Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 127

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 120←Archive 125Archive 126Archive 127Archive 128Archive 129Archive 130

Prep 4

Raymie we need clarification on this hook. Prep 1 is the next to be promoted to queue, so the sooner the better. The article says his father was "municipal president of Ecatepec between 1994 and 1996 and also served as a local deputy." I don't see the word "mayor" anywhere in the article. Can you clarify, or adjust the hook? — Maile (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

For lack of an answer here, I just swapped the Huitrón hook with one in Prep 5, in case Raymie is not online. This gives Raymie another 12 hours to correct that hook before Prep 5 needs to be promoted to queue. — Maile (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


Thanks for letting me know about that. "Municipal president" (presidente municipal) is the formal title of all mayors in Mexico. In eswiki "presidente municipal" redirects to "alcalde" (mayor), and our article on the term mentions that some English-language sources translate the term as mayor. Raymie (t • c) 02:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: In Mexico, "municipal president" is the formal title of a mayor. They're the same thing. Raymie (t • c) 02:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ... that just over four months after Pagano made his in-ring debut for AAA, he will main event Triplemanía XXIV, the company's biggest show of the year?

MPJ-DK "he will main event" seems awkward and missing something like "appear in the". I'm not familiar with wresting terminology. Can you clarify? — Maile (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

  • You could go with "will work the main event" or "appear in the main event" or even "wrestle in the main event" i guess "main eventing" is a little lingo-ish and informal.  MPJ-DK  20:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done Thanks. — Maile (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Problematic hook/image combination

Boy with variegated squirrel

The current DYK set contained the following hook and the accompanying image/caption:

This seemed to imply that the boy pictured was among the three people killed – particularly given the failure to indicate that the animal on his shoulder was merely an example of the species, not one of "their pet variegated squirrels".
I changed "(pictured)" to "(example pictured)" and switched to a different photograph from the article.
Can we please be more careful about this sort of thing? In general, it probably is best to avoid using an image of a person unrelated to the hook, but it's especially ill-advised when he or she could be mistaken for someone mentioned.
Based on Template:Did you know nominations/Variegated squirrel, it appears that the hook originally proposed related to the general concept of pet variegated squirrels spreading a virus, but its wording was revised without any discussion of how this might impact the context in which the image was presented. Pinging Cwmhiraeth, Kevmin, BlueMoonset, White Arabian Filly and Montanabw. —David Levy 00:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, we got there. One way or the other. Yay. I think. Montanabw(talk) 02:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The point you make is valid. If you look at the template you will see that the hook proposed and approved there does not include the word (pictured), and that this was added by someone in the prep area.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Isn't it mandatory to note (pictured) in hooks with images? Montanabw(talk) 08:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I understood that that was no longer the case. Often the picture's caption is self-explanatory. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
That hasn't been my understanding. It seemed to vary a bit after the new format was introduced, but later settled down with some form of "pictured" in the lead hook, whether there initially or introduced by the prep set builder. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Slow down updates (redux)

So I mentioned this before, probably six times. I propose we slow DYK down to one set of eight per day. Just a quick glance here shows that DYK updates were late four or five times in the past week, and that's with 7 hooks twice a day. We had a 5-hook set a couple of days ago because of the number of errors. Many sets are seeing errors currently. To enable this project to continue to be viable for main page inclusion, let's go to 8 hooks once a day. And we should all dedicate more time to re-reviewing the promoted hooks before they hit the main page because right now, too many errors are making it to the queues and the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, how do you propose making the math(s) behind this proposal work? Below is a table showing the number of nominations that were received for each list date (this differs from the list at Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count which shows the number of nominations that are still open for each date):
Number of Submitted DYK Nominations by Date
Date # of Noms Date # of Noms Date # of Noms Date # of Noms Date # of Noms
July 11 15 July 17 8 July 23 9 July 30 8 August 5 15
July 12 15 July 18 10 July 24 18 July 31 11 August 6 8
July 13 6 July 19 15 July 25 13 August 1 11 August 7 10
July 14 11 July 20 14 July 26 10 August 2 11 August 8 15
July 15 13 July 21 11 July 27 17 August 3 10 August 9 7
July 16 15 July 22 13 July 28 12 August 4 13 August 10 7
This means that over the last 30 days we have received 351 nominations (an average of 11.7/day). This figure ignores the 42 nominations currently in the Special occasion holding area. Additionally, the dates highlighted in color are still open for new nominations. This makes the 11.7 nominations/day a low ball figure. Your proposal will allow the promotion of 8 nominations/day. What do you propose doing with the 3.7+ nominations/day that can not be closed due to the arbitary limit which you are proposing? --Allen3 talk 20:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Well firstly, it's not an "arbitrary limit", we used to post 3 x 8 hooks, then 2 x 8 hooks, now 2 x 7 hooks (which in reality has become 2 x 6 or 2 x 5 hooks) per day. I'm afraid this project is too fascinated by a potential backlog. It's nothing to do with that. It's about quality on the main page. Honestly, if we had 10,000 hooks in backlog but no errors going to the main page, that'd be just fine. I've already dispelled the myth that this DYK project is to encourage new editors. On a brief analysis, DYK nominators averaged well over 5,000 edits so the "let's post crap to encourage new users" argument is shot. One idea is to raise the bar of quality, thus reducing the slack quality of most DYK nominations. This could be done by asking for reviews to ensure a B-class article, or lengthen the update requirement. It's pretty easy to slow down the nominations, I'm surprised you didn't think it through before such a naive post. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
More on this: WP:WIKICUP: it appears that DYK is a soft touch there with several editors having dozens of competition-based DYK points. This is, of course, a side issue, but the rush to get DYKs posted to gain points for some arbitrary contest is also unhelpful, particularly when the editor who assembles most of the preps is one of the competitors. Little wonder they've got points for 53 posted DYKs thus far. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Your unpleasant comments are quite unnecessary. I do not promote my own hooks and I am not competing in the WikiCup, merely participating. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
They're hardly unpleasant. Just true. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Final question for you Allen3. Since you're keen on tables and stats and Capital Letters, please run your analytics over the number of contributions and date of account registered for the proposers of the current 200+ DYK backlog. I would be very interested to see how many of them are genuinely new editors. And how many of them are racking up as many credits as possible for other reasons. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Some of your later points there sound somewhat rude, The Rambling Man, which perhaps does not help in achieving consensus here.
However, what is wrong with there being a backlog? Surely a backlog means that nominations have to wait for longer, and therefore there is more time for nominators, reviewers and others to improve nominated articles, improve hooks, and spot any problems. For example problems like the serious ones I found with Template:Did you know nominations/Jasbir Walia (not currently approved nor has ever got as far as Prep).
Once the backlog grows to 10,000 nominations or some other suitable number, then all nominators who wish to do so can add to their nominations a count of the number of other, previously approved nominations, that they personally have found sufficient problems with to halt the movement to the front page -- regardless of whether the halt was temporary or permanent, and regardless of at what stage in the process after an initial approval it occurred. The hook whose nominator has found and fixed most problems then moves to the front of the queue, and so on. We then also get to see whether people who find most problems also produce the most problem-free nominations. As well as introducing considerable incentives to keep the main page error-free. MPS1992 (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Not rude, just honest, and a wake-up call to some of the folks here who are simply playing the dumb card. I like the idea of hook promotion by merit though. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Another idea is to just have one more layer of article approval; split prep set building from article promotion. People like TRM or Fram (or any of us, for that matter) could do promotion, essentally reviewing all reviews and then once they are "blessed," then they'd be put in an "officially promoted" pile or page. From there, all the prep builders would have to do is to build the prep sets. In all honesty, a double review is really what a lot of people are doing at DYK/N when they pull approved articles, so maybe we should just make it official. Montanabw(talk) 22:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Building up a big backlog is a poor idea because then you'd tend to have a big lag between the main work on an article and its scheduling on the main page. You see this with FAs currently. For example, today's FA was promoted in 2010, which is over six years ago. The main editor in that case is still active but that's often not the case when you have such a long interval. It's better to keep a balance between the rate of nominations and their scheduling so that a big backlog does not accumulate. Andrew D. (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • That is fine, we can just have anything not appearing on the main page within two years of its approval, become ineligible. So things would drop out of the back of the backlog. This would help incentivise "hooky" hooks rather than poor ones, or greater efforts to fix other hooks. MPS1992 (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I really don't think we want to build up that kind of a backlog. One thing to consider, though, is if some articles just need to be failed for DYK if they languish without being fixed within, say, 30 days of nomination ... sort of a "sorry, not ready, but try again when it passes GA" sort of thing. It's hardly a "new" article when it was submitted last May. Montanabw(talk) 23:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with DYKs having to wait, even years. There's no deadline. But in any case the clear and most obvious way ahead is to increase the standards which would have two benefits - a reduction in the number of nominations that are passed, and an improvement in the quality of the articles being posted. Attempting to compare this to TFA is meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I really don't think building up a backlog like that is a good idea. TRM is right, there is no deadline; but you cannot expect an editor to sustain interest in something for that long (or even to stick around on Wikipedia for that long...I hope and plan to be active in two years time, but who knows what RL will throw my way?). If we want to make the math work out, why not change the update to 8 hooks/18 hours? That's 12 a day, very similar to the number we have right now; but it would let things hang around longer in the preps and queues, and reduce the admin workload of promoting from the prep areas by 33% instead of 50%. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Vanamonde, so far as I know, the bot process is designed on a 24-hour clock cycle: the bot homes in on having at least one promotion a day occur at 00:00 UTC, and will start moving in 15 minute chunks per promotion to get there. Every 18 hours would mean pretty constant movement back and forth. There might be a way around this—DYKUpdateBot owner Shubinator would know how it could be accomplished if it is feasible—but unless there is, we're pretty much set for one or two (or three or four) promotions per 24 hour period. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Ah well I'm not well-versed in the technicalities; if it can't happen, that's unfortunate. It was just a thought, because the numbers work out fairly well; and I'm very reluctant to set up a process that makes a backlog essentially part of the design. Vanamonde (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

9 August - a birthday

Special occasions holds two hooks for tomorrow, the birthday of Albert Ketèlbey, - any chance that at least one of them could reach the Main page that day? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for action. I'd have one more wish: In a Chinese Temple Garden is scheduled for tomorrow, while the image is for the TFA today. Could an admin swap the two? Problem is that Bells Across the Meadows is quirky, the other not so much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
ps: another reason for a swap is repetition, - the hook for the quirky is also part of the TFA blurb, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Whatever is decided, I was wondering why "Characteristic Intermezzo" is both capitalized and in italics in the Bells hook. The article uses "characteristic intermezzo" (lowercase and quotes), and the hook and article ought to be consistent in their usage of the words. What is the origin of the words; do we know what they mean in this context? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
It's the subtitle, see infobox, will change the article. - I came to undo the swap request, as the image in the TFA is for In a Persian Market, sorry, - yes it's yellow ;) - Just the duplication is probably not enough reason for a swap. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
After some troubles (see below), Template:Did you know nominations/Bells Across the Meadows is waiting for a review, to match the hope "for 9 August or shortly thereafter". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Do we need any action? Moving the nom away from Special occasions for which it is too late? Telling the DYK bot that the article didn't appear already, although credits were sent? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #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) 10:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

August 14 hook needs promotion

A reminder that not all special occasion hooks are for the Olympics, and we have a few August ones placed before the Olympics section, so be sure to check everything up through the Olympics section. Right now we have Template:Did you know nominations/Great Turnstile awaiting promotion for August 14; since the London wikimeet starts at 13:00 that day, Prep 3 would be ideal for that purpose. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset and Andrew Davidson: it is now the lead hook in Prep 3, and if that Prep gets filled and promoted to Queue 3 in time, it should appear on the main page at the exact time on August 14 that the London Wikimeet happens. — Maile (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Bio overload

We have a high proportion of approved bios to other kinds of hooks at the moment—virtually all of the Olympics hooks are bios, and there a large number of Mexican politicians in the mix as well. At the moment, Prep 5 and Prep 6 have only bios, with two Olympic and two Mexican politicians each; this is about as unbalanced as you can get. There are a fair number of bird hooks ready to go, and a few other non-bio hooks as well; Prep 1 has four bios and three other hooks.

I'm going to start moving a few hooks around, and then see about getting a slightly better mix of bios and non-bios. If anyone else can help (give me about 30 minutes to do the initial moves), that would be great. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I have a crapload of bios I'm about to drop so I'll sit on them in the sandbox for now to alleviate the backup. LavaBaron (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Could promoters also check for tenses in the Olympic bios that are being sent to the main page. I've fixed about a dozen for phrases like "upcoming games" (amongst plenty of other things). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
As someone who mainly focuses of sports biography gnoming, this sort of thing is frequently a problem for sports bios, particularly when it's Olympic sportspeople whose, somewhat understandably, only get attention every 4 years. I'd also keep an particular eye out for similar problems with the 2012 Olympics section of Australian sports bios, but that's speaking from experience.Red Fiona (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
For example, we have Stephen Milne (swimmer) who is currently on the main page, who has won a silver medal for Team GB yet whose article still says he is due to compete in the men's 400 metre and 1500 metre freestyle events, as well as the 4 × 200 metre freestyle relay which I tagged as out of date 24 hours ago before the item was posted. What are you all doing here? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Probably becaus it is as you say, an overload. When you have an event like the Olympics, editors are streched to maintain the new bio articles made that didn't exist before, and more focus is given to creating articles rather than maintaining them. Not to mention that new articles don't have many watchers or links. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Special occasion request for August 15

I have been working on another of my true-crime articles related to the anniversary of the event in question: Murder of Janet March. Monday is the 20th anniversary of the day she disappeared and is believed to have been murdered by her husband, so I would like it to run then.

I know this is cutting it close, but the queues for that date have not been put together yet, so I am asking if someone can review it before then. Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I just did a review. I like Alt1, but it's up to the promoter. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: I've promoted it to Prep 5. Great work, by the way. 97198 (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Eligibility criteria 1e) states

Articles that have featured (bold link) previously on DYK, or in a blurb on the main page's In the news, or On this day sections are ineligible. (Articles linked at ITN or OTD not in bold, including the recent deaths section, are still eligible.)

We have a nomination which wants to count the former featured article Richard Feynman as a double even though this was featured on the main page in 2004. Being featured on the main page seems to be ample exposure and it doesn't seem right for an article to go around for a second time. I suppose that the exact wording of the criterion was written before GAs were added to DYK. What now? Andrew D. (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Note also that is not the first time that the article has been classed as GA. Should there be a once-only rule (as with new articles) for new GAs, or should any recent promotion to GA qualify (as with any recent x5 expansion)? EdChem (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The key criterion is that the article has not appeared on DYK before. And there is precedent for an article to run on DYK after its second GA promotion. Trinity (nuclear test) was promoted to GA in December 2005 and delisted in February 2008. It was then restored to GA status in September 2014, and ran on DYK the following month. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
This applies to new articles too. Tiffany Trump was deleted in 2013 but re-created in 2016, and ran in July as a newly-created article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Likewise London Irish Amateur. I think the number of FAs and former FAs that would be eligable for DYK would be in a very small number so I think we can turn a blind eye to any FA related status for DYK purposes. It's not like they're just waiting to flood DYK like the GAs did. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK Improvement ideas

So first of all I believe that there is always room for improvement, no matter who you are, how long you've been doing something - and just because "that's how it's done" doesn't mean that's how it has to remain. I have seen various comments about the DYK being "broken", "poor" etc. but very few suggestions on how to fix the issues, I see some here and there but nothing seems to gain any traction or actual constructive discussions that lead anywhere. The main suggestion I have seen is to cut down on the rate, but there are other things that could be done, below are a few things I am just throwing out there - all of these are suggested to help keep errors off the main page which really should be the driving force behind all improvement initiatives.

  • Require a higher entry criteria for DYKs than the 1500 character level - more work and care put into the articles we feature the more work and care goes into the hooks, it's a bigger investment in the article, hopefully they are willing to put the same investment into the DYK process.
  • It is okay to fail DYKs - I see very few outright fail here, most DYKs are either passed, issues are fixed or they're withdrawn due to AFDs but in general few are outright failed. I think we need to accept that it's okay to fail stuff, not everything belongs on the front page.
  • Institute a "quick fail" rule - perhaps if you miss the mark on 3 of the criteria it's immediately failed, if you cannot be bothered to read the rules then why should we work with them to bring them in line? Harsh maybe but it would allow the reviewers to focus on those where people actually bother to read the rules.
  • A "Staging area" - right now hooks go into the prep, then the queue, then the main page - if we introduce a point BEFORE prep there is more time where hooks are assembled before they hit the main page, it would allow more time to give them closer scrutiny. I am pretty sure neither Fram nor anyone else just roams through the various DYK hooks on the nomination page. If they're put in the staging area we know what's coming to the main page in 4-5-6 days and allow potential issues to be addressed prior, instead of a last minute pull.
  • I think I mentioned it before, but demand more accountability from a QPQ - disqualify the QPQ if issues are found with the review or if it's just cursory or lacking. If it is supposed to be an "entry fee" of sorts we should make sure it's actually done correctly
  • Don't be a douche - if issues are found with your hook, work with people to solve them instead of whining and crying, be responsive, people are trying to help get your hook correctly on the main page.
  • Don't be a douce part deux - Assume good faith (at least initially) when a mistake slips through, it's most likely not an evil plot to subvert Wikipedia or make millions of dollars off that sweet front page exposure. Repeat offenders who do not show any sign of at least trying to help fix the issue and learn from their mistakes can get the AGF aspects nullified.
  • So in conclusion, there are plenty of things we can do to improve the process if we choose to do so, I would invite anyone who has serious, constructive suggestions for improvements to come forward, an open discussion is the only way things will ever change.  MPJ-DK  14:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support "Staging area" - This has been mentioned before in a different context; that is, it would be easier for promoters to see what's been approved, rather than having to scroll through all nominations. Mentioned in the context that you have here, I think it is an excellent idea. It would take setting up a separate page; and perhaps a bot that would move anything marked "approved" to that page. Conversely, if a turn-around tick or any other of the template icons appears below the approved icon, the bot would similarly move the nomination back to the unapproved main page. Shubinator, Intelligentsium, is this possible with a bot? I recall BlueMoonset could see some drawbacks to the idea, but can't remember the details he once listed. If this could be worked out with the assistance of a bot, it might...and I say this with a grain of salt...ease up on the tensions of good faith editors who are frustrated about the un-noticed errors that end up in prep/queue/on the main page. — Maile (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support "demand more accountability from a QPQ - disqualify the QPQ" But in theory, it's already supposed to work that way. I don't want to second guess promoters, but they do run up against whining that could be "Don't be a douche, Part III". — Maile (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Quick fail - should not apply to genuinely new nominators. It's hard to find all the rules, scattered hither and yon. But for nominators who have been around for a given period of time, yeah. But we really need to show some slack for new nominators, especially if they're new to Wikipedia altogether. We should try hard with first-time nominators. — Maile (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The fact that they are scattered all over the place could be addressed too, make it easier to know what the guidelines are, thus easier to comply with.  MPJ-DK  15:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree. Often mentioned, and nothing happens. Did you know/Onepage goes back to 2009 and was abandoned by 2010. At one point, and I forgot which editor, was going to revamp that page, make it all-inclusive. But before that happened, the editor departed DYK. Good-faith people try to demand quality not stated in the rules. Others want to evade infractions because of their interpretation of wording in the rules. It goes on forever. Maybe it's time we revisited what are we trying to accomplish? — Maile (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose DBADII without a formal brightline, ideally a specific number, that constitutes "repeat offense." Otherwise we're in the situation we are in now in which some editors are sanctioned for a specific number of errors while others are not sanctioned for the same number if they are willing to first ritually collapse into quivering masses of gelatin in the face of the majesty of one of the Celestial Immortals (AKA admins). We should use judicious, objective, and logical standards in determining what constitutes violations; not the Caligula Code. LavaBaron (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • So LavaBaron thinks it is okay to be a douche to DYK nominators? Things that makes you go hmmmm. Oh and you do realize that we only make assumptions when there has been no confirmation of a fact, if someone demonstrates bad faith, petulence and a total ability to not get the point we don't have to assume anything, we already know what it is - there is ample proof of in your case, you were sanctioned not because of a few errors but because of how you deal with them. The repeat offence is not number of errors, but an inability to actually respond to them constructively and trying to not repeat the same errors over and over again. I am totally aware of the fact that several on my hooks have been brought up here, hell someone suggested topic banning them, but I respond like an adult and fix what's wrong instead of getting defensive.  MPJ-DK  21:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Staging area" is pointless - the prep area IS the staging area, we don't need another one. QPQ accountability - I proposed last year that any time a hook is pulled, the QPQ is cancelled and the reviewer has to supply a new QPQ. This is an absolute minimum level of accountability IMO but even so, the proposal got no support then. "Quick fail" - I have long been a proponent of quick fail for articles which violate copyvio/paraphrase; the user should get one chance to fix the issues and that's it, but again, I couldn't get support for this on the several occasions I have brought it up. As for a more general quick fail - the objection to this is that it would be very arbitrary without some sort of review process, and adding a review process might just make more work for everybody rather than less. "Don't be a douche" - a solution looking for a problem IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Basically, a hook set stays in the prep area until an administrator promotes it to the queue. Admins are supposed to approve a set before moving to the queue, but it seems to be a feature more honoured in the breach than the observance. Preps are often just moved into the queue when they are completed. But apart from approval, how fast a prep set makes it to the main page depends on how many completed sets in front of it and how fast the set display time is - with six preps and six queues, and with a 12-hour turnaround, the last prep will take six days to make it to the main page, the first three days. If no other sets are in front of a prep set and it is promoted to the queue, it can go to the main page immediately. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. So in theory if the que is kept full it'll sit in line for about 5-6 days? sounds like that does not always happen, which leads to rushing and higher potential for something slipping through. I'd be happy to help build prep areas, if we need them full then we get a better chance of catching something while it's stitting in line. Perhaps getting more eyes on the hooks while they wait would help keep the problems off the front page. Would it make sense to do a "replacement" set? if a hook is pulled from the queue we have some lined up that are vetted? Or if the preps are always full a replacement hook should be easier to come from, take it from the last prep (say "4") and perhaps tag it to show that a hook has been removed? Perhaps we have the process in place to prevent some of it but we're not using it as it was intended?  MPJ-DK  16:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the process IMO, the main problem I think is that the final approval phase before moving to the queue is sometimes skipped, or not done thoroughly enough. It's not exactly surprising that it isn't - it's quite hard to verify seven or eight hooks at a time, it usually takes me half an hour to an hour when I am active in the queues, and clearly, not every administrator has the time, patience or commitment to do that, including me much of the time. Gatoclass (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe part of it is putting too much on the last review, if we have 1) the DYK review and 2) the Prep builder review tightened up more then the Admin review at the end would have a higher level of quality to start with = Less problems that can even slip through. I think clear rules in one place would help tighten up the initial DYK review and perhaps more experienced editors keeping an eye out for potential review issues.  MPJ-DK  16:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The initial reviews need to be better, no question IMO. We can't put any further burden on prep builders - they have enough to worry about finding and building a balanced set without being expected to comprehensively review every hook. Gatoclass (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The staging area is very important. Without it, an admin would would have to build the set, and we would run the risk of a partially built DYK if the bot came along and moved it while it was still be assembled. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
The Rambling Man (or was it Fram?) did suggest earlier to reduce the amount of hooks that have to cycle through Template:Did you know per day. I think this proposal merits consideration as an adjunct to the "staging area" proposal, partly so as to not cause a delay. And as for the implementation of "staging area", I wonder if one could lengthen the time a hook stands in prep somehow. (As a sidenote, I always took it for granted that the DYK reviewer needs to vet the whole article not just the hook, and that said "vetting" includes checking article and hook claims against the sources. I'll admit though that other articles linked in the hook being a problem is something new for me.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
You're right, I certainly have advocated a reduction in rate (and an increase in entry quality) and Fram has probably done similar. Problem here is that there are very few people who accept that there is a real problem with quality and reviews at DYK. Until they make it to the first step of recovery, there's no going forward. Tragic really. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break and random thoughts

  • Assorted comments: If the prep area is supposed to be the staging area, it ain't working -- they are usually empty and being filled under a time deadline. A "staging area" of all approved hooks would be better, both for a second review and to save prep builders a LOT of time finding approved hooks to add to the sets! But first off, to address the queries of MPJ-DK, the prep sets, in reality, can sit for anywhere from 10 minutes to 6 days -- if all the DYK update queues are empty -- a frequent occurrence, then a prep set has to be quickly filled and promoted. Hawkeye7 is right that once hooks are in the queue, automation kicks in, and so building last-minute sets right in the queue (aside from being an admin only job) is not ideal. Second, Gatoclass is correct that the work of building prep sets does in fact preclude doing a full second DYK review of every hook. It probably takes at least an hour for me to build a prep set if I review every hook, and that is still with a cursory review. To be honest, I will speed up the process by scanning for hooks that are from "known" contributors, or known reviewers, or ones that have been promoted a long time ago and can be presumed to have had any issues already addressed by someone like BlueMoonset. But ultimately, the ENTIRE article is supposed to be reviewed by the first DYK reviewer. (But like Jo-Jo Eumerus, I've never heard of a requirement to review anything other than the bolded new article) But these are also the least experienced reviewers, so errors will happen; the qpq requirement was initiated to address the problem of languishing reviews, but it is a little scary and daunting when you are new at it. (To be honest, it was qpq that brought me here originally, I'd never have dared to have touched a review without it). So, basically, to address the concerns of Fram and The Rambling Man, I don't think there actually is a dispute that there is a problem with the quality of some DYK reviews, the problem is that new articles are being created and nominated at a pretty good clip, most are eventually improved enough to make the cut, and so how do we resolve the dilemma? Too much of a cutback and we could have stuff languishing for months the way it does at GAN. Too little, well, the quality problem. So, at the end of this tl;dr, my suggestions are:
  1. We need more volunteers to work these behind the scenes areas. I suggest expanding qpq so that more experienced reviewers could gain qpq for fixing the problem reviews or building prep sets, not just the initial review.
  2. "Experienced reviewers could be defined -- maybe those with 20 or more DYK reviews (?) (not a new userright, maybe just award them a userbox with a link to the qpq check page so anyone can see that they are legit). To avoid gaming the system, any review that was pulled won't count to the 20. (no other penalty, though, we all make mistakes sometimes)
  3. Prep sets should be kept full at all times. Or at least, the combination of preps and queues should always be kept at at least 6 sets. This way, the folks who like to do double-checking have the time to do so BEFORE they hit the main page.
  4. The staging area should be created. Might take some tech, but it would make the job of building preps much faster, making it easier for #1 to happen.
  5. Here's how I think a staging area could work: The tick that approves hooks should just move those hooks to the staging area, where people like all of the above second-lookers (BlueMoonset, et. al) can review in one place. The turnaround or other appropriate tick could also, via bot, automatically send an article out of the staging area.
  6. The staging area would also become the home for the special occasion holding area, making it easier to remember to put up such hooks on time.
  7. The turnaround-ticked articles could go to an "additional review needed" area -- perhaps a new page, or just at the bottom of DYK/N, where those who care -- or experienced reviewers -- can easily find them and they can specialize in fixing the problem children. (Maybe even earning a qpq credit that way; I'd do that!)
  8. Create a ONEPAGE that is current and merge all the other scattered stuff in there. The unwritten (and hidden-written) rules are daunting to anyone new
  9. The penalty for a bad qpq should not be "losing" it, too draconian for new reviewers, and discouraging. The frequent flyers are noticed; we can discuss consequences that don't bite newbies.
  10. No "quick fail", but maybe a new rule that a hook that has been under review for more than 30 days and not approved is failed. The disappointed editor does have a second chance at GAN. (The clock doesn't start until a review begins, and if the reviewer abandons the review, the clock can be stopped so a new reviewer can step in.)

Just my thoughts. Sorry to write a book here Montanabw(talk) 23:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

A quick thought that I've repeated a few times, as you note new articles are being created and nominated at a pretty good clip so let's increase the bar for quality before nominations are declared good to go. This will reduce the number of items in the backlog and improve the overall quality of the items being posted in the first instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #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) 22:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Preps need to be filled

We have two hours before the next scheduled update, and no complete sets to move to queue. — Maile (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it's time to slow things down a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@Maile66: I've filled prep 4, but strongly suggest others look it over and edit as they see fit since it's the first prep I've done. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 22:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Wugapodes, thank you for quick action. I see Yoninah is checking out the set and moving some hooks around to make sure we don't have too many of the same type in one set. So, we don't have a full set in Prep 4. Hopefully, Yoninah is taking care of that. I did slightly alter the hook for This Is the Police to match the wording in the article, which does not mention somebody forgetting to push a button. That's one thing to check for when promoting - the hook has to be stated in the article. — Maile (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done Prep 4 complete now. Yoninah (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. — Maile (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

... that NASA helped The Martian in its development more than most other films?

Am I alone in wondering what this is really trying to say? It kind of anthropomorphises the film, and then there's the drab "more than most other..." claim. It would probably make more sense and be more succinct to just say that ... that NASA helped in the development of The Martian?. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

... that NASA helped develop The Martian?
Yep, succinct, says pretty much the same as the initial hook but in half as many words. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that the original hook reads a little clunkily, but I think I prefer "helped in the development of" rather than "helped develop". "Developing a film" means something different than "helping in the development of" so I think the latter avoids the potential ambiguity. Gatoclass (talk) 08:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    It's more the removal of the "more than most other films" flimflam than anything else. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, whatever, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this one way or the other. Gatoclass (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Nobody should ever lose sleep over anything on Wikipedia. I'm just trying to drag the project back to its roots, providing interesting and "hooky" hooks. Something anyone working on DYK should be aiming for. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the mission statement. It's so reassuring to hear that from the guy who was threatening only five minutes ago to drag me to ANI. Gatoclass (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually I said abuse of admin tools should be discussed at ANI. Do you think you fit that bill all of a sudden? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
No I don't - certainly no more than you. But I think you have little to fear from me on that score - I don't lightly resort to the circular firing squad ironically termed "dispute resolution", there are usually more constructive options.
Now If you'll excuse me, I really would like to try and get some work done today. Gatoclass (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Then be my guest. Someone I manage. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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) 10:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I filled in Prep area 1, this is my first time completing a prep area I would appreciate it if someone more seasoned than me could take a peek at it and see if I messed something up? Otherwise I think it's okay to go.  MPJ-DK  23:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1

There is no inline cite for the hook fact for Serial rapist. I left a note on the page creator's talk page in the hope that she'll add a cite and this won't have to be pulled. Yoninah (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

David Dahl - current lead hook

Per a discussion at WP:ERRORS, the current lead hook on David Dahl appears to be erroneous. I have proposed a fix, but would appreciate a second opinion. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, issue resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
It was yet another erroneous hook promoted to the main page. Enough said. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
And you were one of those who missed it. People make mistakes. That's why we have WP:ERRORS in the first place. Gatoclass (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
No, it was promoted to the main page with an erroneous hook. I didn't miss anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5

... that the Heron Road Workers Memorial Bridge in Ottawa was renamed in 2016 to commemorate the victims of the deadliest construction accident in Ontario history?

Is there a reason why this doesn't say "Ontario's history"? If you switched out Ontario for, say, Canada, it wouldn't make grammatical sense, to me at least... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #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) 10:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Nicole Moerig

@Hawkeye7: Nicole Moerig, has been moved to Prep 4, pending a new source. The source being used for the hook was written by the subject Nicole Moerig. — Maile (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems the only source for her taking a break from her job, although I recall reading it somewhere else as well. So I have proposed a new hook. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Good. You stated it in the article and used this source. I'm putting the hook back in Prep 6. — Maile (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Kadesh inscriptions

@Oncenawhile and Hawkeye7: I moved Kadesh inscriptions from Prep 6 to Prep 4, pending some clarification on the wording of the hook:

That hook may very well be accurate, but I'm unclear because of the age of the source (1987), and because there is only one voice making the claim. Ancient battles are not my area of expertise, but wouldn't there be more than just one historian who validates that it's the "best documented"? And I'd like to keep this hook from being later pulled, so better to discuss it now. The person who makes the claim in the source is Boyo Ockinga who says "No battle fought in antiquity is so well documented". Feedback requested here. — Maile (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Something worth asking at WP:MILHIST? It's the most active wiki project, after all.[citation needed] Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
But here is where the conversation should happen about a DYK hook, and I've pinged the nominator and reviewer. — Maile (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but for content questions that page is much better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Look, we need to keep the conversation on one page, and in one continuous thread. We can't have hook questions and answers scattered around over various projects. Hawkeye7 is a prominent member in good standing at WPMIL, as are several contributors who read this page. Also, Hawkeye7 is one of the most prolific, knowledgeable and accomplished editors at Wikipedia on every review level you can name. — Maile (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I read that and thought that making such a bold claim could use more than just one reference. As noted in a previous section, such "firsts" or "bests" perhaps need at least two independent references. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Ancient historians have a tendency to mentally distinguish "antiquity" from "classical antiquity" (ie Greece and Rome). I note that the Ancient History Encyclopaedia calls Kadesh "the most thoroughly documented military engagement of ancient times in the Middle East", but At least one source gives that title to the Siege of Lachish. Sources universally say that Kadesh is "certainly one of the best documented", "one of the best-documented in history". So the answer is that we can back the claim up with reliable sources, but for the purpose perhaps it is best to add "one of", which will put is beyond all doubt. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
All done and put back in Prep 6. Thank you for your quick action. — Maile (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks everyone - I agree with the outcome here. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Misleading "Chief Whip" hook on Main Page?

Template:Did you know nominations/Freda Corbet @Worm That Turned, Northamerica1000, and Johnbod:

I have not removed this one, as it probably technically isn't an incorrect hook, but (at least for me) it was misleading. On reading the hook and on reading the article, it seemed to me that she was the Chief Whip of the Labour Party in the UK, in Parliament. However, it turns out from other sources that she was apparently only Chief Whip for Labour in the London County Council (also an important institution and a notable achievement, certainly for a woman in that age).

Should this be clarified / corrected in the article and hook, or pulled to investigate this, or was this clear to everyone but me? Fram (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I as the reviewer, was completely misled on that, & looking at the article I think the editor may have been confused himself. Both hook and article need adjusting. Excellent spot. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I did a quick fix on the Main Page (can probably be improved a lot, but will do for now). The article needs adjusting as well, but I'm running out of time. Fram (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Fram, good spot - it hadn't occurred to me that the hook might mislead. Can I also say, I appreciate you fixing the hook on the front page rather than pulling it, I've adjusted the article accordingly. WormTT(talk) 15:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Fram, you did good here. Especially since this is one more area that someone without knowledge of the subject might never notice was in error. Thank you for handling it this way. Good job. — Maile (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3

Hi folks, I have to run off and do IRL chores - can someone please fill the prep area...and take care to check hooks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I got prep 3 completed, have tried to check the hooks as I go and made sure to alternate sources and mix it up. I will work on prep 4 since that's coming up soon too.  MPJ-DK  01:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hook in prep 6 note

I just added the hook for Sandra Méndez Hernández to prep 6. The hook used the word "mayor" but the article used the term "municipal president", so I decided to simply update the term to prevent any potential issues when this hits the main page. @Raymie:, I know the terms are more or less synonymous but I hope it is okay to use the term from the article? Better me fix it while in Prep than a potential error or pull later.  MPJ-DK  13:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: That's fine. I trust you on things like that — it's almost trivial. Raymie (t • c) 16:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #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) 10:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Queue 3

... that in a 1931 Prohibition-era raid on the Clicquot Club of Atlantic City, New Jersey, Federal agents "poured several thousand dollars worth of alleged whiskies and champagnes down a drain"?

Perhaps I'm naive and watching Bugsy Malone too many times has made me misinterpret the Prohibition era, but wasn't it the case that this kind of activity was commonplace, i.e. many clubs were raided and had their booze disposed of? In other words, what makes this hook significantly interesting? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-American who is only somewhat familiar with that aspect of US history, dumping thousands of dollars' worth of material down the drain sounds fairly remarkable, especially when the Great Depression was happening. Hook probably more interesting than the fact, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
And speaking as an American, it was fact not fiction. See Eliot Ness for the short history version. The booze being used during Prohibition was made illegally, often in bath tubs (where the term "bath tub gin" comes from) or other make-shift illegal operations. The whole purpose of the government raids was to find illegal booze, destroy it and the business selling it, and arrest the perpetrators. — Maile (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
As a non-american and the reviewer, I found it interesting that a load of expensive spirits got dumped by the fuzz. Regardless of if it is a simple fact or not, it is still interesting to someone somwhere as we have proof of that right here and as I have always said "what may be uninteresting to some, could be very interesting to others". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh...then I highly recommend The Untouchables (film), and not just because the talented Sean Connery is in it. Prohibition in America was a very violent period of criminal activity. — Maile (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
But back to the main issue, this isn't a remarkable claim. You can find dozens of images of hundreds of bottles of booze or barrels of beer being destroyed during the Prohibition era. I was going to suggest "... that the Clicquot Club in Atlantic City was billed as the club that "never closed"?" but it turns out that claim in the lead isn't referenced.... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
In fact, the claim that the Feds removed $20,000 worth of lavish Japanese and Chinese furnishings is far more interesting than the fact that they destroyed the booze. So...
" ... that in a 1931 Prohibition-era raid on the Clicquot Club in Atlantic City, New Jersey, Federal agents "removed $20,000 worth of lavish Japanese and Chinese furnishings"?" The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't quite have the same impact as smashed booze. "Feds confiscate funiture" has a bit less hookyness than "cops throw around expensive alcohol". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The point is that the Feds were probably committing a crime. That's what makes it far more hooky. The cops of that era were forever throwing around prohibited booze. It wasn't unusual at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The operations were part of the United States Department of Justice, empowered by the President and the United States Congress. Individuals and business owners in 1931 didn't really have the legal rights as now. You'd have to get a legal scholar for the details, but confiscation of property as evidence involved in a practice in direct violation of Federal law was probably not a crime. Anymore than it is now when the Feds bust a meth lab. — Maile (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh well, it's posted now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Hi, I'm back online. In reference to the hook, I had 2 reasons for suggesting it: (1) As @The C of E: pointed out, not everyone knows what Prohibition was about. In fact, most readers seem to be under age 50, and are completely unfamiliar with any American history before their time. (2) I liked the quirkiness of "alleged whiskies and champagnes" in the quote from the newspaper. Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I think that's somewhat bollocks, most of us know about Prohibition. Perhaps if you're under 20 you don't. I suspect non-Americans know more about American history than Americans know about non-American history. In any case, the newspaper clip is fine, but it's a shame that we didn't take a chance to educate our audience further by letting them know that the Feds confiscated material that wasn't the alcohol they were dedicated to prohibiting. That was, by far, the interesting part of the article. Never mind, dumb it down, make a "philosopher" into a "sorcerer" if you will. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I find myself in reluctant agreement with TRM here. Pouring booze down the drain was a commonplace during Prohibition, so I think the original hook fails the "interest" requirement. On the other hand, the proposed alt hook highlights a fact that is both surprising and informative. Gatoclass (talk) 08:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Does DYK want to have quirky hooks or not?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So, today we had:

... that the British Olympic swimmer Stephen Milne studied in Perth, and trained in Perth?

I reviewed the hook and article in reasonable detail, and found the nomination to be mildly amusing and interesting, as writ. A single whinge at WP:ERRORS from werldwayd followed by a backup from Sca has resulted in a DYK regular Gatoclass folding over one of the fundamentals of DYK, the hooky hook. It turned into:

... that the British Olympic swimmer Stephen Milne studied in Perth, Scotland, and trained in Perth, Australia?'

What a shambles. Millions of people study in location A and train in location B. Point was the gift of Wikipedia's formatting made this somewhat interesting. Does this project have any guidance, i.e. make the last hook of the set a quirky one, to assist with issues like this? The hook was splendid and now is just bland and unappealing. Well done to those involved in reducing it to mindless trivium. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, the change was requested in the section for Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day even though it concerned DYK. I agree that it was a pointless change that degraded the quality of the hook and should be not done or reverted if there is still time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Errr, yes I preferred the original too. What happened there? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Gatoclass folded, as I noted. I guess the main thrust of my point is that if we decided to dedicate the "quirky" hook as the last one of each set, let's do that and indoctrinate it in the many arcane legislations that govern DYK. That way at least there's some response to this kind of response and lame reaction. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: There's Supplimental Rule J7: "Consider picking at least one funny or quirky hook if there is one available and putting it in the last (bottom) slot of the update. Just as serious news programs end on an upbeat note to bring viewers back next time, ending on an upbeat or quirky note rounds an update off nicely and encourages readers to come back next time for more." Does that help? Perosnally I always feel that hooks should never be changed just because one person doesn't like it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, we want quirky hooks. That set already has a quirky hook in the final slot, or at least I think someone receiving a gold medal four years after they competed is quirky. I agree that the Perth hook was fine as it was and also quirky (no reason not to have more than one in a set). What happens at ERRORS is the purview of admins and in addition to needed fixes and pulls we've had some suboptimal edits to DYK hooks on the main page that were out of our control. It's unfortunate, but it happens, whether said admin works at DYK or not. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
If admins (involved or not) just go to change hooks on a whim (which of course they have the power to do), it hardly is indicative to goodwill or trust in those who pariticipated within the making of that hook. If you have something you work hard to make quriky then an admin changes it based on their or anothers personal opinion and not because there is a policy based problem, then it will put more people off. Sometimes it's hit and miss, I know a few (who were not Welsh) didn't like my Sheep shagger hook but thankfully it didn't get changed but I was lucky on that but there should be a clear supplimental rule or guideline stating that hooks that currently run should not be changed unless there is a policy based problem with it or the article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of how funny you think "studied in Perth and trained in Perth" is even if wikified to direct to two different "Perths", it is still misleading and pointless. I think the amended version is clear and still remains quite amusing just the same without being cocky. If our aim in DYK is to play mind games on unsuspecting readers, or to make the section a guessing game contest, or a Pokemon Go challenge, be my guest, continue to play practical jokes on them on a daily basis. Me, I'd rather have clarity in our presentations particularly in a DYK context. Having said that, yes, I would have preferred that the original authors of the DYK item were consulted before effecting the change. werldwayd (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Understand the intent, but IMO it didn't work cuz the cognitive dissonance between the two Perths wasn't apparent without further investigation. Sca (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
It was neither misleading nor pointless. Perhaps you have no idea how DYK is intended to function. They're called "hooks" for a reason. The resulting "hook" was turgid and utterly boring. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
A hook is supposed to arouse the reader's curiosity and entice him to read more. This one didn't work because, as noted, it lacked cognitive dissonance – that is, there was nothing to prompt the reader to say, "Huh?" The attempt to fix it by adding 'Scotland' and 'Australia' didn't work, either, because that gave the game away. Boring in both cases. Sca (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that it was "turgid and boring". It highlighted a curious coincidence - that the subject had a life connection with two different Perths. Not a great hook by any means, but acceptable I think. The original hook, on the other hand, added nothing to the interest angle since it still relied on the same curious fact, it was just coy about which particular "Perths" were being referenced, and that really is an approach likely to test a reader's patience. Gatoclass (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes of course you disagree. But the fact you didn't get it and then turned something which would make you click on the target to work out what the hell the hook was on about into a completely dull hook which would just get people going meh is problematic. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
On the contrary, I "got it" quite readily - I just didn't much care for it. But I must say I am surprised to now find you endorsing the principle of clickbait. Gatoclass (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Bingo, you "didn't much care for it". So you implemented your personal preference to create a hook which sucked after at least four or maybe even five people had reviewed and accepted it. Bad form. We will need to ensure this kind of personal editorialising doesn't happen again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I see, so now the guy who never tires of lecturing others about how flawed and unreliable DYK quality control is suddenly considers the process inviolable? No, sorry, but it's every bit as error prone as it was yesterday or the day before and you know it. For the record, just one person reviewed the hook before it got promoted. And I didn't follow my "personal preference" here - I don't give a damn about the hook one way or another - I saw two people complain about the hook, agreed their complaints were valid and acted accordingly. That is called consensus and is how things are supposed to work around here. The only revelation to be had from this thread thus far is just how attached a certain other user is to getting his own way when he has a "personal preference" for something. Gatoclass (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Not at all. You abused the process and your tools. You made the hook match what you wanted it to be. You should take a bit of time off to reflect on your poor decision making. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I had no idea this –was supposed to be a "quirky" hook because when I changed it it was the second hook in the set. Secondly, two users complained about this hook before I changed it, so it was by no means a "unilateral" change. Thirdly, if this was supposed to be a quirky hook, it was a poor example in any case IMO, because rather than reading as an odd event, it just looked on the face of it like a bad piece of copyediting. Gatoclass (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

If you had no idea this was intended to be quirky, perhaps you shouldn't be editing hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
You said the main thrust of my point is that if we decided to dedicate the "quirky" hook as the last one of each set, let's do that so I was responding to that by pointing out that this hook was not actually in the last spot, which is the spot traditionally reserved for "quirky" hooks. Other than that, of course I became aware when I opened the edit page that the writer had intentionally phrased it that way in an attempt to make it quirkier, but found myself in agreement with the two complainants that the attempted quirk didn't work, and in that respect I concur with the comments about it made by Werldwayd and Sca above. Gatoclass (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I suppose it would be good practice if tweaks are suggested when a hook is on the mainpage, that admins first look at the nomination page to see what the intent was. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I usually do that, but in this case, it would not have made any difference. Gatoclass (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Andrew Davidson, per the standard rules: A hook is subject without notice to copy-editing as it moves to the main page. The nature of the DYK process makes it impractical to consult users over every such edit. Gatoclass (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • That rule refers to the process of editing the preps and queues but, in this case, the hook had reached the main page. As a hook progresses through these review stages, the bar for making such changes should be raised. In any case, my view is that the original author(s) should be consulted throughout as they will tend to have the best understanding of the topic. If you don't consult people to establish consensus then you're going to get complaints like this. Andrew D. (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Andrew, the rule is quite explicit about why original authors are not consulted about every such change - it just isn't practical. And the rule has always been interpreted to mean edits to the main page as well as the queue - it would be pretty silly if you could copyedit something in the queue but not after it reached the main page.
In this case however, none of this is really relevant; this was a change made by WP:CONSENSUS - the project's primary decision-making process. Gatoclass (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Then to those involved, please try not to do it again. It ruined a perfectly good hook which, at worst, could have been moved back and put into another set. Perhaps the promoting admin should be warned to not do this again, as it's obvious that despite there being no error with the hook, errors was used to exercise personal preferences of just a couple of editors, against all those involved in creating, reviewing, promoting and re-reviewing the hook. Shambles. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
No, hooks can't be removed from the main page for re-review and returned another day, unless perhaps they have only been on display a few minutes. If a complaint is made about a hook on the main page, a decision has to be made on the spot about what to do with it, and that's what I did, the fact that you apparently want to endlessly whine about your personal preference being overturned in the process notwithstanding. Gatoclass (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear, I'm beginning to see one of the root causes of all the issues here. Maybe you should work harder at reviewing the hooks before they go on the main page to ensure they all match your personal preferences despite being acceptable to many others involved in actually doing the work. Gotcha. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
You've never expressed anything but contempt for the DYK quality control process or the competence of the "many others" who work keep the process running, but now suddenly their judgement cannot be questioned when it happens for once to align with yours. Excuse me if I sound cynical. Gatoclass (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
You completely misunderstand. There's a fundamental difference between quality control and abusing tools to implement personal preferences. It's only your judgement that's flawed. The hooks are there for a while before they get promoted to the main page, stop tinkering with the main page to make it please you. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
You mean like this? And this? And this? Yeah, I think I'm beginning to see what you mean. Gatoclass (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, they were all excellent edits, thanks for reminding me. And not in the slightest controversial. Unlike your abuse. Now then, I'm spending some time today improving Wikipedia, I suggest you do the same or something else, preferably away from the main page. I'll leave the "last word space" (tm) for you just here: ----> The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I would scuttle off too if I'd just been exposed as a hypocrite and a troll. Maybe you could do everyone a favour this time and stay away. Gatoclass (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Ooh, finishing with a personal attack? Nice move "admin"! And no, I'm here to stay, to help remove abusive admins from this process. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Abusive admins? You could start by looking in a mirror. I've yet to come across a more qualified candidate. Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Try re-reading the thread. Your change was almost universally unacceptable, both in action and in result. Those of my edits that you linked to were not. It would be much easier if you just admitted that you made a mistake, and apologised for the personal attack. You really shouldn't go about making personal attacks, no matter how upset and angry you are about being called out, you should know that by now. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Personal attacks - you mean like this, or this, or this? I don't recall ever receiving an apology for those. So yet again, a case of you demanding standards of others from which you exempt yourself.
I logged on today with the intention of making a positive contribution to DYK, but instead have been distracted once again by a barrage of spurious and hypocritical charges from your quarter. At this point, I feel you've had more than enough of my attention for one day, indeed for any day. Next time you decide to amuse yourself by hurling assorted slanders in my direction, don't be surprised to find your supposed concerns ignored. Gatoclass (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Good. You were lying. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
And you are still trolling. Simple as that. Gatoclass (talk) 10:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
And you are racking up those personal attacks while I try to get the discussion back on-topic. What a surprise. Hopefully someone will cap this pointless diatribe in short order. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Good old 'Rambler. Always trying to "get the discussion back on-topic". ROFLOL. Gatoclass (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep digging. Shame you didn't read what all the other contributors had written about your actions. Now can someone close this meaningless nonsense? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I did read what they said. Some thought the original hook better, some did not. Some queried the established process. None but you have continued to hurl hysterical charges, for two days running now, of "abusing tools", "personal editorializing", flawed judgement and goodness knows what else - charges all the more remarkable given that you yourself have done exactly the same things you accuse me of, and "worse" (by your own standards), as evidenced by the diffs I provided above - and all over a molehill of a tweak that you continue to strive mightily to conjure into a mountain. I have always been mystified by your totally unwarranted hostility toward me, but I think your temperamental unfitness for the extra bit is more evident with every successive post here. I think you are the one who needs to stop digging. Gatoclass (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you still digging? Your actions have been seriously questioned here, by several different individuals. You need to look in the mirror yourself. Goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
May I suggest that you take the commentary on each other to your user talk pages? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Back on topic

Yes, back to the topic at hand. Should the "quirky hook" be indoctrinated into the already-lengthy rule set? I.e. that the last hook of a set can be "quirkier" than the others, which should be encyclopedic in tone? Then, hopefully, this kind of confusion can be avoided henceforth. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Not if it would be seen as mandating a quirky hook. Quirkiness, like humor, is best left to serendipity. Sca (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
No, the wording would be clear enough to state that while not mandatory, if a quirky hook is to be posted, it should be the last in the set. Any competent admin will be able to handle that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
See J7. Gatoclass (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
So how does one pick at least one funny or quirky hook and put them in the last (bottom) slot of the update? There's only one bottom slot. Looks like two quirky hooks was just fine per the supplemental rules. And looks like the supplemental rules need work to cater for where to place the second (or third etc) of the "at least one" quirky hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The idea is that a set can have more than one funny or quirky hook, but that one - probably the best one - should go in the bottom slot. Granted, the clause needs a copyedit, but the point is that the guideline you requested already exists. Gatoclass (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
It needs work and it needs expanding to enable the quirky clause to go unaffected rather than be de-quirked, especially if reasonable discussion has been held at the nomination page, that the hook was accepted by a reviewer, promoted by a promoter and moved to the queue by an admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I gave it a tweak already to correct the identified flaw. I don't believe we need an addendum prohibiting "de-quirk"ing, that would be instruction creep. Gatoclass (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Not at all. Some advice to admins who are just about to "de-quirk" a hook because they just don't get it to go and read the nomination would be helpful, it seems abundantly clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
More gratuitous snark. You just can't help yourself, can you?
If you read the supplementary rules intro, it says the rules "describe consensus that has been reached among the DYK community through previous discussions of issues that have come up repeatedly". We don't add rules to proscribe rare or isolated events, or cater to the whims of an isolated individual - if we did that, the supplementary rules would be book-length by now.
Now that you mention it, however, I agree there is a case to be made for recommending reading of the nomination before any substantial changes are made to a hook, or before a hook is removed, because it can help inform the decision. Gatoclass (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
If the cap fits. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
My mistake. I thought this was the getting "back on topic" thread. But I guess you just meant your favourite topic. Gatoclass (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
You're probably right, admin abuse of tools should be taken to ANI. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
So it should, if you ever manage to find some. Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry about that!! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I knew I could rely on you. Gatoclass (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
In fact, having read some of those supplemental rules, I'd suggest a wholesale reworking. How the bejesus do J5 and J7 work synchronously, for instance? Looks like a lumbering arcane giant needs streamlining. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any contradiction between J5 and J7. Gatoclass (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Well that explains a lot. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed "first ever" hook from Main Page

Template:Did you know nominations/Patrick Burris @Dnforney, EditorE, Northamerica1000, and Maile66:

Paul Maryama was thrown often enough in his career prior to this (don't get me wrong, he was a great judoka, but not invincible). In 1965, he wsa thrown by Toshiyuki Seino (resulting in waza-ari and victory for Seino)[1]. Fram (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we are probably going to have to add something about "firsts" to the rules, because there seem to be way too many supposed reliable sources claiming "firsts" for something or other that turn out to be either incorrect or disputable. Gatoclass (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Since it's on topic, could you all check Kelly's of Cornwall and see if there is any vague possibility that there has ever been another television advert that's been shown on nationwide UK TV with any Cornish in it before this one? I can't find any evidence, but maybe one of you sleuths can? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

  • OK, Fram please offer a solution, something that happens prior to any hook going on the main page. In this case, I think it would have been helpful for you personally to have eyeballed the prep and queue areas. This kind of hook takes specific subject area knowledge to trigger off an instinct that something is erroneous. The sources back up the article claim. Neither the creator, reviewer, nor promoter are required to be subject matter experts in everything. Reviewers are not required to do a separate time-consuming independent research on an article subject, just to see if the nominator got it wrong anywhere in the article or hook. And as we can see by the both the prep and queue edit histories, there were multiple eyes on this in addition to the review. One of whom was The Rambling Man who made some hook adjustments and rearrangement on select hooks while this set was in queue. And, yet, no one noticed this hook might be amiss. The sources back the hook. Please offer a solution so this does not recur. In this case, you personally could have prevented the hook from being pulled by noticing this while it was still in prep or queue. — Maile (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Seriously? This hook was moved to the Main Page at 00:00, 18 August 2016‎ from Queue4. Queue4 was filled by you at 19:34, 17 August 2016‎ from Prep4. It was added to Prep4 at 15:54, 17 August 2016‎. My last edit was at 14:49, 17 August 2016. So no, I could not have noticed this one in prep or queue. Yet again an argument why DYK needs to slow down and have some minimal time (48H?) between moving to prep and moving to main page. And do you really think I am a subject matter expert on all the hooks I pull? I'm just (a lot) more critical and curious than many nominators and reviewers apparently. You claim "The sources back up the article claim". You mean the "Pat Burris On Olympic Judo Team". Greeley Daily Tribune. 64 (158). Greeley, Colorado. May 1, 1972. p. 29." source? That has been accepted AGF, not checked. AGF hooks should be forbidden (too often problematic, and you don't get a real review of the hook in these cases). Fram (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I didn't verify the hook, as I've said many times I just don't have the time to do that. That's why I don't build sets because to do so properly takes time. If the process ran slower with a higher quality threshold for accepted hooks, we'd stand more of a chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I can provide a screen shot of that source if you'd like. And if we don't think the Greeley Tribune which has been operating as a Daily newspaper for ~130 years is a reliable source, then I don't know what is. I checked the reference you provided, and it does not say Seino threw Maruyama...it says he injured his knee in an attempt to do so. I think this was a bad call based on so-called primary information, not secondary sources. Humbly. Dnforney (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I personally feel as though @Fram: should place it back in the DYK queue himself. This was not a good decision, and I'm not at all pleased. Is this going to be rectified? Please say it will be. The answer should be yes.Dnforney (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm getting rather fed up of these discussions where I provide the actual source to support my pull, and people are still unable to find it... "Then Seino tried his pet throw, the Uchimata, and Maruyama went over for a waza-ari. In executing that throw Seino sustained an injury[...]". Uchi mata " is one of the original 40 throws of Judo". If he hadn't executed that throw, he wouldn't have scored the waza-ari, would he? It doesn't he injured himself "in an attempt", it says he injured "while executing that throw" with which he scored the second highest possible score. Of course, you could have checked this for yourself in the very same source on page 15[2], where the photo caption reads "Seino threw Maruyama with an Uchimata for a waza-ari and the decision". So, contrary to what was said above, this "was" a good decision based on a reliable secondary source, and not discussing this first at /Errors was the best thing to do. Fram (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I get fed up with administrators who are more interested in highlighting their supposed worldly brilliance before they check the cited sources themself, rather than offering a helpful suggestion - which might have been to re-write the hook and it can be placed back in the queue. But no. We got none of that here. Sorry, this could've been handled a TON better. Dnforney (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron's restrictions - review

Though the reasons vary, there is consensus to remove restriction #4 requiring QPQ reviews. The basic feeling is that the "balancing" part didn't really work out. The additional proposal to remove all restrictions did not have consensus, mostly on the basis of being too soon after the restrictions had been placed, but some concerns about current behavior were also brought up. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed amendment

A month ago, LavaBaron were given restrictions to help improve the quality of his DYK contributions. The terms of the restrictions are:

  1. A DYK article nomination or hook submitted by LavaBaron must be reviewed and accepted by 2 other editors before it may be promoted.
  2. Any DYK nomination reviewed by LavaBaron must also be reviewed and accepted by 1 other editor before it may be promoted.
  3. Any additional reviews by other editors, which are mandated by this restriction, shall count towards the QPQ of that editor.
  4. (To balance the maths) For each article submitted by LavaBaron to DYK, 2 QPQ reviews by LavaBaron are required, at least 1 of which shall be a nomination that had not yet been accepted by another editor.
  5. These restrictions shall initially last for a period of 3 months. At the end of the period, this restriction shall be reviewed.

Since then I've become aware that #4 does not "balance the maths". Gatoclass has elegantly paraphrased the situation: no matter how many extra reviews one might require LavaBaron to do, one still ends up with a deficit of one QPQ because of the requirement that an extra reviewer checks his reviews. So it seems the requirement that LavaBaron do two reviews for every one of his nominations doesn't actually achieve its stated purpose.

Recent discussions surrounding several DYK hooks have suggested that #4 is creating more problems than it would help LavaBaron or the DYK community improve upon the quality of contributions. On the other hand, some have opined that #2 (which was the actual source of the problem) should stay in place as a check on the quality of LavaBaron's contributions for the time being. So I'm proposing that restriction #4 be rescinded as soon as this suggestion gains consensus; the remaining restrictions shall remain in place until their scheduled review in early October. Deryck C. 17:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset, Edwardx, Worm That Turned, and Maile66: Tagging a few other editors whose recent comments on related discussions have prompted me to make this proposal. Deryck C. 17:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Also tagging @EdChem, Sphilbrick, Andrew Davidson, Sainsf, Casliber, Roxy the dog, Cwmhiraeth, and Gerda Arendt: who have made one or more comments regarding LavaGate. LavaBaron (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Support per my previous comments on the topic. Thank you Deryck Chan for your reconsideration of this matter. Another issue has recently arisen however: LavaBaron recently added a second review to an existing review by another user and proposed it as a fulfilment of condition #2. I do not believe this was the intention of the condition, which was for LavaBaron's reviews to be checked by somebody else, not for LavaBaron to be seconding somebody's else's reviews, but I think a clarification on this point would also be useful Deryck. Gatoclass (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
    @Gatoclass: See #Query on editing restrictions above. Anyway, rescinding #4 will eliminate this problem altogether. Deryck C. 17:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@Deryck Chan:, I don't see how rescinding #4 eliminates the confusion, eliminating #4 means he is only required to do one QPQ, but #2 still doesn't say whether it's acceptable or not for LavaBaron to fulfill his QPQ requirement merely by checking somebody else's review, or whether the intention was to have LavaBaron's reviews checked by somebody else. Gatoclass (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Gatoclass - I appreciate your confusion. In one of the numerous addendums to these restrictions that, in good DYK fashion, have been scattered throughout the Wikispace in a variety of locations scavenger-hunt-style, it is explained that One of the reviews needs to be a fresh review; the other can just be "I agree [because...]" or "I disagree because...". But, obviously, adding more amendments - and amending the amendments or amending the amended amendments - will be great. We may also want to consider having the foundation retain a full-time archivist to keep track of all the addendums, corollaries, and amendments to this three-month restriction. Maybe someone can bring that up to the Trustees. LavaBaron (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support 4# seems like unnecessary surplusage to me. It just seems it puts an additional burden on everybody involved and may well likely lead to a slippery slope whereby that may become the norm if we allow it to be a set precidence. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Support Extension of Restrictions to All Editors and Reviewers Who Have Had 3+ Hooks, or 2% of Lifetime Total Hooks, Pulled Three content errors in hooks or reviews, or 2% of lifetime total, being the cited threshold in the original ANI for which I was sanctioned, it seems reasonable these restrictions be extended to all equally serious transgressors to protect the integrity of DYK. In a back-of-napkin review of the volumes of hooks that, just in the last month, have been pulled, there are by my count at least 9 editors (including 2 admins) who are sanctionable under these standards. Obviously these are very good restrictions intended to protect DYK and were not targeted enforcement to mask a non-sanctionable dispute. But, if we don't extend them to all equal and worse transgressors - when we are easily able to identify who they are - then people will question if this is DYK's Southern Methodist University moment. LavaBaron (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
LavaBaron, you ended up with a sanction not because a couple of your hooks were pulled, but because your dismissive responses to the administrator concerned raised questions about whether you were taking your responsibilities as a DYK reviewer seriously. You may not be worse than some other reviewers here, but when you stick your head above the parapet in a show of defiance, you make yourself a target. Take the right lesson from this experience and avoid a repeat of it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree that's the real reason. So if that's the reason, how will three months of double reviews improve my deference to the majesty of said Admin? Sanctions are supposed to be imposed to protect the project, not as punishment. And yet here I essentially get dish washing duty for Contempt of Admin (an Admin who, BTW, has faced almost daily criticism from other editors of a more acute nature than anything I ever said). LavaBaron (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
No, you got your restrictions because of contempt for the content rules, because your responses in those discussions showed that you didn't care ahout makng sure that DYK hooks were error-free (like Gatoclass said, "dismissive responses [...] raised questions about whether you were taking your responsibilities as a DYK reviewer seriously."). I have seen nothing recently that changes that impression, and many indications that the restrictions should be made permanent (or you booted from DYK altogether). Fram (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
LavaBaron, it's not a matter of showing "deference" to administrators - it is, rather, a matter of showing respect for the rules that protect the encyclopedia. So long as you do that, you should have little to fear from any admin. Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Gatoclass with due respect (and I actually mean that, not as a snide aside as it's sometimes used) - in the case of the two errors cited, I already admitted they were both in error prior to these restrictions being applied. However, I also challenged Fram's way of conducting himself in dealing with errors, something that has become increasingly cited by other editors as here. The restrictions are not protecting WP since we've established my error rate is not higher than the average Wikipedian and I already admitted my mistakes. Let's call a horse a horse. This is busy work, dishwashing duty, "8 hours of peeling potatoes" - that's all. It's punishment, not a protective measure. LavaBaron (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I've treated these restrictions with the seriousness they deserve. (insofar as it concerns expressions of my opinion regarding them) LavaBaron (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
See above. I support just to curtail the ongoing crap-spouting. There are far more important issues here, like the ongoing piss-poor quality of promoted hooks from many different editors and admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Gatoclass made a good point and so I support Deryck's proposal to drop #4. Andrew D. (talk) 07:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, but actually I would suggest removing all DYK restrictions on LavaBaron. The restrictions are punitive rather than rehabilitative, and result in a requirement for other editors to do extra reviews. At a time when there is an accumulation of 150 or so unreviewed nominations, this extra work is adding to the backlog. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments: I saw the point of #4 as being to improve Lava's skills, but there is no doubt that the present rationale is flawed for reasons already mentioned. In my opinion, there should be consequences for demonstrably poor reviews in the form of additional reviews and scrutiny, though I am not sure whether this is the right place for the discussion. "Demonstrably poor", however, needs careful consideration because some pulled hooks have serious flaws and should never have been promoted and some are cases where point-making is occurring, so it can't be based just on pulled hooks. There are cases where I have made comments on nominations that had a tick and so they were fixed before making it to prep, which is an example of the process working but also a case where the reviewed was just as flawed as if it had made into queues or the main page before being pulled. Bad reviews are a problem, and we need to do something about them. Not all reviewers are bad, however, and mistakes do happen. Unfortunately, a situation where DYK contributors feel hounded, unfairly disrespected, and attacked is not conducive to calm discussion of needed change, and the atmosphere here is provoking unhelpful but understandable defensiveness at present. By all means, remove restriction 4 if it is not helping anything, but recognise that the issues here are bigger than LavaBaron's restrictions. EdChem (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to point out, Fram is correct above - any modification or lifting of community imposed restrictions needs to be handled at the same venue as they were imposed. As this was imposed at AN, any relaxation or lifting in part/whole discussion needs to be handled there. I suggest someone move the conversation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Interesting that Deryck C can't change a restriction he imposed based on a consensus discussion, according to Fram, but Fram asserts he can ignore anything he wants in doing what he wants at DYK irrespective of consensus discussions over the history of the project (paraphrasing)... EdChem (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Interesting, yes. The difference between local consensus and global consensus. Fram (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Actually, the difference between admin-is-necessarily-superior-to-peon-editors attitude and collaboration. Maybe you could try the second once in a while? EdChem (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
          • No, not "admin-is-necessarily-superior-to-peon-editors attitude", I don't think you have followed me around enough if you believe that that would ever be my attitude. Facts and errors are not based on consensus (someone here at DYK once tried that approach, that I wasn't allowed to pull hooks because three or more people had approved the hook and I alone had found fault with it, and I thus had to wait for a stronger consensus against the hook before I could pull it; needless to say that that was not heeded) and a rule that would state that one can only pull a hook if one then does a DYK review (or somesuch, see above) would be counterproductive and rather ridiculous (as explained above, this would mean that the ones producing the incorrect review would be able to use it for QPQ, but the one doing the actual legwork to check the hook thoroughly wuold then be required to do another review as punishment). As for collaboration: all I see is someone else coming here to find fault with the editors preventing errors from reaching the main page and trying to do something about it, both at the level of the hooks and at the level of what causes these errors, not someone trying to find a workable solution to reduce the number of erroneous hooks that reach the prep areas or further. Fram (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Counter-proposal: full lifting of restrictions

As per EdChem's and Cwmhiraeth's suggestions, I move a counter-proposal for the full lifting of restrictions against LavaBaron. Edit: Adding sig and, to clarify, this is not a "vote" on lifting the restrictions, but a confidence test to see if the consensus by which the original restrictions were imposed still exists. LavaBaron (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support as per nom LavaBaron (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support if it curtails the endless sarcastic bullshit. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I was the second reviewer on some LavaBaron reviews and found no problems. I am a bit more picky about hook wording, but that is no reason to keep the restrictions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For starters, above he says " in the case of the two errors cited, I already admitted they were both in error prior to these restrictions being applied."; yes, you denied having made errors until it became clear that you would get sanctioned and then switched positions and admitted them, presumably in the hope that this admission would reduce the restrictions. There were also, as had been pointed out time and again, more than two errors in that episode. You now use that forced admission to reduce the restrictions even further. There has not been enough time to see if the restrictions have improved anything, we have Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Lachlan which you incorrectly approved, we now have Template:Did you know nominations/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor which you proposed and was swiftly rejected. The quality of your DYK work hasn't improved one bit. Perhaps (no, probably) other restrictions are necessary instead of these ones, but simply removing the ones we have would be counterproductive and send the message that he is doing a good job, when the opposite is true (that he isn't the only one with these problems is not a reason to lift the restrictions here of course). Fram (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just so we're clear on this, Deryck Chan did not make this counter proposal. It was added by LavaBaron — Maile (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I thought that was self-evident by my sig in the first !vote, but I've added it to the proposal line as well so that there's no ambiguity. LavaBaron (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose It has been what? A little over a month since the restrictions were put in place? Anyone else would have this speedy closed as a too-soon request to lift restrictions put in place by the community. Also, requesting it here instead of at AN (where it belongs) seems like you are further trying to get around community sanctions by putting this appeal in a lower trafficked area. You literally have two more months before the restrictions are automatically reviewed and potentially lifted. Wait. --Majora (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment It is up to ANI to designate an admin to perform the required reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The restrictions are punitive rather than rehabilitative, and result in a requirement for other editors to do extra reviews. At a time when there is an accumulation of 150 or so unreviewed nominations, this extra work is adding to the backlog. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is posted too soon and in the wrong forum, and that'd be enough to oppose. But on the merits, Template:Did you know nominations/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor is sufficient to give me pause. I just can't be confident that disruption and shenanigans would not continue if the ban is lifted. I have no objection to appointing an admin for the upcoming review, but that too is premature. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor, there is a general consensus the article Hillary Clinton brain damage hoax is a GF article, even among those !voting "Delete." No one has raised any suggestion this article constitutes "disruption" or "shenangians." Brianga, Neutrality, and Notecardforfree all went to the exceptional step of affirming this was a GF article in their "Delete" !votes while DrCruse has opined it is unquestionably notable. Everyone on WP who has been a substantial new article contributor has had articles deleted. Having an article AfD'ed is a routine part of the collaborative approach. The suggestion I have ever engaged in "shenanigans" was not even part of the original restrictions, it was a question of QPQ accuracy and my unfortunate tendency to be dismissive towards admins and refer to them using inflationary diminutive monikers. I entirely resent this out-of-the-blue and vicious accusation that is unsupported by anything in my vast history of contributions. I don't care if you !vote "Oppose" but retract your unrelated attack. You can question my QPQ accuracy and my attitude toward critiques, but my content contributions on this project are absolutely beyond reproach. LavaBaron (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know anything about your editing history or restrictions. My AFD nomination was based solely on WP:PROFRINGE. I take no position on this debate. Brianga (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
That's fine, but, as per your remarks [3], [4], you confirm your belief the article in question was a GF article? LavaBaron (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Lavabaron, I'm not saying you've been disruptive as such. I'm saying that I question the wisdom of submitting Hillary Clinton brain damage hoax to DYK, and based on that (and your responses here and elsewhere), and having never really interacted with you previously, I just don't have confidence that your work in this area will be drama-free if the restrictions are lifted. Perhaps I'm wrong - but that's not what this section is discussing. Is there support to remove the restrictions? I don't see, in your edits, anything that would lead me to support that. Perhaps it's a NOTYET thing, rather than a NOTEVER thing. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment: It was not my intent to suggest that a complete removal of restrictions should occur. I think that a process for requiring error-prone editors to have their reviews checked is reasonable in principle, as part of a set of approaches for dealing with repeatedly sub-par reviews. Contrary to the claims of some, there are DYK editors who recognise the problem of poor reviews and the need for change. I just believe that the broader issue is more important than these specific restrictions, and while restriction 4 could serve a reasonable purpose, it does not serve the purpose it claims of providing a balancing of QPQs. EdChem (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Expanded discussion

  • Response to Fram: In your first example, I (a) merely endorsed the approval already given by another editor and subsequently accepted by a reviewing promoter (neither of whom you are calling for restrictions upon, possibly caricaturing your focus on me as a case of ruffled feathers over a past slight and underscoring the abusive use of the sanctioning process to kneecap personal "adversaries"), and, (b) the idea that it was "incorrectly approved" is, itself, currently being debated with you cornered into what has become an increasingly customary contrarian and minority viewpoint.
In the second example, I voluntarily withdrew - of my own initiative - the nomination before it advanced to prep, queue, or posting; a demonstrated ability at re-analysis and reconfiguration, if anything, serves as a great example of my cognizance of the correct application of the DYK process. Indeed, I almost brought it up myself - thank you for highlighting it! Hope all is well with you - LavaBaron (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
"I (a) merely endorsed the approval already given by another editor" Thanks for pointing out that you did not do a proper review yourself, even though that was required by your restrictions. @Deryck Chan: I leave it to you or other uninvolved admins to deal with this restriction violation. "b) the idea that it was "incorrectly approved" is, itself, currently being debated with you cornered into what has become an increasingly customary contrarian and minority viewpoint." You must be reading a different discussion then, as no one there is still debating whether this was incorrectly approved or not, and the hook was corrected accordingly. As for your "great example of my cognizance of the correct application of the DYK process.", of course, nominating an article that gets rejected almost immediately by the first reviewer, and then gets AfD'ed by a second reviewer, and then is resoundingly rejected at that AfD, is something to be proud of. Fram (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
"Restriction violation?" Oh goodness gracious, Fram! As per the editing restrictions: "One of the reviews needs to be a fresh review; the other can just be "I agree [because...]" or "I disagree because..." Isn't this becoming just a little much? Relax - LavaBaron (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The restrictions are listed at the start of this section. I see "For each article submitted by LavaBaron to DYK, 2 QPQ reviews by LavaBaron are required, at least 1 of which shall be a nomination that had not yet been accepted by another editor." Your quote above is not part of the editing restrictions. Fram (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The restrictions have since been clarified by the restricting admin through interpretive notes in response to specific questions posed by third-party editors. That particular part of the codex is archived here. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you need anything else. All the best - LavaBaron (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
So, did you review that incorrect hook? Or just rubberstamp it?Fram (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Fram - happy I was able to help you find that section of the restrictions. Now, as to your question: as previously stated, after evaluating the original reviewer's rationale for approving Worm That Turned's nomination by process of comparison against the content of the article, and possessing the options to either endorse or not endorse the reviewer's rationale, I endorsed the approval already given by Surtsicna and subsequently accepted by Casliber. Best wishes - LavaBaron (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
You didn't previously state that, but thanks, I guess. So not a restriction violation, simply another incorrect review. And could you please try to post your posts in one go, instead of the four you needed for this one or the 5 for a previous one? it causes multiple edit conflicts and makes it hard to be certain a reply still matches the post one thought one was replying to. Fram (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome, Fram! LavaBaron (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Response to Majora: Hi Majora - I put it here because this is a counter-proposal to the proposal for amendment of the terms offered by the sanctioning admin who posted it here (cross-posted to AN). This is why it's threaded within that proposal. I'm working to keep a logical and concise flow of discussion, not "get around" anything. As to why it's been requested after a month, it's simply because there was a spontaneous surge of calls for the lifting of the restrictions made by several valued and tenured community members like EdChem and Cwmhiraeth so it seemed appropriate, in the interest of realizing fulfillment of the aspirations and ambitions of the community for how they would like to organize their DYK, that a quick confidence test be performed. I'm of the opinion that discussion is never a bad thing and don't believing in rationing the quantity of dialog on WP or society generally, though to the question of ending the restrictions I'm mostly fine either keeping or ending them. Hope all is well with you - LavaBaron (talk) 05:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Limit on Conversations and Chit-Chat in Working Areas (Review Space)

This has opposition, but I don't think it's snow-worthy. Rather, I'm closing because I don't see this going anywhere productive: it's far from neutrally worded, and most of the responses are not to the proposal per se but rather responses to the editor the proposer has a problem with. Problems with a particular editor should be addressed to the editor or in a more appropriate venue, not with loaded proposals. If people think this is a proposal worth discussing, I suggest posting a new, more obviously serious, neutrally worded proposal, rather than reoppening this one. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should there be a limitation on commenting on DYK nominations by persons not involved in the reviewing process? One editor currently has 10 active conversations, generally involving WP:WALLOFTEXT posts, in 10 different nominations by 7 different editors, none of which he's actually participating in as a reviewer. In all the cases these are criticisms of the stylistic presentation of the article and generally don't have anything to do with the DYK guidelines, and in every case they've ground the process to a halt as a tête-à-tête appropriate for the article's Talk page plays itself out in review space. I've reviewed the last several weeks of the archives and there hasn't been a single case in which this reviewer has commented on an article in which he's ever ultimately found satisfaction, though in all cases the articles were ultimately promoted over his continued objections.

He seems to have taken upon himself the role of an out-of-control House of Lords - he can't veto promotions but he can stall each one for 90 days before it gets passed anyway in the exact form it was originally proposed. (BTW - the editor in question is not the rogue admin currently on the loose here whom others have been discussing.)

Question: Should (A) active working areas (namely, the review space) be generally limited to reviewers, promoters, and noms, or, (B) should anyone be able to post about anything that strikes their fancy with relation to the nom? LavaBaron (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Restrict Working Areas to Workers with reasonable accommodation if someone has something urgently salient to add. The reviewing process is highly democratized - anyone can review anything - so this restriction is a very light one. If someone has a serious issue with a nom they can simply insert themselves as a reviewer. LavaBaron (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Whatever. LB's mad about Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Trump_plant_theory, and as I mention there, this is exactly why special restrictions have been placed on his DYK work. Beyond that I think I'll just ping The Rambling Man, who I'm sure will say what needs to be said, much better than I could say it, about this nonsense idea that the fewest people possible should eyeball any given nom, so that the nominator can more easily get slipshod stuff onto the main page. EEng 04:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose in general and strong oppose in particular.
    While we all appreciate LavaBaron's own work and reviews here, this attempted use of WP:BUREAUCRACY to shut down perfectly valid criticism of his nominations (see here, here, and here) is laughable on its face. LavaBaron is avowedly attempting to avoid substantive points on procedural grounds—claiming he only has to address points raised specifically by self-proclaimed reviewers and not any other editors—and that is not acceptable... not least because he has also already attempted to avoid such points by removing reviewers who have improved his articles (here and here) instead of simply addressing their criticism. It'd be nice if an admin could step in to condemn this general WP:LAWYERing and LB could knock it off and simply address the points being raised. If any comments actually are aside the point, the other reviewers will notice and the check will come regardless.
    EEng, if anything, deserves some barnstars. The problem here is fighting apathy, not discussion, and he's a careful reader and a general force for good. He may post some jokes amid the reviews, but he is on topic and improves the process (ALTs, commentary, phrasing, adjustments, perspective), which is not simply a matter of checkmarks and rapid, poorly examined turnover. — LlywelynII 03:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Wow. That's really sweet. Thank you! EEng 04:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC) P.S. to LB: Nah - nah - nuh - nah - nah!
  • Oppose restriction (or yes to Option B) – what nonsense. Anyone can contribute to these processes, and as alluded to earlier (and given the recent experiences of low-quality hooks coming out of the project), the more eyes on dubious nominations the better. Who cares if it takes three months to promote a hook? Where's the deadline? If editors don't have the patience for that nor the integrity to allow their work to be scrutinised in detail, they'd be better off working on a different project altogether in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived earlier today, so here's a new list of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through August 1. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. As of the most recent update, 57 nominations have been approved, leaving 160 of 217 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three that are over two months old, and the eleven that are over a month old, all of which need a reviewer's attention.

Over two months old:

Over a month old:

Other old nominations:

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) 18:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #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) 10:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #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) 22:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5 Kalanemi and a spin off article not yet reviewed DYK nom Kalanemi (Ramayana)

  • In Prep 5, DYK Kalanemi, which was created on July 19, 2016, and nominated 21 July 2016 (UTC). The bot review was done that same day, but the human review was done August 9 - 24 by multiple editors.
  • DYK Kalanemi (Ramayana) was spun off verbatim from the other one on July 25, 2016, and with a few smaller edits, but it is mostly text forked from the original article. See Talk:Kalanemi. It has not had a full review.

@Dharmadhyaksha: What that means, is that the bot review done July 21, is now invalid to some degree. The DYK rules state may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article. and also The content with which the article has been expanded must be new content, not text copied from other articles The way I see the rules, the second article is not eligible for DYK.

Feedback from the community? — Maile (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't see much duplicated text, though I didn't look that closely. Gatoclass (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • A manual count of the size should be done where the repeated text should be removed. If that's not 1500 it should not be passed at the moment, if the count is under 500 characters of new then I say it should be closed completely IMO. But as someone who had to put the work in to ensure "repeated text" is only counted in 1 DYK I fully agree this should not just pass muster. Even if it would qualify timing wise the fact that it was already counted towards another DYK is why we have to look at only the new text.  MPJ-DK  16:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"Taking over" someone else's DYK nomination

Inspired by this nomination, I've wondered if it's possible for a third party editor to take over someone else's DYK nomination if it's been abandoned or likely abandoned. In this specific case, the nomination is held up by an inadequate QPQ and I was asking myself if I can submit the required QPQ myself. And then ask for someone else to pass/fail, of course. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Herein lies yet another fundamental issue with this project, the fear of taking someone's QPQ etc. Just get on and improve Wikipedia by getting the nom sorted, fix the article, get it promoted, move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, sure, no reason you can't "donate" a QPQ. EEng 21:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6

This is a very ugly hook - "... that when her video for the single "You Belong with Me" won an MTV Video Music Award, Taylor Swift became the first country singer to win an MTV?".

Surely just "Taylor Swift became the first country singer to win an MTV Video Music Award with the video for her single "You Belong with Me"? Black Kite (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

At the very least, the last MTV should be replaced with the far more commonly used abbreviation of VMA. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT. Gatoclass (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Not if there's a consensus to reword the hook that's already been assembled into a prep and agreed upon by two or three individuals already. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
One doesn't need to achieve "consensus" for every copyedit made to prep. That is just wasting everybody's time. If you see a problem you should deal with it, if you make a new mistake of your own, somebody else can deal with that. That's how Wikipedia works. Gatoclass (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the Wikipedia 101. I'll leave it you to do something about it. Have a nice day. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The hook is also very debatable. k.d. lang won the 1993 MTV Video Music Awards for Best Female Video; Jewel (singer) won the same in 1997. Johnny Cash won a 2003 MTV Video Music Awards for Best Cinematography in a Video. Fram (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it needs to be pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I pulled it, because I was able to confirm that both lang and Jewel have won the award previously, so I think this hook will at least need further research. Gatoclass (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Image hooks

I have built Prep 5 and by going through that I found that a lot of the approved hooks have an image with them so I passed them by when building Prep 5 as there was already a picture hook in there. Is it appropriate/okay to add in a picture hook without the picture? I had to search through the list to find non-picture hooks and i just wanted to know what options I had for future prep building? MPJ-DK 13:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's OK. There are always more nominations with images than can be the lead hook. — Maile (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming that, I will make sure I take the "(pictured)" part out if I have to grab an image hook for a non-image slot.  MPJ-DK  13:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
But please MPJ-DK try to avoid using the nominations with the best images in non-picture slots, so that they can be selected later, per DYK supplementary rule J6. Gatoclass (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I will make sure to keep that in mind if I have to grab an image hook, thanks.  MPJ-DK  13:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Bringing up the "Approved queue" again

So I have been trying to populate as much of the prep lists as I can, going through the various hooks I have found that are approved and first of all it's not always easy to find the approved ones with so many on the page - I think it would be awesome if there was a page for "Approved but not in prep yet" articles, would make it easier to do. Of all the improvement ideas I think this one would help fill the queues the most - and frankly, we should have 4-5 out of the queues filled at all time to allow other eyes to look them over instead of a last minute rush thing. Would that be something there is general support for

Also - I tagged more than one approved hook with issues to be resolved, which brings down the number of actually correct hooks to add to the prep areas, I have gone through and pulled in what I can find and totally filled up three prep areas completely and added in the BIos and non-bio hooks I can find to the last three, but through my "hunting and pecking" search I am having a hard time finding other hooks good to go. That does bring up a question, if I review a hook can I also add it to the prep area or is it preferred that is done by someone else?  MPJ-DK  17:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. I'm of the mind that the reviewers add it to the approved queue because waiting for someone else to do it would basically be the same system we have now, just with another extra layer. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 18:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
MPJ-DK, if you review a hook, then you should not promote it to a prep. If we allowed that, then those hooks you found issue with could have been promoted by their own reviewers, instead of caught and sent back for more work. Since any reviewer can miss something, it's best to have another pair of eyes checking at the time of promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I thought I read something like that somewhere but I was not sure, thank you BlueMoobset.  MPJ-DK  20:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Moobset? Best typo I've seen this year. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Image hooks

I have built Prep 5 and by going through that I found that a lot of the approved hooks have an image with them so I passed them by when building Prep 5 as there was already a picture hook in there. Is it appropriate/okay to add in a picture hook without the picture? I had to search through the list to find non-picture hooks and i just wanted to know what options I had for future prep building? MPJ-DK 13:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's OK. There are always more nominations with images than can be the lead hook. — Maile (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming that, I will make sure I take the "(pictured)" part out if I have to grab an image hook for a non-image slot.  MPJ-DK  13:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
But please MPJ-DK try to avoid using the nominations with the best images in non-picture slots, so that they can be selected later, per DYK supplementary rule J6. Gatoclass (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I will make sure to keep that in mind if I have to grab an image hook, thanks.  MPJ-DK  13:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Bringing up the "Approved queue" again

So I have been trying to populate as much of the prep lists as I can, going through the various hooks I have found that are approved and first of all it's not always easy to find the approved ones with so many on the page - I think it would be awesome if there was a page for "Approved but not in prep yet" articles, would make it easier to do. Of all the improvement ideas I think this one would help fill the queues the most - and frankly, we should have 4-5 out of the queues filled at all time to allow other eyes to look them over instead of a last minute rush thing. Would that be something there is general support for

Also - I tagged more than one approved hook with issues to be resolved, which brings down the number of actually correct hooks to add to the prep areas, I have gone through and pulled in what I can find and totally filled up three prep areas completely and added in the BIos and non-bio hooks I can find to the last three, but through my "hunting and pecking" search I am having a hard time finding other hooks good to go. That does bring up a question, if I review a hook can I also add it to the prep area or is it preferred that is done by someone else?  MPJ-DK  17:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. I'm of the mind that the reviewers add it to the approved queue because waiting for someone else to do it would basically be the same system we have now, just with another extra layer. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 18:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
MPJ-DK, if you review a hook, then you should not promote it to a prep. If we allowed that, then those hooks you found issue with could have been promoted by their own reviewers, instead of caught and sent back for more work. Since any reviewer can miss something, it's best to have another pair of eyes checking at the time of promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I thought I read something like that somewhere but I was not sure, thank you BlueMoobset.  MPJ-DK  20:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Moobset? Best typo I've seen this year. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this the place

to say, here's a new article if anyone wants to look for hooks and things. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 19:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

... that in his will, Humphrey Stafford left his household servants £1 each, his grooms 6s.8d each, his pages 3s.4d each, and £8 for masses for his soul? EEng 19:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, EEng- as simple as that eh? His son will be more fun; he married his step-sister ;) Muffled Pocketed 20:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm leaving the grunt work of actually setting up the nomination to some other helpful editor -- no doubt one will wander by presently. When you get the son's article ready, ping me and I'll try to think of something dirty for the hook. I'm a well known hooker, you know. [5] EEng 20:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Now that's a lovely image for a Saturday night! Better a hooker than a fluffer eh! Cheers, will do; Muffled Pocketed 20:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I wonder, when Wales & Co. founded Wikipedia, whether they envisioned articles that say things like
In the 2003 fourth episode of the TV series Nip/Tuck, Matt McNamara's one-night stand with a pornographic "fluffer" (Marnette Patterson) results in a sexually transmitted infection scare.
I set up the nom -- Template:Did you know nominations/Humphrey Stafford (died 1413). EEng 21:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Have you visited the Museums?
Sorry EEng, I forgot to watchlist this so didn't see your post (the DYK bot just reminded me!). Thanks very much for doing that, very kind. That's some pretty fruity hooks, all in all. Bet it was Sanger's fault  ;)]] Muffled Pocketed 12:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR and DYK

Does WP:ENGVAR apply to DYK hooks? I nominated Bryony Page, which is on the main page now, using the British spelling of "medallist" but it was changed to the American spelling ("medalist") while in the queue. January (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I thought it was a mistake. (I'm American.) Yoninah (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, ENGVAR does certainly apply to DY hooks. I've fixed the issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The Rambling Man; d'you know if that's stated explicitly someplace, so we can point to it easily if the issue arises again? Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I doubt it, in DYK land, although there are hundreds of esoteric rules so it might be in there somewhere. In any case, ENGVAR transcends this project, and should be adhered to wherever possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not clear because the MOS:ENGVAR guideline covers articles while hooks appear on the main page, which is a different type of page. MOS:ARTCON states "While Wikipedia does not favor any national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently." So, in deciding to be consistent, we have to choose between consistency horizontally, across the main page, or vertically, as we drill down through the links. Andrew D. (talk) 09:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Attempting to detract from the clearly logical debate by wiki-lawyering that ENGVAR covers just articles is just a waste of time. Hooks will relate to articles, articles are expected to be compliant with ENGVAR, therefore it doesn't take a genius to see that hooks would naturally follow that. Hooks should also not become tabloid journalese by disregarding high standards of professionalism in favour of a News of the World approach. It's a slippery slope, and we shouldn't go near it, let's stick to maintaining a high-quality approach to the main page and not reduce it by some kind of instruction creep to tabloid tat. As for consistency "across the main page", that's not possible right now, I've already enquired about this some years back, the projects are too disparate right now. It's a pipe dream. So the least we can do is be internally consistent with MOS guidelines, and their logical sequiturs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Closing error on template

MPJ-DK - and everybody else - I want to show you how to correct a template error I found on a nomination you promoted. Your actions did not cause the problem. But when you do a "preview" for the close the blue background should cover the entire template. If there is text outside the blue background, something is amiss. Edwin Stevens (missionary) when you closed it. But what caused it was August 7 comment where an editor attempting to write above "Please do not write below this line..." notation actually wrote in between above those words and the brackets. That is what knocked it off. You were on the right track in your close when you replaced the brackets with the div and noinclude, but in the incorrect place. What I did to resolve was simply to move the div and no include to be in front of Please do not write below this line at the very bottom of the nomination. — Maile (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Kalikho Pul

@Dharmadhyaksha and Redtigerxyz: I moved Kalikho Pul from Prep 1 to Prep 6 to give time to further discuss the hook.

The article does not state the circumstances were "mysterious", or even imply it. If stated in the article, it would have to also be sourced as such. He died August 9, 2016 by hanging in his yoga room, and police sealed the evidence. The DYK nomination was made on August 10. One news agency said there was a suicide note, and another news agency said there was no note. There is an ongoing official inquiry into his death. I think one day after a death that has an open official investigation, is a little early to call it "mysterious circumstances". And if India is like everywhere else, it's probably going to be a while before the investigation concludes. His recent death is more ITN than DYK. — Maile (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

It's already been featured on the RD section of ITN. But apparently, because it wasn't in bold, that doesn't impact DYK. You guys....! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
You know, since this is already a DYK nom, we could revert the promotion and let it sit on the nominations page for a couple of weeks, just to see if the official investigators release any information that would make a better hook. — Maile (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I doubt anything is coming out of investigations anytime soon. But if the nomination is going to be reopened then I can propose a completely different hook and we can go back to maybe Redtiger or anyone reviewing it again. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done Returned to noms page for new hook. Yoninah (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Add another qualifier to "new" in the Eligibility criteria

The DYK eligibility criteria for newness does not cover creating an article that was previously deleted. I think it should be considered new if the deleted article and the new article were created by two different editors, so as not to punish a new editor. In this case, please see Southwest Airlines Flight 345, nominated by Usernamen1. In the template review BlueMoonset has disqualified it as a new article because it existed before. The rules don't really cover it, one way or another. Here's the history:

  • July 23, 2013 article originally created by Justinhu12.
  • August 2, 2013 article was deleted by Mark Arsten per AFD Southwest Airlines Flight 345
  • August 7, 2013 Graeme Bartlett restored the article and moved it to user space of Mareklug.
  • August 7, 2016 Usernamen1 created a new article Southwest Airlines Flight 345.
  • August 8, 2016 Graene Bartlett merged the histories of the two articles with the summary "article has been made again, so merge history"

I suggest this nomination should be treated as a new article. I also suggest we add a sentence to our guidelines that covers this kind of situation in the future. — Maile (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I can cite precedence for this being allowed, the only difference was that the articles were created by the same person (ie. me). I created London Irish Amateur but this was merged (as good as a deletion) after an AFD on notability guidelines. A few years later, I recreated the page when the rugby club reached the national leagues and had the notability then. I then proposed it for DYK and though there was a comment about it, it was still passed and ran as per normal. Granted it isn't listed and technically is a new article it would certainly help if there is a published rule confirming that it is allowed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The "new article", when nominated and then reviewed, was a copy of the old deleted and then userfied article, plus one sentence, hence my (perhaps unclear) reasoning in the review: it struck me as a reposting, not new. (The 2013 original would have been eligible for DYK at that time.) We could certainly add a sentence to the guidelines, but what would it say and/or allow? Should we require a 5x expansion of the copied text? Should the new editor get credit for an article that was mostly someone else's creation? How old must the deleted article be before it becomes new again? This all may be moot in this particular case, as the article has just been proposed for speedy deletion per the prior AfD; I imagine that a new AfD will follow if the speedy is rejected. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
We should not allow a new article that is in essence a copy of the deleted one. However, I still think something should be in the DYK guidelines about this, in case it comes up again somewhere. — Maile (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
You want another rule? Can you tell me how many rules and guidelines there are for this project? Honestly, it would instructive to know how many things people should be checking for. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Other possibilities are that is is a copy of another article (with possible small modifications). We do expect unique content already, so I don't think an extra rule is needed. It may be hard for reviewers to track down if the content is a substantial copy of something else, if credit is not given, but a copyvio check may reveal it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I believe you are correct. — Maile (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The article was nominated for G4 speedy deletion. It was slightly expanded from the version deleted at AfD (but not by a huge amount, with slightly updated information about the pilot and a few extra sources) so I have sent it to AfD again. Black Kite (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

At-a-Glance how-to for new promoters

Below is a very basic how-to on the mechanics of promoting a hook. It's is not meant to be an all-inclusive primer on all the rules of DYK. — Maile (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Hook must be stated in the article, and cited inline at the end of the sentence where stated.
  • Images must be freely licensed/Fair-use images are not permitted. DYK lead hook images are automatically protected on Commons.
  • Select a hook that has passed review.
  • Open the prep area you intend to add the hook to.
1) Copy and paste the hook into a chosen slot.
2) If it's the lead, paste the image where indicated at the top of the template.
3) Copy and paste the credit information (the {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}} templates) at the bottom.
4) Save the page.
  • In the DYK nomination template
1) Replace the line {{DYKsubpage with {{subst:DYKsubpage
2) Replace |passed= with |passed=yes
3) Check in Preview mode - if it was done correctly, everything will be against a pale blue background. There should be no stray characters (like }} ) at the top or bottom.
4) Edit summary should indicate which prep area you are moving the hook to.
5) Save
@Maile66: thanks for putting this together. I'm wondering if we can make this manual appear above the edit window of the prep templates (just as DYK guidelines appear for a DYK nom). Personally, I'd find it useful. Thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for the suggestion. — Maile (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
This is great! Deryck C. 13:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that we include a bit more to prevent the most common errors, plus a link to WP:DYKSG#J which has the supplemental guide's advice for building prep sets. Things I think we should mention:
  • The hook should always have a space between "..." and "that", should end in a "?", and have a bold link to the article. (The missing space is the one that most needs highlighting.) I'd also be inclined to mention that the hook should make sense grammatically as well as be in both article and source, since not all approved hooks do, alas.
  • Check the DYKmake entries in Preview mode; if the line doesn't end with a "View nom subpage" link, a subpage parameter will need to be added to the DYKmake.
  • The same user should not get both a DYKmake and a DYKnom for the same article; omit the DYKnom in that case
  • There's a similar section to this one at T:TDYK#How to promote an accepted hook; maybe there's something there that might be useful here.
Since I'm not an admin, I can't play with the text in situ. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset I transferred it all to template space and transcluded the template, to keep from weighing the Queue page down in bytes. The template is also protected. I believe I included what you wanted. It looks bogged down to me, but that's the stuff a promoter needs to know. And at least it's right above the Prep area. — Maile (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, just to see how it goes over, I also transcluded it on the nomination template, right above the symbols. I can always remove it. But for sure, if a promoter has a template open, the instructions are right in front of their eyes. Feedback on this? — Maile (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Maile. I think there's something a bit wonky with the numbering in one of the revised sections. Feedback: if you're going to include this on the nomination template—I'm not sure doing so is a good idea—you absolutely need to say that people should not promote articles or hooks they have proposed or reviewed. (It might be a good to include that detail anyway.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Wonky numbers is right! Corrected, thanks for catching. Added an underlined mention of nominators-reviewers not being promoters. As I say, I can remove this from the templates. Let's wait a day or two and see how individual promoters react to it (if at all). — Maile (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks good, Maile66! FYI, all the text is appearing underlined in my window, not just the line about people not promoting hooks they wrote or reviewed. And I think the header of the collapsible box should be titled "how to promote an approved hook". Yoninah (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Added "approved hook". The underline has been removed, but it looked different on yours than mine. — Maile (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. There's an extra "a" in there: "a an approved hook". Also, I wonder why you're putting it on each nomination template? It seems it's more applicable for T:DYKQ. Yoninah (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Fixed the typo. It is at the Queue page right above the Prep area. The individual templates were an afterthought, but it doesn't have to stay there. Just wanted to know how promoters felt about having it in a template. — Maile (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment if that's "at a glance", forget it. It's far too intricate to expect someone to drive by and do it. I suggest you spend more time working on how to get a bot to do the promotions to queues along with the "oh so necessary" credits. This is so arcane and extricated that no-one beyond those who have done it loads of times will even be tempted. I know my way around here, but one look at that "at a glance" guide is enough to put me off for life. Compare it to any other part of the main page. The project needs to wholesale re-evaluate its methodology, but in particular just the mechanics of getting a set of hooks onto the main page. That's a trial of strength, particularly when you get the whining "where's my credit?" brigade. Most of the steps should be trivial, and automated. That way people can spend all the spare time gained re-reviewing the hooks and articles. Win-win. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Wait a second. What about Wikipedia is not a place for promoting things? EEng 20:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived earlier today, so here's a new list of the 42 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through August 8. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. As of the most recent update, only 33 nominations have been approved, leaving 154 of 187 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ten that are over a month old; they all need a reviewer's attention.

Over two months old:

Over a month old:

Other old nominations:

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) 05:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

When does nominations leave the page?

I have been building sets over the last couple of days and sometimes I feel like I am looking at hooks that were moved to prep 2-3 days ago and I'm wondering how often hooks are removed from the nomination page?  MPJ-DK  01:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

MPJ-DK, what you need to do is refresh the nomination page more frequently, or (if they aren't disappearing) use the Click here to "purge" this page link at the top of the page to reload the cached page, so the promoted (and rejected) hooks aren't shown any more. When you promote a hook and "close" the nomination template (and it turns purple), the template effectively disappears from view on the nomination page and the from count on the queues page, even though the template is still technically transcluded. Hooks aren't removed per se until all the hooks nominated on a day have been processed (and disappear), at which point someone removes the day and all its hooks from the page. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Off topic a little. @MPJ-DK and Yoninah: I would like to thank both of you for how you go about promoting hooks to Prep. When I get ready to promote to Queue, I check the article to see if the hook is stated and cited therein; and I check the nomination template to see if there is anything else I need to know about the approval and closing. The two of you consistently ask questions on the nomination template to make sure you're correct in promoting a given hook. It's not something required of promoters, but it is certainly helpful for the promoting admin to see that extra info on the nom template. Keep up the good work!! And the same goes for any other promoters who are leaving info on the template, Thanks. — Maile (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you Maile, I do appreciate it. I figured with the discussions of quality etc. I wanted to be part of the solution more than the problem. So I tried to set up as many preps as I could to give them more time to get looked over and add in another set of eyes on them. I was surprised at how many issues I found with just a glance. The "Cite the hook directly" rule is especially what trips people up.  MPJ-DK  10:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

To "the" or not to "the", that is the question

Because of recurring complaints at WP:Errors about "the" not being inserted in front of a profession or whatnot, such as "the American scientist John James" instead of "American scientist John James", "the" is later inserted. What is linked when there's an insistence to insert the missing "the" is MOS:ENGVAR. In a nutshell, the main page is forced into British style English on this issue. It isn't routine on this side of the pond to do it that way. But, what the heck, go with the loudest flow. I inserted the obligatory "the" in the queue yesterday and received an inquiry from Carcharoth about this. I think this is a good place to discuss this issue. Should Wikipedia be forced to use the British national variation of English, or any national variation, for the main page? It's our slot. How do we want this issue handled? — Maile (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I was involved in a discussion with a couple of involved players about this issue not all that long ago. As I recall, the takeaway was that "British" English (with "the") would be used for British-related hooks and "American" English (without) for other hooks.
I thought the compromise solution was pretty unsatisfactory because IIRC there is no longer any consensus even in supposed British English on the addition of the definite article in these circumstances. I have argued for a policy of omitting the definite article from DYK hooks for reasons of (a) consistency, (b) space, and (c) hookiness, as the more concise a hook, generally the better (brevity being the soul of wit and all that). Having said that, there are always exceptions to the rule, and occasionally a sentence just reads better with the definite article included. Gatoclass (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not a matter of national language. Instead, it's matter of style, in which you can find US publications like the NYT having qualms about it, while mainstream British media is routinely quite comfortable with it, e.g. The Daily Telegraph – "Actor and disability campaigner Lord Rix dies after urging for assisted dying to be made legal" or the BBC – "Flyweight Nicola Adams become the first British boxer to ...". I agree with Gatoclass that we shouldn't be going out of our way to amend British topics for this reason. It looks rather silly when they are so often alongside other similar items from other parts of the world. Andrew D. (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Yet ENGVAR is important and should be followed wherever possible, and we aren't following British journalese when writing DYK hooks or anything else on the main page for that matter. I have asked in the past if ENGVAR should be consistent within a set of hooks – I was ridiculed, principally because there are so many other issues for DYK to fix such that ENGVAR consistency is not on Page One of the tome of things to deal with. Just remember: There is no such thing as 'American English.' There is English and there are mistakes." The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • If this usage is "British journalism" then claiming that it's an ENGVAR issue is illogical. The BBC style guide is quite fussy about Americanisms but does not consider this to be one. We routinely have this usage on the main page – today we have "agronomist Thomas L. Martin", for example. Adding the word "the" in such a case is wrong because, as the NYT says, it would suggest that the person is well known, when they are not. And when we're considering DYK hooks, the guideline is they should be "short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in". Unnecessary padding should therefore be pruned rather than added. Andrew D. (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ENGVAR is a MOS guideline, DYK is a fun project, a subset of Wikipedia. ENGVAR should be followed wherever possible to provide a professional and consistent encyclopedia, particularly on the main page where tens of millions of visitors pop by every day. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No, ENGVAR does not provide consistency on the main page as its purpose, as the name indicates, is to promote variation. It does not say what is supposed to happen when this variation comes together and clashes on pages like the main page. This doesn't seem very professional. Andrew D. (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't bother looking at journalists use of English to determine what is and isn't correct: journalists do not write in an encyclopaedic manner. To have British English without the definite article is sub-standard in formal English. – SchroCat (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5 Kalanemi and a spin off article not yet reviewed DYK nom Kalanemi (Ramayana)

Conversation moved to Template:Did you know nominations/Kalanemi (Ramayana). — Maile (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5

Resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

that every one of the American Party of South Carolina's candidates in the 2014 election lost?

What "2014 election"? It's not linked, I don't understand why this is pertinent... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@LavaBaron, The C of E, and Cwmhiraeth: This one has been pulled from prep for more details. As per LavaBaron's restrictions, it did indeed have two reviews. However, in light of the above question by a non-American, I checked the article wording and the source. It tells us they ran candidates in 2014." It ran four candidates for office, including U.S. Senate, and garnered roughly 153,000 votes in 2014 after being certified by the state." Yeah, we can assume they lost, but... — Maile (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Are we talking about the United States elections, 2014? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Regardless, the source does not back up the hook. — Maile (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I considered this point, and I thought it was what I think you call mid-term elections. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The source does not say they lost. — Maile (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, the party doesn't appear to be linked from any "2014 election" pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Well that was a great two reviews wasnt it... Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. Sorry, there was a hook change; the original hook was supported and, after we swapped hooks, I neglected to also add corresponding sources to the new one. It's been fixed now. As for "what 2014 election" I thought it was obvious by the name of the page that it was 2014 elections in South Carolina and apologize if anyone thought the American Party of South Carolina's candidates in the 2014 parliamentary elections in Luxembourg lost. LavaBaron (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would have thought the elections were in Luxembourg, but it's somewhat arrogant to expect a global audience to know that there were 2014 elections in South Carolina, and what their significance was. I assume these are the elections that are so notable that they don't even have an article? Hence why the party isn't linked to any 2014 election pages? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I guess I don't share your opinion that when one says a party named "The American Party of South Carolina" lost 2014 elections, people won't realize said elections were in, you know, South Carolina. But that's okay, we all experience the world in different ways and perceive it through a rainbow of diverse lenses. I've added a wikilink to the hook now for the benefit of those whose lens is opaque. Problem solved. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
"the election"? You still think that cuts it? How bizarre. The American electoral system is bizarre enough without making assumptions that the rest of the world knows what it's all about, more importantly what the significance of it was. The article now says "the first year of electoral activity for the party, it unsuccessfully ran four candidates for public office", i.e. a year's worth of electoral activity. Is this summed up by the phrase "the election"? Nothing to do with opaque lenses, more to do with inadequate explanation and assumptions (and you know what that means...) I still don't get it. Don't get fixated on the geographic location, just focus on the problem in hand. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Seems like we'll have to agree to disagree. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I have reviewed the changes/updates, and I believe LavaBaron has taken are of the issues. He's linked it to the elections, and he's added the necessary sources. The hook has been put back and is now in Prep 3. — Maile (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
A link to an article about 2014 elections that starts "A general election will be held in the U.S. state of South Carolina on November 4, 2014...."? Deary me. Did either of you actually read that now-linked article? Why doesn't the American Party of South Carolina article link to that article as well then, instead of nebulously saying "the first year of electoral activity for the party, it unsuccessfully ran four candidates for public office..."? Update the out of date article, and link to it from the party article and then you have better grounds for allowing it near the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
[e/c] I did read it and I do realize it's out of date (in fact, that's why I didn't add it originally, and only did so after your demand for a wikilink, above). That's not an article I've edited, nor that I have interest in editing, however.
The simple fact is, every article on WP will eventually network to an article that has not been updated to optimal frequency. Wikipedia is edited by real people like you and me, not some mysterious force. Right now "ensure all secondary wikilinks within a hook are to articles that meet XYZ quality criteria" is not currently one of our DYK standards. If it should be added to our reviewing criteria, that would need to be advanced in a new discussion, most likely. Alternatively, not sure if this helps or not, but Citizendium has a rigorous QA process and standards that may be more akin to what I think you're looking for in a user-edited encyclopedia. Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Please respond to the rest of the query. And deliberately linking to an out-of-date article should be strongly discouraged. This is the main page of Wikipedia we're talking about, not someone's sandbox. And stating that a hook was so bad that a large number of readers would find it hard to assimilate is hardly an "exhibition". Please work harder on making these accessible, especially in light of your recent sanctions. We're here to present a professional encyclopedia, regardless of the shortcuts you are trying to take again and again, whether you like it or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
If you're unsatisfied with the article South Carolina elections, 2014, I encourage you to consider updating it. I have other projects I'm working on now, though, and am not available to take this one on. Sorry, but I won't be able to devote additional time to this subject and will have to leave it there. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Already have, and have fixed both the party article and the hook to make it logical and clear. At last, progress! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Way to go - great job! LavaBaron (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prep 6 (Butler)

Pleasantly resolved, thanks SchroCat. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

... that the English feminist and social reformer Josephine Butler (pictured) wrote 90 books and pamphlets over 40 years?

The lists in the article (excluding, for some reason, the miscellaneous contributions) show a total of 92 "books and pamphlets", 90 of which were published. If you included all those she "wrote", the duration of the writing career was, according to the article and based on the publication dates, from 1869 to 1904 (35 years). If you exclude the two that don't seem to have been published, you get a writing career from 1868 to 1903 (35 years). So all in, I'm confused by this. Perhaps the fact that the source used in the article to ref the hook being in conflict with the data presented should mean this gets another, closer look? Or maybe the articles contains a number of {{incomplete list}}s and should be marked as such? (P.S. was the 1878 book mentioned in the lead "Catherine of Siena" or "Catherine of Siena"?) (P.P.S. was "Butler's first publication was Memoir of John Grey of Dilston" (1869) or was it the 1868 pamphlet "The Education and Employment of Women") The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The DNB states that "In 1868 she published her first pamphlet, The Education and Employment of Women, the first of ninety books and pamphlets she would publish over the next forty years". Whether they have a more complete list elsewhere with additional dates, I do not know, so I'm not sure where the Incomplete List tag would go. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I'm just concerned that the hook doesn't match the data in the tables and there's no explanation why there's an internal conflict... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, the point I tried to make about the "first publication", the article has "Butler's first publication was Memoir of John Grey of Dilston" which was published in 1869 yet the list (and your source) has the pamphlet being published the year before... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe tweak it to 35 years? – SchroCat (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Tweaked it. Should be OK now? – SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Weell... then we're into synthesising the data, I'm concerned that your source has 90 works in 40 years but the article shows 92 works in 35 years... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you have any other solution? The source probably has it 'there or thereabouts', which may not be an exact reflection of the reality. With some of these pamphlet producers it's easy for a source to miss some of the publications, but we've picked up more than they have. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I would think that you could go with "at least"? But the evidence you have discovered (i.e. that it appears she wrote more than 90 in less than 40 years) would seem to render that particular reference superseded. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'll tweak. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for you diligence SchroCat. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prep 1

Poonia murders, as well as containing a good amount of poor English and grammar, also contains a large of amount of unsourced statements including some that cast aspersions on people (admittedly dead, so no BLP issues, but that's not the point). "Relu Ram Poonia ... was elected ... winning majority [sic] on sympathy votes". "He was born in an economically poor family but earned wealth through marketing of bitumen and oil in black markets". This isn't an article that is in any state to be linked on the main page. Black Kite (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Might help to link Template:Did you know nominations/Poonia murders here. — Maile (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I've just pulled Poonia murders from Prep 1 after looking over the article and agreeing with Black Kite's analysis. The article needs a thorough copyedit. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Harrild & Sons wasn't much better, I made a few adjustments mainly to make it readable in English and grammatically more up to scratch, and some technical changes like reducing overlinking substantially. I don't think articles are being read properly before they're being promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  • It always links to Prep 1; it's an artifact of bygone days. I'll ask Shubinator to change the generated message. For the moment, however, we need an admin to promote Prep 6, since we're now overdue for a promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Stubs in general, Prep 5 specifically

If there is one andtiquated rule/guideline we could remove, I vote for this one:

Supplementary guidelines D11: If there is a stub tag, it should normally be removed if the article is long enough for DYK.
Reviewing guide In addition to at least 1,500 characters of readable prose, the article must not be a stub. This requires a judgement call, since there is no mechanical stub definition (see the Croughton-London rule). If an article is, in fact, a stub, you should temporarily reject the nomination; if the article is not a stub, ensure that it is correctly marked as a non-stub, by removing any stub template(s) in the article, and changing any talk-page assessments to start-class or higher.

This is not mentioned in the main rules, and it puts the burden on the reviewer. To do what? To remove the stub rating. It is totally not relevant to DYK, and put there by whatever Wikiproject that topic belongs to.

And everybody pretty much misses this in reviews and promotions. Why do we even have it? DYK should not be messing with classes put there by other Wikiprojects. That's not our job.

The lead hook in Prep 5 is a stub. Obviously, it's not really. "Stub" is put on there by a given project at the time an article created, and has absolutely nothing to do with DYK. If it makes it through DYK, it's obviously not a stub.

Let's get rid of this minutia that most people don't know about or care about. — Maile (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Put simply, stubs should not be promoted to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree, length requirement covers this so it is not needed nor really enforced.  MPJ-DK  14:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with TRM, stubs do not belong on the main page. I have always taken this requiring the assessor to consider whether the stub tag is still justified. If it is, raise the issue in the nomination and don't tick. If it is not, change the rating (I usually just change to Start class unless it is clearly better than that) but understand that in doing so you are stating your view that the article is not a stub. I suspect that I may not be typical in this view, unfortunately. A while back, I raised a question here about an unassessed article because I think the assessor needs to ensure that the article is not a stub, but was told that leaving an article unassessed is fine. I thought then and think now that assessing that the article is not a stub should be part of any proper review. Stubs do not belong on the main page, and leaving articles unassessed is a way that allows stubs to slip through. I am all for simplifying rules but the expectation should be that nothing that is a stub makes the main page, and I mean articles that are actually stubs (irrespective of rating) do not belong. Changing a class stub to start to check off this rule is not ok unless the article is actually not a stub. EdChem (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think D11 was referring more to the stub templates that are sometimes placed on article pages, such as Template:Bulgaria-stub, not the WikiProject assessments (though DYKcheck will look for both). A DYK-promoted article should never have a stub template on the article page. As for assessing the article, I go with D7: There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress. Therefore, articles which include unexpanded headers are likely to be rejected. Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. If the article is a stub, then it will fail these points and shouldn't be approved or promoted. I don't see that it's DYK's responsibility, if the article has no prior assessment, to do a formal assessment for the WikiProjects and post it on the article's talk page. I do disagree that DYK's length requirement is all we need: 1500 characters is not a magic number that precludes an article from still being a stub; I've seen articles that I felt were stubs even up around 1800 or more. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think no matter what, the idea of simply removing the stub tag is a bad thing. This instruction should be removed. If anything it should go along the lines of "seek review from an uninvolved editor to assess that the article is beyond stub class and ensure the talkpage banners are updated accordingly." The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
In particular, I think if anything is said at all about stubs, it should be in the Rules. Right now, we don't give instructions to the nominators, but the reviewers are told. Kind of backwards, maybe. — Maile (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that we should remove this rule. When I create a new article, like The Glad yesterday, I usually put a stub template on it because they are usually quite attractive and explicitly encourage other editors to join in. DYK is for new content, rather than mature work, and so it is quite appropriate that we should indicate this. We have other rules, like the minimum size, to keep out articles which are too skimpy and so we don't need this formality too. Andrew D. (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_127&oldid=1086030039"