Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 145

Archive 140

←

Archive 143

Archive 144

Archive 145

Archive 146

Archive 147

→

Archive 150

Prep 3 - European urban voters

... that while urban areas generally do not support conservative parties in Europe, urban voters do favor the Finnish National Coalition Party (poster pictured)? Yoninah, Manelolo

I had to read this three times to parse it, and even then I had to understand that the Finnish National Coalition Party was not a conservative party, to understand it. It's not hooky in the slightest and not interesting in the least. And ironically, the poster used to highlight the hook is from an era where the party was unelected for more than two decades, so it's hardly appropriate illustration either. Especially as the hook is written in the present tense, that poster dates back to the 1960s, what's the relevance?? There's a lot of text in the article, mostly just bullet points of election facts, but the dull hook combined with the inappropriate image is enough to kick this back to noms for a further look for something realistically interesting and suitably described. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I'm quite lost at your rationale. "Finnish National Coalition Party was not a conservative party" ??? It is considered a conservative party? "the party was unelected" I guess you're trying to say was not in government, but I fail to see how that connects to a voter base hook in any case. "Especially as the hook is written in the present tense, that poster dates back to the 1960s, what's the relevance??" I'm not the greatest, most world-renowned political scientist, but voter base composition staying stable is the rule, not the exception. "There's a lot of text in the article, mostly just bullet points of election facts" Ok. Manelolo (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I think your piecemeal analysis of my comment has let the situation down a little. My main point is that the hook is turgid and unweildly. My corollary points are the our readers (i.e. 99% of them are not Finnish) may not be aware of the political alignment of the Finnish National Coalition Party, so the hook dies immediately. The poster is not the current poster, and relates back to a time where the voting public were actually not in favour of voting for a "conservative party" (which apparently the Finnish National Coalition Party is). I tried quickly to find something more interesting in the article, but as it's a collection of election facts and not much else (not that that's wrong, or bad, just a fact), so I couldn't suggest a better alternative. But the points I made remain unanswered. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

"I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion" was my comprehensive analysis! Manelolo (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

My main issue here is this - can a party that supports "multiculturalism, work-based immigration, gay rights and same sex marriage" actually be described as conservative? Its article even describes it as "liberal-conservative". Leading on from that, surely that particular ideology is the reason for its appeal in urban areas (well, such as it is, it got 18% of the vote in 2015)?. I can't support this one, sorry. Black Kite (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

With no opinion on the actual hook, Black Kite WTF? Outside the US—in which "conservative" and "liberal" have taken on different meanings to their meanings elsewhere—a party that supports "multiculturalism, work-based immigration, gay rights and same sex marriage" describes pretty much every conservative party in the world, including the one that gave its name to all the others. ‑ Iridescent 00:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Iridescent:: Yes, but this party has those things as a main plank of its policies and manifestos. You won't see those things pushed to the fore in any Tory manifesto or being touted by their spokespeople in an election campaign, even though they may pay lip service to them. Remember that more Tories voted against gay marriage than for it, for instance. Black Kite (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Surely it can, as RS do on several occasions? Not on the extreme right, but on the right nevertheless when it comes to European and Nordic definitions (for example, it is a part of the EU-level conservative political group). Then again, from an American viewpoint all Nordic parties are wayyy on the left. Defining parties, that are made out of dozens of people generating opinions on all spheres of a society, with global-esque shorthands is usually shooting oneself in the leg in any case (especially since American and European views differ quite a lot). I'll rest my case now (that the hook is supported by an RS), let the powers that be decide and focus my energy on something actually productive. Manelolo (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggest this is pulled and worked on in slower time, and concerns over the odd image use are addressed as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm always open to critique and more than happy to amend anything that I write and subject to peer review—but it helps if there is something more to go by than "its boring" or "a poster of the party in question is not relevant to the party in question". See DYK review at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/National_Coalition_Party. Manelolo (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think your comment is a fair summary of the various concerns raised here. There are sufficient for it to be re-opened and pulled from the set until such a time a consensus is reached. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

"My corollary points are the our readers (i.e. 99% of them are not Finnish) may not be aware of the political alignment of the Finnish National Coalition Party, so the hook dies immediately." Don't have to be since the hook straightforwardly implies it IMHO. Or you could suggest something like adding 'conservative' in front the party, but that would be a bit repetitive for a simple contrast phrase, no? "The poster is not the current poster, and relates back to a time where the voting public were actually not in favour of voting for a "conservative party" (which apparently the Finnish National Coalition Party is)." The hook does not refer to the voting public, but voters of urban areas i.e. urban voters. Other than that, the poster is of the party in question, PD is 50 years after creation so an image of a current poster is quite hard to harness here, and it seems to be in alignment with WP:DYKIMG. Happy to be of further assistance, but I think this is just getting out of hand on nitpicking and being unproductive. If there were factual errors, grave mistakes or smth that contradicts knowledgeable sources that me or the reviewers missed, that would be a different case, no? Cheerio! Manelolo (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the use of the image is gravely in error, I think the hook is almost unreadable, and I think the concerns brought up above in toto rise beyond "nitpicking and being unproductive" but I'll take the NPA on the chin as I always do around here. Cheerio to you to!! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I pulled it. The lead sentence of the article states: The National Coalition Party (NCP; Finnish: Kansallinen Kokoomus; kok. or KOK; Swedish: Samlingspartiet; Saml.; lit. national coalition) is a centre-right[6] political party in Finland considered to be liberal,[2] conservative,[3] and liberal-conservative.[4] So what is it? If it isn't clearly a conservative party, I don't see how the hook works, also, I agree the intended meaning of the hook isn't crystal clear. I can't see an issue with the image however. Gatoclass (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

​ ​ Hmm yes true the lead sentence for NCP is a bit too all over the place, thx! I amended it to "considered to be conservative, but showing increasing signs of liberalism" as one source neatly put it and which might be the best way to describe it for simplicity's sake. Hope that helps! Manelolo (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Manelolo, if it's increasingly liberal, it still seems to me to be undermining the point of the hook. I'm thinking it would be better at this point for you to simply propose a different hook. Gatoclass (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Naah, I think I'll pass, thx. Used enough time already. Manelolo (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

​ On second thought, how about this: "... that the push by the Finnish National Coalition Party (poster pictured) for Prince Frederick Charles of Hesse to become King of Finland failed?"

Don't have a good English source within this timeframe, only Finnish: [1]. A Google Translate of the relevant part here. Manelolo (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should take this discussion to the nomination page now Manelolo, as I suspect it is not going to be an instant wrap and would be better managed there. Gatoclass (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's withdraw the nom then. Enough text and time has been spent swishswashing it around. Manelolo (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let's do that. After all, the time where every nomination passes eventually must come to an end, and even though there's been some thought and help applied to this nomination, there's clearly a point at which even helpful people need to stop trying to help and start being practical. There are scores of other nominations, so we just move on from this one and focus on the others. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

A subsequent matter

I've promoted another hook to prep area 3 to replace it. Seeing as it's newly promoted, somebody more experienced might want to give it a shuffle or a thorough vetting! I also moved one or two around within area 3, due to the lack of an image. Two hooks within the area had images - Hardware-based encryption and Mintaro, South Australia. The mintaro hook said "produces world class slate (pictured)", but the picture was of workers mining the slate, so that left HBE. Now, this is my DYK submission, and it didn't have a tie in with the picture in the hook. I've swapped from:

• ... that hardware-based encryption is probably in your computer?

to

• ... that hardware-based encryption is probably in your computer, and not as a separate card (pictured)?

Reference for addition -

have native instructions

— same as for main (emphasis added)

It's all a bit of a rush, given that it's the top prep area, but please can somebody approve the changed hook, or swap it back and sort something else out. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Bellezzasolo, I have reverted your changes as you are not permitted to promote your own nomination to the lead spot - and definitely not while tweaking your own hook with an additional statement not independently verified. It will be more than 24 hours before the next prep needs to be promoted, so there is plenty of time to find a suitable lead hook to replace the pulled hook. I also moved the hook you added to prep 1 to make room for a new lead hook. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I just went in with an attitude of "get it fixed". As soon as I made the changes I discussed here, requesting for verification. If another editor verifies the hook, do you have an objection to it being reinstated as lead? ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Bellezzasolo, I accept your changes were made in good faith; however, we do have longstanding rules about this. With regard to a proposed reinstatement, I would have to oppose that, partly because I think it would in effect be rewarding a breach of the rules (albeit made in good faith), and partly because I think the image is uninteresting. Gatoclass (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass, while the image being interesting is a legitimate concern, flipping around "rewarding a breach of rules" sounds a bit like WP:PUNI to me. The policy on promotion only seems to refer to from DYKNA to Q, not within a prep area - or at least, that's how they read. Regarding the picture, it's been quite some time since there was a computing DYK was a lead. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Bellezzasolo, DYK has never allowed people to promote their own hooks or move them to better positions within a prep. You can always request a change here on the talk page, but you shouldn't be editing or moving your own hook or a hook you've reviewed once it hits prep. I don't think it was particularly good image to begin with, so I can see why the nomination wasn't originally promoted with it. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I've cropped the image, rotated it a bit, and adjusted brightness/contrast. The end result is this:

The IBM 4758 Cryptographic Module

∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Queue 4 - 151 songs

... that Siegfried Lorenz, the first lyrical baritone of the Berlin State Opera, recorded 151 songs by Schubert "with an enviable control of line and dynamics", according to Alan Blyth? Gerda Arendt, Yoninah (passed/promoted)

The article doesn't state that 151 songs were recorded with such a quote. It states that a review of Die Winterreise made that claim, a song cycle with just 24, not 151, songs. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, not Prep 5, Prep 4, so about to go live in five hours. Perhaps I should take it to ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the nominator was just combining facts. I suggest leaving off the quote by Blyth, because the first part of the hook fact is one unit. Yoninah (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't really care what you think the nominator was trying to do, what I do care about is that yet another hook has got to within sniffing distance of the main page with a clear and overt error. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hardly within "sniffing distance", there's another queued set in front of it, so it's at least 28 hours from going live, not five as you stated above. Gatoclass (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Focus on the error, the fact it has been promoted to queue after being promoted to a prep set after being reviewed, and still the error was there. More time focused on the issues here please. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

And actually it's easy to make an error here because I noticed that it was added to a prep set only 3 hours before being moved to a queue. When the decks are being so frequently shuffled, it's hard to track what's coming from where and when and by whom. All about the panic and fixing last minute issues which shouldn't have been there at the first minute. Standard DYK fare. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Late to this, and when I left the house it was in prep for 14 Feb, and not bad for Valentine's day, how about getting it back? We can drop the number, and just say songs and song cycles, how is that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, we just need to (a) accept it shouldn't have been promoted and (b) get a decent fix. You've done (b) for us, just a shame we have admins not accepting (a). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I already gave it a tweak before reading the last two posts, I think it's okay now. Gatoclass (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't have come to relying on one individual user to fix the issues given the fact this has already gone through review and promotion. The process is broken. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4 - Joan Benesh

Passed review and promoted while still marked as a stub? It also transpires that she co-invented the system so her husband wasn't the inventor, he was the other co-inventor (per the article), but that's a minor point. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to Galobtter for removing the stub tag, but how did it get to within 8 hours of the main page with the flagrant DYK rule abuse intact? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Returning to the noms page for further work on the hook. Yoninah (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems remarkably sexist to preclude Joan from being the co-inventor. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

It was probably just overlooked. Yoninah (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. But how did it get reviewed and promoted with that oversight in place? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• I like stub templates as they are attractive and encourage others to pitch in and help. They are quite appropriate for such new articles and so supplementary rule D11 is unhelpful. It should be removed per WP:CREEP. Andrew D. (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Start an RFC, in the meantime, please ensure your hooks are factually accurate. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4 - David M. Wilson

... that Sir David M. Wilson went from being an expert on Vikings to the Director of the British Museum? Yoninah, Usernameunique

Firstly we don't normally append titles like "Sir" within links. Secondly, he's still an expert on Vikings (as far as I can tell). The fact isn't particularly noteworthy, it might be more interesting to say something like he became just the 17th director of the museum in 221 years (per this? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, happy either way. Requisite information has been added to the article. Here's a proposal:

... that Viking expert Sir David M. Wilson became just the 17th Director of the British Museum in its 224 years?

"Sir" can be bolded or not; one advantage of bold is it makes the link (and his significance) a bit more obvious. 224 years instead of 221, since apparently the BM was founded in 1753, but didn't have a director (then "Principal Librarian") until 1856. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Very impressive that such an organisation has had so few guardians. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The offline hook fact is AGF and cited inline. I'll make the change in prep. Yoninah (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks The Rambling Man and Yoninah.

Realized that I made a grammatical error—Wilson is a "Vikings expert" (an expert on Vikings), not a "Viking expert" (a 1000 year old expert wielding an axe). Would an admin please pluralize "Viking" in queue 4? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

At this point, I'd place something at WP:ERRORS, much more likely to get objective and timely results. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Unreviewed Winter Olympics hook

I'd like to note that Template:Did you know nominations/Asa Miller, which has yet to be reviewed (but was only posted a day ago) is about an athlete competing in the Winter Olympics, so I believe we should try to get it onto the Main Page while the Games are still under way. Miller's event is scheduled for 18 February, and there are already five days' worth of full sets of queues and prep areas, so I hope someone will review this nomination ASAP. To make the Main page by 18 February (unless it replaces another hook in a set), it probably needs to be reviewed, approved and promoted within the next 48–72 hours. It's not yet in the "Special occasion holding area", under "February 14–20 (Winter Olympics event)", because only approved nominations can be placed there. Surprisingly, this nom is the only Winter Olympics-related nom in the entire list of yet-to-be approved nominations, and the Special occasion holding area has only two such nominations, so it's not as though DYK has lots of Winter Olympics nominations right now. Thanks. SJ Morg (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Reviewed and moved to Special Occasion holding area for February 18. Yoninah (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but February 18 in South Korea is February 17 on the U.S. west coast (which is where Asa Miller lives), so this hook really should be placed on the Main Page no later than Feb. 17. Even going by UTC, the start of Feb. 18 will be after the daylight events of Feb. 18 in Pyeongchang have started. When I wrote "by February 18" above, I meant "no later than" – and I hadn't had factored-in the major time-zone difference. Personally, I'd recommend putting it into the one of the next two unfilled prep areas, which would put it on the Main Page on Feb. 16 or Feb. 17 UTC (equating to Feb. 17 or 18 in South Korea). SJ Morg (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I checked the schedule, and the first run of Miller's event (giant slalom) is scheduled for 10:15 on Feb. 18, which works out to 1:15 a.m. UTC (and 5:15 p.m. Pacific Time on Feb. 17), so I guess running this on Feb. 18 UTC would be OK. However, I still feel that Feb. 17 would be a little better, since people will already be talking a lot about this event on the day or two before, as a 'coming up soon' event. Opinions from DYK regulars or others are welcomed. SJ Morg (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Queue 4

I have just approved Template:Did you know nominations/History of speciation and the bot should move it across to the Approved page soon. It was nominated more than a fortnight ago, and the nominator asked that it be included for February 12th, Darwin's birthday. That would mean it would need to be included in Queue 4 which is due to go live in 14 hours. Any possibility of slotting it in? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Gatoclass (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Stephen Court Fire

I have another question about a DYK nomination. I am reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Stephen Court Fire, and the nominator has responded to my feedback. However, they will not be able to address the issues I raised until February 22 at least, which is 3 weeks away. Is there a maximum amount of time that we are allowed to put DYK reviews on hold? epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

If the user has given a definite time at which they will return and address your concerns (presumably they are off-wiki in the interim) I see no issues with a three-week hold. If, on the other hand, they are clearly on-wiki but cannot be bothered to come over and fix issues, I personally would mark for closure fairly soon. Vanamonde (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the response. It turns out that the nominator has been making 1-2 edits a day since commenting on that nomination - mostly in user or project namespaces. Should I keep waiting until February 22, or would that count as active but can't be bothered? Pinging also Force Radical. epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius:-I will certainly try to address the issues raised when I get some time on a laptop (It's almost impossible to do sourcing while on mobile which I mostly have to use currently) — FR™ 07:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Force Radical: OK. I trust that you will find the time to do that. I only brought this up because I couldn't see you were making mobile edits. epicgenius (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Trump Street - a controversy-sparking, ticking time bomb... right where we don't need it

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.

---

This request has been handled by the appropriate administrator, Ceranthor, who erroneously approved a hook. There is to be no more discussion or jokes made about the AP2 topic area.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know we like to "hook" readers in... but this is a serious accusation to make on our main page, even ff it is tongue-in-cheek type fun. I highly suggest the currently approved hooks by @Ceranthor: be correctly marked as disapproved, due to the nature of the Arbitration Enforcement measures active in the area. Knowingly alluding to actual connections between Trump and Russia when there's a very real investigation currently going on to find out the answer to this question, is not something I think the WMF is going to find too hilarious when it hits our most viewed Wiki's main page. ​ ​ ​ — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC) I'm making a note of issues to raise with Katherine Maher on Saturday. I'll add that to the list and let you know what she says. Andrew D. (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC) @Andrew Davidson: I would highly appreciate it. This is a very serious issue, and it needs to be resolved at a much higher level immediately. Ceranthor should have known better than to approve these, and I'm not even going to speak to how ashamed I am to see some of our editor's comments there. This is not a joke. This is a very, very serious matter. And we are an encyclopedia. There are plenty of things to joke about on April 1st... this is not one of them. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC) I agree that the original hook (that Trump is directly connected to Russia?) is inappropriate but ALT1 (that Trump Street is directly connected to Russia Row?) just reads like a bit of harmless fun to me. Gatoclass (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Aye, the hook Ceranthor approved is witty but also fairly risky. I do not mind using one of the alts that don't directly imply wrongdoing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC) @Gatoclass: (edit conflict) Alt1 is not what's approved though, only Alt0 and Alt2... both of which are completely unacceptable. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Well somebody verify ALT1 then and we'll run that. Gatoclass (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC) I am fine with ALT1. I actually prefer it, too. ceranthor 20:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Also support Alt 1. It is ok to be interesting, but not to be misleading. To somebody who doesn't go to the linked articles after reading the hook, Alt0 and ALt2 are both misleading and potentially libelous. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Re-ticked for Alt1 only. ceranthor 20:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC) I tried to check whether Alt0 might be ok for April 1st, but even then it is borderline as a lie if they don't click on any of the links (in terms of trying to distinguish between misleading and a lie, the April Fools DYK guide says the former is ok and the later is not). If this didn't concern a BLP, I'd say go with it, but we are meant to be cautious with borderline BLP calls. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC) I agree. I have no desire to provoke needless controversy. ceranthor 20:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC) I wrote the original hook "Did you know that Trump is directly connected to Russia" because I thought it was funny (although I think I'm on record in saying I didn't care if it was tossed out and not promoted). In fact, I thought it was laugh-out-loud funny and has already been posted online in a reasonably neutral manner. It's no different to what Punch and Private Eye were doing years before the internet, let alone Wikipedia, even existed. Or Spitting Image. Or that old "Land of Confusion" video with Ronald Regan getting confused about which button says "Nuke". There can be no possible protection of privacy since this has been headline news for a year and Trump has been gobbing off about on Twitter for ages. The right to satire and parody is important as it kicks back against dictatorships and repression (if you want serious criticism - Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations is thataway). Nobody ever had an issue with me suggesting George "Dubya" Bush carried around a copy of President of the United States for Dummies - why are you all so terrified of Trump? I can only assume it's because you really are worried he'll sue the WMF off the face of the earth. I get the point that we shouldn't respond in kind, but I don't see me talking about shithole countries, calling all Mexicans rapists and thinking grabbing women by the vagina is actually alright if you've got lots of money, so....... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Yes, quite right Ritchie333, "Did you know that Trump is directly connected to Russia" is funny, that's what it should say.Smeat75 (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Other alts might be somewhat more active, with something like ALT 1 (b)... that Trump Street heads into to Russia Row? (c) ... that Trump Street careens into to Russia Row? (that might be too liberal a use of careens) (d)... that Trump Street stops in Russia Row? (e)... that Trump Street ends in to Russia Row? ATL2 That Russia Row leads to Trump Street, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC) I don't see anything wrong with it at all, As noted it's funny and we should occasionally post humourous stuff like this!, If Coffee is so sensitive over something so trivial as this then maybe Wikipedia isn't for them. –Davey2010Talk 22:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC) I suggest you retract that attack. @Fram, TonyBallioni, Primefac, The Wordsmith, NeilN, and Sandstein: see above. User has harassed me repeatedly, (have diffs) and now this. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC) @Fram, TonyBallioni, Primefac, The Wordsmith, NeilN, Sandstein, BU Rob13, and Worm That Turned:: see this too: thank trolling. This user has been formally requested to not contact me as well. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC) "thank trolling"? Since I have also "been formally requested to not contact" User:Coffee along with, what was it, sixteen others yesterday, could I just clarify, this unfamiliar, to me, term "thank trolling" means I must never click on "Send public thanks" on an edit he has made? I wouldn't want to step out of line.Smeat75 (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Replied on users talkpage. –Davey2010Talk 23:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC) @Davey2010: Please knock off poking Coffee. --NeilN talk to me 22:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Yes, stop stirring Coffee up. EEng 22:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Well, as I read BLP policy and that arbitration case about it you have two choices when someone makes a BLP claim like this, 1) compromise or 2) get an RfC, active consensus that it's not a BLP problem. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC) I’m sensitive about this too Davey. This will provoke needless controversy and drama. Just skip it. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Ah, yes a ticking time bomb, not like those ones that go off with a bang? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC) As David Eppstein put it early in the discussion on the nom page [2]: "In authoritarian countries, creators of artworks may remove material that their government might find controversial". Is that what we've been reduced to? —David Eppstein EEng 22:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC) I’m not in the government. Also EEng please specify who the “bunch of wussies” are in your edit summary. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC) As much as I admire DE, that's just silly -- no one is afraid of any government in this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Mr Ernie and Alanscottwalker appear to have completely missed the point of my comment. Yes, you're not in the government. The comment was directed at you, and other people like you who are not in government but nevertheless try to censor along the lines they think the government would want. It is a quote from our article on self-censorship, which often is a more powerful censoring force than official government censorship. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC) I’m trying to follow site policies as I understand them and prevent unnecessary disruption/drama. If the government is watching, let me ask them to widen the road in front of my neighborhood - morning traffic is miserable. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC) One of the relevant policies (and yes, it is policy, not just a guideline) is WP:NOTCENSORED. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Oh, please, David Eppstein, you've managed to make your comment more silly by doubling down. It is clearly you have missed the point - I said no one is acting to censor themselves, and certainly not for fear of the government - it is difficult to imagine a more garbage rationale than yours, over whether "street" is in a DYK about . . . wait for it . . . a street. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC) The most relevant policy is BLP. The hook as proposed flatly failed BLP, because there is an ongoing investigation to determine the extent of the connection. I’m not sure why you seem to not be able to understand this. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC) WP:BLP doesn't apply to street names. nagualdesign 02:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Point out how readers could see it was referring to streets in the original hook or stop trolling. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Ah, I see. So because you disagree with me I'm a troll, eh? Does that make you Billy Goat Gruff? I would suggest that clicking on either of the links would probably do the trick. nagualdesign 05:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Point out how readers could see it was referring to streets in the original hook... Oh, I dunno. Maybe because of the ...tendency in US English to drop the "street" qualifiers (cf: Haight-Ashbury)... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Ridiculous and meritless complaint. Not even close to a BLP violation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC) @Only in death, I really want to be ok with ALT0 as it is very amusing once the joke is known (the reader clicks on one of the articles). The issue is when the reader doesn't go any further than the main page and doesn't click on either of the links. In this case the reader might take it seriously (if they don't realise that it is April 1st) or they might notice that it is April 1st and then might think that Wikipedia is treating Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections as a joke. Both are bad results. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Why can't Wikipedia remain the one place to present information from the neutral point of view? If you want to mindlessly bash Trump, CNN is that way. I oppose all versions of the hook because none of them are neutral. This is just a thinly veiled attempt to use Wikipedia to make a political point. Rentier (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Oh, for fuck's sake, get a grip. It's got nothing to do with any political point. If we had an article about uranium being discovered on Mt. Everest, I'd write some hook like "Hillary let the uranium go" in a flash. WP:BLP concerns information about living persons. Information. Information. An obvious play on words is not information because no reasonable person would interpret it as an assertion of fact. EEng 23:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC) No. A completely factual version is neutral. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC) The factual versions that use the full names are neutral, and are still funny because of the associated pun. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Quite apart from anything else, the original doesn't really work because in the UK we don't drop the qualifier "Road", "Street" etc. There is nothing at all wrong with ALT1 and I'd run with that, and ALT3/4/5 are OK as well. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC) I really think that everyone needs to care about this a little less. ALT1 is set to go, and it isn't worth having a fight about. If anyone feels like the sky will fall unless we Easter egg-link it to make it sound like it's not about streets, I suggest getting a hat, or maybe read WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC) In past years we've run the following on 4/1: ...that John F. Kennedy was shot dead in an ambush by government agents who had foreknowledge of his whereabouts? ...that Ben Affleck died while shoveling snow outside of his house, leaving behind an unexpectedly small estate speculated to be worth as little as US$20,000? ... that Gordon Brown and Kim Jong-Il are both known for their athletic abilities? ... that Tom Cruse was awarded the Medal of Honor for gallantly charging hostile Indians? ... that Nick Clegg is sorry? All BLP violations, I suppose? EEng 23:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC) How about "DYK investigators finally mapped out Trump/Russia intersection?" It skewers all. --DHeyward (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Anyone who reads this hook and thinks "Aha! If Wikipedia says so, it must be true..." without ever clicking on any of the links in it absolutely deserves to be humiliated by their rabidly-Trump-supporting uncle on Facebook who uses links to Wikipedia to prove them wrong. In other words: This is clearly a joke (of the "satire" variety), and anyone who can't take a joke deserves to be the butt of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC) None of the Alts are BLP violations, even the funniest one, because they aren't about any living person, they're about street names. Talk about a storm in a coffee cup. Some people need to lighten up a bit. Maybe even a lot. nagualdesign 01:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC) nagualdesign, unless a reader clicks one of the links, the hooks appear to make assertions about a living person (the whole point of the joke), which puts ALT0 and ALT2 firmly into BLP territory. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC) I happen to have worked in the area of defamation law. It is black letter law that a defamatory statement on a front page cannot be cured by a retraction set out on an internal page, because there is inevitably some proportion of readership who will only read the defamatory statement and never proceed to the retraction. bd2412 T 03:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Yeah, sure, if it was defamatory in the first place. I guess Politico (All of Trump’s Russia Ties, in 7 Charts) and Newsweek (THESE RUSSIAN OLIGARCHS ON THE U.S. TREASURY LIST HAVE TIES TO TRUMP AND HIS CAMPAIGN) must need your services badly, since by your analysis their reporting is defamatory. Defamation isn't the question here, just our own policies and guidelines. EEng 05:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC) I'm searching WP:BLP for how to to deal with jokes about real people... I can't seem to find it... Maybe it's at WP:DONTGETYOURPANTIESINAWAD? Come on. This is obviously a joke, and I don't give a damn what anyone says about retractions: this is NOT a defamatory statement. If one wants to interpret it literally, it's about roads with no connection to living people. If one wants to read the obvious implications into it, then one has to accept that it's also obviously not serious: because it's still about motherfucking roads! (on a motherfucking plane!). You can't simultaneously insist that this is about Donald Trump and not obvious satire. It doesn't work that way, and I'll eat my damn shorts if anyone can find a libel judge who would side with such a ridiculous argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Sorry Pants but you’re just wrong in this case. It’s a violation of our policies because the original hook can’t stand on its own. You have to click the link to the article to understand the “joke.” Mr Ernie (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Sorry, Ernie, but you're just wrong on this one. Hyperlinks are not exactly an unusual and little-understood phenomenon on this here internet thingy, and woe be unto he who thinks he understands what a link means without at least checking the URL. (In case anyone's having trouble puzzling that one out, the "serious" version is: Hyperlinks are a well understood and extraordinarily commonly used method of conveying additional meaning through text. The suggestion that one can grasp the meaning of text which is hyperlinked without taking in the link is akin to suggesting that one can grasp the meaning of a body of plain text that has had a random number of words in random spots removed from it. It's possible in theory, but phenomenally stupid to even try. It's exactly for questions like this that legal constructs such as the Reasonable person exist. No reasonable person would read a sentence with bolded, hyperlinked words and presume that the hyperlinks do not convey additional meaning beyond the text itself.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC) MjolnirPants. From your perspective, sure. Try explaining all that to my grandma. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC) What about WP:EGG? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC) That's for articles, not for humour Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC) @Insertcleverphrasehere: Would you say your grandma is representative of the average internet user? And if she is on the internet, does she not know what hyperlinks are? I'm sorry, but that's not a convincing retort. If you grandmother is so inept with internet norms, then she's almost certainly not on the internet. If she's that inept and on the internet, then she's certainly not representative of the reasonable person on the internet, and we wouldn't be obliged to cater our content to her standards. My 78 year old father manages his own web site, by the way. (Nothing special, just family photos, a family tree, and some info on his life and interests.) Wrote the entire thing by hand in Notepad++, too. HTML5, CSS and jQuery. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Here readers would see the link displayed as ..., not the hidden reference to the page ..., unless they clicked on the link or hovered their mouse cursor over it. If a physical copy of the article were printed --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC) I have no idea who you're quoting, but I might point out that Wikipedia is not a physical encyclopedia, but a web encyclopedia. If someone were to print out the page while ignoring the hyperlinks, that would be just as silly and stupid as ignoring the hyperlinks while reading it online. Not something a reasonable person would do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia is written for everyone, not the 'average user'. If we put Alt0 up, some people are going to read it seriously, scoff, and leave the page without clicking one of the links. They might even think that it represents vandalism. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 17:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC) And some people will read Andrew Wakefield and conclude that he was oppressed by big pharma because all dem big wurds is hard t'reed. We can certainly write for everyone, but we already have a project where we write for those who are "below average" in terms of their ability to take in the information we offer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC) all dem big words – There are Republican big words too. EEng 18:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC) They're the best words. Really great words. Everybody agrees. Nobody has better words. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Regardless of the outcome, does anyone else find it unseemly for Coffee to be the closer of a discussion that they obviously have a partisan stake in? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC) I'm not responding to that particular question, but I want to point out that there is ongoing disagreement at the nomination template page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Regardless of the outcome, does anyone else find it unseemly for David Eppstein to be using phrases like "partisan stake"? I thought Eppstein was an admin? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC) What does being an admin have to do with my vocabulary? I know WP:TECHNICAL says we should use short words to help younger readers who might not understand more complicated ways of saying things, but that shouldn't be an issue for boards such as this one. [The following addition was removed by TRM, I have to assume by accident as part of an edit conflict, so TRM's reply did not include it]: But in case others here have the same problem with words that TRM apparently does, all I meant by "partisan" is that Coffee has argued for one side of the debate above. It had nothing to do with national political affiliations of whatever nation Coffee belongs to. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Well "partisan stake" is wholly accusatory. And please re-read the bottom of the template you edited through. I thought you were an admin and were aware of how to conduct yourself in such situations. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC) What was Coffee’s partisan stake? It appears to me he acted in a purely administrative position. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC) He started the discussion, and expressed an opinion within it that ALT0 and ALT2 are unacceptable. That makes him too involved to act as an admin in closing the discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC) This is a controversial enough discussion that it should have been closed by somebody uninvolved. And It's clearly not over, so it shouldn't have been closed. But the discussion continues elsewhere, so instead of complaining about the close, either revert the close and let it continue here or go continue it at the template. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Eppstein, once again, please take note of: "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." That applies equally, including admins. Unless, of course, you're circumventing WP:WHEEL? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC) You will note that my comments here are not an addition to the discussion; they are about the close, not about the DYK nomination. Re-opening the discussion might be considered wheel-warring, but discussing a bad close is not. And MPants, if Coffee is an unsuitable closer, I am for the same reason an unsuitable re-opener. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Eppstein, it doesn't matter what your comments are about, you're adding to a closed discussion. That's warring. Declaring yourself as an unsuitable re-opener yet perpetuating the discussion post-closure is a fascinating dichotomy. Interesting stuff! Stop doing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Facepalm Meanwhile, there still appears to be a lack of resolution at the nomination template page. If any hook is going to make it to the main page, there really ought to be a good reason for selecting it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC) I have proposed a compromise ALT6, using identical wording to ALT0, but with (pictured) at the end (and an image of the open street map added). The image should be sufficiently vague at DYK size to make the joke work very well, but should also give a very good clue that something ain't right to those that read it seriously. Hopefully this can satisfy both camps (and I think it actually improves the joke, rather than detracting from it). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Boldly unclosing the discussion above. Quite apart any concerns that Coffee should have let someone else close it, a new proposal (ALT6) has been added which has received unanimous support so far from members on both sides of the divide (see the template page). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Coffee protected the page whilst I was writing so I'm just gonna dump it here: Support Alt0 - The rest either don't connect in a funny way or make no sense (to me), Personally I think the top one is fine and I have no objections to having it on April Fools, Having the map links should make readers realise it's a joke, Not all are going to click on the map links granted but that shouldn't really be our issue - If we make obvious in some way that it's a joke then I don't see the harm in including it. –Davey2010Talk 00:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Coffee, full protecting the page despite an ongoing discussion for a compromise ALT6 (with near unanimous support)? Don't you think that it is just a little bit WP:INVOLVED? Davey2010 I assume you are including support for ALT6 (which has the same wording as ALT0, but, as you say, "makes it obvious that its a joke")? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC) More drama, squabbles and disruption caused by Coffee on a day that has already been chock full of it. Unbelievable. I also Support Alt0 ALT6, let's have it on April Fool's, agree with User:Davey2010.Smeat75 (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Smeat75 Alt0 isn't going to fly due to BLP concerns (pretty much SNOW at this point given how many people have voiced opposition to it), but ALT6 (which uses the same wording as ALT0) avoids BLP concerns by including a clearly captioned image, while simultaneously leaving the hook wording unchanged for maximum joke power. In other words, the joke remains the same, we just are making sure that readers 'get it'. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC) OK then, thanks,altered.Smeat75 (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Whoops sorry I hadn't noticed Alt6 which I actually support over Alt 0 (I still prefer 0 but in terms of layout and people getting it I think 6 is the best one), Support Alt6. –Davey2010Talk 02:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC) ALT0 or ALT6 with a preference for ALT6. (this is for those not bothering to read the locked page where this discussion should have been held). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Comment - Just a heads up but for reasons I cannot fathom Coffee has now added the main DYK page to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2018 citing "discussion had already ended on hook approval." ...... As this discussion was closed by Coffee (and then reverted) should he of really protected that page and logged it at DS? ..... Seems a tad extreme ? –Davey2010Talk 02:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Please let's just go with ALT1 and everyone just drop the WP:STICK. ALT1 is not the end of the world. It's not worth prolonging this ad nauseum. It's only a website. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict)Why? we have near unanimous support for ALT6, and it is a superb hook to headline the April Fools DYK. ALT1 is acceptable, that's it. Everything would have been better if I had come up with ALT6 a day and a half ago, but alas, I didn't. All the arguments against ALT0 above were valid, and ALT6 addresses all the BLP concerns of ALT0 (with EEng's caption change especially). What we have here is something that satisfies BOTH groups of people (those that liked the superior comedic phrasing of ALT0 and didn't get the BLP concerns, and also those that thought ALT0 was too much of a BLP concern). Why is anyone allergic to continuing now that we have such a clear compromise option that won't leave a bad taste in anyone's mouth? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Lets reach a consensus on the DYK page like we were supposed to in the first place, Not having a go but had Coffee not protected it then we might of reached a consensus sooner, I would propose closing this and just sticking with the main DYK page it makes life alot more easier. –Davey2010Talk 02:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC) It is a fact that the hook falls within the scope of Discretionary Sanctions. That's a fact, not an opinion. And DS are designed to put a rapid stop to disputes in the areas where they exist. And they specifically allow administrators a lot of discretion in effecting that rapid stop. This is not the place to discuss whether or not this particular administrator did it the right way or not. We could discuss the various alts for months, and I'm pretty sure we would end up back at ALT1. Everyone please go find something else to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC) It is a fact that the hook falls within the scope of Discretionary Sanctions. That's a fact, not an opinion. The hook doesn't make a claim about a living person, so by definition; no it doesn't. The sooner everybody removes the arborial limbs from their posteriors and accepts that there can, in fact, be a good faith discussion here, the sooner we can actually arrive at the consensus that will put an end to this. But making statements like this above does not help. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Everyone just calm down. Coffee has no supervote, and there's no hurry. April 1 is a long time from now. In a few hours some sensible admin will unprotect the nom page and discussion can then pick up where it left off. EEng 02:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Indeed. Continuing the discussion on ALT6 below. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC) ALT6 continued discussion Map showing Trump St connected to Russia Row Ignoring the protected DYK page, does anyone else have any support/opposition to ALT6 to add?: ALT6: ... that Trump is directly connected to Russia (pictured)? In addition, it should only appear as the top hook for April Fools, not on any other day (due to requiring April Fools exemption to non-'least surprise' links). Support - Fantastic Hook to headline the April Fools DYK. Has the advantage of being just as funny as ALT0, while not requiring the reader to click any links to make it clear that we are not actually talking about Donald Trump. This resolves the main BLP concern that applies to ALT0 raised by myself and others. I also support ALT1 should this not gain support, but to a lesser level than ALT6 as it is not nearly as funny (and ALT1 probably isn't funny enough for April Fools). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Support-Smeat75 (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Support. Even if you believe there was a problem before with mentally impaired readers being unable to interpret an April 1 hook, the addition of the image and caption puts that to rest entirely. EEng 03:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Just to reiterate, Support for ALT6 was expressed by the following, either in the prior subthread above, or at the nom page. In listing them here I'm pinging them now to ensure they're OK with my listing them here: Davey2010 Bellezzasolo MjolnirPants EEng 03:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Support ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 03:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Support as per everyone above and my comments above too. –Davey2010Talk 03:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Arbitration enforcement action - Let me make one thing very clear. This protection was not a joke and neither is our DS system. ALT0, ALT2 and ALT 6 are hereby prohibited from being promoted to the main page. This is not "winning a content dispute", this is me enforcing an Arbitration ruling and using my discretion to place sanctions on something that has gotten severely out of hand. At this stage Insertcleverphrasehere and Smeat75 are becoming so disruptive to the reason for why we are here that they are both about to be blocked, or otherwise sanctioned for deliberately attempting to thwart a topic area conduct restriction (see WP:ARBAPDS and WP:BLPDS). This discussion thread was not opened for "ANI" type discussion nor commentary from anyone other than those who gave a tick to the bad hooks. It was not optional, although it was giving an option for the administrator who gave the tick to fix their error. My closing it was purely administrative as was my opening of it. This is the last time this discussion will be closed. And you may consider this close an official use of the discretionary sanctions system to place an editing restriction on this thread's topic and on any DYK hooks that can be possibly construed to defame a living person. This action also restricts the recreation of a similar thread, here or elsewhere, or the re-opening of this thread, or discussion below it or any other means of attempting to thwart this close. This action will be logged as is required. And may be appealed at WP:AE or by going directly to ArbCom. But let me save you some time: No reasonable administrator is going to accept our DYK process being used to not only antagonize right-wing editors/readers (and even a BLP subject as is at least one editor's stated intent), but to deliberately draw tabloid type attention to our site. This is an encyclopedia, and no matter what President gets elected in America, nor how much hate gets spread by any group of people, this is going to remain an encyclopedia. (Note: This close does not hold prejudice against the use of any hook that does not allude to there being a connection between the actual living person Donald Trump and the actual country of Russia.) — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:56, 2 February 2018 (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.

Collapse moot smackdown

Coffee, at this point the joke is you. This request has been handled by the appropriate administrator, Ceranthor is nonsense. Just because Ceranthor took up the review of this nom doesn't mean he controls it. DYK doesn't work that way, and neither does anything else at WP. Anyone can participate and consensus rules. But you've chosen to invent the idea that "the appropriate administrator" (no such thing here) has "handled" something, thereby allowing you to freeze the decision process in a pretended state you prefer. Your statement that There is to be no more discussion or jokes made about the AP2 topic area. – Who the FUCK are you to declare that there won't be more discussion about something, when that discussion is civil and in complete good faith? No matter what you personally think about some of the hooks being discussed, there is nothing in the discussion itself that is a BLP violation, and it is beyond outrageous that you think you can shut it down because you don't like how you think the community decision, here on a page with literally hundreds of active watchers, might turn out. We're discussing a hook for April 1, two months from now, and no matter what you think of some of the hooks, there's no need for some urgent muzzling of the discussion. Who knows – with further discussion we might even come up with a hook you like. That's what discussion is for. I'll leave your hat above as a monument to your need to be the big man in charge, but am copying out below the subthread that was underway. Make your argument, like the rest of us, for why one hook or another is OK or not OK, and if in the end consensus arrives at a hook you don't think is policy-compliant, then at that time you can raise it at AE or wherever it is that wiser heads decide stuff like that. But an advance supervote to shut down discussion of something that might go to Main Page two months from now? -- bullshit. I don't edit in these areas where people act crazy so maybe there's something in your supervote text above that entitles you to block me, and if so then so be it; it will simply move you closer to the desysopping that's on the horizon for you anyway – or, even more to be hoped for, hasten real action on allowing the community to reign in unfit admins. (Or maybe you'll just add me to your enemies list [3].) EEng 05:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

ALT6 continued discussion (again)

Map showing Trump St connected to Russia Row

Ignoring the protected DYK page, and now Coffee's absurd supervote, does anyone else have any support/opposition to ALT6 to add?

• ALT6: ... that Trump is directly connected to Russia (pictured)?

In addition, it should only appear as the top hook for April Fools, not on any other day (due to requiring April Fools exemption to non-'least surprise' links).

• Support - Fantastic Hook to headline the April Fools DYK. Has the advantage of being just as funny as ALT0, while not requiring the reader to click any links to make it clear that we are not actually talking about Donald Trump. This resolves the main BLP concern that applies to ALT0 raised by myself and others. I also support ALT1 should this not gain support, but to a lesser level than ALT6 as it is not nearly as funny (and ALT1 probably isn't funny enough for April Fools). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support-Smeat75 (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Even if you believe there was a problem before with mentally impaired readers being unable to interpret an April 1 hook, the addition of the image and caption puts that to rest entirely. EEng 03:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Just to reiterate, Support for ALT6 was expressed by the following, either in the prior subthread above, or at the nom page. In listing them here I'm pinging them now to ensure they're OK with my listing them here:

• Davey2010
• Bellezzasolo
• MjolnirPants

EEng 03:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 03:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per everyone above and my comments above too. –Davey2010^Talk 03:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support as a way to preserve the humor of the hook while preventing anyone sane from thinking we are actually alluding to connections between Donald Trump and the country of Russia that could cause us to be subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Gosh, David Eppstein, I probably should have warned you that by posting here, you risk getting blocked by Coffee. He's an admin, you know, so he has a lot of power and authority over the rest of us to tell us what we can and cannot discuss. EEng 05:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I would nominate Russia Row for AfD (which would make the hook not work), except for the fact that such a nomination would obviously be disruptive in the current situation. It's a one-block street in London that appears to not notable in any way; the references are of the type "somebody non-notable lived on this street 150 years ago, according to court papers". power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

If the Russia Row article is AfD'd we can just unlink it in the hook. EEng 18:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Esteemed fellow editors:

• We had a short detour to AE, now resolved with presumably not the result anticiapted by the admin who raised it [4].
• Since many eyes are upon us, let me state explicitly that which really doesn't need to be stated, to wit that no one here is suggesting that a BLP violation be foisted on the main page. We all want a policy-compliant hook, and given the combination of the subject matter and the main page appearance, we should be especially thorough in our discussion.
• Once our normal DYK process has arrived at a choice of hook, if someone's aggrieved they can route their concerns through appropriate channels. No more supervotes, please.
• At the AE discussion someone pointed out that some of our readers are unable to see the image and thus won't be able to incorporate it into their understanding of ALT6. I've fixed that by adding |alt==Map of London showing "Russia Row" connecting to "Trump Street".

At this point we can pick up discussion where we left off. More thoughts on the suitability of ALT6, please? EEng 18:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support but with the reservation that "Russia" is now subject to possible deletion. Should we tell someone? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Putin already knows. He'll tell Trump on their daily phone call. WARNING: FORBIDDEN JOKE. DO NOT LAUGH. (Also not a very good joke, but I had to say something.) EEng 18:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it was my joke to start with, and it was funny, that we're going to delete Russia. Step away from stealing my material. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

But since no jokes are allowed here, you're in more trouble than I am, because the greater the laugh the greater the libel. EEng 18:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support This hook with the image on AFD, however I will say that there should also be a fallback non-image hook if we cannot get the cast iron guarantee that the image will be used in the set. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean the image on AFD? EEng

April Fools Day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm Of course. I thought you meant, you know, AFD AFD. EEng 18:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support for 1/4 (or 4/1 if you write stuff the wrong way round). Definitely with the image though, it fails badly without that. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support since my !vote was collapsed above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• NOTE: Now that Russia Row has been expanded roughly 5x by Philafrenzy, can I suggest that we also bold "Russia"? It also meets the DYK criteria (double DYK). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

side discussion

Why waste the opportunity? Let's think of separate hook! EEng 20:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Just kidding... sort of. ​...that Trump and Russia have been in a row for over 200 years? :) — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC) @EEng: If we have to go through a shitstorm like this again over a variation of this same hook because of you, I will personally go all Mission: Impossible to make my way to the WMF servers and plant a script on them that will cause a random admin to block you for 24h every couple of days. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC) "Plant a script"?? ... whatever next. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Ahah! I see what you did there... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC) NO JOKING ABOUT TRUMP AND RUSSIA! EEng 22:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC) I hope no one minds, but I'm collapsing this bit to keep discussion focused on the ALT currently being discussed. We really want maximum participation.

I think bolding both is a good idea, puts the two words on an equal footing. I'll go ahead and do that. When we seem to have come to a decision I'll ping everyone who commented earlier back for a confirmation they're OK with any little changes we make like that. EEng 23:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• I have another suggestion. How about if we have (pictured) twice: ... that Trump (pictured) is directly connected to Russia (pictured)? EEng 23:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  I'd expect two pictures. (And so would my grandpa). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Pictured just at the end is fine. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Adding it twice is more confusing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, dumb idea on my part. EEng 05:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support as is, with both links bolded and (pictured) at the end, with the map, and on April Fools Day. And God bless America. nagualdesign 00:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose political jokes I know I'm pissing in the wind here and that the support votes are going to carry the day, and that people here will just think I'm being a boring twat, but I don't want to silence myself out of fear of being a lone voice. I don't think an encyclopedia should be making jokes about politics/politicians. Not because of BLP reasons or possible libel or anything like that, but because an encyclopedia should be as neutral as possible in order to maintain credibility with all readers. Making jokes and creating satire is heading more in the direction of Private Eye, rather than an encyclopedia. Admittedly putting this up on 1 April ameliorates it somewhat, but not enough to convince me that it's a good idea. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

  That's a perfectly fair point. These discussions often seem to get a bit "heated", don't they. One single political joke on the front page, one day a year, probably won't worry Lord Gnome too much. Perhaps this extreme rationing explains the clamour. But maybe the days of the April 1 DYK are numbered? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Or possibly, we could create and maintain a joke mainpage where EVERY DYK is a joke (and every other element). Eh? Eh? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose PaleCloudedWhite expressed my thoughts exactly. Factual wording does not make putting this on the main page neutral. The "joke" (I don't have any sense of humour when I edit Wikipedia, sorry) falls within the overall theme of ridiculing Trump - only one side of the political debate does that, so this is a partisan joke, the opposite of neutral. Thus, it will ever so slightly diminish Wikipedia's credibility as a neutral source of information. In my view, the proposed version is the least harmful, but still a net negative. Rentier (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Among the majority of Trump's supporters, WP is already considered extremely biased to the left and full of false claims, mostly because they believe things which simply aren't true. Your argument is that this would damage WP's reputation for those folk, but the reality is that it really wouldn't. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

If that's true, then I consider it a good reason to avoid further antagonizing the (nearly half of Americans you characterise as) Trump supporters. Rentier (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support because reasons. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

^That is an amazingly cognizant argument and I really wish I'd thought of it earlier. Truly sir, you are a master of rhetoric from whom we should all learn. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment One aspect of neutrality, especially neutrality as WP defines it is choosing one's language and statements without consideration of how one side or another of a partisan readership would take it. Just as comedians traditionally mocked whomever was in office at the time (many of us will recall our recently-retired Deporter in Chief here), we should be free to choose whatever joke we like for our April 1 DYK, without consideration of whether or not it appears to be a partisan joke. As EEng previously pointed out, if we had an article on Uranium on Mt. Everest, we could equally joke that Hillary let the uranium go. I'd have supported that joke just as ardently as I supported this one. Not because of the political isle it rolls down, but because it's funny. It also being topical and relevant would also be a factor. I'd have supported that joke even more had Hillary won the election, and I don't mind admitting that I voted for her.

Mocking and criticizing the sitting president has been described as an American tradition by far more than comedians. Foreign statesmen, journalists, authors and notable persons of all sorts have said this. WP, while striving to maintain an international editor base and readership, is nonetheless the product of America, and is used and edited mostly by Americans. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, quite. Political satire doesn't equate to partisan rhetoric. It's just a joke, and any public figure is fair game. The Leader of the Free World doubly so. Nor do such jokes contravene WP:NPOV since it isn't pushing any sort of POV, and the assumption that if you satirize Party A you must be a supporter of Party B is ridiculous. You'd be forgiven for not getting or appreciating a joke, but to stop other people enjoying them is the mark of a killjoy. Life is hard enough without sucking the joy out of it. Live and let live. nagualdesign 21:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

assumption that if you satirize Party A you must be a supporter of Party B is ridiculous - yet somehow both the creator and the most vocal supporter of this DYK are very openly hostile to Trump. I don't buy the claim that this is apolitical (neither is it a BLP violation; I think it's just an assertion of Wikipedia's liberal bias). Off-topically, as an European, I have been stunned by the meanness that many well-educated Americans express towards the close-to-half of their society characterized as "Trump supporters". I think it matches the things that Trump sometimes says. Rentier (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

yet somehow... You've managed to completely miss the point. In a two-party political system there will of course be plenty of jokers that are partisan, but that still doesn't mean that a bit of satire must therefore be part of their rhetoric. And you're ignoring all those who don't support the opposition but still find the joke funny. By your rationale anyone with any political opinion cannot satirize the party they don't support without it being politically motivated, which is a ridiculous assumption. (I'm an European too, I don't support the US Democratic Party, I do find the pun rather amusing and I don't think that satire is at all mean. It's just a joke.) nagualdesign 13:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support Alt1 Let me first admit that I was trying to avoid this but then I saw the comment soapboxing about humor and how Wikipedia is American. All that is rather irrelevant and useless. As for the humor of it, meh -- humor is different to different people, and the differential of the humor between Alt1 and Alt6 is not measurable. My take is Alt6 is just trying too hard (as was the original alt) - I'm sure there are 'rules' of drollery about not trying too hard. Apart from humor, it is a noted coincidence, and therefore that alone makes Alt1 interesting/unexpected enough for 2018 April Fools. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strongest oppose The "joke" that avoids the BLP requires that the reader sees the picture and understands the hook talks about street. There is no guarantee a reader will see that picture (eg blind users, etc.) This makes this a clear BLP violation given that some readers will not have the benefit of the picture to understand that. --Masem (t) 23:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, and you can imagine a hook which is a BLP violation if only its first half is read – and there's no guarantee a reader will read to the end of the hook, after all. EEng 05:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a difference between assuming a person will only read part of a hook when the entire hook is one sentence (which is their fault for stopping short), and where the key information is "buried" outside of the sentence (which is our fult). --Masem (t) 13:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Someone who doesn't consider the entirety of what we're presenting (text and image, with the image explicitly referenced in the text) is the one at fult. The fult, dear Brutus, is not in our browsers, but in ourselves.

You know, I was just watching Jeopardy and one of the categories was "Impeached, removed or just quit"; apparently the show's producers and advertisers aren't worried about a backlash for a good-natured reference to current events, and neither should be we. (or... should we be or... I don't know...) EEng 17:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

As I've pointed out to several others: the notion that this is a BLP vio requires one to simultaneously read between the lines (which are literally about streets), while refusing to read between the lines (wherein it's obviously a joke). I'm sorry, but reading this as an attack absolutely requires the presumption of bad faith on the part of the authors. And while the most rabid Trump supporters will, in fact do exactly that; they would have done so anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I fully understand the joke, it's a reasonably crafted joke. The problem is that when you strip all context from the presentation on Wikipedia, the joke is not obviously a joke and makes a very strong , yet-proven contentious claim. That's not the fault of those presenting the DYK, but it is a problem with the nature of web browsers. That's how it becomes a BLP, not by any direction action of an editor. --Masem (t) 02:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Even for blind users using screen readers, the caption on the image is really super clear about what is actually meant. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, well what if they're blind and deaf? Huh? How do we avoid an inadvertent BLP violation then? Huh? HUH? A Braille map, you say? Well, what if they're blind and deaf and have no hands? Answer that! EEng 05:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

There are other reasons that the image may not appear with the text. Mobile browsers may omit it, for example. If the key element is not part of the same text html element (the sentence with the blurb), do not assume the reader will necessarily see it. And when they can't see it , this is a BLP issue. You could preface it by saying "... on a street map of London, Trump is directly connected to Russia?", eliminating the picture and any potential ambiguity. --Masem (t) 13:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

How about "... that Trump is directly connected to Russia (London connection pictured)"? EEng 16:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm really having trouble understanding why people take it as a given that no-one will check the links in the hook. Seriously; ignoring links in an HTML document is on par with ignoring random words in a plain text document: It's fucking stupid and it makes the whole reading pointless. The map is a great addition because it it initially seems to offer evidence, only to slap the reader in the face with the joke. WP has a standard format, and worrying about users using a browser that intentionally alters that format is just pointless: we can't predict what every browser should do, and we should not try to cater to every browser. We should simply ensure that our content works on the most common browsers, and then it's the reader's problem if their browser doesn't work. And again; anyone whose browser doesn't render the image or the alt text of the image, then gets offended by the joke has only themselves to blame because they didn't bother clicking on the fucking links. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Because most people don't check the links in a hook. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

What that proves is that most people who visit main page don't click the links in any given hook. But I'm pretty sure that most people who visit main page don't look at DYK in the first place, so your graph tells us nothing. EEng 18:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Congrats, you've discovered that people aren't very interested in a 900 year old volcanic eruption. I'm the kind of guy who loves reading articles about things I've never heard of before (or don't remember hearing of), and I've no particular desire to read that page. Also note that whatever DYK hook linked to that page was probably not a joke that piques an interest of approximately 70% of Americans and god knows how many non-Americans.

And bear in mind: 50% of all people are, by definition of below average intelligence. Not clicking on links doesn't become less stupid as it becomes more popular. Writing to the least common denominator is not encyclopedic, and we have a different project for that, anyways. We write for those who are actually interested. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support. If you really wanted to remove all traces of ambiguity, it could say "(map pictured)" instead. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a great idea, because it even more clearly alerts the reader, "Hmmmm... map?... wait... what?" EEng 05:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not comfortable with ALT6 either and I wouldn't be comfortable promoting it. Regardless, I think you guys are really overestimating the appeal of ALT6, to me it's just another obviously deceptive DYK hook that everyone will twig is an Easter egg before they even hit it. And I think you are seriously underestimating the humour in ALT1, which employs the same humorous association but does it in a wry, understated manner that doesn't bang the reader over the head with the punch line. Some hooks just try too hard IMO and for my money this is one of them. So you can put me down as an oppose. Gatoclass (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Um. I completely disagree with everything you said about humor there. The wry-est version in ALT0, because it states something in an unremarkable tone and allows the reader to "get the joke" by clicking the links on their own. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

But don't you think we get the same effect from ALT6, which lets the reader get the joke by glancing over at the map? (And since there's a little less effort to that, we thereby further reassure the BLP fearfuls among us.) EEng 18:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I think Alt6 is an awesome version because it changes the joke from pure deadpan snark to a bait and switch. It says "Trump's connected to Russia, proof is in this picture!" and then it's a picture of Trump St. connected to Russia Row. The target of the joke is shifted from Trump supporters to Trump haters, so that makes for a wider audience, as well. It's no longer just a joke on 31% of Americans, but a joke on the entire rest of the world! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

"Jagshemash, while I so glad your leader of US&A look up to Khazakstan way of money from Russia, burn the evil Muslim spiders and throw Jews in da prison cells with that Hillary of the Clintons, and have sexy time with the star of the porno, you really should not joke because you no make America great again if you do!"

Look, consider Borat's "Throw The Jew Down The Well", homo-erotic wrestling, and teasing misogynistic right-wing views out of a couple of students. That's an entire film of which the whole premise is made of people not getting the joke - and yet it was hugely popular and a best-seller. This DYK hook doesn't even approach that! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, but you'll settle for A6 I hope? EEng 01:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Just taking a moment, while there's a pause in the commentary, to note that nothing apparently came of [5]. Surprise! EEng 22:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support and (map pictured) should alleviate any concerns with blind users not being able to see a map. feminist (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, but what about people that are just incredibly stupid? Or people who've had a stroke or something and can only see things on the left clearly? Did you think about them??? I think we should provide a link to Trump's rebuttal so they can hear the truth from the horse's mouth. nagualdesign 17:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey, that's my shtick. Get your own. Jeesh. EEng 17:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but your jokes are just bitter partisan rhetoric, whereas I'm an European with no horse in this race and I'm just incredibly witty. nagualdesign 18:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Taking stock -- final policy-compliance discussion re ALT6A

Discussion has died down, so let's take stock. To summarize:

• The hooks that were seriously in the running were:

• ALT0 ... that Trump is directly connected to Russia? i.e. no picture
• ALT1 ... that Trump Street is directly connected to Russia Row?
• ALT6: ... that Trump is directly connected to Russia (pictured)? i.e. same as ALT0 but with the picture, and alt=Map of London showing "Russia Row" connecting to "Trump Street"; for those who don't know, that alt= is the text given to readers who for whatever reason can't view the image.

  

  Map showing Trump Street connected to Russia Row

• The overwhelming favorite hook is ALT6.
• There was a suggestion, late in the discussion, that (pictured) be changed to (map pictured), which even more alerts the reader that there's something fishy going on i.e

ALT6A: ... that Trump is directly connected to Russia (map pictured)?

Anyone please feel free to push back on any of the above but for now I'll press on, assuming ALT6A is the popular choice. I do think that the supports above were somewhat ambiguous as to whether, in each case, the support-er was simply expressing a preference for this particular hook, or was (also) specifically joining in the opinion that ALT6 is policy compliant. Therefore, given the ruckus over this, I suggest we have a final round of discussion specifically on the question of the policy-compliance of ALT6A, not on which hook is preferred, because it's clear that the answer to that is 6A.

• I believe ALT6A is WP:BLP compliant. There is undeniably some merit to the idea that you shouldn't have to follow the links to understand the hook – but remember this is scheduled for April 1; whether that worries you or not the (map pictured), together with the map itself (and its caption), make it clear that the hook's text isn't to be taken at face value. Concerns about exotic platforms dismembering the hook-image combination seem far-fetched. EEng 03:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Coffee suggested above that the WMF would not approve of our posting this. I therefore raised the matter with Katherine Maher, the current CEO of the WMF, when she spoke on the Future of Wikipedia, last week. She had not heard of the Trump Street connection with Russia Row before and thought it was an amusing story. When I pressed on the issue of its suitability, she made it fairly clear that we have editorial freedom for such matters and so the WMF would not intervene. It is up to us then. Andrew D. (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

On the question of the hook choice, I myself really don't like Americanised hooks such as ALT6A and WP:ENGVAR should apply. ALT1 is my preference as the humour of the juxtaposition is not forced and it can be read in a matter-of-fact way. Our readers are smart enough to get the joke and so we have no need to fool them. Andrew D. (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for info on your discussion; I figured that would be the answer. But you've missed the point of this stage of the discussion (at least as I've boldly framed it) -- the only question left is to ensure everyone's given specific thought to the BLP compliance of ALT6A. EEng 16:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support ALT6 for reasons already stated. I'm fully aware of the reasoning behind ALT6A but I prefer ALT6. And props to Andrew for querying this with Katherine Maher, and to Katherine for her sensible response. There's the old saying that a camel is a horse designed by committee. If we don't lighten up this joke's going to grow humps. nagualdesign 18:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

...Support ALT6A - Needs must when the Devil drives. ALT6A is undoubtedly WP:BLP compliant. nagualdesign 20:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support ALT6 or ALT6A, I think ALT6 is a bit better maybe as it isn't as obvious until they look over at the map (making the punchline weigh slightly more), and both are obviously BLP compliant with that map caption. That being said, both are fine and I would support either. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support ALT6A per my reasoning in the previous section. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support ALT1 - same joke, but presented in a wry, understated and professional manner that I think the readership will appreciate. The other alt I just find crudely obvious, nobody is going to be fooled by this hook so what's the point? As I said earlier, some hooks fall into the "trying too hard" category and IMO ALT0 and its derivatives ALT6/6A are examples. Gatoclass (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

FFS, the "which hook" ship has sailed. The question at this point is, yes or no do you think ALT6A is policy-compliant? EEng 10:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well my answer to that is no, I don't think it's policy compliant, because it violates NPOV. Furthermore, Wikipedia already has a reputation on the right as a "liberal" bastion, this sort of thing just adds grist to the mill. Did I mention that I think the hook isn't so funny? Gatoclass (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support I support all on April 1 but ALT6A is my preference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emir of Wikipedia (talk • contribs)

• Oppose 0, 6, or 6A I know this is for April Fools, but context still is incredibly important - again we had this issue with the Signpost two-years ago. We editors may get it is a joke, others will not, and as I've outlined before, when this is stripped to its bare context and absent the ability to see the picture, the joke remains non-obvious while a clearly highly contentious statement is left in its place. The "map pictured" may make it worse - I have have seen that word "map" applied to a map of connections (eg imaging your big red-string conspiracy board) and some will also miss that point. I've previously suggested another option of "... on the street map of London, Trump is directly connected to Russia", which while not as "shocking", still keeps the joke, and avoids all ambiguity. --Masem (t) 13:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose ALT6A, as I find that not only is it not obviously a joke, the manner in which the joke is presented violates NPOV. I'd support ALT1, but it seems unlikely to gain enough consensus; failing that I would prefer either Masem's wording (though that is farther down) or simply not running this at all. Double sharp (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Pinging everyone who commented in earlier subthreads: Insertcleverphrasehere, Smeat75, Bellezzasolo, The_Rambling_Man, The_C_of_E, Black_Kite, MjolnirPants, Martinevans123, Nagualdesign, PaleCloudedWhite, Rentier, Only_in_death, Alanscottwalker, Anarchyte, Ritchie333, Feminist. EEng 18:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Watch paint dry and grass grow please ... but if I have to give a serious answer, I don't see any issues with ALT6A. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Alt6A - Shows map so people should get the joke blah blah blah. Can we get this over with now for everyones sakes ?. –Davey2010^Talk 19:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• ALt6 or Alt6a - Just show the map. That makes it very clear that it is not the President that we are talking about. If Democrats (or anyone else) jumps on this as if it were a BLP, it just shows what sort of people they are. Can we just get this over and done with? There are other nominations we could be diverting our time to. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• All are BLP-compliant. That's the point of this survey, right? Not which one we prefer? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, which one is preferred (Alt6, with Alt6A being trivially different, subject to anyone's objection of course) seems pretty clearly to have been settled in the prior subthread, so I opened this round because I feel we should be very clear that the BLP question was thoroughly ventilated. Clearly we won't have unanimity on that point, and so it's an interesting situation: I suggest it comes down to a rough consensus of gut judgments on the extent to which the joke is sufficiently obvious. EEng 22:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yes ALT6A is BLP-compliant.Smeat75 (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes ALT6A is BLP-compliant. But come 1st April I do hope folks don't rush over to the city to try and spot the Donald - the last thing Sadiq Khan wants is those bus-loads of jumping Democrats predicted by C of E. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• BLP VIO You pinged me so I guess I have comment -- at the end of the day, ALT6/6A slides over the anti-POV requirement of WP:BLP (unlike Alt1) - and ALT6/6A doing its best to try to 'mumble' does not help that, at all. (Side issue but, it's odd to me that the picture caption uses St and Row - it should spell out St too, for consistency). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Per your suggestion I've changed St to Street in the image caption, which I can't believe anyone will object to. EEng 22:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• All three versions, including the variant ALT6A above are BLP compliant. I have yet to see an argument with even the faintest whiff of soundness that concludes otherwise. That being said, I still prefer ALT6 over ALT6A mildly, though not enough to start an argument about which we should use. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Please note before commenting: The question is not the choice of hooks, but the BLP policy-compliance of ALT6A. Please speak specifically to that. Thank you. <signed> The Shadow

Non-approved DYK entries on the Approved nominations page

Should entries at the DYK Approved page that are later non-approved via commentary be moved back to the DYK Nominations page, or should they stay on the Approved page? See my talk page here for some background information.

It seems logical for entries that are later non-approved to be moved back to the Nominations page, because they can't be used to build prep sets. This would streamline processes by reducing the number of non-usable entries that prep builders have to analyze and then skip over, saving time and energy.

Furthermore, the main Nominations page receives more eyes at 7x more page views compared to the Approved page. Therefore, moving entries seems congruent with increasing the likelihood of nomination matters being addressed, or at least commented-upon, in a more timely manner to keep matter progressing. See page view statistics below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Template talk:Did you know/Approved – 2,245 views in the last 30 days
• Template talk:Did you know – 15,976 views in the last 30 days.

As a prep builder, I would support this suggestion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

As a prep builder, I also support this suggestion. North America1000 is correct in pointing out that the Approved page is bloated with these nominations for re-review, making prep-building more time-consuming. Yoninah (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd support this, too. IIRC I had suggested that this be implemented right when we created the "approved" page, but I think we decided to postpone that decision at that point. Is this something the bot can take care of? Or will nominations have to be moved manually? Vanamonde (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I would think that the bot would be able to do this, and I think it's far better that the process be automated. Wugapodes, is it indeed possible, and if so, how long do you anticipate it to take to add the move back from Approved to Nominations to the WugBot's capabilities? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

As I was pinged on Northamerica's talk and the discussion appears to have moved here, I wanted to say I also believe it would be prudent to shunt hooks that need work (by this I mean major work not some minor tweak) or are later unapproved back to the regular nomination page for review as that page generally tends to get the majority of reviewers perusing it (I personally only look at the approved page on the off occasion I am building a prep.) Logistically, if we can get the bot to do it (perhaps by adding some form of new tick/template to the page) that would be all the better as otherwise it could result in piecemealing with some hooks being moved and others languishing. Mifter (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

WugBot comment This is definitely possible, but I'm not sure how long it will take. I could probably have a fast and dirty example done in a few weeks, but doing it well might require some major code revisions. That's not to say it isn't worth doing, rather, if I'm going to be reworking the code, it helps to know what features will or may be added so I can plan what will work best. So if anyone has ideas for other new features to add, please feel free to suggest them. We've spent a year with WugBot, so hopefully people have a good idea of what's working and what's not. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 21:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone for the input. In terms of the bot performing this, which would be great, I seems that the following items marked as such below would be appropriate to be moved back to the Nominations page.

• (DYK eligibility requires that an issue be addressed.)
• (DYK eligibility requires additional work.)
• (Article is either completely ineligible, or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible.)
• (Article issues have been resolved and is ready for a new review.)

When matters are resolved and entries are marked again with a green tick () or AGF tick (), the bot could then move the entries back to the Approved page as it has been doing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Process issues

We need to talk about DYK. It's failing. Badly. The QPQ review process, followed by the promotion to Prep then Queue is still allowing far too many errors to get to the point of posting. Despite attempts to dissuade me from doing so, I'm still reviewing every single hook, and just a quick glance above on this very page will tell you that the process is broken. If we are continuing to promote hooks all the way to queues without (sometimes) fundamental issues being picked up, there's a very real problem. There's a growing movement to remove DYK altogether from Wikipedia, and recent performance has only fuelled the fire. I'd like to investigate here how we can make the review process more robust, and the promotion process more accountable. Should we double up on QPQ to ensure that each hook has been reviewed twice? Should we mandate that WikiCup entrants do two reviews per entry? Should we request external assistance with the quality of reviews? Should the DYK criteria be adjusted to reduce the bureaucracy but increase focus on main page quality considerations? Your thoughts would be appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

These are issues that have been on my own mind for a very long time now. I haven't moved forward on them up to now because of off-Wikipedia issues, but I've been strongly of the opinion for some years that we need to do something to increase reviewer accountability, because without it we can never expect performance to improve. As it happens, I do have some proposals I've been working on that I think would not only go a long way to improving the quality of reviews, but also help to streamline processes, making some aspects of the process more manageable, as well as creating some healthy competition and increased participation in the project as a whole. I was intending to delay putting some of these ideas forward for another week or two, given that we've just come off a hectic 12-hour cycle and tempers may still be somewhat brittle given the attendant wikidrama, but if there's an appetite for tackling systemic issues now, I suppose I could bring some of these proposals forward a tad. I'd much prefer to wait at least another week though, to give things a bit more time to settle down, I know that I for one could use a break from DYK related issues and I haven't even had time to catch up with all the unfinished business with nominations that arose in the last couple of weeks. Gatoclass (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I would be interested in hearing some ideas for change. The rules and criteria have gotten completely out of hand, IMO. Regarding QPQs, I was one of the editors who pushed for quid pro quo reviews a few years ago when I saw that certain users were adding lots of nominations but the backlog was only being addressed by a small core of reviewers. Nevertheless, the system ran calmly since there were not attacks and "I'll-see-you-at-ERRORS" threats on WT:DYK every day. Now there are lots of reviewers but pretty poor reviews. I don't think forcing people to do reviews is helping any. Yoninah (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah, we introduced QPQ reviews years ago because the small number of volunteer reviewers could no longer cope with the number of nominations. I don't think we can realistically continue without QPQ's, but regardless, I would consider dropping the QPQ requirement to be probably the worst possible solution. I also happen to think that most of our reviewers, QPQers included, are trying to do things conscientously but continue to fail partly because they are not made sufficiently aware of where they are going wrong and partly because there are no consequences for screwing up a review. So I think they are the first things we need to be looking at. Gatoclass (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• The only problem with DYK is the excessive carping and cavilling. DYK is easily the most productive part of the main page as it is currently processing about 16 new topics every day. TFA is no longer able to produce even 1 new topic per day and so is having to recycle articles. ITN is routinely stale and boring and does a poor job of representing what is actually in the news. OTD tends to recycle the same items year after year but even so seems to have the most trouble with errors and issues. What we need to do is celebrate and encourage the many editors who have much to offer us. They are increasingly put off by the bitey attitude of some here. Here's the evidence I provided to arbcom recently and it's worth repeating:

DYK has become a battleground as a result of such activity. This has the effect of reducing participation, especially by women. For example, see this discussion at Women in Red which is otherwise a highly collaborative and productive project. There, a variety of respectable editors say things like "there has been a drastic fall in interest ... I stopped participating ... Frankly, I'd rather just write the articles and avoid all the conflict. ... I stopped participating in DYK for similar reasons ... I, too, avoid DYK as Byzantine & capricious ... I avoid DYK for the same reasons mentioned here. ... Editors feel as if they have to find something wrong ... Too much nitpicking ... More about personalities than anything else ... The nitpicking has gone beyond the pale ... This is not about errors. It's about grandstanding, the need to be noticed. And it's so out of control."

As a specific example, the editor SusunW, who was one of those commenting, did 122 DYK articles in 2015, 55 articles in 2016 and none since. They continue to produce good articles such as Nina Simonovich-Efimova but stay away from DYK now because "...DYK is clearly a different place than it was even a year ago. It seems that there has become this idea that any mistake is a crime. It's crazy...."

Andrew D. (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. The commentary above was from a year ago, and WiR has contributed dozens of DYK articles since. Just repeating this endlessly at every venue available will not make it any more relevant or more pertinent, it will simply make it less effective and easier to ignore. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• (1) Abandon the "newness" criterion (and the myth that DYK is for new contributors) which almost guarantees we're running poorly developed material; instead run GAs, redirecting all this review effort to reviewing GAs.
• (2) Run 1/4 to 1/2 as many items, using straight voting to choose which items are "interesting".
• (3) QPQ requirement: First 3 noms, no requirement; noms 4-8, do a review; beginning with your 9th nom, a bot will flip a coin, according to which you will either do 1 review or 2 reviews i.e. on average 1.5 reviews per nom (beginning with your 9th nom). This way the most experienced participants do the most reviewing, and the backlog is eliminated.

EEng 06:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The first two proposals have been unsuccessfully proposed a number of times before and are non-starters IMO. The third doesn't address the underlying problem of insufficiently attentive reviewing; two inattentively-done reviews are not better than one. Gatoclass (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Every idea under the sun for reforming DYK has been unsuccessfully proposed a number of times before, and by that measure should be nonstarters. And yes, these ideas do address the problem of review quality: (1) switches us from new content to somewhat matured content; (2) slows things down, so there's more attention to fewer noms; (3) puts more reviews in the hands of experienced editors. EEng 10:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew D. Some of the so-called errors are not really errors at all and some are so petifogging - like the complaint that an article still had its stub tag in place, and the castigation of all those who had missed this detail. It is a great shame when productive editors are driven away from DYK by the constant carping. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

For the issue about an article still having a stub tag, we could add that to the checklist that reviewers see. However, someone like The Rambling Man would have pointed the complainant to Supplementary Rule D11: "If there is a stub tag, it should normally be removed if the article is long enough for DYK." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

If you have rules, follow them. If reviewers consistently fail to follow the rules, they should no longer be able to review DYK articles. If you don't like the rules, change them. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Either follow the DYK rules or abandon them. And don't blame others for picking up the wealth of issues created by just a few individuals here. Some of those reviewing and promoting article here need to either change their approach or stop doing it altogether. And it wasn't just that a stub template was left in place and apparently missed by everyone involved in that review, but it transpired the hook/article were in conflict, ignoring the contributions of a woman ironically. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew D and Cwmhiraeth. Just look at this frivolous compalint at WP:ERRORS. If I weren't a DYK regular, I would've been discouraged from contributing. -Zanhe (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hardly. The hook was clearly misleading. But I realise it's upsetting when people critique your own work here. That's the nature of Wikipedia and doubly so when we're trying to maintain the quality of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I quite like EEng's proposals (with the caveat that the third point is maybe a bit complicated - bots flipping coins etc.). I haven't been witness to previous discussions on such proposals and therefore don't see why they should be considered non-starters. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a non-starter because you are never going to get the many users who participate in DYK to agree to a system where between 50% and 75% of nominations are scrapped, not including the hundreds of nominations that would have to be scrapped during backlogs. Additionally, this "solution" would be total overkill for a "problem" that really isn't all that significant, in spite of the noise produced about it on this page. I just had a look through the last dozen or so issues raised, for example, and they are all about basically slight inaccuracies or less than ideal wording in hooks. We need to keep a sense of perspective here. Gatoclass (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

And there you have it: never going to get the many users who participate in DYK to agree to a system where between 50% and 75% of nominations are scrapped i.e. it's the Special Olympics, where everyone gets a medal, no matter what! No wonder review quality is a problem: there's an expectation that everything passes anyway. Anyway, I didn't say most nominations would be scrapped, I said we should run 25% to 50% as many items; if we use GA, instead of newness, as the initial gating qualification, there will be fewer noms in the first place. And who said anything about noms being "scrapped during backlogs"??? Nothing will ever improve until we reduce the throughput and stop making immaturity of the article the basic requirement.

And quality really is a problem: everywhere you look there are illiterate or ungrammatical hooks, hooks that make no sense, hooks that misstate the facts, and embarrassing underlying articles. Perhaps you might claim (though this would really understate the situation) that only 10% of hooks have such problems. Well, that's still one or two such embarrassing hook per day, and that's way too many. EEng 11:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

No, not a "special Olympics", but certainly, a place where anybody with a reasonable degree of competence can participate and where the widest possible variety of topics can be featured (as opposed to GA, where there seems to be rather a lot of MILHIST and naval submissions, for example). Additionally, GA is no guarantee of quality - I have seen plenty of GAs nominated at DYK that don't even meet basic DYK requirements. And I honestly think your perception of DYK is a bit behind the times - most of the DYKs I look at these days are pretty high-quality, well-sourced and formatted articles, unlike some of the crap we used to get. Hooks are also of a higher standard (your overrated "Trump" hook above notwithstanding), with very few dogs making it to the main page anymore (though there is always room for improvement in the hook writing department). But I've noticed that even some users who used to submit really awful hooks have considerably lifted their game, so I think things have actually improved a lot since the bad old days. I think people sometimes forget how far this project has actually come over the last few years. Gatoclass (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing is a "guarantee" of quality, but GA certainly aims higher than DYK, and the fact that some GAs don't, technically, meet DYK "standards" is just more evidence of how goofball the DYK standards are e.g. the mindless idea that "verifiable" = one robotic cite per paragraph NO MATTER WHAT <BLEEP!> NO MATTER WHAT <BLEEP!> THIS IS A RECORDING <BLEEP!>. If, as you say, nominated articles are generally so much better now than before, then making GA the standard won't be a bar to most of them, but will help filter out the dogs. We don't want "most" articles linked from Main Page to be pretty high-quality, we want all of them to be pretty high quality, with maybe one sub-par slipping through once in a while.

The Trump hook isn't mine. EEng 12:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Good, because it isn't worthy of you IMO (though your apparent enthusiasm for it is somewhat puzzling). As for the "goofball" criterion you mention, I happen to agree that that one has outlived its usefulness and should be replaced by something a bit more up-to-date. But I can't agree that all articles linked to the main page need to be of high quality, because I think that could well intimidate people from starting to contribute. A smattering of less impressive articles may also help encourage new users to get involved. Gatoclass (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I would strongly oppose any attempt to restrict this process to GAs. First off, whether or not this is being used by new editors, it is being used for new content. A very large number of articles I have created are near impossible to bring to GA standard, simply because of a lack of source material. Second, it's a big mistake to suppose that GA reviews adhere to the GA standards much better than DYK submissions do to the DYK criteria. GA review standards vary wildly, and there isn't, at this point, a mechanism for holding GA reviews to account.

Changing the DYK criteria isn't the solution. As others have suggested above, increasing the level of scrutiny nominations receive is. I'd make a couple of suggestions here;

• Clarify the roles of reviewers, promoters, and admins. That of the first two are not necessarily unclear, but I've seem very experienced editors misunderstand them (not going to name names) so perhaps clarification is necessary. The admin instructions are dreadfully outdated and are also not uniformly adhered to.
• Look into whether a bot can run all of the mechanical checks on every nomination. That way a reviewer can focus on the content, and need only look into age/length if the bot flags a potential issue.
• Penalize folks for reviews which fail basic criteria (hook facts unsupported by sources in the article, article with serious BLP/copyright/verifiability issues).
• Allow, or even encourage, reviewers to immediately fail a submission by an editor with >5 DYKs (same as the QPQ threshold) if an article fails basic criteria, as above.

Thoughts on any of these? They aren't mutually exclusive: I for one would like to clarify the admin role regardless. Indeed I once started an RFC on it, only to withdraw it at the request of Gatoclass. I'm minded to begin another, more open-ended, RFC soon. Vanamonde (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• The issue about GA is not that GA doesn't provide a level of quality assurance; it is that the quality it provides is that of the article. It does nothing for the hook, which is not reviewed at GA. The majority of problems do seem to be with the hooks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

One problem seems to be that reviewers are motivated to accept a nominated hook in order to have QPQ complete, but there's no credit for raising issues. That means people will tend to let things slide. Two possible changes to adjust the incentive (just quick thoughts; I'm sure the hive mind can do better):

1. Change the QPQ test to require having started a review. If that leads to review backlogs growing, then nominators could be asked to move forward as many reviews as the number of rounds it took for their nomination to be approved.
2. Finding a factual error in a DYK that's in prep to count as a QPQ (or otherwise encouraged with barnstars or a league table or something). That would get more people looking for problems in hooks that were wrongly approved, and might also encourage more thorough reviews, since no-one likes to be called out.

I like the thrust of Vanamonde93's last two suggestions for the same reason, as ways to encourage critical reviews and better-formed nominations. Mortee (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mortee: Cheers; but with respect to your first proposal, I do believe that is already the case. I have always understood the QPQ requirement to mean a complete review, not a passed hook; and I've frequently claimed a QPQ despite not having passed the nomination. Of course, I see the review through to the end; but my point is I do not believe our current wording provides an incentive for folks to pass a hook quickly. To review it quickly, maybe. But that's just part of the larger issue of scrutiny we are discussing. Vanamonde (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: that's interesting - in that case perhaps the instructions could be clarified. I thought QPQ was done once a hook was either ticked or crossed, but question marks didn't count. If other people have misunderstood the same way I have, maybe we can get some improvement without changing the rules, just making sure they're clear to everyone. Mortee (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

No, the quid pro quo has been satisfied once a complete review has been done that mentions all the criteria, even if the nominator has more work to do. It is not done if the reviewer finds a single fault without checking everything else. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

​ What I think Vanamonde93 was saying was that a full review mentioning all criteria, but that ends with a question mark ("here are the points you've satisfied, here are the ones you haven't, we'll leave it open till those are satisfied"), qualifies, whereas my understanding had been that a QPQ wasn't complete until those issues raised had been dealt with and the hook was approved (or a hook was permanently rejected) Mortee (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Some of Vanamonde93's ideas outlined above are akin to mine (but please Vanamonde, don't start an RFC without discussing parameters first, because hasty RFC's can often lead to quite undesirable results). I have also considered something akin to Mortee's second suggestion above, though it might be a bridge too far for a first attempt at reform, and working out the details could prove difficult. But on the whole, I think the notions put forward by the last two contributors are moving in the right general direction. Gatoclass (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I'm aware of your distaste for undiscussed RFCs, but I also do not believe we will be well served by two sessions of wrangling, one over the RFC, one during the RFC. So I planned to create a very simple structure; a list of all checks that admins could conceivable be asked to perform, with editors able to !vote yes or no on each (Copyvio check; yes or no? Hookiness check; yes or no? etc), and with anybody being able to add additional checks . That way we are not limited to pre-selected combinations, on which we are unlikely to reach agreement in the first place. Vanamonde (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Well if that's going to be the extent of your proposed RFC Vanamonde93, I could hardly object to that. My main concern was that you were about to launch an RFC on some of your more radical proposals above, which I think at the very least would need more discussion before we did that. Gatoclass (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Niet, just the admin role at the moment. I don't think we can fix this in one go; I'd rather break down our problem into manageable bits. I'll write it up soon. Vanamonde (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Allow, or even encourage, reviewers to immediately fail a submission by an editor with >5 DYKs (same as the QPQ threshold) if an article fails basic criteria, as above. The majority of cases where this would apply is those nominations with "QPQ pending". I've always been soft on this, allowing people to complete a QPQ after the nomination. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I've tended to be soft on the QPQ as well, especially since I've been late a couple of times. I don't mean basic DYK requirements; I mean basic content requirements. If a nomination from an experience user fails BLP, the nomination should be failed pronto (I'm suggesting). Vanamonde (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It all boils down to a lack of scrutiny at review and promotion. This so-called dissuading of editors at DYK is bunkum, the criticism lies squarely at those who claim to be performing QPQ reviews (checklist exercise) and failing, and those promoting (who don't even check the checkbox exercise, let alone check the changes that have been made between review and promotion). The process is broken because we have too many people seeking out QPQs and doing the bare minimum, handing off to promoters who just say "yes, the hook is as described" and then admins who say "yes, the promoter is trusted". Once you insert a fail at the beginning of that, you get a fail at the main page. That's what I'm trying to fix with most of my concerns. I know that it's unpopular, but trust me, I'd rather see a set go through with nothing to comment on. I have far too many other things to worry about, like building serous content, than to get all hot under the collar about DYK hooks, but I will continue to strenuously object to detritus going to the main page under the DYK umbrella, particularly when it's low quality, wrong or simply uninteresting. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

TRM I don't know whether you believe me, but some folks besides you do take these concerns seriously, and would like to find a way to improve review quality. Hence the proposals above. I, for one, would like to hear your input on them. Vanamonde (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived early this morning; here is an updated list with 31 older nominations that need reviewing, including all those that are no longer current (through February 4). Right now we have a total of 175 nominations, of which 80 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one from last year.

Over two months old:

• November 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Amusement

Over one month old:

• January 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Command and Destroy
• January 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Prow house
• January 12: Template:Did you know nominations/South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.

Other old nominations:

• January 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Sankaralinganar
• January 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Aubervilliers Congress
• January 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Juliana Walanika
• January 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Warwick Castle, Maida Vale
• January 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Liebman
• January 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Reclaiming Health and Safety For All
• January 22: Template:Did you know nominations/John Johnson (1807-1878)
• January 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Henry V. Plummer and H. Vinton Plummer
• January 23: Template:Did you know nominations/2018 Gulf of Alaska Earthquake
• January 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Anny Felbermayer
• January 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Novodinia antillensis
• January 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Magill Youth Training Centre
• January 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Brian Wilson is a genius
• January 29: Template:Did you know nominations/1977 Aeroflot Tupolev Tu-134 hijacking
• January 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher White (pianist)
• January 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Faith in Buddhism
• January 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Pieter-Jan Belder
• January 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Kyrö Distillery Company
• January 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Der Gemischte Chor Zürich
• January 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Zettabyte Era
• February 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture)
• February 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Neues Bachisches Collegium Musicum
• February 2: Template:Did you know nominations/1838 Georgetown slave sale (two articles)
• February 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Comet Ping Pong 2
• February 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Pythagoras
• February 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Wallis and Futuna's 1st constituency by-election, 2018
• February 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Sudden Rush

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) 16:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It appears Template:Did you know nominations/Novodinia antillensis was approved (AGF) on Jan 9. Chris857 (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Struck. It looks like I forgot to remove it when making this list (which starts from the previous one). BlueMoonset (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK and COI/paid editors

Template:Did you know nominations/Denise Stephens raises a few issues, including:

1. If an article was created and/or nominated by paid a COI editor, should that be explicitly disclosed in the nomination?
2. Should articles created and/or nominated by paid COI editors be eligible for DYK?

Personally, my instinct would be for a blanket ban: No DYK if any COI or payment is involved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

One imagines that DYK should follow whatever guidelines the project overall has deemed appropriate for such scenarios. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about whether she is actually notable. In US academia, being an "associate professor" does not count for much. Edwardx (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Right, well response (a) DYK should follow Wikipedia's response to COI/paid editing and not make it's own rules up (b) if you don't like the notability, WP:AFD is the place to determine it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Paid editing is frowned upon but not actually forbidden so as long as it's disclosed (WP:PAID). COI editing is discouraged but not actually prohibited (WP:COI). That's for general wiki practice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec) It's not so black-and-white, @TRM.

WP:DYK "showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process". Allowing COI/paid editing does not require that it be eligible to be showcased.

COI/paid editing is subject to some restrictions, and it would be perfectly reasonable for the community to choose (if it so wished) to decide that one of those restrictions is that COI/paid content doesn't get showcased. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• notified[6] at WP:VPP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia should have a site-wide guideline with which DYK complies. Unless you're going to apply it to all other aspects of the main page. By which point just use the site-wide approach. A "special approach" to DYK is yet another burden the project could do without. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support banning paid/COI editors from DYK. The thought of such editors getting extra pay for DYK exposure is repulsive. -Zanhe (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per site-wide application of tolerance with honesty and compliance with all other guidelines and policy. If it improves Wikipedia, no problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Regarding question 1, as I understand it, DYK articles are new or newly expanded, so the relevant edits should comply with the paid editing disclosure requirements in Wikipedia's terms of use. So I don't see any need to repeat a disclosure in the nomination. The answer for question 2 depends if the community wants to alter the goals for DYK to acknowledge the work of unpaid editors, versus all editors. isaacl (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose this would discourage people to declare their COI/paid editing status. If people do it properly, then they should be judged on the usual DYK criteria. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with the above that people would just not declare it if the rules said that. Furthermore, if the hook and article are of decent enough quality and of the required standards, then who are we to rob the community and the wider world of being able to see it and improve it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with editors who say that DYK should follow what the rest of the project does, so there should not be a blanket ban. Of course, if it is found out that there was undisclosed paid editing in violation of the Terms of Use, before the hook makes it to the main page, the hook should be disqualified by that. And there is nothing wrong with reviewers setting a high standard that anything that sounds promotional should be fixed before approving a nomination. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  But are we seriously having a discussion on whether or not a DYK hook should be "disqualified"?? If someone is caught paid editing without disclosure etc, a DYK credit is probably the last thing we should really give a toss about. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed. Although in that case, they should lose the DYK too. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose We already have the Terms of Use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• yes for disclosure and no weak support for ban. If we don't ban, It should absolutely be disclosed here - editors with any sort of COI and acting in the spirit of the COI guideline (and for paid editors the spirit of the PAID policy) should disclose locally in whatever forum they are in, to be sure that people with whom they are interacting understand that they have a COI. So yes it should be disclosed. But it should not it be barred? - I could see a situation where we don't, and the DYK nomination should be reviewed on the content merits, with the COI in mind (this is the purpose of the disclosure). I want to remind folks that the heart of the scandal around the Gibraltarpedia matter, was that the project had seventeen DYKs in a single month, and one of the editors organizing it (and doing DYK nominations) was being paid by the Gibraltar Tourism Board for organizing the project. Whatever you think of paid editing or GLAM stuff, the optics of that were terrible. It was actually a thread at this talk page, here, that first raised that issue, as was reported on here for example. So I weakly support the ban to make things simple and avoid repeating what happened with Gibraltarpedia and the Tony Ahn stuff... but this is much less of a big deal to me than disclosure. If the ban fails, then we absolutely should require disclosure Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC) (nuance this Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC))
  • @Jytdog: the nom which prompted me to open this discussion was Template:Did you know nominations/Denise Stephens, where the paid editor @Skyes(BYU) has disclosed their status on their user page, but did not repeat that disclosure in the DYK nom. The DYK reviewer @Whispyhistory spotted the userpage and noted it ... but shouldn't Skyes(BYU) have disclosed it in the nom? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    • This is hard thing, since nobody has to undergo training before they start doing stuff. The COI guideline makes it clear that somebody with a COI (paid or not) should make it clear to who ever they are talking with, in whatever forum, that they are conflicted. Sometimes people fail to do this out of ignorance; sometimes they are trying to hide. I haven't looked at what went on here in particular but I will do. If there is a template used for nominations it would be good to include something about disclosing any COI in it, and in the instructions... Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
      • @Jytdog: yes, the template is {{NewDYKnomination}}. I really like the idea of including a COI disclosure line in it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
        • OK, it would be easy to slot in there (conceptually at least; i have no idea how hard it would be to implement). Let's see if consensus develops to do that... Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Oh, hm. The person is working for BYU so is GLAMish. But yes they should have disclosed this at the nomination. Will leave them a note. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per TRM etc. On the other hand, Denise Stephens doesn't look very notable to me. Black Kite (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support COI and Paid editing being forbidden on the main page unless it passes GA or FA review (which include detailed analysis for POV). We have had instances of paid editors charging money to take an article through DYK and get it on the main page for promotional purposes, which disgraces Wikipedia and puts the credibility of the main page at risk. I have added a note about this discussion over at WP:COIN. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone not noticed that the source given for the hook doesn't support the wording of the hook? The hook states "that Denise Stephens discovered a planet larger than Jupiter?", whereas the Salt Lake Tribune article being used as a cite states that the planet was discovered by three of Stephens' former undergraduates. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose hard rule - I'm against undisclosed paid editing and all, but I guess that provided that the payment was properly disclosed, and the edits otherwise follow our policies and guidelines, then provided the edits are constructive, then I don't think such edits should prohibited in DYK. Nevertheless, whenever such edits are paid, more scrutiny should be given to such edits to ensure that they don't fall afoul of WP:COI. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comments - as far as the specific case leading to this - the editor seems to have tried following the spirit of our rules, but it's not among the best work on Wikipedia. Not the best application of our rules, only marginal notability (at best), not the best coverage of an article's subject. Shouldn't be disqualified from DYK based on policy, but ...

As far as the broader issues raised, many folks have said that we don't need a special rule for DYK and Paid/COI, but rather should follow a "site-wide guideline". We have a site-wide policy WP:Paid and a site-wide guideline WP:COI that should all but eliminate any paid editing at DYK, and eliminate much COI editing here. It would be easier to just inform everybody "No paid editing on DYK articles, and COI editing should be declared on the nomination."

Part of WP:PAID that applies here

• Editors must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contribution to Wikipedia. (italics added) which means that even nominating a DYK requires disclosure.

from WP:PAY, parts of the guideline WP:COI - note that some folks say about this guideline that we don't need to follow guidelines - but they rarely say that about other guidelines

• you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic;
• you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly.
• you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the {{request edit}} template), or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard), so that they can be peer reviewed;
• you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly; (bolding added - this is very tough for paid editors)
• you should not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere;

Since paid editors have to follow both the policy and guideline - it's fair to say "please don't bother even trying". It's pretty hard for other financial COI editors to work with here as well. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

A couple more notes:

In case of doubt on any DYK nom, please just inform WP:COIN and they'll check it out in detail.

So why is the specific case not against policy? The editor should likely declare as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, who only have to declare their employer on their user page. Perhaps there is a reason they haven't done so, so please check with other WiRs (e.g. User:Wittylama) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

WiR/GLAM editors are supposed to use the resources of their host institution to improve articles (e.g. images from the British Museum to illustrate articles about art or archeology). When a WiR/GLAM editors writes about their host institution (in this case, faculty at their employer's institution) they are solidly in COI territory. This is discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Wikipedians_in_residence,_reward_board and see also the guidelines on meta. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"When a WiR/GLAM editors writes about their host institution (in this case, faculty at their employer's institution) they are solidly in COI territory. This is discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Wikipedians in residence, reward board" That page says nothing about faculty. Please stop putting your own overly-restrictive spin on agreed poliices. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Most university PR is about the Great Stuff their faculty is doing. This is directly in line with that.Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"Most university PR" We were discussing Wikimedians in Residence, not ""university PR". You continue - wrongly - to conflate the two. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You are not dealing with the issues here; that is what it is. This article and DYK are definitely university PR and this is not even a little ambiguous. This is not what the WiR program is for, and when WiR people do this sort of stuff, they are no different from say a person who is actually working in the university PR office and should behave accordingly per PAID and COI. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"The issues here" are not a single article, but a proposed change to DYK policy which as written would prohibit WiRs from working here; in that context, "this sort of stuff" is not PR. You still continue - still wrongly - to conflate the two. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Since I was tagged by Smallbones here... These kinds of debates about paid-editing and COI really irritate me so much. They conflate the ideas of covert advocacy on an article (in breach of NPOV and usually also RS), with the idea of being paid. In a venn-diagram of 'advocacy' and 'payment' there is certainly an overlap - undisclosed paid advocacy. But there are people who do the former and not the latter (ideologues, fanboys...), and the latter but not the former (e.g. experts, academics...). What we ought to be cracking down on is paid [and undeclared] ADVOCACY not paid EDITING. This is ESPECIALLY since the concept of 'paid editing' seems to be thrown around so loosely as to also include anything related to an academic's field of expertise, not merely about when editing the article about their employer/boss/company. If we start inventing bans and disclosure rules for DYK about 'paid editing' we not only a) duplicate the rules already in place about COI disclosures, AND make it that much harder to convince cultural/educational organisations to get involved in content creation on Wikipedia. What next, are we going to stop people like Doc James from being allowed to submit DYK nominations on medical topics because he is paid! to be a doctor? Wittylama 14:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: As much as I am against paid editing in general, I am against adding anymore additional unnecessary rules to DYK. Notability and promotional concerns should be dealt with at the nomination page for what it is; as long as the article and hook conforms to policy and guidelines, I have no issues with them appearing on DYK. Alex Shih (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, I support disclosure, but any signs of UPE should be subject to immediate block already. I oppose adding this additional rule to prohibit editors with COI from DYK, as I think the rule would be unnecessarily redundant. Alex Shih (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: Mostly per TRM. Wikipedia already has site-wide guidelines regarding Paid/COI, the existing DYK guidelines are (for the most part) concerned with the quality of the article not who made it. Notability is handled by AFD. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I am against concept of paid-editing in its entirety, I don't see any benefit that this proposal will provide or the problem it is seeking to solve. If content (paid, unpaid or unknown) passes all other criteria and makes it to the last hurdle of DYK I see no point of barring it, after all it is just few hours that they remain on the main page. Without detailed problem that paid articles caused on the mainpage, this looks like a solution in search of problem. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:BITE, WP:BURO and WP:CREEP. DYK is intended for new content and so is especially suitable for new editors. Naturally, these may come with some baggage but it's part of our mission to help them integrate well. For example, I nominated a bunch of articles for DYK which were written by the Women's Classical Committee. This group naturally includes lots of women classicists and so, in promoting their academic field and gender, they have a vested interest and some of them are professionals. But such an interest is true of most of our content creators who naturally prefer to write about things that interest and involve them. So long as the material is of reasonable quality and presented to us in good faith then it's fine. Andrew D. (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as, once again, the Wikimedian in Residence baby is in danger of being thrown out with the spamming bathwater. (Disclsoure: I am often paid as a Wikimedian in Residence). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• There are two proposals; it is becoming unclear as to what people are !voting on. (people are also using the words "oppose" and "support" in opposite ways, which is going to make the close difficult) Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• No and No - Yes, those are two different proposals but I oppose both. 1) DYK is not the place to deal with undeclared PAID/COI problems. If someone lied when creating the article, they won't admit it during DYK review and there is nothing DYK-specific to be done in those cases anyway. And 2), if an article is created in compliance with policy, it hould be eligible for DYK. It would be counterintuitive if we banned articles from DYK that are otherwise not treated differently. Regards SoWhy 15:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• No and No. The Rambling Man expressed it best for me. Gerda Arendt (talk 15:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support ban Wikipedia is not a means of advertising or promotion. We have had examples in the past where paid editors use their ability to nominate a page for DYK as a means of soliciting future clients. If having a Wikipedia page can be an advertisement in itself, regardless of the neutrality of the wording (which I very strongly believe to be the case), then having the article appear on the main page is even more so. Putting paid advertisements on the main page is against everything Wikipedia stands for, and is arguably native advertising, which brings with it legal considerations in several jurisdictions. Under no circumstances should we allow this. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support ban. Even asking the question is like, there's this guy going around the neighborhood selling stolen auto parts, shouldn't we buy them if he's offering a good price? No. The answer is No. – Athaenara ✉ 15:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• By the way, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#‎Tony Ahn PR/Reputation Management has a long discussion of one of the most cynical examples of this, someone who knew the ins and outs of Wikipedia and how to persuade innocent non-promotional editors to support his sleazy cause, he prided himself on getting his clients DYK'd and hence on the main page. – Athaenara ✉ 15:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• And related: Template:Did you know nominations/Tony Ahn. – Athaenara ✉ 15:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support ban NOTPROMO and all that - even if the article is neutral, appearing on the main page for promotion shouldn't be allowed, which is the general aim of paid editors in DYK.... Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  WP:NOTPROMO does not say that articles that conform to the rules can be treated differently because of who created them. Regards SoWhy 17:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support/Oppose Support disclosure but oppose the ban. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Not necessary. Symptom of moral panic. Disclosure  as standard. !dave 18:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The only people panicking anytime that phrase is brought up is the people panicking over the moral panic that doesn't exist. En.wiki policy is already clear that spam is not allowed (which in a way makes this conversation redundant, as even a neutrally written advertisement is still an advertisement, and thus forbidden by policy), and those of us who favour a tougher stance on it are simply trying to make sure existing policy is enforced. Please stop decrying this moral panic: if it exists, it is not on the side you think it is on. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose both disclosure and ban. The Wikipedian in residence issue is of particular concern, as noted above, but also this would apply to things like institutional editathons. Let's not make some editors wear a Scarlet Letter, and also open the door to endless debate over where the line is. It is clear from other guidelines that, for example, a history professor can write about history, a biochemist can write about biochemistry, the "hard line" is if someone is PAID to write a SPECIFIC article, not if they happen to be editing wikipedia during their work time. Frankly, the extreme (and absurd) application of this would argue that if you have any knowledge about anything at all, and maybe once had a job doing it, then you must have a COI. By that standard, EVERYONE has a COI. Example, I'm a lawyer, so do I have a COI any time I edit an article on a legal topic? I think not. Their article and editor is either in line with policy or it is not. DYK has enough to do without having to play COI traffic cop too. Montanabw^(talk) 18:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. DYK is a subset of article writing; we don't need more warnings and labels. In this case an excellent COI disclosure was added to the talk page. I would argue that we don't need to know there is a COI to recognize writing that is spam. Are we all nit wits? What happens if we start to label everything is that, one, we lose the ability to discriminate for ourselves and two, we bias ourselves. In this case if the article was not neutral BHG might have gone to the editor's page and noted the COI then taken some action. (Not a criticism of BHG just another approach) We are sailing in the water of totalitarian control, power in the hands of a few which I personally don't like. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit is not the encyclopedia that a few can control. Already we have issues: WiR is being conflated with COI issues and this has given some the implied permission to harass. Second, positive content is being confused with COI/spam /advertising as we become almost fixated on COI. Some warning/ notice labels are fine; too many and we are creating problems for ourselves and have lost sight of the founding statement which is unique in its simplicity and ease- the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Note I am not advocating for COI editing here just for the tone that comes when we don't lose sight of the overarching goal of the encyclopedia. When we become fixated on an issue the ease is gone and so probably the editors. The editor in this case may become a good Wikipedia editor as she moves from what she is doing now to other areas. She needs support not more regulations.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC))
• Oppose broadly as it's already taken care of by other processes; agree with Alex Shih. Hmlarson (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Already the article has to be within policy, which includes disclosure of paid editing, lack of promotion, and neutrally written. Also the topic has to be notable enough to be retained. Anyway I do not think an extra rule is required. I would be more concerned about the QPQ reviews of such people. Every one has some sort of I in the COI, so the standard checking should reveal if COI causes a bias. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• support disclosure -- consider a possible ban later. The motivation for this is that at lease some paid editors have been usign their ability to get DYKs as a credential. amd therefore have a motive in tryingtoget DYKs that would not otherwise be featured. Thenomination process needs to make sure to consider this element in the decision. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per TRM and Joseph2302. Double sharp (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support a total ban on DYK nominations from paid editors and even DYK that include contributions from paid editors. I make no secret of the fact that I support a total ban on paid editing in all its forms except perhaps for WIR. There is no foundation in claims that allowing any form of paid editing will encourage paid editors to declare theier activity which is but a very small tip of an extremenly large iceberg that is already undeground (under water?) The last place we want their spam or advertorial is on the mainpage. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Stephens, I see one editor has commented "Are we here to build an encyclopedia? Or to run a fanzine for football fans and porn users?" Well no, we do a good line on disused railway stations too .... but again, I think people are missing the wood for the trees. If an article written by a paid editor is that bad, we already have WP:CSD#G11. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose but support disclosure, per DGG. Gatoclass (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support a ban that explicitly excludes GLAM editors and Wikipedians in Residence. Gamaliel (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose in favor of just going with existing paid/COI policy. Don't see why we need a special case here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The "focus on content, not the contributor" arguments fail to recognize the fact that, except in the most obvious cases, volunteer amateurs generally cannot identify the promotional content inserted by marketing professionals. The claim that the restriction would deter good-faith COI contributors from disclosing is a slippery slope leading to abolishing all COI regulations, which is absurd. I think we need to find a way to systematically distinguish the GLAM, WiR and other potentially productive paid editors from the undesirable kind of paid advocates that most of us would like to get rid off. I often see policy proposals aimed at the latter opposed by those who think of the former, which I think is very unfortunate. Rentier (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rentier: "The "focus on content, not the contributor" arguments fail to recognize the fact that, except in the most obvious cases, volunteer amateurs generally cannot identify the promotional content inserted by marketing professionals." I can't easily find a way of calculating how many of the 5,800 articles I have deleted were because of WP:CSD#G11 "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", but I would be surprised if I have deleted less than 2,000 articles as blatant spam. Do you have any examples? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support both proposals, with an exception to the ban for GLAM/WiR editors only when "using the resources of their host institution to improve articles", as Jytdog describes above. DYK is especially attractive to promotional/COI editors due to its prominent placement and relatively easily satisfiable requirements. A bright-line rule is necessary to deter them. James (^talk/_contribs) 23:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, I'm sympathetic to #1 but ultimately if they're playing by the rules then they should already have disclosed in accordance with the TOU their paid editing status. Totally opposed to #2; if the content is good enough to meet DYK's standards then why shouldn't it be put up there? Biased content should be rejected for being biased, not because of it's origin. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC).
• Strong oppose both. The first part per The Rambling Man - there is nothing to be gained from a special rule and potential for it to cause problems. The second part per Joseph2302's comments about discouraging compliance with the COI and disclosed paid editing policies. If someone is a disclosed paid editor there are enough rules in place already, and if they add content suitable for a DYK listing then they're improving Wikipedia which is something we should encourage not restrict. If they aren't following the rules about paid editing that currently exist, why would they follow any new ones? If someone is engaging in spamming, intentional non-neutral editing, etc, then they should not be near the mainspace regardless of whether they are paid or not. Thryduulf (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly support disclosure, and support blanket ban. There's too much pressure from promoters wanting their promotional material to appear here, and too much potential for the whole DYK process to become corrupted by promotional material. Better to put a clean stop to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

  Can you provide any examples in the last two years that support your claims? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Hawkeye7. We already have measures to check CoI editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly support disclosure: we have other sensible disclosure rules in place already and this seems like just another obvious one to make it clear to everyone involved that a major contributor has been paid for their work. Support ban for those who are paid specifically to get a DYK (so in this instance it would not apply, as the user clearly states on their userpage that they are paid by the hour and not by DYK), but I am neutral on a ban for other paid contributors (not including WiRs). I am frankly very surprised at the consensus forming on this page – though I wasn't around for Gibraltarpedia, and don't know the exact situation, I would have thought that a very strong rule would already be in place to stop that sort of thing from happening again (rather than, I understand, a very short-sighted plan discussing only the specific Gibraltar case). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  Disclosure is already required by site-wide policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  No, I mean in the DYK nomination. As in, I support the first proposal. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e)

• Oppose per TRM: if it improves Wikipedia, no problem. As with all articles featured at DYK, an article created by a COI editor should meet all relevant guidelines, including the Terms of Use, thus disclosure should naturally be expected and no explicit DYK-specific requirement should be set in this regard. It is up to editors to scrutinize articles created by COI editors more thoroughly, though the mere fact that the article was paid to be written should not affect its DYK eligibility at all, as long as other criteria are met. feminist (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Overkill solution to a small problem. Esquivalience (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• nah I understand the idea here, the very concept that you can buy exposure on the main page is contrary to everything Wikipedia is about. But as many others have already said, we already ave policies tht cover this, and if those policies are being followed there is no need for DYK to ahve astricter standard. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes and No (as former Wikipedian in Residence, though I don't believe I personally did any DYK's as part of this). Disclose in the nom, but should not be banned. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose banning, support disclosure. Banning all paid editing from DYK is an overreach since it's UPE is already against the rules, but getting notice that some more caution in assessing the article is required is fine, given that successful DYKs will end up on the main page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support disclosure as second choice; first choice is ban. Coretheapple (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose ban - Assuming paid editing has been properly disclosed, one topic is just as valid as the next. Play the ball, not the ballplayer... Carrite (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Simple wording

This should be non-controversial. We already have a policy and a guideline to deal with this. Some folks have already said that we should just follow these, but others seem to be arguing for a special exemption for DYK from them.

Perhaps the most relevant part of the guideline is that COI editors (which includes paid editors) "should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic," (bolding added) which includes the DYK template. So I'll propose the following simple wording

Paid editors and other editors with a conflict of interest should declare this when nominating an article for DYK. The article's talk page should also contain a COI or paid editor disclosure. Any deviations from the WP:PAID policy or the WP:COI guideline should also be reported, either on the template page or at WP:COIN.

Support as proposer. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• The original question 1 did not assume that the editor paid for editing the article in question was making the nomination. Did you want to propose wording that covers the case where an editor is nominating an article that was created/expanded by someone else who is a paid editor? The case where the nominator is the paid editor for the nominated article is already covered by existing policy. isaacl (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Well the specific case discussed was a self-nom, but to make it clear I added "The article's talk page should also contain a COI or paid editor disclosure." (and further bolded the WP:COI extract to include on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic," (bolding added)). That should cover it and avoid the question of "What if the nominator didn't know the article was paid for." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Tony Ahn and his crew, as discussed at length in the COI/N discussion I linked above, were experts at getting other editors to ride point for them on these things. – Athaenara ✉ 17:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course if you are nominating a DYK at the behest of a paid editor - that should be disclosed per WP:COIRESPONSE and WP:COIATTRIBUTE. And the proposed wording avoids the exceedingly rare case of "What if the editor who nominated the article at the behest of a paid editor didn't know that the paid editor was paid?" In general IMHO we should avoid letting extremely rare "borderline" cases determine what we decide here. Trying to make this complete for every possible case just makes it complex and opens other interpretations and borderline cases, and plays into the hands of paid editors. Let's just stick with the sense of the current policy and guideline. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I feel the current policy and guidelines on disclosure are enough when paid editors are nominating their own articles. So the only additional case covered by question 1 is as follows: Let's say there are nice paid editors who just want to improve Wikipedia's articles (maybe Wikipedians-in-residence). So they create articles and don't ask anyone to nominate them for DYK. Then an editor who goes through new pages looking for DYK opportunities sees an article and nominates it. Maybe it's more important to remind reviewers to look at the article talk page for disclosure notices. isaacl (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The thing to do would be include it in the template for creating the DYK nomination. This looks fairly easy if we can get consensus for it. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

That would really be all that is needed. I'd hope folks would also read WP:PAID and WP:PAY. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. There's a difference between paid editing and paid advocacy. Wikipedians-in-Residence fall in the former category but not the latter. (I myself am a Wikipedian-in-Residence, and use an alternate account when editing in that capacity.) It's appropriate and probably a good idea for Wikipedians-in-Residence to disclose their status on the DYK nomination page, but it's not current practice to do a talk page declaration. The wording of any provision like this should take into account how it affects both commercial paid editors and Wikipedians-in-Residence. FWIW, WP:PAID requires disclosure "on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries," emphasis added; only one of these is required. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 07:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

For those opposing disclosure of any COI here at DYK, can you please explain how the community should avoid another debacle like the Gibraltarpedia matter? The heart of the scandal was that the project had seventeen DYKs in a single month, and one of the editors organizing it (and doing DYK nominations) was being paid by the Gibraltar Tourism Board for organizing the project. Whatever you think of paid editing or GLAM stuff, the optics of that were terrible, and this is what was made hay of in the press, and damaged the reputation of Wikipedia. It was actually a thread at this talk page, here, that first raised that issue, as was reported on here for example.

In my view if the COI is disclosed then the people who work this board at least can be aware of what is going on, review the nomination with the COI in mind, and can consider whether something is getting (to import a policy that may not usually be applied to the trend in DYKs) UNDUE weight. I don't much care for blanket bans or more "regulation" but disclosure locally is really just common sense.

Those who don't learn from the past, blah blah.

So, I am interested in hearing a response to that from folks like User:The Rambling Man amd User:SoWhy, and anybody else of course. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yet another false extrapolation. No-one is "opposing disclosure of any COI here at DYK". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why you thought I said that. I said we should comply with the site's blanket approach to COI and paid editing. Read my statement again. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

What he said. COI is not a problem of DYK, it's a site-wide problem. The proposal here was to institute a special check at DYK and that's something we don't need. We should treat articles created in violation of PAID/COI like the rest of the project does, not create special DYK rules or procedures. Regards SoWhy 16:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man and User:SoWhy, the COI guideline calls for local disclosure. Why would you then oppose having COI disclosed as part of the DYK template which would indeed be exactly in line with sitewise guidance? Jytdog (talk)

Because we don't need to repeat site-wise guidance at every hierarchical step of Wikipedia. We don't do it for V or RS or NPA or other policies, why we'd pick this one and roll it out at just one or two "key" locations, I know not. Anyway, I've made my point abundantly clear so no more badger cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"V" is a policy, not a stage an article goes through where we are actually evaluating it. DYK is much more akin to say AfC where we very much look for local disclosure of COI so the reviewers there, review with the COI in mind. Other similar stages an article goes through are GA or FA review, and I would expect COI/PAID to be disclosed locally there as well. The primary reason disclosure is made, is so that review can be done with disclosure in mind. That is what disclosure is for- it is not just some silly checkbox we tack here and there randomly. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

My guess is that checking for verifiability is already ingrained in DYK reviewers, so they already are well aware to make appropriate checks. How about we add item 4(b) to the eligibility criteria, to examine if there are any signs that appropriate disclosures have not been made? isaacl (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Fail, DYKs frequently fail on V, even after they've been reviewed. Local disclosure is covered by the site-wide guidance. Nothing more needs to be added here. If someone is going to hide it, they'll hide it. If someone inadvertently fails to state it, yet the article gets passed (!!) by the DYK review "process", (and even after being re-reviewed by an independent reviewer), there's no actual harm done to the encyclopedia. That's all there is to it. Now, remember, no badgers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I should have worded that differently: I disagreed with the previous statement that verifiability isn't something to be evaluated by DYK reviewers. Perhaps it should be given a subitem under eligibility criterion 4. isaacl (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The key question is on how many guidance pages are we going to put reminders to comply with Wikipedia's terms of use? There are lots of embarrassing situations that can arise, some of them with non-paid editors too. It's a gradual tragedy of the commons: sure, it doesn't hurt to put one more reminder about X on page Y, but as more and more points are added to more pages, people are less likely to read and retain the details. And paid editors interested in following the rules only need to read about the disclosure requirements once; protests from them that they didn't see a mention in subsection XYZ on guidance page ABC aren't valid excuses. isaacl (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, there is only one page that really needs a clear reminder, i.e. Special:CreateAccount. If there was a big message that undisclosed paid editing is forbidden when people register their account, no one could ever claim to not have known about it. Regards SoWhy 17:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"those opposing disclosure of any COI here at DYK": I am not one of those, the question wasn't "any", at least I understood that the question was if we need "extra" declaration on top of what is required project-wide, and I say "No". The normal declaration on user and article is enough for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

So this thread arose, because a DYK reviewer felt that they "discovered" that the nominator was a paid editor instead of having that simply diclosed locally. This is something that happens to people, when they assume they are dealing a volunteer and find out after the interaction begins that the person has a COI of some sort.

This sort of unpleasant surprise happens, and when it does, it is kind of icky for everybody, and is easily avoided. This is why the COI guideline calls for people to disclose locally. Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

And the local disclosure is mandated by the site-wide guideline: COI editors (which includes paid editors) "should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic," (bolding added). i.e. disclosing on this page is not an extra disclosure, simply the same type of disclosure required from everybody. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"mandated" is not really the appropriate word. These discussions about COI become so difficult because so there is some much ...overloading and misdirection. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

What about having paid editors perform two or three reviews for every one they submit? This is somewhat apart from the specific question(s) on the table above. DYK, as with other "formal" community processes (e.g. I'd like to see the same thing at GAN) requires a great deal of time/effort by volunteers -- time/effort which is spread quite thin at times. Paid editing is allowed, and can be done in a way that follows community policies and guidelines as well as the terms of use. But when paid editing activities place a great burden on structured community processes, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask for a little extra engagement with those processes. Sorry if this has already been suggested somewhere above -- coming to this when it's already rather long. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Honestly I would rather that paid editors didn't do any reviews at all, too much risk of QPQ between paid editors. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If they're required to disclose, that would be rather transparent if we had a rule against doing so. Doesn't seem like something that would preclude having them do 2 reviews. Of course that's presuming there is not a ban on it (which it does not look like there is going to be). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Skyes(BYU) is one of my student workers. She just started working this month. I do review the pages my students work on but there is no substitute for having feedback from other editors, so thank you for that. I think the process of going through DYK is more rigorous than a new page patrol and if anything, it provides a good check on the neutrality of new pages. There is a real problem with gender imbalance in the hard sciences in Mormonism, and I felt like we could work to combat this by making pages for Mormon women in hard sciences. I made Cynthia B. Lee and had a successful DYK nomination with her page, but I think the key difference is that she doesn't work at BYU. Skyes(BYU) made Laura Bridgewater as part of this effort and most recently the Denise Stephens page. I've also worked on pages of other previous BYU professors because we had their papers in special collections. Obviously, I'm opposed to banning paid editors from DYK nominations. I am open to hearing a good solution to frequent disclosure of my paid editing for a GLAM institution. Maybe I could put it in my signature? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): You make a good case for my argument. I am 100% certain that a key factor that made my other half sign up to the Women in Red World Contest is that there was money involved. I myself am happy to have got some books as a prize for doing the West Country Challenge. I don't think I'd have been motivated to expand A431 road and Colston bun without some sort of hope of an intrinsic reward at the end of it. In both those articles, I really felt I was trying to squeeze blood out of a stone a bit too much just to get it past a magical 1500 character limit that would count towards a prize, and you can almost see it in the edit summaries. Of course, in my case, the reward was entirely dependent on the work being done properly. I got paid (if you count a free lunch as "paid", which I do because there ain't nothing else) for improving The Minories, Colchester and taking it through DYK, but that was more of a token of gratitude that I'd voluntarily done the work for them. PS: And thank you Wittylama for expressing my views more eloquently than I have been able to.Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment it may just be my take on it but here it is, summed up:

  We have a site-wide policy on paid editing and COI, so it doesn't need repeating.

  If editors avoid scrutiny and get away with paid editing or COI but it's not picked up during t]he DYK review process then it should be just fine, after all the DYK process is designed to assess quality for main page inclusion.

  If editors don't want to confess to paid editing or COI, trying to make them declare it will have no impact. Obviously.

  If editors are subsequently found to have paid edited or edited contrary to COI, they will be blocked/banned per the site-wide policy.

  If editors have succeeded in getting an article to "DYK standard" without being exposed to the COI/paid editing policy, (a) that's amazing and (b) oh well, they've improved Wikipedia at someone else's expense.

  We don't repeat policies and guidelines at every hierarchical step down the chain from the five pillars.

  The fear of promotional floods is completely and utterly unfounded. The reviewers and promoting admins will spot this kind of thing. And as I've said already, even if they don't and the articles are in decent condition, hey ho, the encyclopedia just got a little bit better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Not to mention when we have had floods of articles on similar topics, it gets managed appropriately as DYK is capable of self-regulating these things by limiting the flow. Gibraltarpedia and recently WIR are good examples of how we have controlled this. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  About the two remarks above.

This is not about "busting" anybody. It is about communication.

This claim that we don't "repeat policies and guidelines at every hierarchical step" is just... odd. A COI (including paid editing, including WiR) should be disclosed centrally and locally. So at the userpage, and anyplace else where the editor is looking for evaluation and passage. That is just human - it is reasonable to let the people with whom you are talking, know the deal. If people are talking with someone as though they are a volunteer, and then stumble over the disclosure elsewhere, it feels awkward.. this is exactly what led to this thread, and it is entirely human. So yeah, the COI should be disclosed at the user page, at article talk pages, at AfC, at DYK, anyplace where other people are evaluating things. Again this is the spirit of the disclosure obligation. Make it easy for everyone to understand what is going on, no drama.

User:The C of E how do you arrive at the notion that "Gibraltarpedia ...(is a) good examples of how we have controlled this"... Gibraltarpedia is an example of this not being managed and sliding right by everybody here, and leading to damage to WP's reputation - headlines saying "is Wikipedia's front page for sale?" is not what we want... so what do you mean? Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the disclosure has to be made wherever edits are made by a paid editor, as per the terms of use. But we don't necessarily need to augment every page, form, and procedure with a question asking about an editor's paid status. (*) We can of course choose to do so in as many places as we like, but at some point there are diminishing returns. (The easiest disclosure method for signed edits is probably to put a brief "(paid editor)" message in one's signature that links to a disclosure statement on one's user page.)

(*) It also doesn't scale well; paid editing might be the most important thing to worry about for one set of editors, but for another, perhaps it's the addition of non-verifiable information. For yet another, it's non-neutral editing. There are only so many notes and checkpoints that can be added to the various procedures before it becomes too unwieldy to manage. isaacl (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Comet Ping Pong 2

Nomader posed an image related question at Template:Did you know nominations/Comet Ping Pong 2. The nomination uses a cropped version of an image already in the article, but the crop itself isn't used. Nomader said, I'm 95% sure that it is a cropped version of this photo which *is* in the article, so it should be good to go from that end. I read WP:DYKIMG as that the exact image must be used. So does this mean that the hook must use File:Comet Ping Pong Pizzagate 2016 01.jpg? epicgenius (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It's fine. We crop images from articles all the time. The only question is why the Commons page for the crop doesn't connect it to the full-size image. Yoninah (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems like File:Comet Ping Pong Pizzagate 2016 02.jpg is a close-up of File:Comet Ping Pong Pizzagate 2016 01.jpg, but 02 is not digitally cropped from 01. Rather, it looks like 02 was taken right after 01. So is that technically not a crop? epicgenius (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess not. Why don't you just add the crop further down in the article? Or, you could ask someone to crop out the sign from the image that's already in the article. Yoninah (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

​So I cropped 01, and it almost looks like 02 but not quite. epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

02 is on the left, 01 (crop) is on the right. This should be OK for this nomination, right? epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: it's definitely okay. At thumbnail size, it'll look sharper. Administrators often come by the queue to adjust images as well. Thanks for your attention to detail. Yoninah (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5 - parliament or Parliament?

Oh gosh now I'm nitpicking on the same stingy little hook, but shouldn't parliament be capitalized when referring to a distinct entity and not a generic one? See e.g. [7] [8]. Thus:

... that in 2011, the National Coalition Party (poster pictured) became the largest political party in the Finnish Parliament for the first time in its 92-year history?

Manelolo (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Based on the Wikipedia article, the proper name for the body is Parliament of Finland. Since "Finnish parliament" is not the proper name but rather an informal reference, I don't see the need for capitalization. Gatoclass (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW here is the relevant MOS guideline: [9]. Gatoclass (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Recently passed GA that was once on ITN?

The 2017 World Series was posted on ITN back in November. It was just passed as a GA. Is it eligible for DYK as a recently passed GA, or does the ITN disqualify it from the GA expansion criteria? – Muboshgu (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Regretfully ineligible. Relevant discussion on top at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#About eligibility criteria, 1.e. Alex Shih (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I looked through the archive, but not on the actual page. D'oh. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2 - Luciola cruciata

Currently in Prep 2:

• ... that the Japanese names of the fireflies Luciola cruciata and Aquatica lateralis may derive from two novels or two Japanese clans?

I'm thinking this hook could still be improved a little, along the following lines:

• ... that the Japanese names of the fireflies Luciola cruciata and Aquatica lateralis may derive from two early Japanese novels or the two clans that fought the Genpei War? Gatoclass (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Pinging the nominator Gulumeemee. Gatoclass (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This hook is much more interesting. I added the facts to the articles. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I substituted the hook. Thank you Gulumeemee. Gatoclass (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Admin needed to fix Next Queue and Next Prep numbers

It appears that Template:Did you know/Queue/Next was incremented from 3 to 4 by mistake when Prep 3 was promoted to Queue 3; what should have been incremented from 3 to 4 is Template:Did you know/Queue/NextPrep. Queue 3 is the next queue that needs to go to the main page, and it's filled, but with the wrong number in Queue/Next, it is showing as the last queue, not the next one.

Normally, I'd be able to fix NextPrep myself, but it can't be done when the next queue is empty. So if an admin could please sort this out—Queue/Next from 4 to 3 and NextPrep from 3 to 4—I'd greatly appreciate it. Pinging Alex Shih, Cas Liber, and Maile to see if any are available and able to help. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I am a idiot. Fixed my mistake. Alex Shih (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Queue 3 (live in 2 hours) - Tottenham v Manchester City

Please see WP:ERRORS. This article is a potential CSD:G4 candidate as it has previously been deleted as non-notable at AfD. I'm not going to do it myself as it was me that closed the AfD. Regardless, it fails D6 for tone. Could someone else pull it, please? I will do so myself before 00:00 if I have to, but I'd rather someone else did. Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Pulled by Stephen - thanks. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Black Kite. The nomination was previously discussed at this page, here. I know nothing about the round-ball game, so perhaps somebody should ask the other participants in that thread why they failed to notice the game was non-notable. Gatoclass (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, it was AFD under a different article title, so there's no reason anyone would have noticed unless they remembered the previous article. Black Kite (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

About eligibility criteria, 1.e.

Per previous discussion ([10]). The criteria in question: 1. e. 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. Can we discuss again about possibly removing/updating this criteria? In addition, I was wondering if OTD was added to the rule through any discussions? I think this current criteria is quite unfair to Good Article nominees. Alex Shih (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion about this, here. Gatoclass (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I wonder if the consensus will stay the same. I can see many recent GA nominations being instantly ineligible with the current rule. Alex Shih (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know this rule had been added Alex and haven't formed an opinion about it, so I'm interested to see what others might have to say. Gatoclass (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It's fine as it stands. It avoids the scenario where DYK could feature the same article in quick succession, once as a new article, and then once as a DYK. I don't think many content creators go through GAN to get a DYK out of it. There are millions of articles that haven't been featured on the main page, why should DYK allow articles to be repeated? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, getting a DYK out of it is the main reason for going through GAN. I presumed the rationale was that the OTD checks are more stringent than GAN. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the main reason you personally would go through GAN? I have a couple of hundred GAs and at no point did I ever think "gosh, I could get this through DYK!!"... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

But most of those were before they allowed GA articles at DYK. The idea was to improved the quality of GAs by running them through DYK. If an article is eligible for DYK, then that is where you send it. If the expansion is insufficient, then a GAN is required. If I'm taking an article further, then they go from DYK to ACR. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The idea was to improved the quality of GAs by running them through DYK is that serious? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It's the first I've heard of it. The idea was to give articles that hadn't been at DYK another avenue if they were so large that a 5x expansion wasn't feasible: they could go through GAN and be improved that way, with GA status indicating that they were of "good" quality. Of course, sometimes GA reviewers miss issues that are picked up during a DYK review, so the article quality can be improved, but that's a failure at GAN, and definitely not part of the reasoning behind adding GA eligibility to DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with TRM. It should be maintained. Recently we had the situation where Treaty of Waitangi featured on both DYK and OTD simultaneously. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often. A DYK article on a particular holiday or observance would normally be scheduled for that day; that would also make it a target for OTD. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Even FAs can now be repeated, - if the repeat comes five years after the first, and the article has been improved (see Periodic table). Could we consider something like this? - I made many articles GA to get the DYK, - all these Bach cantatas others had started and I could never expand five times. Thank goodness, none of them had been in the OTD section ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • FAs are allowed now to be repeated because the rate of creation of FAs is not at least one per day. We are continually banging on about the backlog at DYK, why make it worse? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Alex Shih. Anyone who brings an important subject up to GA status deserves to have his work highlighted on the main page. Besides, I looked at the side-by-side DYK and OTD about the Treaty of Waitangi and it appealed to me as a regular reader. Having them side by side reinforced the importance of the subject, and made me want to look at it now. Yoninah (talk) 11:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, I assume by "an important subject", you mean "any article"? Next, please do consider the fact that you are aware of the workings of Wikipedia. Our readers are definitely not aware that each portion of the main page is created independently of one another and would naturally find it totally bizarre to see the same item highlighted in two sections. Plus that skewed the oh-so-precious pageview count!! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I mean a major subject, like that Treaty of Waitangi, other historic events, major locations (like the Tower of London, if it wasn't already expanded and brought up to speed), etc., that has been languishing in stub- or start-class for years and has finally been brought up to GA-class. Yoninah (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't follow. No-one determines if a GA is "important" when considering DYK do they? How weird. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Importance of the topic is not a criterion for inclusion at DYK nor should it be, but a smattering of hooks about more important or notable topics certainly strengthens a set. It's one of the advantages of allowing new GAs at DYK IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Red herring alert. Anything can become a GA so any GA can (currently) be reused at DYK. Importance is completely irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I just checked Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics, Waitangi Day didn't get 22k hits via DYK. Typically OTD articles get about twice as many hits as an average DYK, so I've noted there now that the hits weren't all DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Returning to the original question, I know when an article at DYK will be eligible for ITN, and can hold it back until the dust settles, but how can you prevent an article from appearing on OTD? The OTD nominations are only posted a day in advance, by which time our queues are already loaded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• If we were to maintain the rule as it stands, a note should be added somewhere visible (in the preloaded nomination page, for instance) that Good Article DYK nominations are immediately disqualified if it appeared on the Main Page before. With that being said, to me this contradicts the purpose of the rule, which to quote The Rambling Man is so that no DYK could feature the same article in quick succession. Some flexibility should be allowed, and if we were to allow flexibility for good faith GA nominations (in the case where the editor were either unaware the article has previously appeared on ITN or OTD, went through GAN and took the time to write a DYK nomination), ideally it would help to codify them somewhere. Alex Shih (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  No, it's codified in the rules already, we don't need to repeat certain aspects of the DYK ruleset in the nomination pre-load. If people (including reviewers and promoting admins) can't be bothered to follow the rules, they should be encouraged to do something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  I don't think it would hurt to add: "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" to the checklist, to remind the reviewer that they have to check the article's talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Can someone promote hook for 20-21 Feb?

Can someone add Template:Did you know nominations/Mica McNeill to either Prep 6 or Prep 1 (20-21 February)? Looks like both of those preps are mostly full, but I requested one of these dates as it's when their Winter Olympics event is. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a gap in Prep 6 left specially for it, but I could not promote it because I was the reviewer. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Promoted to Prep 6. Yoninah (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2018 (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) 22:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3 missing one.

Just been looking through the preps and it seems that Prep 3 is missing one hook. Also Prep 1 hasn't been moved the the queue yet. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I left the slot in Prep 3 for another bio, but can't promote one since I worked on them. Yoninah (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Missing hook added by Cwmhiraeth. Alex Shih (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Question about elections rule

Template:Did you know nominations/Armando Ríos Piter is about a candidate for the Mexican general election, 2018 on 1 July. The hook is unrelated to the election, but I was still unsure- can we run the hook now, or do we need to wait until after 1 July? Joseph2302 (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The rule says "featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election" So, I would say it's OK if it's run before June 1. — Maile (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done I put it in Prep 1. Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Elcor, Minnesota

Can someone archive Template:Did you know nominations/Elcor, Minnesota? The nominator attempted to nominate this article for DYK. Unfortunately, it has already passed FAC and is an upcoming TFA. What I am confused about is why the nominator would want to nominate this for DYK if this is appearing on TFA, which arguably has a much larger daily audience. epicgenius (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Left a note on the nominator's page that the article wasn't eligible for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

More BLP questions, this time regarding Template:Did you know nominations/Annalisa Crannell

Is a quote from a living person, posted by a Facebook account that belongs to a major international society of mathematicians, an acceptable source for a biography of said living person? Question is about Template:Did you know nominations/Annalisa Crannell. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we could have a reviewer who reads more carefully, or summarizes more accurately? The facebook account in question is used purely as a hosting service (not as a personal facebook page) by a community of professional mathematicians. It does not belong to the International Mathematical Union, the society JJE refers to, nor to the subject. The IMU listed it as one of a small number of high-quality resources about women in mathematics in this listing, and another major resource on women in mathematics included it in this listing. The page in question in this community is an interview with the subject of the article, and the information used from the page is purely drawn from direct quotes from the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

My reading of the article right now is that it's just fine, and Crannell really does use chopsticks for perspective purposes. It's published in Scientific America and there's even a photo of her doing her "thing". So I think it's okay, good to go, (although I've yet to review the rest of the article); please don't be so aggressive towards those only seeking for accuracy and verifiability on our main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

So, I take that that source https://www.facebook.com/womeninmaths/posts/1590214304524741:0 is fine for the article (not the hook, that has another source)? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

By posting it by its bare url you are casting it in an unnecessarily negative light. Say, rather, that it is an interview with the subject posted by the Women in Maths community. Facebook is merely their hosting service. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This situation seems quite similar to the situation a few weeks ago regarding wordpress, where authoritative texts were being banned simply because of the hosting site.[11] Were it her personal Facebook page, that would be problematic, but from an authoritative source who is simply using a platform as a hosting site, I think we have to use common sense. The Women in Maths community is a reputable source according to information we can glean from other sources about their group, thus, like a blog which belongs to a university, museum, etc. it is acceptable. SusunW (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

So it is OK then. Thanks, I'll go pass the DYK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)