:
  • ... that Cicero's lost Consolatio (45 BC) is widely accepted as the distinct work that transmitted the earlier consolatio literary tradition to the Romans of the late Republic? — Here we have consolatio linked twice when one is a specific example of the general style. Details of the author and period will obviously be found in the target article too and so, if anyone wants to know more, they should be going to the target article to get the context.
  • ... that Charles de Visscher, a Belgian judge of the International Court of Justice, was orphaned at age twelve? — linking orphan here seems ridiculous.
Andrew (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Amen. EEng (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Trout me (said with a smile); I'm the nominator of the Rio de Janeiro cableway/Google Doodle hook. I just didn't think it was appropriate to avoid linking it. In fact, I figured the cableway article might get clicked second, after the Google Doodle, but it would perhaps not get as many clicks if Google Doodle wasn't mentioned. IMO, on balance, it can be helpful to link to catchy terms within a hook, in addition, of course, to the target article. Have we looked closely enough at that phenomenon? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing for you to be embarrassed about -- you were just following the usual practice of linking hooks pretty much the same way article text is linked. I think you're wrong the cableway article would get clicked second -- my guess is that very few readers return after clicking off to whatever link catches their interest first e.g. Goggle Doodle. When reading your statement that "it can be helpful to link catchy terms", it occurred to me that in a way the linking acts as a kind of highlighting which perhaps attracts interest to the hook overall, even as those same links tend to "siphon" some of that interest away from the primary article. EEng (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I want to mention another reason for linking sparingly. There's a lot of effort put into ensuring that DYK articles meet at least minimum standards, but absolutely all of that effort is directed at the primary "bolded" article. There's no attention at all given to the quality of the other articles linked from the hook, and they're often absolutely awful. And if we're worried about being embarrassed by an article being linked from the main page, I don't think readers will recognize that secondary links "don't count" and give us a pass -- a serious BLP or other violation, linked from a hook, will come down hard on DYK regardless of what flavor the link was. EEng (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Since "Andrew" was kind enough to express Support, I thought it might be a good idea to have a proposal on the table. Andrew, would I be right in guessing you're supporting something like this? EEng (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Links should be added to hooks sparingly, primarily only where needed to avoid misleading the reader.
Support Don't everyone rush to weigh in at once. EEng (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Cbl62 (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is sort of thing that should ultimately be left to the nominator's discretion. There's nothing inherently wrong with articles other than the bolded one getting extra hits, and if the nominator wants to include those links, there's no reason to go against their wishes. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Antony. Really now? This is rule creep in the extreme. If nobody knows who Roekiah was (and, let's face it, few do), we're doing readers a disservice by not linking to her. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. More links make for a more interesting hook with more entries into the articles to draw in more readers. If anything they should be encouraged, but leave it up to the person writing the hook. Herostratus (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Well, this proposal is a clear-cut example of rule creep. Useful links should be encouraged in hooks, in the same way they are encouraged in articles and elsewhere on the Main page. I doubt the "lost" (?) hits would really go to the bolded article, in such a system. Probably would simply lead to fewer clicks to DYK hooks overall. And I really fail to see what's so very wrong with the non-bolded articles getting some attention too. We should use links here, in the same way as everywhere else on the Main page. It should be up to the nominator, if anything. Manxruler (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

baby buttcrack

gee, I dunno, this or a baby's asshole.... they're both so very tasteful...

So, in a few hours DYK is seriously going to put a picture of a minor child's ass crack on the front page of Wikipedia? Really, DYK, really? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably helpful to have the template: Open-crotch pants. — Maile (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that the queue be updated and that Gerber Reservoir become the top item, using the much more pleasant image you see to the left. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Strongly support this. The main page should make at least some attempt to not have pictures like that on the front page. (then again, the reservoir could offend a lot of people...) --Jakob (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I also support the beautiful image of the Gerber Reservoir. — Maile (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I feel somewhat ashamed about this because I copyedited the hook [8] and didn't even register what the image showed. We only have an hour, so I'm pinging every DYK admin I can think of. Crisco 1492 Victuallers Casliber The Rambling Man Fram Orlady Graeme_Bartlett Beeblebrox EEng (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank God. I was just about to post to AN and MP Errors. My fingers were overheating. EEng (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Only now do I realize that a quick fix would have been to push the stop button at User:DYKUpdateBot -- good to keep in mind, guys and gals! EEng (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You have to be an admin to do that and if you're an admin, why wouldn't you just fix the queue? --Jakob (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Christ, you're right -- you have to be an admin. So much for that idea. EEng (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre and unintentional comic relief

As a final indignity, we have the following text in the article [9]:

The partially exposed buttocks of [open-crotch]-clad children in public places frequently strikes foreign visitors, who often photograph them.

I think what's meant is that the sight of partially exposed buttocks strikes foreigners (as strange, or something), not that foreigners are literally struck by, well... Some articles are just cursed.

I guess at this point we're leaving the image in the article itself? EEng (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess I meant while the article was linked from main page, but I figured the answer is what you're saying. What a close call, however. EEng (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know what you all were going to do

As the editor and longtime DYK contributor who not only expanded the article but took the picture, I am so pleased that no one thought to consult me about this beforehand. I can only conclude that this was a deliberate attempt to go behind my back.

Beeblebrox just had to go further, however. On the main page he assumes, without even bothering to look further, that the child was about to defecate. If you look at it closely you'll see that he wasn't in any way beginning to do so (believe me, if that had happened it would have been the lead image in the article). The clear insinuation is that I was somehow violating the child's privacy by taking the photo, which I was not—it was a public park in Beijing. This is hardly the first time I've seen that in China. Or anyone who's actually been there.

To assume not only makes (ahem) an ass out of you and me. It makes me wonder what's really going through the minds of people like Beeblebrox when they read things like this into pictures they didn't take. To indirectly attribute some lecherous intent to me this way is a personal attack. The sooner he retracts that post and apologizes, the better. The "asscrack" wasn't just in the picture here.

And really ... we could have used this. Not much of his rear was visible, and even less in the thumbnail. If you didn't look at DYK (not everyone without an account does, contrary to what we often think here), you probably wouldn't have known. And elsewhere online, there are similar pictures, some far more revealing than this. In that context, is it really so scandalous?

If we had had a discussion about this, I might have been persuaded, but since action was taken unilaterally any hypothetical consensus we could have reached is moot. Shame on you. Shame on all of you. I'm not sure I'll be submitting any new DYK hooks for a while. In fact, if this is what DYK has been reduced to, perhaps it has indeed run its course, and it's high time we replaced it with Articles for Improvement, Good Articles, or something like that. Daniel Case (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: And really, this picture was a problem? In a set of hooks that end with "Dog Fart Rollercoaster" in unmissable text? Really? Really? What bodily orifice is that decision coming out of? Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "I can only conclude that this was a deliberate attempt to go behind my back." - Or... you know, that the time zones were working against you? Or that you missed the discussion in the hour and a half between it being raised and the set being posted? As anyone who's been around DYK for several years should know, there are cases where images are pulled shortly before running. The Nadar Hermaphrodite image was pulled, and I seem to recall a case where a horse clitoris or something was pulled as well. Short of a lengthier discussion for a firmer consensus, there's not much that can be done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Crisco, in hindsight it probably would have been better to simply pull the whole thing for tonight and reopen the nom page, so a considered decision could be made about whether to use the hook with the img, or just the hook alone, but since you were the only admin to step up at all, and it's easy to see from your Contribs history that you first received the ping with just 15 minutes "to go", no one can possibly criticize you for not thinking of that (i.e. what you actually did was to move to hook down in the set to a no-image slot).
  • Daniel Case, when you drop the nonsense about how there's a conspiracy against you, we'll try to help you see where you judgment failed you. I am not saying -- and I doubt many or most others are saying -- that, on careful consideration, we wouldn't use the image. I am saying that something like this touches on an area of potentially great sensitivity, and caution should be exercised in the form of the issue being thoroughly ventilated well in advance. You' should have had the brains/common sense/whatever to realize that and open the discussion yourself, right when you made the nom, instead of letting others accidentally notice at the last minute.

EEng (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you know what I'm going to do? Get that article to featured status, and then submit it for the main page. Maybe there and then, at TFA, where no one's worried about getting pulled off the Main Page due to bad publicity, we can have a proper discussion about whether the image is a problem before we run it. (There, how's that for productively channeling your energies?) Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • EEng, in hindsight that may have been better for all parties, but as you said, it was done with a mere 15 minutes to go... not enough time to fill in an empty slot, or three. We've run late too much recently. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
You're forgiven. What do you think of my proposal below? EEng (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
"... instead of letting others accidentally notice at the last minute." Sounds like an excuse for dereliction of duty. As someone notes in the discussion below, the image was deliberately left there for someone to notice and remark upon ... as the saying goes, run it up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes it.

As I have also pointed out to Crisco elsewhere, and as people here seem to agree, other options were available besides brusquely taking the picture out because of another editor's flippantly-worded concern on the main page. The hook could have been replaced with another already-approved one from either the other queues or the preps, and held for discussion of the picture. Or someone could have used a good alternate (right) that was already in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A renewed proposal on the handling of "sensitive" (whatever that means) material

A month or two ago there was a somewhat similar kerfuffle (though of a much more potentially "sexual" image than is at issue today). At that time I proposed the following (now slightly modified, and see especially the last point, in bold):

  • Wikipedia does not suppress knowledge merely because some may find that knowledge offensive, but neither should the manner of presentation knowingly or thoughtlessly give offense when the same information can be communicated in a manner more broadly acceptable.
  • While DYK hooks are often playful, this should not be confused with vulgarity, shock, or tastelessness.
  • Omission of a particular hook does not remove that hook's content from the body of Wikipedia's knowledge (as would omission of an image or piece of information from an article), merely from the prominence of the main page. The purpose of a DYK listing is to interest readers in a given article, not give exposure to a particular hook or image per se, so where there is significant concern about given hook, consider rewording the hook or substituting a different point drawn from the article, or a different image (or using no image).
  • When proposing a hook touching on issues, or employing language, or accompanied by an image, that is arguably sensitive, raise the issue explicitly in the nomination instead of waiting for someone else to do so, to get feedback early.

Thoughts? EEng (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • "That is arguably sensitive" is too broad. Anything is arguably sensitive in a certain context. (The standard response: A picture of a woman not wearing a headscarf can be sensitive in some Muslim countries). I'd want something more concrete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, how about:
When proposing a hook touching on issues, or employing language, or accompanied by an image, that you feel may be of concern to a significant proportion of editors, raise the issue explicitly in the nomination instead of waiting for someone else to do so, to get feedback early.
I've intentionally put in lots of loopholes. Editors will be expected to let their consciences be their guides. If someone, as in a recent situation, really tries to argue that he didn't realize a lot of people might be concerned, when obviously they would, then they'll have to suffer the humiliation of everyone thinking they're ridiculous. EEng (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Images can certainly be a problem, remember that Jailbait issue a few weeks ago. Rude words are not so much of an issue but risqué images do sort of stand out a bit and a bit of pragmatism is exactly what is needed when dodgy images arise. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose DYK already has too many rules and so WP:CREEP indicates that we should be rolling them back, not adding to them. This proposal seems especially vague and verbose. The place where these four bullet points would be added is not specified and so the context is not clear. The most that seems needed here is some amendment of one of the existing bullet points in WP:Did you know/Reviewing guide#If there is an image. "Sensitive" seems too vague and it might be better to focus on the BLP aspect, which is clearer and commands a more general consensus. For example, the picture in question (right) might have been cropped to remove the upper third which shows the head of the individual, on the grounds that this might identity them. Andrew (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Jesus ... this is after I cropped the kid's parents out of the image (the full version of which I have never uploaded for privacy reasons) and he's already facing away from the camera (indeed, were he not, I couldn't have taken that picture). And you think he could still be identifiable by his haircut? Go to Beijing, or any large city in China, walk around for a couple of days, and tell me that haircut would be distinctive enough to identify someone. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • For heaven's sake, it's some thoughts for discussion. Edit it, condense it, suggest where it could be combined with existing rules, whatever. Anyway, I JUST SAID that it's not really a rule, but a consideration for people to keep in mind.
  • Certainly there have been times that hook wording (esp. the use of certain words), not just images, has been of concern.
  • If you think the concern about the image was that the kid's head was visible you've got the, er, wrong end of the stick. EEng (talk) 09:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
+1 Someone understands. Thank you! Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • We've got an article on buttock cleavage? Wow. The image works great for the article. However, I'm not too sure we should put it on the MP without actual discussion. Such discussion has shot down images (the Merkin FP, for instance) and affirmed images, but in both cases it gives an actual discussion that we can point to when people start screaming "think of the children!". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
See? You do understand the point of having a discussion to link to. This is also just as necessary when the decision is to not use a particular image. People do object to that, too, you understand. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Unworkable This image was in the preps for a long time. I know because I left it there on purpose so that the community could consider it. I don't see anything (very) wromg with it and I think that if the majority of editors here were Chinese then they would see this as normal. That is what the article is about. Beedlebrox has identified a problem and editors are agreeing with that view, but some of these editors had already seen the image. We leave articles in the nomination list and in the preps to gather consensus. The admin who moves it to the queue assumes that the community is happy with the image. Having a rule that editors should anticipate hindsight is unworkable. Its OK that we have demoted the image, but lets not pretend we never saw the image.
  • No doubt if this were the Chinese Wikipedia we wouldn't be having this discussion. But this isn't the Chinese WP so what's that got to do with anything?
  • I saw the image but didn't realize what it was -- it's too small and I'm too old. It shouldn't have been left for someone sharp-eyed to notice -- with 1 hour to go. It doesn't matter whether we would have eventually run it, what matters is that since it's obviously something many editors would want to discuss, the nominator should have had the sense to start that conversation way back at the beginning.
  • Your statement that "we leave articles in the nom list and preps to gain consensus" is manifestly false. DYK is not a consensus process but a 2-or-3-editor review process. That's way different. It's very easy for a hook to get to Q with only 3 sets of eyes on it. All I'm saying is that in a case like this nominators should raise his hand and say, "Guys! Over here! For something like this it might be best if more-than-usual scrutiny is brought to bear." EEng (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I've got my own take on "We leave articles in the nomination list and in the preps to gather consensus." - Aside from the issue brought up by EEng, why exactly stop at preps? We don't say all hooks in a queue are instantly invulnerable to being pulled for copyright concerns or similar. Why would a "consensus building exercise", for lack of a better term, be any different? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems the problem is one of the right people paying attention rather than needing more specific rules. Maybe a better alternative would be a provision saying something like "the reviewer and promoting admins should be mindful of an image/hook's propensity to cause controversy while on the Main Page." Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that's something. Don't know if you could get that into the rules but you never know. It'd also be good if DYK would recognize RfC; if there's a entry that a reasonable person would conclude might be problematic to the community (which is not the same thing as being problematic to oneself), and somebody wants to initiate an RfC to get broader community input, and it's a reasonable question, the DYK folks ought to respect that and belay the promotion (assuming its not time-sensitive anyway) until the RfC is completed and not promote if the RfC says not to. However, my experience is that DYK folks won't stop for an RfC to complete, so... Herostratus (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
"Propensity to cause controversy" is crappy wording. How much controversy, and do we care where that "controversy" is coming from? There will always be conservatives who find controversy in bare flesh that's not normally on display in their little corner of the world, while I find it controversial to hide a kid's harmless butt in a context where such exposure is normal. And that context is in a much bigger culture than the one from which the complaints are coming. This really is beginning to look like an example of systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
No, you're not understanding what I'm saying. The question is not what you, your personal own self, like but what you, using your human imagination, are able to guess that a reasonable number of reasonable people might not like. Then you go find out. An RfC is a good way to do that. If you are unable to guess what a reasonable number of reasonable people might find problematical, you're excused from the conversation and you can go do something else. If you are able to figure out what a reasonable number of reasonable people might find problematical but just don't care, you're excused from the conversation and you can go do something else. If you want to be helpful, you can support the idea that RfC ought be a reasonable tool for finding out if a potentially problematical DYK is wanted or not by the community. Herostratus (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)



  • Oppose. Plenty of rules and regulations already. Plus, this suggestion leaves room for wide interpretation, both with regards to what is considered "vulgarity, shock, or tastelessness" (which varies from person to person). Smacks of censorship, and makes me think of slippery slopes. Manxruler (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts on Great Britain at the 2016 Summer Olympics

Evening Ladies and Gents; as a long time (albeit intermittent) contributor to DYK I'd like to get a few opinions from fellow veterans before nominating an article I've recently created as I imagine there could be those who won't like it. The article in question is Great Britain at the 2016 Summer Olympics. In theory it meets (or soon will) all the length, date, and citation (assuming I've not screwed up) rules but is clearly a work in progress and will not have a chance of being "complete" for at least 2 years (see Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics for what I hope it would eventually become). To my mind it is exactly the kind of article that would encourage new editors, it will need a lot of work after all, which is nominally one of our aims; it would also have a half decent hook along the lines of "...that Great Britain were one of the first three nations to qualify athletes for the 2016 Summer Olympics?"; but how would people feel about having such an unfinished article featured on the main page? Honest comments please, I promise insist hope I won't be upset. Cheers - Basement12 (T.C) 23:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The whole Wikipedia is a work in progress. If it helps encourage new editors, then that would be great. Siomeone has already created its Australian counterpart I see. Oh wait, that was you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:04, 27 August 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) 22:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Two nomination toolbox tools blocked by WMF

The "dab links" and "external links" check tools in the nomination template have been shut down. As, apparently, has anything else that is part of Dispenser's tools. Please see Village Pump "Letter Petitioning WMF" section for discussion details. — Maile (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Pull from queue needed, copyvio

Sarah Pucill, now in Queue 6, needs to be pulled: it contains material copied verbatim from the subject's website, a copyrighted source, with no evidence of permission or even citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Special request for Sept 7

I noticed Template:Did you know nominations/Fanning Raid was posted on August 27, both under Aug 26 and under the special holding area for September 7. It is unreviewed, with no note about the request. I took it out of the Sept 7 listing. However, in pulling up the article, this event happened exactly 100 years ago on September 7 1914, so it would seem appropriate to run it that date if it gets reviewed in time. — Maile (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed it this evening. However, it has major problems, from length to sourcing, so it will need significant work to become DYK-ready. I've notified the nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Again 4 full prep areas and 0 filled queues.

I am about to go to bed, but there are about 5 hours until the next would-be update. All the prep areas are full and all the queues are empty. Someone needs to get to updating this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Could an admin please fix the easter egg link in the lead hook for queue 3 (Church of All Saints (Sutton Courtenay)) or pull it? I had no idea what article the hook or the picture were directing me towards. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Easter egg links are becoming more de rigeur these days, I think there's a push to get the reader interested, easter egg hook irregardless. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Irregardless??? -- You of all people, TRM! My universe has been shaken to the core. EEng (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree. At least it's an attempt to make some very dull plain English hooks enticing. The answer to "I had no idea what article the hook or the picture were directing me towards" is kind of the point, click on it to discover! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You assume that the user is on a device that makes clicking off the main page simple and convenient. From my experience, this is unlikely to be the case for smartphone or tablet users. Throw in the lack of a good wireless or 3G connection and it's easy to see how a user could get annoyed if they didn't get what they were expecting. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence of that at all besides your complaint because you are aware we tend to shy away from Easter egg links. The DYK section of the main page should be allowed a little latitude in this regard as one of its intentions is to hook readers, and giving them bland blurbs will not do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
There was an ALT1 hook proposed for the nomination that used the church name and was as interesting; the reason given for the easter egg was brevity, but the difference was only 13 characters—113 vs. 100, ignoring the "(pictured)". BlueMoonset (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Ice-bucket challenge lead hook edit needed

I notice that the amount has been upped from $41.8 million to over $100 million; can we please change the very indefinite and weak "mid-2014" to "July 29, 2014"? I've made sure that the text (rather than just a table) mentions exceeding $100 million, and the source cited specifies that the donation period being counted does begin on July 29. (The money was raised in a month; mid-2014 could easily be interpreted as the period being two or even three months, which is much less impressive).

Can a passing admin please edit Queue 2's lead hook accordingly before the queue is moved to the main page at midnight UTC? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ice Bucket Challenge says "On August 29, the ALS Association announced that their total donations since July 29 had exceeded $100 million." Of course other charities, many in other countries, have also benefited, so the total will be even higher than this. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Very true. However, as the hook specifies the ALS Association, we either have to go with their total (which appears to be the big one) and dates, or completely refactor the article and hook in the next four hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
One lump or two? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Request involving TAFI articles

@Amberrock: @Casliber: @Chamal N: @Daniel Case: @Gatoclass: @Graeme Bartlett: @Mentoz86: @Mifter: @The Interior: @Ucucha:

The point of the Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement Wikiproject is to collaboratively edit Wikipedia articles (often stubby and often vital), and bring them up to an impressive standard. The project has only really gotten off the ground in the past couple of weeks so it is likely many of these articles will be nominated at DYK. It is for this reason we wanted to make the request now.

Essentially we want a small bracket after any TAFI article that lets users know where the article's improvement came from, and hopefully be inspired to come join our project. The current nominee is Solar activity, so if the request was granted the result would look like this: @NickPenguin: @Evad37: --Coin945 (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I can't find any issues with the proposal. This is a good way of attracting new editors and improving content. The bracket doesn't take much space and will serve as a better way of promoting TAFI.--Skr15081997 (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Question: If DYK allows TAFI to advertise in this manner, what other Wikiprojects does DYK also allow the same privilege? What happens when an article is claimed by multiple Wikiprojects? --Allen3 talk 09:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I honestly think that TAFI is special in that it is inherently about collaboration, is open to topics from any category, and attracts passers-by to give editing a crack. Belonging to a certain Wikiprojects doesn't automatically say nothing about how and why the article was chosen to be edited and improved. Besides, the Wikiprojects can clearly be seen in the article's talk page. Similarly, telling someone a DYK entry is also a GA doesn't say anything about how/why the article was improved. This is the only project that can tuly inspire people to become interested in editing. They see a DYK, see it was improved due to TAFI, and then they will find out about our collaborative helpful community. It is not about the state of the article or the topic of the article. It is about how/why editors have come together to make the article DYK-worthy. *That*, in my opinion, is something that should be singled out.--Coin945 (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I support inclusion of the TAFI notation, because it denotes the project that improved the article thus qualifying it for a DYK entry. TAFI is a unique project in this aspect, and the TAFI notation also provides an opportunity for people to check out the project and become involved in our collaborative editing that improves the overall quality of Wikipedia. Collaborative editing on articles has become rather rare these days and should be encouraged, because it can significantly improve articles. A minor avowal is that I'm an active member of the project. NorthAmerica1000 20:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm dubious about allowing the TAFI notation, but I'm absolutely opposed to any GA notation, so if the one means the other per Nathan1212, then put me down as against both. I'd like to have a few more people weigh in who are not TAFI participants before any conclusion is reached. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd be in favour of this. Amazingly, we don't have to make a general rule to apply to any type of wikiproject or article improvement process because of this request (GA is already noted by the green blob once the reader clicks through to the article anyway). I'd drop the "article" on the link (so just (TAFI)) as I think it would be more intriguing and it would use less space. (Sorry TAFI participants, but I've probably put the kiss of death on your idea, as a fault with the DYK talk page means that as soon as I agree with something a whole stream of bolded "opposes" appears; it must be a fault; it must be.) Belle (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on a temporary basis. Let's give it a try, see if it helps TAFI with their stated goal. Their work on writer last year was very good, and hopefully they can help draw new editors with a bit of main page exposure. Just think of it as a stepping stone towards having their own section again. (So Belle, if I can get you to say that we have too many fungi DYKs, does that mean everyone will start writing about mushrooms?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of 36 older nominations that need reviewing. Thanks as always to everyone who 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) 04:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn DYK

How exactly did she "considered delaying the release of Depression Quest following the death of Robin Williams?" Even though her game came out almost a year before he died? something isn't adding up here Mr.Willison (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

There were two releases - the original online version in 2013, and the Steam version in 2014. The game was the same in both releases. - Bilby (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Preparation area 4

" that in 1996 Antonio Iranzo won the Silver Frames Award for Best Actor of Spanish cinema for the film Burnt Skin?"

So, nearly 20 years ago, a minor actor won a non-notable award in a non-notable category for a non-notable film? Is this what DYK is all about? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that the award is not notable? Because it doesn't have an English Wikipedia article? It has articles in seven other languages (here Spanish), so seems notable enough to me. Iselilja (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd be more inclined to agree if we had an English-language page, we don't even have a red-link. Perhaps you could do the honours? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
How did a hook get approved with the wrong year? Luckily the original nominator editor corrected it while it was already in the prep area[10], but both the reviewer and promotor missed this. Makes one wonder how thorough their checks are. Fram (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_109&oldid=1251605456"