Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 115

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 110←Archive 113Archive 114Archive 115Archive 116Archive 117→Archive 120

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list is nearly used up and about to be archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 24 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 12 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

As of the most recent update, 65 nominations are approved, leaving 265 of 330 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest.

Over one month:

Also needing review:

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) 14:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Attacked and killed

my edit Art LaPella (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed the discussion came to the same conclusion. Art LaPella (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I have pulled the hook for now as I have some questions about its accuracy, as it isn't clear that the number attacked was eight or that they were all atheists - some are just described in the article as "secularists" which is not the same thing. Normally I wouldn't do this but I just don't have time to thoroughly check the sources right now, it will have to wait until tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
A quick review of a couple of the sources indicates that at least two of these individuals were attacked for their political views, not because they were "atheists", so it's clear to me at this point that there can be no quick return of this nom to the queue until the accuracy of the article has been thoroughly checked. Gatoclass (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

I know none of you like to hear from me, but right now we're seeing something like one or two errors per day from DYK at WP:ERRORS. Can you guys pick up simple things like dab links and diacritics and English variations please? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification error

Today, I got a notice of a DYK nomination [1] for a nom from 15 May 2014 which was withdrawn later that day. It was delivered by APersonBot run by User:APerson. Not sure what's going on here. A one-off glitch? Voceditenore (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Better late than never, don't you think? EEng (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Voceditenore, yeah, sorry about that - the bot doesn't scan the language of the discussion to see whether it should send off a notification (such a feature being a bit hard to program). Instead, it relies on whether the nomination subpage is a member of the categories for passed or failed nominations, and since this nom was never hatted, there was no way for the bot to know. I've just hatted the Trevor Corry nom, and I try to visit nom pages that the bot gives weird errors on. TL;DR won't happen again for this nomination. APerson (talk!) 20:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much, APerson. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2015 (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) 08:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Problems with hook in Queue about to hit the Main Page

There are problems with the last hook of Queue 6: ... that The Guardian thinks Nigel Farage is better at eating a bacon sandwich than Ed Miliband?

The article says no such thing. According to the article, "The Guardian said that the sliced bread which Farage ate was easier to eat than the bread roll which Miliband had", which is not even close to what the hook says.

The source, which is a four-sentence blog entry, says "Farage couldn't miss an opportunity to show him how it's done", which is a little closer, but still not good enough to support what the hook says.

More minor issues: a newspaper can't "think", and the Queue's lead hook is about a UK politician and it would be better not to have another in the same set.

The hook was proposed by Ritchie333, who also reviewed and approved the nomination. This is why one shouldn't review one's own hooks.

The Queue is set to hit the Main Page in about 20 minutes, so please take care of this problem quickly. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Without reviewing the problem myself, posted to WP:Main Page/Errors and several admins pinged. EEng (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Pull it. I'll go write 100 lines saying "I must not be funny on the main page". To be fair, there were 2 ALTs proposed, I asked the prep builder to choose, and also pinged EEng for a second opinion at the time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem was not an attempt to "be funny on the main page". It's perfectly fine to have a funny hook as long as you comply with the DYK rules. And to be even more fair, I'd like to point out that your attempted ping of EEng did not appear to be for a second opinion about the article or any existing hook; it appears to be merely soliciting a funnier hook. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I just reviewed my Notifications log and it's not in there (though you clearly made it -- I've seen people discussing this phenomenon). So I'm off the hook, thank God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

How about one of the other hooks instead of pulling? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

My original hook said what has been suggested here, about the sliced bread over the bread roll. If this ever goes back up, consider this hook or another. '''tAD''' (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The six minutes on the Main Page should not prevent this from getting another shot. The author should not be penalized for a bad hook proposed and approved by a reviewer as part of a, frankly, horrible review. I don't understand the reviewer's dismissal of the original hook as "misleading". That hook, unlike the reviewer's hook suggestion, seems to accurately say what both the article and the source say. (However, the source is that same four-sentence blog entry, so I'll leave it to the new reviewer to evaluate that.) The "review" was woefully incomplete. Other than dismissing an apparently correct hook and suggesting and approving an incorrect one, the only thing mentioned as being reviewed was "Article is brand new". All around, a truly horrible excuse for a review. I've reinstated the nomination, and it will require a full, actual review from a competent reviewer. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-English text

May I again remind colleagues to use {{Lang}} when including non-English text in hooks, like this, for the important reasons explained in the template's documentation? We need to get this right, especially on such a high-profile page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I added a little rule-let [2]. EEng (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
We shouldn't clutter up the DYK rules with non-DYK-specific rules. We already have litterally millions of DYK-specific rules. I suppose we could make a page listing some general Wikipedia rules and guidelines which should be observed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with repeating general WP stuff that comes up a lot in hooks and is frequently overlooked. They should not be on a separate page -- too many of those at DYK already. I stuffed this into the "C-series" of "rules" because I couldn't see where else to put it. EEng (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@EEng: Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Notability of Sliding bookcase, now in Queue 5

Is it just me, or does anyone else agree that this article is nothing more than a collection of random examples, with no sources directly addressing the subject itself in any significant way? EEng (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Wild card entry?

Can a did you know have a wild card entry? Charlotte, the baby monkey, has gained lot of attention, can any news by the royal family can be there at any time
117.198.184.5 (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It can be as predicted (not promoting crystal ball):
I assume the above refers to this news story but please note that DYK is for highlighting new or improved articles. A hook without an article defeats the purpose of this project. I think your best bet is to create a 1,500 character article for the park the monkey lives in, mention the above fact, and then nominate it for DYK. Fuebaey (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I sense a notability problem -- see WP:Notability (monkeys). EEng (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@EEng: It is a red link.
117.217.114.126 (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I was joking with the link -- there's no notability guideline for monkeys. But I think there really is a notability problem here, and I can't tell what you're proposing with respect to DYK. EEng (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2015 (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) 10:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Harrias talk 07:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Queue 2 due to hit front page at 12:00 on 18 May

Just a note that the hook for John Wilton (general) as originally written (ALT1 by the way) read "Australian General", not "the Australian General" and I think it still works better without the definite article... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

<munches popcorn> Oh boy, this should be good. [3] EEng (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Replied on the errors page. Harrias talk 16:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
That was literally amazing, I've literally practically written a thesis on the behaviour of the self-obsessed editors based on this story. Now perhaps we can focus on posting accurate and well-written (non-in-joke-not-actually-funny) hooks to the main page. Or, you can just continue to litter the main page with the kind of shite we used to see before good editors like User:Fram gave a damn. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you should be denigrating shites. EEng (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I hear that, in some countries,inappropriate use of the definitive article is a capital offence. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
So is sleeping on the job. We could use those AA guns here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
At times Wikipedia makes North Korea look quite attractive. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Song title needs quotation marks

In the sixth hook of Queue 1, the song title "Girls Talk" should be in quotation marks. Note that the quotation marks should not be bold.

Also, since the eighth (quirky) hook is also about a song, I think this should ideally be swapped with a hook from another queue (or at least moved higher up so it's not just one hook away). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a very minor issue, but still it would be nice to fix it before it hits the Main Page in twenty minutes. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to Jakec for taking care of it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

University of Michigan Athletics

Is there an article about how many times blurbs about University of Michigan sports have occurred on DYK? If not there surely should be. Saratoga Sam (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

First comes the article about how many times blurbs about creeks and streams in Pennsylvania have appeared. EEng (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 24 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 14 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

As of the most recent update, 50 nominations are approved, leaving 261 of 311 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest.

Over one month:

Also needing review:

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) 07:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of tyrannosaur research

Wait a second, I nominated the Timeline of tyrannosaur research as an image nomination. Why is it listed down in the plain text entries? Abyssal (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Because there isn't space for every nom offered with an img to be run with an img. BTW, I assume we will space out the running of these very similar hooks, so as not to lull our readers into comas. EEng (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I've probably had my last 5-10 picture noms run without one... There are probably 4X as many picture noms as picture slots available. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
@Abyssal: I was the one who added your hook without the image. I did it because I noticed you have over two dozen of these dinosaur hooks with images on the noms page, and knew that at least a few of them will run with images. But not all will make the lead slot, lest readers tire of the same subject. Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The more the the the better?

Now in Queue 5:

... that the terrorist attack carried out in Mostar in 1997 by the al-Qaeda remains the most serious terrorist attack in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

"the al-Qaeda"??? Really??? Isn't this the preoccupation beyond the pale now? EEng (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The worst is "the hoi polloi". Too many people do that. Edwardx (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Especially the hoi polloi. EEng (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Apart from the redundant repetition (not even the above, "terrorist attack" is also mentioned twice) and the vague term "serious", the article does not actually say it was carried out by al-Qaeda. "Linked with" and "carried out by" are two very different things. Fuebaey (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Are there non-serious terrorist attacks? EEng (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
It clearly should have been "deadliest". But then you DYKers know best. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not just get it right each time before it's posted to the main page? Looks like quality of DYK is heading south right now. Any one of you give a toss about that? Avoid redirects, avoid disambiguations, avoid grammar fails, pay attention to English variations. That stuff is simple; for you Americans, let's call it DYK 101. Please try harder, and (as you have done with me) avoid chasing people away who are trying to help stop making DYK the regular laughing stock of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I for one would be happy to see you helping out again, but please for God's sake give the bitter denunciations a rest. You have an amazing talent for alienating people, with the result that they don't attend to your real message. EEng (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I have many amazing talents. Getting the encyclopedia right is one of them. I'll ask nicely. Please stop sending errors to the main page guys. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You do not have a talent for "getting the encyclopedia right" because that requires many hands, whereas you regularly offend people so they don't want to participate. You're not asking nicely but with highhandedbess and sarcasm. "For you Americans, let's call it DYK 101"‍—‌go soak your head, will you?
I defended you for a long time hoping you'd eventually cool it, but I must now say that you're one of the most consistently unpleasant good-faith editors I've ever run into‍—‌the word toxic comes to mind. Either stay and help, or go away, but cut out the snotty, superior tsk-tsking. It's not helping. EEng (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
All I can say to that is a heartfelt amen. I think the overwhelming majority of people here would agree with you. Prioryman (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You're all proud of being the regulars at ERRORS? I don't understand why. As for consistent unpleasantness, I really only mirror others' behaviour EEng. You should take a closer look. As for your claim that you have defended me and wanted me to return, you were the sole reason I left. Things don't seem to have improved.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
No one's proud of errors, but you're not helping improve things. As for the rest I'll let others decide. EEng (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Just a point of information, none of the "others" can help you with the absolute fact that it was solely you that drove me away from DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I meant that others can decide whether that's a reasonable charge, based on our public interactions. In any event it was never my intent. EEng (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
No, of course they can't. It's entirely down to me to decide why I left. And it was due to you, regardless of your intent. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Only you (if, indeed, anyone) can say for sure what goes on in that talented mind of yours, but the rest of us are left to judge the reasonableness of your plaint using only what is externally observable. For myself it's hard to imagine anyone or anything, short of a straitjacket, leg irons, and a muzzle, dissuading you from particupating wherever you choose. Please now you have the last word, Rumbling ManGrumbling Man. EEng (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Your hounding and "joking" and criticisms pushed me off fixing the very things that are reported at ERRORS every single day. You are indignant and proud. Good for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
How lovely that you two shy wallflowers have finally found friendship and are getting along so well. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Not a joking matter really, considering the abject decline in the quality of DYK once again, now that User:Fram and I have been chased away. Still, keeps us busy day-on-day at ERRORS fixing up the usual DYK fare. EEng, Prioryman etc must be so proud. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
There's no point to this drama. Someone made a minor grammatical error in a queue. It was fixed five days ago and ran a day after that. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Um, I think you miss the point entirely. These kinds of errors are in every DYK listing every day. A few of us who cared to make the main page more professional were given short shrift and have since left DYK to its own "quality control" which apparently means an almost daily appearance at ERRORS for something that could be fixed by someone who cared before it made it to the main page. Worse, for entire hooks which are entirely inappropriate being pulled. Still, Jakob, you seem so sure about it, it would be great to see you helping out fixing all the errors in the queues and pulling the hooks that are noted as being inaccurate, offensive, etc despite making it to the mainpage as a result of the "quality control" around here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • More to say on this later, but for the moment I've added WP:DYKREMOVED and WP:ERRORS to the little DYK dashboard thingee that appears at the top of this and other DYK project pages, so to make it easier for everyone to see what happens once hooks hit MP. EEng (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Preps and queues...

...need filling. Just did one. Will move the one I just filled to Q5 soon. Might give us a better idea of content and frequency of cycling hooks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

there is enough hooks ready to fill most of the prep queues. Agree that If this was done we would be in a much better place to assess the frequency that we can recycle the main page.Blethering Scot 21:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
If folks can start doing that - my free time very patchy but as an admin I can slot into queues when ready. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Blank review templates

I was going to review the nomination for Ralph H. Cameron (May 1st) but the review template is blank. The same is true of The Icelandic New Business Venture Fund (April 30th). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Pentecost

I wrote an article for Pentecost - celebrated today and in some countries also tomorrow - but then I had to be offline for several days. Template:Did you know nominations/Komm, Gott Schöpfer, Heiliger Geist is now reviewed, but queues and preps for both days are full. Is there any chance to get it in, without image, perhaps as an exceptional additional one in the next set? - It's never too late for creative spirit but would make most sense today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
ps: will you be able to place that to the article talk that it appeared? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Voyager 1

This was recently promoted as GA...and I went to create a DYK template and found......this. So should I just put something at the bottom? Or get consensus here? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Casliber: When you create the DYK template, type in a title like "Voyager 1 (2)" – you can then create a new nomination template without having to touch the old one. 97198 (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
aaah, thanks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey!

How come that RfC got archived? While it had stalled, it hadn't been closed yet. Is it OK to unarchive? Eman235/talk 17:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

See below. Restored. A bot did it. — Maile (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

2x8 --> 2x7

As many of you know, I have tirelessly and tiresomely advocated that when our approved reserve (approved noms not yet in prep + prep + Q) drops below 50, it's time to cut back to one set per day. We're not at the point yet, but we're awful close, after several weeks of steady decline. May I suggest that we cut the burn rate back from the current 2x8/day to 2x7/day, which may stem the tide just enough? This is easy to do because there's no fooling with the bot and update schedules needed. EEng (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree. There are about 270 unreviewed nominations, and the greatest need is for some extra reviews over above the QPQ requirement. Adopting EEng's suggestion would only further slow the sluggish rate at which DYK deals with nominations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. It's like saying that if we spend our checking account down to nothing that will magically make more money start coming in. As a separate matter we should crack the whip (or offer a tastier carrot) on reviews, but until that happens we can't post hooks we don't have. We're already having nearly or actually missed updates daily, and aside from missed updates making us look like fools, they cause prep building and queue review to be rushed, which increases the chance of an error making it into MP. Then you-know-who lays on the tsk-taking and we certainly don't want that. EEng (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
But there's almost nothing to work with when the approved nominations count hovers in the 30s. There are too many U.S.-related hooks and not enough bios to make balanced sets. Yoninah (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
One set per day is fine. I couldn't review one article because I got college work lately and because I no longer am able to nominate someone else's article without a QPQ. --George Ho (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I would also agree that one set of eight is a better way to go at the moment. Yes, this will slow things down, but right now, I think that's a good thing. We need full queues and full prep areas so that we can vet things before they hit the main page. Our priority needs to be keeping the queues and prep areas full, and then building a base of reviewed and ready hooks. When we have full preps, full queues, and lots of reviewed hooks, we can go back up. Right this second, we have room for 86 hooks in the queues and prep areas, and only have 50 verified hooks. That shows, clearly, that we actually have a clear deficit. I support a drop to 1x8. Harrias talk 19:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Harrias. Now the hysterical WikiCup contestants have chilled out a little, there seems little reason at all to rotate DYK quicker than the rest of the main page, ITN notwithstanding (due to its very nature). Slow it down, take time to check for errors and we have a better solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I didn't recommend 1x8 because I thought people would think it was too much trouble. If we do that then when the approved reserve rises to 100 (about a week from now) that's the time to return to either 2x8 or more likely 2x7. Otherwise we'll be back at too many approved hooks like we were a month ago. EEng (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Changed to one set per day. Potentially lots of hits for these hooks! We need to find a way to increase the number of reviews been completed, or this is going to be a much more frequent occurrence. Harrias talk 07:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
You seem to have made a unilateral decision with little discussion and absolutely no consensus. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Given that I enacted the position supported by four users, rather than the one supported only by yourself, I disagree. But irrespective, the real issue is: How do we get more people reviewing? Harrias talk 16:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@Harrias: Not so. George Ho and TRM supported, EEng and I were against the proposal. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. Just before Harrias' post in which he said he'd made the change, I said (well, clearly implied) that I'd be happy with 1x8.EEng (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Surely better to be one set a day for a few weeks until there is enough of a reserve to increase again. Problems isn't necessarily hooks but lack of reviewers.Blethering Scot 17:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we should have a DYK reviewing contest like the GA Cup. I agree that a lack of reviews is a real concern, but even by EEng's system, we still wouldn't go to 1 per day: last time I checked, we had 73 in reserve. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Two for one

  • When I opened this thread the approved reserve was 52; it's now 86, an increase of 34. Of that 34, 8 stem from the one update skipped so far under the now-adjusted schedule. The other 26 are a sudden surge of approvals in the last 36 hours. What this illustrates is the great unpredictability of approval rates, which just underscores the need for a healthy reserve.
I dislike the contest idea because I'm afraid it will encourage rushed reviews. I'd be more happy to see a rule that those with more than 10 DYK credits, who therefore have 5 reviews under their belt, be asked to do two reviews per new nomination, until the count of open noms drops below, say, 100. EEng (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I can see having to do two reviews may put off some people nominatingBlethering Scot 14:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
So be it. EEng (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Certainly at that level; if we were going to implement further QPQ, then I'd say it should kick in until 25, or more likely 50 credits. But I'm not sure it's the route to go down anyway. That said, we clearly need to do something. Harrias talk 15:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Right now we have two kinds of nominations, depending on the nominator: those requiring a QPQ (so nominator is adding 1 to the backlog, but also taking one out, for a net change of 0), and so those requiring no QPQ (adding 1 to backlog and taking nothing out, for a net change if +1). It doesn't take Einstein to see that the sum of a sequence of zeroes and ones is going to simply grow and grow.
The only way to get the sum to decrease is to introduce some negative values into the stream. Conceivably that could be via volunteering (which inserts a -1), but that's apparently not working. The other way is, as I'm proposing, requiring each nominator with 10+ credits to do 2 reviews per new nom, thus turning their 0 into a -1.
Again, this would only apply as long as the backlog is 100 or more. Yes, you can imagine someone gaming the rules by delaying making a nom until the backlog drops below 100, and if some people want to do that, fine -- be that way. (There's a way to fix that, actually, if necessary.)
The problem with having this kick in at 25 or 50 credits is that there are very few such people. (If someone has a way of counting DYKers by # of noms made historically that would be great.)
This approach divides nominators into three groups: newbies (first 5 noms) who don't perform reviews but learn about them by being reviewed; intermediates (5-10 noms) who do one review per nom they make; and sophisticates (10+ noms) who have done 5+ reviews, and are hopefully pretty good at it, who do 2 reviews per nom they submit. EEng (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
There are now 91 hooks ready out of 327 hooks. There is an increase of people reviewing two at a time. Why don't we just have a drive, notifying all participants of DYK to get it cleared.Blethering Scot 21:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Why not just have a drive? Because if 60 editors did 5 reviews each, that still wouldn't clear the backlog, and even if it did it would just grow back, for the iron mathematical reasons I give above. The only longterm solution is to build into the process a mechanism for balancing the no-review provision that applies to newbies with an increased requirement for someone else -- the "oldies" in my proposal. EEng (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
A drive would bring the number up rapidly and solve the current short term problem. Im not convinced enforcing more reviews on medium experienced members is a solution long term, in fact I would argue the opposite. If we are enforcing then I would go with Harrias proposal which only effects serious long term collaborators to DYK and not ones who may only do one two or three times a year.Blethering Scot 21:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Drive what number up? The approved reserve? If that's what you mean you're confusing two different things. We control the size of the approved reserve by adjusting the burn rate, like we're doing now. The purpose of a review drive, or change to QPQ rules, is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed nominations -- but you're right about a drive having only a short-term effect on anything. If we don't want to have to keep having these discussions about the bloated backg we need a systemic fix such as I've proposed.

If you like we can start by requiring double-QPQ for nominators with 20+ credits (instead of the cutoff of 10 that I'd proposed) and see whether that's adequate. Does anyone really believe there ar more than a handful of editors active here with 25+ credits? EEng (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Im not confusing anything, a drive would improve the number of approved hooks drastically decreasing the backlog. That needs done pretty quickly if we are going to get away from 1 update a day, in the short term. I would be happy with 20+ to help longterm but not 10+Blethering Scot 22:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
No, there's something here you fundamentally don't understand. In another 48 hours we'll be at the point where we can return to two sets per day -- no review drive needed for that. If we were to have a review drive, it would be to reduce the backlog of unreviewed noms, not to increase the number of approved noms (though that would be a side effect). If the approved reserved does rise significantly as a result, we'll have to increase the burn rate to eat that up -- there's little point in a drive to move noms from unreviewed to reviewed status, just to hold them up in a new backlog of reviewed noms. EEng (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Your a bit argumentive are you not. The backlog decreases and the number of hooks approved increases. These are fundamentally the exact same thing, as if you do one you, you do the other. As for increasing back to two, that won't help for long unless the backlog is decreased we will be back in the same situation before long. Increasing the burn rate if there are more approved articles is absolutely fine. We have loads of stale articles awaiting reviews and drive is clearly necessary. This is about new content not stale ones awaiting reviews because we don't have enough reviewers.Blethering Scot 11:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I tried. EEng (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Back to 2x8

The approved reserve is at 118 now, so if we don't go back to our normal burn rate quick we'll be bursting at the seams again. EEng (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

What about increasing active administrators? Queues have been locked as always and are still locked. And what about promoting and/or re-reviewing approved nominations? Even nominations' approvals get rebutted. --George Ho (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, both EEng and George Ho should run at WP:RFA to ensure the smooth running of DYK. Both would get my vote by default. Time to step up to the mark. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Pardon me. Is this serious or sarcastic or a joke? --George Ho (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a serious suggestion. Part of fixing the problem means more DYK sympathetic admins are needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Um... I'd rather not. I have to obey all existing policies and guidelines. Of course, I can propose policy changes, but I don't see one broken policy yet. Also, I must deal with vandals and incivility. I have to use protection settings appropriately. --George Ho (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Clearing preparation areas

I updated the Main Page code, and by extention, recoded all the preparation areas, inluding the master template Template:Did you know/Clear. However, some editors keep clearing the prep areas with old code. Either I have missed a template, or those editors are using some private code storage (or the old history). Please use Template:Did you know/Clear only when resetting the prep areas. Thank you. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

1500

Hi. Dr. Blofeld has 1,500 credits. That's a huge accomplishment. Do we have an award for that, and if we don't, can someone create it? --Rosiestep (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

No, we don't have one yet... While on the subject of awards, someone needs to go through Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs and give out the normal awards. It hasn't been done in a while. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe the Dr. Blofeld U Can't Touch This Award? Harrias talk 16:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if Certes would be willing to make a 1,500 award? Harrias talk 15:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Well done Dr. Blofeld. Please stop; we're running out of colours! I've created File:Dyk1500N.svg. I think you'll need at least a {{The 1500 DYK Nomination Medal}} template to go with it but I expect you can copy that from the others at least as well as I could. Certes (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@Certes: That's brilliant thanks! The only thing is... it's actually the File:Dyk1500CE.svg that we're after... *Feeling sheepish for not clarifying earlier.* Harrias talk 12:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
My fault, I think I read through to the previous section and saw the word "Nomination". File:Dyk1500CE.svg created. Certes (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list is mostly used up, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 8 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 30 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

As of the most recent update, 112 nominations are approved, leaving 204 of 316 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest. (There's one from March that could use some attention.)

Over one month:

Also needing review:

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) 03:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No one checked for metric conversions?

Keyser Creek, currently on the main page, has one section full of imperial units unconverted. How did that happen? Tony (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Clearly you don't feel it is a serious issue as you didn't fix the problem upon finding it. Harrias talk 06:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
And before anyone responds with something along the lines of "what a typically useless response from DYK", I would contest that I was only equalling the uselessness of the original post. DYK is not FA, it is not GA, it does not require articles to adhere to every little part of the MOS. (In fact, even the GA criteria only asks for adherance with certain parts of the MOS.) Obviously, it would be ideal if they did, and glaring issues do require fixing. However, the point of DYK is to bring wider attention to new and expanded articles, and part of the reason for that is so that other editors can help to improve them. Finding an issue, then choosing not to fix it, but make a snarky comment here is not useful. If an article on the main page has an issue, it should either be fixed, or be raised at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Harrias talk 06:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
What a typically useless response from DYK. Tony (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Harrias is absolutely correct, except that I wouldn't call Tony's comment snarky, but ignorant (in the not-insulting sense of that word) -- most editors don't realize rather I think it stems from forgetting that DYK is explicitly a place for new content that (usually) needs substantial work, and may even be somewhere between Start and C class. I've often said that articles, while their hook is on MP, should carry a banner saying, "This new article, like most Wikipedia articles, is a work in progress. Click <here> to learn how YOU can help! [etc etc]". EEng (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
"Ignorant" can't help but be insulting. My words for the DYK jokers who are supposed to vet content before it goes onto the main page (a great privilege, not justified in my view) is: lazy, disorganised, and arrogant. Tony (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
As I tried to make clear, I meant ignorant in the sense of "lacking knowledge of a particular thing", not "uneducated and unsophisticated". In any event I've modified my comments to avoid any unintentional offense (and I thought you knew me better than that, Tony).
I disagree re "lazy" and "arrogant", because "disorganized" covers things well enough. It's long been my opinion that DYK should run only 1/3 to 1/2 as many items so that (a) they could all, in fact, be interesting, as called for by the rules; and (b) quality of reviewing etc. could be much improved. But my pleas have been in vain. EEng (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
People come to Wikipedia because they are ignorant of the facts. It doesn't have to be insulting at all. It just means someone doesn't know something. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think what's worse than a few missing conversions is the current inclusion of links to no fewer than three (3) disambiguation pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Information icon Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

EEng (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Well if you can't spot irony, time to ship out! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Back atcha! EEng (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Cripes, EEngy! you're such a card (allegedly). Personally I think you're up Keyser Creek without a metric paddle. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ... yoiu need to get the anti-booing technology installed...
Tony1 I added the convert template into the section I think you were most concerned by. Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, TRM. Tony (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I am more concerned about a section of prose elsewhere saying "The elevation near the creek's source is between ... (540 and 540m) above sea level" which is nonsense. I've fixed it manually based on hand-cranked calcuations. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm more concerned about the now inconsistent use of "between 540m and 540m" in the infobox and "between 536m and 542m" in the main article.... make it stop. P.S. If it ain't in the hook, it ain't getting reviewed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Now in Queue 3...

Nothing to see here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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

I'm concerned about the accuracy of Affair of the Dancing Lamas. While bees dance, and kangaroos box, llamas to my knowledge do not dance. EEng (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Llamas may not dance, but apparently Lamas do. Besides, I'm sure if you google "Dancing llama" you'll get something. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

May be a question for User:Llamasharmafarmerdrama? [4] Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hilarious as ever you lot. Move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you lot, move it like Desmond. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2015 (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.

What's really sad is that this article (no kidding) would have supported the hook

... that the Affair of the Dancing Lamas included a bit part for llamas?

or something like that. Breaks a hooker's heart. EEng (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The use of 'funny' misleading hooks

Enough, already. Wikipedia is no place for humour. Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important.[citation needed]

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.

We've been having a spate of misleading hooks, with 'funny' phrasing and misleading piping in links. Why on Earth are we continuing to mislead our readership? Is it just to show off how clever the editors are? Maybe we could pretend to be an encyclopaedia and act maturely by posting only normal hooks? Fgf10 (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Taking pleasure in humor and wordplay are well-known indicia of intelligence, education, and an appreciation of deeper subtleties. Just because you're unable to appreciate that doesn't mean the rest of us, and our readers, must live in your dull world of droning, lifeless facts. EEng (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Cut the personal insults, please. So are we a wordplay site or an encyclopaedia? The two are not the same. Fgf10 (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
False dichotomy. We are an encyclopedia with a main page containing several features designed to pique readers' interest in a variety of ways. EEng (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Wtf. Are you just trying to be funny?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The whole reason for DYK articles running is often based on how hooky the hook is. If people get tricked into reading a new or improved article because of the hook, then DYK is doing its job. There is no point in just running dull boring hooks as then less new content will be showcased as fewer people will be reading them if the hook is mundane. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
'Tricking'? Really? You used that in a positive sense? Fine, clearly people don't realise what this is doing to the reputation of Wiki, I shall retract my complaint as it is pointless. Fgf10 (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Pointless indeed. EEng (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Let's have more droning, lifeless facts, I say! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
And more DYK's about Britain's worst football team. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Fgf10: It isn't pointless, it's a discussion that needs to be had. In fact, EEng started such a discussion on my talk page recently, although it hasn't gone anywhere. I think perhaps that discussion needs to happen here, with not only the DYK folks, but a number of the regulars from ERRORS, particularly those with concerns about strongly misleading hooks. One way or another, we do need to find the line, otherwise we'll just keep chuntering for the rest of DYK's existence. Harrias talk 16:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just returned from traveling and was about to resume with you. EEng (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Feel free, it was no criticism of the status of that discussion, just a thought that given this thread, the discussion could be had with wider participation here. We can discuss it wherever though, I'm easy. Harrias talk 16:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

For those of us keeping score at home, could we have some examples of offending hooks plz? Herostratus (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, by all means let's see the awful hooks the naysayers are saying nay about. Here's a notorious example of a hook pulled from MP (called by the schoolmarms "atrocious" and "over the line" -- see [5]):
  • ... that while testifying in a 2004 lawsuit involving the meaning of the word steakburger, a corporate CEO was grilled on the witness stand?
EEng (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC) For those who don't know, I wrote that hook, so naturally my authorial vanity was wounded.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that (though I can't find the word mayor in the current version of the article -- I assume the hook made more sense for some prior version). EEng (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The most recent example was " that Van Brunt Creek and its tributary Langan Creek are significant sources of flooding in Moscow, despite not being in Russia?". Clearly this show have been linked to Moscow, Pennsylvania, and the Russia part has no place in the blurb. This is in direct contradiction to the spirit of WP:EGG and the letter of principle of least astonishment. The "grilled" blurb mentioned above, while somewhat immature, is not actually misleading. There is a difference. Apart from this, when was the last time you saw the BBC broadcast a deliberately misleading headline? When was the last time Nature had a article title was didn't cover the contents? When was the last time the Britannica had a joke entry? If they don't, why should we? Is this supposed to be a hobby for people, where they show off their cleverness with words, or is this supposed to be a serious project to develop a global encyclopaedia? You decide. Fgf10 (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
You're right Fgf10 — some of those other media outlets don't regularly use humor or cleverness in their headlines (though they do at least occasionally). However, they're also not trying to recruit new writers to add content. If we're trying to engage potential new editors, why not use a bit of cleverness to get them interested in what's involved? It's only a hook, after all; the articles themselves aren't jokes. Or has research somewhere shown that such hooks actually drive people away? (If so, I'd love to see a link to it, please.) MeegsC (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Well put. EEng (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I won't defend the Moscow hook -- unfortunately we have a stream of hooks in this one topic area which range from simply dishwater dull to (in this case) hopelessly strained. As to whether this is a place for people to show off how clever they are, or is a serious project: again your dichotomy is false, because there's no contradiction between hard work and having a little fun. If you don't understand that then I don't ever want to work wherever it is you work; indeed I can't think of any creative endeavor in which humor isn't a prominent feature.
Our Main Page isn't part of the encyclopedia, and DYK isn't the research section of Nature (which, BTW, has been known to carry the occasional droll caption or subhead) nor should it try to be. As for the BBC, here are a few choice ones:
How immature! EEng (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I hear that Antonio Fazio is very good with some fava beans and a nice Chianti. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree that a little humour sprinkled here and there is a good way to get folks to learn and get involved. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
None of those cited headlines are misleading, and I fail to see why you can't see the distinction. And for the record, I work in a neuroscience research lab, and tend to laugh my head off at least once a day. However, I can make the distinction between what is professional behaviour and what isn't, and when either is called for. It would seem this skill is thin on the ground here. Fair enough, I'll give up (again). Maybe I'll go an fight another losing battle, US bias or something. Fgf10 (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Good choice. It's not that you "know" when so-called professional behavior is and is not called for, rather you are very certain in your own ideas about that question and expect everyone else to share those ideas. In any event, Wikipedia editors are not professionals. EEng (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Usage note: the idiom thick on the ground is used only with count nouns‍—‌at least according to the professionals.
... only if your really thin-skinned. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry User:EEng, it is condescending behaviour from people like you that makes people leave wiki. Rather ironic that you accuse me of being dogmatic.... Fgf10 (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2015 (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.
... said the editor with 391 edits in four year, nine of them (NINE!) in article space [6]. Funny how people who refer to Wikipedia as "Wiki" are always the ones who grasp least how it operates.
You either don't know what dogmatic means or don't know what ironic means; and you either don't now what condescending means or don't know what projection means. You lectured your fellow editors on how things ought to be, with not a smidgen of recognition that, even if there's some truth in what you say (there is) it's not the entire truth, and discussion might be needed (it is) to define the limits of what's acceptable. Some of us are attempting to have that discussion -- join it or don't, but you'll need to drop the meaningless bludgeon-labels such as professional and mature. Now be my guest and have the last word. EEng (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, you guys need to let this go now. Let's get back to the real work here, and leave the cat fights to the children! MeegsC (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you know... that Commons has a category called Female toplessness by clothing color?
This cat's a lover, not a fighter
Or the cats? EEng (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC) P.S. Many people forget that no less than the great John Stuart Mill had this to say about people who dislike fun DYK hooks (On Liberty, "Chapter III Of Individuality, as One of the Elements of Well-Being" [7]):

In some such insidious form there is at present a strong tendency to this narrow theory of life, and to the pinched and hidebound type of human character which it patronizes. Many persons, no doubt, sincerely think that human beings thus cramped and dwarfed, are as their Maker designed them to be; just as many have thought that trees are a much finer thing when clipped into pollards, or cut out into figures of animals, than as nature made them. But if it be any part of religion to believe that man was made by a good Being, it is more consistent with that faith to believe, that this Being gave all human faculties that they might be cultivated and unfolded, not rooted out and consumed, and that he takes delight in every nearer approach made by his creatures to the ideal conception embodied in them, every increase in any of their capabilities of comprehension, of action, or of enjoyment. There is a different type of human excellence from the Calvinistic; a conception of humanity as having its nature bestowed on it for other purposes than merely to be abnegated.

"John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Opinions? Thematic hook set.

Just to check if there are volunteers to offer an opinion: Template:Did you know nominations/K Street Bridge suggests to make an entire hook set on streets, based on a picture that shows them all. I am one of the supporters but this is probably going nowhere. If you could give us a piece of your mind we could end that discussion and move on. --Pgallert (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is worth having. Let me suggest we centralize it on the nom page, not here. EEng (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A Prep area urgently needs to moved to the Queue, being nearly 12 hours overdue (I think). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the last hook misleading by bolding the same article twice? I clicked on the second link to see what the baron was mad about, and then clicked on the first link to see who the baron was – and got the same article:

  • Shouldn't one link be to the top of the article? While I'd normally suggest that the fictional character be the one so linked, being the primary focus of the article, I think the first one in the hook should probably be to the article as a whole. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • If the distinction is the key part of the hook, I'm not sure linking to the top of the article would be good enough. The first section after the lead is still the historical figure. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible problem with current DYK?

Opinions desired. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Bad precedent (?): Someone is bypassing DYK process and changing hooks substantially

Why was the Guryong Village hook changed significantly since it was passed? Compare: Template:Did you know nominations/Guryong Village to what we have now on the Main Page. Crucially, someone (who? I can't figure it out on the main page history...) replaced the well-known Gangnam District that people might have actually heard of (due to Gangnam Style viral video) with the "Dogok-dong" district nobody knows of ("that the Seoul slum of Guryong lies across the street from the luxurious Dogok-dong district?" vs "that the Guryong Village, the last slum of Seoul, is located next to the luxurious Gangnam District?"). This is a MAJOR change that I am sure reduced the visibility of this hook (people who might have been curious about Gangnam are now not going to notice this hook) and should not be done on administrator's copyediting whim. I accept that neutral wording changes (grammar, etc.) are within purview of the admins maintaining Main Page, but this goes beyond it. Changing of "next to" to "across the street" is less controversial, but I don't think it is fully correct (which is why I purposefully did not suggest it in the hook). Whoever made those changes should have at least informed me and the reviewer; as it is now I think that person needs to be friendly cautioned not to change the hooks too much; it sets a bad precedent, particularly considering that such changes may often requires days or weeks of discussion at DYK - not something that should be sidestepped after the process finishes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @Piotrus:, did you read the section two up from this? Editor(s) had some issues with your hook, referenced there. MeegsC (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Nope, because nobody (@The Rambling Man and Crisco 1492:) discussing it there bothered to ping the creator (me) before making wide-scope changes (heck, I did not ever realize the word Seoul was removed too; nice job completely gutting the hook of anything people might recognize!). While it appears I forgot to add a quotation for the "last slum in Seoul" (which I have now done), such extensive changes should have been discussed with me and the reviewer. Even if the DYK was main paged, and the issue of "last in Gangam" vs "last in Seoul" was controversial, we should've at least been pinged. And if, as I think, it was spotted while still in the queue, the hook should have been delayed until we could have replied. As things stand, major changes were done, and they were not necessary at all. As I am approaching a 1000 DYKs this is the first time I recall one of my hooks have been abused so badly, and I am a bit unhappy with the "I don't need to discuss this with the creator, I know better than they" attitude (through I know it stems from being tired, as we are all overworked, so AGF to all involved, and nods for your hard work otherwise). Still, is pinging me and asking for clarification so hard? In the past, I had hooks pulled out of the prep and discussion reopened if issues were raised; I want to understand why this hasn't happened this time. If there are no rules saying this is what should happen, I believe it's hard time to make them (hooks should notr be changed substantially without giving time for creator/reviewers to join the discussion). Anyway, I would expect that the hook should be changed back to the original, more interesting and reviewer-accepted version. PS. Thank you, MeegsC for bringing the above thread to my attention - credit where due. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
      • If you'd rather the hook had been pulled for further discussion, that is fine, and I'll remember that for the future. Personally, if there were a problem with one of my hooks, I'd rather a correct hook with the gist of my suggested hook (contrasting the rich and poor districts) be run on schedule than be delayed for heaven knows how many days/weeks.
      • Furthermore, the issue wasn't simply one of "the last slum in Gangnam" vs. "the last slum in Seoul", although that was what TRM brought up. If the village is called "the last slum in Gangnam" (i.e. it is considered a subdivision of Gangnam), it obviously cannot be "next to Gangnam" (which implies that it is not located within Gangnam). They are mutually exclusive. The slum is, however, next to Dogok-dong. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
      • @Crisco 1492: I agree the refs are a bit confusing. But first, now, we can agree that it is the last slum of Seoul (there is a ref for it, and no refs that say otherwise). This still needs to be fixed in the hook (as it is currently missing the "last" adjective). Second, the point of the hook is to, well, draw readers attention. Which is why the stress of any hook revision should be on retaining the words such as Seoul and Gangnam, which have international recognition. Now, the question of the slum being in Gangnam or not is interesting. Part of it is the confusion between the (smaller) Gangnam District and (larger) [[Gangnam (Seoul)], through having reviewed the sources, I think most of them call it in rather then next to; I think a good compromise might be the English expression "on the edge of". Or, use the following expression: "he luxurious Dogok-dong ward of Gangnam district". I will note, finally, that the current hook incorrectly classifies Dogok-dong as a district, where it is in fact a ward. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I get the feeling that a pull rather than on-the-fly modification would have been a better choice in this case, but the fact remains that DYK is held together with spit and baling wire, so that many, many post-approval mods and fixes to hooks are unavoidable, and it's just not possible to ping everyone all the time. Until the whole process becomes more stable, as explained here, if you really care about your hook you have to keep an eye on it as it moves through prep and Q. EEng (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    • @EEng: I agree - but how am I supposed to keep an eye on it better? I had the nom page watchlisted. The only thing I could've done was to watchlist the queue, but that's just trash on the watchlist for me most days. And sometimes the move-to-queue, featuring and removal-from-queue happen within hours and I cannot react to that (I had all of this happen many times during a single sleep :D). Once it is out of the DYK nom page, there is no reliable way to monitor it, which is why we rely on being notified by pings, and on having enough time to comment. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
It's insane, but if you really care then once you see the nom page close and hook move to prep, you need to watchlist that prep. Then, once it moves from prep to Q, you have to watchlist that Q. THEN, once it moves to the Main Page, you should watchlist WP:ERRORS. Ideally we should get the DYK process to the point at which hooks are F-I-N-A-L before they leave the nom page, but we're way, way far from that. Personally I think we should run about 1/4 to 1/2 as many hooks with higher quality, but to do that we'd have to actually reject most noms (for article quality or hook dullness) but most people seem to think DYK should be like the Special Olympics -- everyone gets a medal! EEng (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I simply checked the hook against the text in the article, something I thought reviewers and promoting admins were supposed to do. Then I brought it up here as an issue. It's really not up to me to go chasing after nominators to ask them nicely to do their jobs better. As EEng has suggested, if you really cared about it, you'd follow its progress from nom to prep to queue to main page. Really, the title of this section should be renamed: "Good news, hooks are being checked!" The Rambling Man (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Chicken in the Rough

Something strange seems to have happened to the template for the Chicken in the Rough nomination and consequently, I was unable to promote the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The template discussion can be accessed through "What links here" on the Chicken in the Rough page. Here it is: Template:Did you know nominations/Chicken in the Rough. Yoninah (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I've fixed it. Unfortunately, the template was renamed after the article was similarly renamed—DYK templates are not supposed to be renamed—so it has been delayed as a result of that improper rename. I suppose that's fitting... BlueMoonset (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I have an idea: Can the nom templates be set "move protected" at the time they're created? That would keep this from happening in the future. (I have a feeling the answer is No, but thought I'd ask.) EEng (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please pull my hook from Prep 1 ASAP

Could someone please pull my Trout Run hook from prep 1 and replace it with something else, as it has been overtaken by events? This needs to be done ASAP as the prep is next to move into the queue. I'll submit a new hook shortly once the article has been updated. Prioryman (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Prep 5

S&S

I can't see a reference in the Sense and Sensibility (soundtrack) article for it being Doyle's first BAFTA nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I've got one, but I'd be shot at dawn if I added that. I'll yank it from the queue pending a source turning up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added another source and responded on the nomination page. Ruby 2010/2013 13:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits needed in Queue 5

  1. Sweet_Adelines_International_chorus_competitions,_2010–2019, bolded in the lead hook as "in 2013", does not meet minimum character count and should be de-bolded and de-credited
  2. [[Valley Falls, Oregon|Valley Falls]], [[Oregon]] should be corrected to [[Valley Falls, Oregon]]. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Given the very serious problem (now under discussion in another thread on this page) with basic grammar and style in many DYK articles, it seems bizarre to pull one because it's 48 characters short of some arbitrary limit. Just leave it and take the time and brainpower that would have been expended on the pull on participating in the discussion re criteria. EEng (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
No, an admin should unbold it and uncredit it. I have no idea why the reviewer claims both articles were long enough when DYKcheck is quite clear this one wasn't, and furthermore the article doesn't have any real meat to it; the 2015 and 2016 prose sections are virtually identical, and a third of the total prose is basically the key to the tables. It should never have been passed in the first place. Calling Crisco 1492 or another helpful admin... BlueMoonset (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Not only should it be debolded, it is far too much of an easter egg link. Also in that same set, there's a claim that "that the Guryong Village, the last slum of Seoul, is located next to the luxurious Gangnam District" but the article actually says that the village has been referred to as "the last slum in Seoul's glitzy Gangnam district"[8] and "the last shanty town in Gangnam" and not the "last slum of Seoul".... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Slop job again

Another DYK on the main page without metric conversion (although it does appear in a caption). Why aren't people checking for basic accessibility? Tony (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, hopefully, with some other stuff too. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you TRM. If I'm not mistaken, Cameron_Park_(Waco) still says “over 20 miles of trails”. And looking back at Keyser Creek, which I pointed out last week, it still has eight instances of unconverted "mile", whereas DYK is, I think, supposed not to be the end of article improvement, but a shot in the arm for it:

      "a mile, exiting Newton Township, passing through Ransom Township, and entering Scranton. The creek then turns southeast for about a mile, crossing Interstate 476. It then turns southwest for several tenths of a mile and receives Lindy Creek, its first named tributary, from the right. The creek then turns south-southwest for several tenths of a mile and receives Lucky Run, its last named tributary, from the right before turning southwest. After a few tenths of a mile, it turns south-southwest again and eventually turns southeast for a few tenths of a mile before turning south. Several tenths of a mile further downstream, it southeast and then south-southwest. After several tenths of a mile, ...”.

      That whole section is unworthy of WP—it reads like a bad attempt at a pirate map (with the unfortunate end that the measurements are awkward in original and putative converted forms ("a few"? Treasure hunt, anyone?).

      It also has incorrectly converted gradients. No one in the metric world would write: "120 metres per mile": "400 feet (120 m) per mile. However, in its lower reaches, once it flows off Bald Mountain and into Keyser Valley, its gradient is only on the order of 40 feet (12 m) per mile." Surely there's a better way. Everyone can understand a 1:12.5 gradient, but someone needs to work it into that simple, universal form. The article still has unconverted feet: "reaching 3100 cubic feet per second. The peak annual ...".

      I'm sorry to be persistent, but this is going on the main page and should be an example. Not all en.WP readers are in the US, Burma, or Liberia. Tony (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Tony, there's no point in continuing to complain that articles don't meed criteria that aren't required by DYK rules, and MOS compliance is one such non-required criterion. Personally I think we should drop the stupid "newness" requirement and instead have DYK consist of only GAs -- imagine if all this DYK effort were concentrated on bringing articles to GA status! -- but I've been a voice in the wilderness. EEng (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
EEng, I agree with your GA point entirely. But what is the answer to the gradient issue? Tony (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I was just getting to that after following up with another smart-alec comment over at MOSDATES. I actually think you're wrong that most people can understand a 1:12.5 gradient, if by "can understand" you mean "have an intuitive grasp of" (aside from the fact some would protest formalizing in MOS the use of colons for ratios). I think the best we could do would be say stuff like "gradient of x feet/mile (y m/km)" or ".08 gradient" or "8% grade" and so on, and leave the reader to his own interpretation of that. (Anyway, does anyone really have an intuitive grasp of how big a light-year is? or an acre, for that matter?) EEng (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
If Stream gradient is correct (it lacks references) then use feet per mile or metres per kilometre, unlike the normal conventions for road and rail gradients. It's not stipulated in the SI. Road signs in Europe commonly show gradients as percentages, but river signs showing gradients are not common. NebY (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I've fixed the gradient conversions. I had fixed identical conversions for a different creek over seven weeks ago, but perhaps the author hadn't noticed. Jakec, instead of doing a gradient conversion as {{convert|400|ft|m}} per mile, it should be {{convert|400|ft/mi}}. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Tony1 sorry that I missed those other conversions in the Keyser Creek article, but I've at least addressed the "miles" in the Waco one. On one point that you've made above, you're absolutely right that the prose in that article was lamentable, I'm pretty sure I could meet the character count criteria of any such article by giving such a turgid and uninteresting account of the path of a minor creek. I'll happily try to fix up these issues as you find them. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

An orphaned article....

Currently Embodied bilingual language sitting in Prep 2 is a genuine mainspace orphan. Besides the fact that hook is dull, (i.e. that the words "kick" and "run" relate to the leg, who knew??), we shouldn't be posting articles at DYK with big "orphan" tags at the top. Suggest this is pulled, a more interesting hook is thought of, and the article actually demonstrate its utility within Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The rules forbid running an article with dispute tags -- improvement tags are OK. If you think that should be changed, propose something. The hook was broken, now fixed -- and is interesting, actually. EEng (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm just asking a civil question. Glad you responded in typical form. P.S. I never said anything about breaking the rules, the rules allow an enormous amount of detritus to be posted from this DYK process as you know and happily accept. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I defended you for a long time hoping you'd eventually cool it, but I must now say that you're one of the most consistently unpleasant good-faith editors I've ever run into‍—‌the word toxic comes to mind. Either stay and help, or go away, but cut out the snotty, superior tsk-tsking. It's not helping. [8] EEng (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
That it is on a semi-obscure subject, without much support, doesn't mean that it can't be linked by someone with the knowledge to do it. It would help if the linguistics devotees were aware of its existence. But it doesn't warrant The Rambling Man's dismissive appraisal as to its encyclopedic worth, IMO. And I've seen far worse articles on the main page as DYKs, so it is not truly beyond the pale. -- 7&6=thirteen 20:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I had no real objection to the article itself, the hook was poor, but if we're using the main page to demonstrate quality articles that are relevant to our readers, we shouldn't be advertising orphan articles. It's really simple. If you don't like it being pointed out, that's fine too. I understand that a few of you have difficulties in this area. By the way, "I've seen far worse articles on the main page as DYKs" is an absolute indictment of the DYK process. Not that it's news, but would you prefer to remove that comment? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I think your observation is apt. We should de-orphan it; not kill the messenger. Fix the problem, not fix the blame. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, it appears to be linked to one article now, thus the removal of the orphan tag is just fine. That the hook is still considered of any interest remains to be seen, I look forward to seeing the pageviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I put two requests for assistance on the Wikiproject Linguistics talk page and at portal|Mind and Brain. Added links to one or two articles. Our ignorance and unfamiliarity with the subject matter does not mean it is a universal attribute. We just need the right audience. they might even be able to give some help on the hook. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I would maintain that orphan tagging does not disqualify a DYK. It is not a dispute tag. However I expect that people that put on an orphan tag actually make an effort to find and make links to the page first. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Filling preps...

If folks could start filling preps that'd be great. I was going to but realised I promised to copyedit something.....and not sure how long I've got. Back later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay folks fill away...(again) gotta run....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to a bit blunt now - the level of attention that is required (see numerous threads elsewhere) is such that I will never have time to update the DYK preps or queues. It's too much like unpaid hard work. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
This is true, you need to re-check all the checks all over again... Perhaps we need to slow it down again. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 5 that have been waiting for a reviewer for a month or more, and the remaining 31 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

As of the most recent update, 121 nominations are approved, leaving 213 of 334 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest.

Over one month:

Also needing review:

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) 03:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Pride theme for June?

I believe there was a semi-organized effort here to run relevant articles for Women's History Month in March, but I'm not a DYK regular and I don't remember how I found out about it. Is there a similar effort for LGBT-themed articles for Pride Month in June? Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, and it's a little late to organize a systematic parade of hooks, but certainly any LGBT-related hook should be highlighted so we can fast-track them to run this month. How would you like to volunteer to check the currently open noms (all 400 of them!) too see if any qualify? EEng (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Thought that was in February? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
June, to commemorate the Stonewall riots. Kind of a US thing but most other countries seem to have followed suit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
@EEng: You say that like it's a daunting task, but there's so few plausible candidates that it doesn't take long. The only relevant ones I saw nominated before today are Mhairi Black and Ximena Bedregal. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Two articles? It may be a little hard to run just two Women's History Month-themed DYKs on the main page. Epic Genius (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what you're getting at there... you're surprised there aren't many current nominations about a topic there's been no effort to solicit nominations about? In any case, I'll rustle some trees; I at least have a few LGBT scientists that should have articles. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like User:Opabinia regalis has already come across Wiki Loves Pride, but yes, there is a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia. We do encourage participants to nominate DYK hooks, but of course this can be difficult for new contributors to understand. I encourage DYK project members to be on the lookout for new content and to add DYK hooks to the Results page for Wiki Loves Pride. Needless to say, all are also welcome to assist the campaign by creating and improving LGBT content. Thanks for your consideration and assistance. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Again, I think the best we can do at this late date is encourage new submissions (quickly, given the glacial pace of DYK review) in appropriate forums, and make sure they get reviewed ASAP so they can run this month. EEng (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
If I can get Graham Chapman through GAN, I'm sure I can do an LGBT themed DYK hook. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I started a Special Occasion holding area for June (LGBT Pride Month) and moved the approved Gayby Baby submission into it. Yoninah (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Prep 6

Google Photos

Google Photos has two bright orange maintenance tags on it, is this generally acceptable these days, particularly as the rules state "Articles must meet the neutral point of view policy" and the tags say "This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source" and "The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints"....? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

To strictly answer the question asked, no an article should not run on the main page with tags on it. However, these tags were added (seemingly as a hit and run job) by EoRdE6 after the article was reviewed at DYK. I've reverted them as no explanation was offered on talk. Wickedly Welsh Chocolate got tag-bombed, but only after it ran on the main page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't seen this before moving the hook to prep 5 to fill the hole there; having seen it, and noted the response by EoRdE6 that the entire Wikipedia article is based on two The Verge articles—the only sources given—I thought it was safer to move this back to prep 1 in case the tags come back. this edit on Czar's talk page says it's an NPOV issue, and when queried by The Rambling Man, EoRdE6 points to this. It seems a legitimate issue to me. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
On further consideration, and having read a few other reviews, I find I agree with the other commenters: the article as it stands now is narrowly sourced and its neutrality suffers thereby. I have just pulled it back for additional work to meet DYK guidelines, and retagged the article, as the tags are appropriate at the present time. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Claudico: misleading hook?

... that Claudico, an artificial intelligence computer program using 16 terabytes ofRAM, won a Texas hold 'em poker championship for computers, but it was defeated by a team of humans?

The article says a computer with 16 TB of RAM was used for strategy development. It doesn't say what kind of computer Claudico runs on while actually playing poker.

Also, there's no space between "of" and "RAM", but this isn't apparent on the Main Page because the link causes a line break. Ian01 (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the main page @Ian01: ... could you check the article? Victuallers (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Image in prep 6

The picture in prep 6 File:Badawi Jabal, 1954.jpg claims to be public domain. It says that it was made in 1954, but the rules seems to say that it is only public domain if published prior to 1954. So is it free or not? If not we could use under fair use, but not at DYK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the licensing statement, the article is free for use in the U.S. as of 2004. Yoninah (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
My point was that this was wrong. I suppose I should nominate it for speedy deletion in that case. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The tag currently in use says that photographs (like this one) are PD in both Syria and the US if created before 1994. The 1954 date is for AV materials and anonymous other works - if this is a screenshot from something that would apply, but it appears to be a simple photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Submission failed, what do I do?

I tried to create a submission for Karymshina, however, my template has come out empty. What do I do to either put the detail in or resubmit. Op47 (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Op47: Everything looks okay except for the fact that you didn't specify a hook. Just edit the nomination page and replace "....?" with the hook. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:24, 12 June 2015 (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) 23:14, 13 June 2015 (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) 12:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Tombs of Battashewala Complex

Could someone please promote Tombs of Battashewala Complex. It's been properly reviewed for weeks and has just been sitting there. I would promote it myself if I knew how, but it's been a very long time since I've done anything at DYK and I no longer know how that system works under the new page structure. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for remaining patient. There are 13 other approved hooks that have been waiting longer. Since we are only running 16 hooks a day, it's taking more time than usual to promote the 140+ approved hooks on the nominations page. Yoninah (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

The Ayes have it. http://i.imgur.com/IkdRP2g.png seems to be the final consensus version, but beware: consensus in this case is a tiny number of people so please be open to reviewing your opinion based on reader and editor feedback post change. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Some people on the main page don't like the formatting of the Did you know section, and have proposed an alternate wording and are looking for a bold admin. See/participate in this discussion. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed at considerable length, but I can't find the archive to reference it. Harrias talk 06:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If this particular problem was discussed before, I missed it. As of now, what we have at DYK is this:

Did you know… From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content: ... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?

Those who feel that the “From Wikipedia's new or recently improved content:” disrupts the sentence “Did you know that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?” suggest that any of the following flows better / avoids fracturing the syntax:

Did you know… ... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram? From Wikipedia's new or recently improved content


From Wikipedia's new or recently improved content Did you know… ... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?


Did you know… ... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram? ... that the above are drawn from Wikipedia's new or recently improved content?


As we know, very few people participate in discussion concerning the Main Page, but of those who have voiced an opinion, six say the present sequence is broke and needs to be fixed, two say it ain’t broke.

Cheers, Awien (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't find the previous discussion either, but I know it happened because I was part of it and made the same suggestions then. --Khajidha (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the Sept 2013 started by you? Or March 2014? — Maile (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you please keep the discussion "over there"? It's pointless to present alternatives shorn of their typographic details, and no "bold admin" is going to change the MP layout without clear consensus. EEng (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I have reformatted this as a Request for Comment, so editors can weigh in here and an administrator can ultimately close the discussion. Yoninah (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
If we are going to have an RfC, let's do it properly with a {{rfc|style|rfcid=326B452}} tag to get it listed, and centralise the discussion either here, or on Talk:Main Page. Harrias talk 15:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I think the discussion should be held here, because it affects DYK primarily, and because all the DYK editors weigh in on this page. The discussion was started on the Main Page talk page by someone who seemed to be looking for a "bold administrator". An RfC is more effective. Yoninah (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 Done Eman235/talk 23:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support change. I agree that it's better to make a direct connection between "Did you know..." and "... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?" That catches the reader's eye. At the end, we could make the line into a sentence: See more new and recently improved content here. Yoninah (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support change, as I have already said on the MP. Eman235/talk 23:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support change for the reasons already explained on the main page: no amount of formatting redeems garbled wording, and no amount of "seniority" is justification for letting it stand. Awien (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose change because it's based on the Procrustean idea that everything's a sentence, and that things should be bent and twisted in obeisance to that mistaken notion. I would, however, recommend that the terminal colon be removed from
From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content:
EEng (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I support change the fact that it has been like this for some time does not mean it's right, or optimal. I suggest the following flow: Did you know... ...that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram? The above were selected from Wikipedias new and recently improved content.Fractal618 (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support change. The current layout puts the "from Wikipedia's new and recently improved content" between the header and the blurbs. You wouldn't write "Did you know from Wikipedia's new and recently improved content that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?" but that is what the current layout implies. Just because something has been done for a long time doesn't mean it should continue to be done. Would prefer moving "from Wikipedia's new and recently improved content" to the end and rephrasing as "that the above were taken from from Wikipedia's new and recently improved content?" --Khajidha (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support change, per the argument given by Khajidha. This is a better way of presenting DYK hooks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support change, This has always bugged me, but I thought I was the only one. Alternatively, if it can't be changed as proposed, perhaps remove all the ellipses so to break the suggestion that the title and the hooks should be assembled into sentences. ApLundell (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Question - It's hard to get behind an idea if you don't know what that idea even entails. So... what change are we discussing? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Answer Remove the words "From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content" from their present location where they intrude into the middle of the question "Did you know that blablablabla?" (i.e. "Did you know From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content that blablablabla?" and put them anywhere else, tweaked as necessary. Awien (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes well... I can't endorse anything until I know where "anywhere else" is. And I don't see a suitable alternative, so oppose change for the time being. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Can we first agree that a change is in order, and THEN decide on what the change is? Since April 29, 2015 multiple alternatives have been suggested. Breaking up the vote into two parts, decreases the chance of a split vote leading to no change, which is the one thing most of us agree is needed.Fractal618 (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Questions - Why is it important to have the phrase "From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content:" on there at all? Wouldn't that solve the whole thing if that was removed? Why move it to somewhere else? Where is the FA equivalent of that in their section? — Maile (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I think something like this would be an improvement http://i.imgur.com/Ev57be5.png Fractal618 (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
That phrase defines the source of the facts, letting people know that these aren't just random things. The FA equivalent is the actual title "From today's Featured Article". (Although I find that somewhat ambiguous for uninitiated readers who might think that it is just any old article that is being featured and not an article determined to be of featured quality.)--Khajidha (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess what I'm getting at, is aren't "random things" the very basis of today's texting on various social sites? Why would the general public care whether or not DYK is like that...or not? At the bottom the "Archive" link points to exactly the same "Recent additions" that the linking "From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content:" does. So, why two links, top and bottom? What purpose does it serve? — Maile (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The general public wouldn't care, the notification is for those who decide to get involved in the DYK process. I don't know why there are two links. --Khajidha (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Understood. But, there again, the "Nominate an article" link at the bottom is for those who want to get involved. — Maile (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggested change format

Agreed. This combines "archive" and "from recently improved content" http://i.imgur.com/IkdRP2g.png I think we are getting somewhere. At this rate we might even get bumped above "Featured Article". Fractal618 (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Your example is exactly what I think it should be changed to. — Maile (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Your example omits the word "that" beginning each one. It's not a main page formatting for "that", but something built into the DYK nomination template. Could you redo it with "that"? — Maile (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Support this with the addition of "that". Eman235/talk 22:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Support if "that" is added. --Khajidha (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
support (w/ thats) - sure thing Maile, when i get a chance. didn't mean to try and slip that by just got a little "delete-happy" after the bullets.you guys made my day by the way :)Fractal618 (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Support with the "that"s added. Awien (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Support with "that" added. — Maile (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Support ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Support - (With "that") It's a minor thing, but I really do think it makes the whole section smoother. ApLundell (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose – FA and OTD both use Archive, so I think it would be preferential to retain that similar formatting, rather than changing it. Harrias talk 15:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


Comments

Is there a metric for determining when a vote is over? Fractal618 (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It's 30 days typically but you can request closure, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs. Eman235/talk 02:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
If consensus remains clear, it can certainly be closed sooner than 30 days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. We started this RfC with a question of whether the line "From Wikipedia's new and revised content" should be moved, and now there is this parallel discussion of whether the "that" should be removed. IMO these should be two clearly defined discussions, which they are not. You're already talking about closing, but I'm not sure what we're closing. Yoninah (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
No one is suggesting that the "that" be removed. It was a typo that we are reminding people isn't part of the proposed change. --Khajidha (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Yoninah, the omission of "that" was a typo, and not what this is about. What Fractal618 has offered, and what is being voted on, is a resolution of what to do about "From Wikipedia's new and revised content". As also discussed further above, that particular line at the top was merely duplicating a link at the bottom. Fractal618's example makes some minor wording change at the bottom, eliminating the need for "From Wikipedia's new and revised content" at the top. This vote is whether or not this is supported as a solution to the original question. — Maile (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
If this was an election, the media wouldn't hesitate to call it at this point … Awien (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
My experience with doing an RfC is that you wait a few weeks for comments, and then turn to an uninvolved administrator to determine consensus and enact the change. Yoninah (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I've requested closure. Eman235/talk 18:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prep 5

Does anyone read the articles they promote? Currently in prep 5 we have Tie the Knot (TV series), with the opening sentence of the Production section thus: "The series was the first for veteran actor Zhang Peihua in fifteen years without filming in Taiwan, playing the role of Nylon Chen's father, although he occasionally involved himself in theater" and goes on "Cheryl Yang, on the other hand, came back to SETTV once again after separating for four years, although she was consecutively given the female lead by other networks since her career break on My Queen"... grim. Any chance that we could write this article in English before it hits the main page? It really needs a {{clean up}} tag on it, which I'm reluctant to do unless I have to. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Pulled from prep and added a copyediting tag to page. Yoninah (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Copyedited it (though some of it defeated me; I don't know what an average of 1.22 is, though it sounds disappointing, and it's anyone's guess what Cheryl Yang is on about here: "According to her, however, she sometimes feel like talking with Chen Zhi Qiang, another co-star in the series, whenever she talked with Dou Dou.") Belle (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, both. Honestly, we really should not be putting this kind of material anywhere near the main page... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Carl Nielsen

You saw it on the Main page: it's Carl Nielsen's 150th birthday. I nominated four articles for the occasion and then forgot about them. Two are approved, two are waiting, today I wrote one more, - please just look for Nielsen on the nom page and do what you can to make them appear within the next 3 days ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Holger Gilbert-Jespersen, Oluf Hartmann, Tre Motetter, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to Belle, the motets are reviewed, - please show as soon as possible ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing. As of the most recent update, 146 nominations are approved, leaving 217 of 363 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Now look bot, give the diffs or go soak your head. Stop bitching about people pointing out the detritus!! Ah, how nice to see a polite comment. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll bite .... "that panic ensued when, during a flood on 7 August 2012, some of the gates of the Pazhassi Dam (pictured) failed to open?" - that's really confusing English and possibly unduly negative (given no lives were actually lost) .... "that at up to 2,700 years, gold coral has one of the longest lifespans of any organism on Earth" - is "up to 2,700 years" necessary? .... "that during research into ankylosaurs, these armored dinosaurs were, for decades, considered to be members of the related but distinct group Stegosauria?" - I'm sure that can be rewritten to flow better .... "that the 1971 play Stallerhof features an old farmer masturbating?" - well it's in the source and it would capture people's attention, but not necessarily in the right way ... in short I don't feel happy about promoting Prep 1 to queue at all. Sorry if that's blunt - I'm not having a go at whoever promoted the hooks or put them in prep as I don't know who they are, rather I'm just saying what I see now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and this after all the checks too. I don't think they're as bad as some have been, but perhaps make a few adjustments yourself? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Okay, I have moved prep 1 into queue. I've copyedited a few things, including the articles where information in the hooks wasn't obviously in the source given, and I've pulled two hooks from the prep, which I'll handle in a minute. I've never done a DYK prep - queue promotion before, so can you check over queue 1 to confirm I haven't obviously screwed anything up, please? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The queue looks fine, the one thing you ought to do (as I have been berated for not doing so in the past) is to re-open the DYK nominations for the pulled hooks with a note, and add them to the Removed subpage with a note as to why. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Should be all done now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
As the person who completed the assembly of the hooks in Prep1, I would say that by pulling two hooks and trimming others, you have left a hook set that is unbalanced and too short in comparison with the "In the news" section to the right. You should have filled the gaps. Someone else had already promoted my gold coral hook before I completed the set. I think it a pity that you removed the reference to 2700 years as I feel that is more interesting than simply "one of the longest lifespans of any organism on Earth." Those individual corals were alive before the birth of Christ, and I bet not many people would know that! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
But not as interesting if somehow organism had come out orgasm. EEng (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Wtf? Creepy, strange, juvenile, out of place, and completely unnecessary, all at once. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
And we should care what you think about others' senses of humor on a talk page because... why? EEng (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Listen, I gotta run. But you rumble on.

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

English

Extended content

Currently sitting in prep 2, an article called "Oru Second Class Yathra", includes a sentence thus: "the issue of refining a proper balance between drama and comedy was the task set for themselves by writer/directors Jexson Antony and Rejis Antony, as a means of juggling between the two modes in order to not wear down the viewing audience". Really? Really? Does anyone read and copyedit these articles before they're up for the prep queues? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Tried massaging it a little....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Any chance we could do something about the overciting in the puny lead and stuff like "The first half of the film was alright, but the narrative flagging in the second half." please, this is hardly what most of us would consider to be encyclopedic, let alone good enough for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
If you think DYK criteria should be changed (and I agree they should -- if it were up to me DYK would carry only GAs) make a proposal for a change to those criteria. But you're wasting everyone's time with your constant demands that articles meet requirements not in the criteria. EEng (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
And you're wasting your time entirely. If you really think we need to change the DYK criteria to include something like "articles should be written in an encyclopedic tone" then I think you've missed the point of the project entirely. I'm not wasting "everyone's time" and I'm not making "constant demands", I'm trying to ensure what we put on the main page is, at least, encyclopedic. Right now, this project is not doing that. Consistently. Instead of making jokes and trying to be clever, why don't you actually do something to improve the quality of these articles? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
My participation here is largely in copyediting hooks, which takes plenty of time and (as you are well aware) is an almost hopeless task -- I try to eyeball every prep set before it goes to Q but I can't always do that, and sometimes I see something that I don't like the looks of when there's just too much else needing attention to take the time to figure out how to right it. If you'd pitch to help with this, instead of waiting until problems make their way to MP so you can have one of your daily apoplexies, it would really help.

Injecting a bit of humor here and there makes the task go easier.

The DYK criteria are very clear on what is and is not required, and there's precious little about article content. The only DYK provisions even vaguely related to content are these:

4. Within policy – Articles for DYK must conform to the core policies of Verifiability, Living Person Biographies and Copyright. Nominations should be rejected if an inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources, violate WP:BLP, or have problems with the close paraphrasing or copyright violations of images and/or text.
a) Articles must meet the neutral point of view policy. Articles on living individuals are carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided.
D7: There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress. Therefore, articles which include unexpanded headers are likely to be rejected. Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. For example, an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, but contains only a bio of the author and some critics' views, is likely to be rejected as insufficiently comprehensive.

It's clear from the above that, rightly or wrongly (wrongly, I think) there's no requirement that articles' writing be good or even decent, no requirement that MOS be complied with, nor are ther any number of other requirements that you and I might wish for. So, I repeat, if you think the criteria should be changed make a proposal for such a change, but you're indeed wasting everyone's time with your constant demands that articles meet requirements not in the criteria. EEng (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, all very good, but we should not even consider posting items that aren't written encyclopedically. If you believe that an adherence to that maxim is "wasting everyone's time", you're barking. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
For the third time, you'll have no effect here whatsoever by insisting that articles meet requirements not in the criteria, and you are therefore indeed wasting everyone's time. So (again) please cut out the snotty, superior tsk-tsking. It's not helping. [10] Now please be my guest and repeat (again) that you want things to be a certain way regardless of what the criteria say. EEng (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'd like articles that feature on the main page not to have {{tone}} placed on them because they aren't written encyclopedically. Do keep up. P.S. I'll stand by what I said in your tsky diff, you really need to stop advocating that we send crap to the main page. Time and time again. Anyway, I'll get on with improving the articles, you keep cracking jokes and supporting garbage articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I think TRM is making a good point here about encyclopedic writing. Now that every single DYK nominator has to post a QPQ, we are seeing tons of approval ticks for articles that don't meet one or another of the DYK criteria. I've also been wondering whether reviewers are actually reading the articles, the grammar is so bad. Hooks are also going through to the main page with red-linked talk pages, or stub-class ratings. The prep builder shouldn't have to spend an hour (usually more) trying to find 8 hooks that meet all the criteria, spending the time tagging and un-approving inappropriate nominations. Yoninah (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
None of that's going to change unless and until we change the DYK criteria. Will you and a few others will join me in trying (again) to raise them? EEng (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
That is nonsense. We shouldn't be passing and then promoting articles to the main page with "they give the it a road movie " (for instance) in amongst a bunch of mainly unintelligble prose. It's a fundamental of the encyclopedia that it is written in grammatically correct and encyclopedically toned English. We don't need a criterion for that, you just need reviewers to do their jobs properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
You keep saying what ought to happen (which no one disputes) while ignoring attempts to discuss how to cause it to happen. EEng (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
And you keep telling me I'm wasting everyone's time by bringing issues here, before they get posted, only to see them get posted, just because you don't have a criterion to hang "proper grammar" and "encyclopedic tone" on. On the main page now we have a complete joke of an article, but you were happy for that to happen because ... well I don't know why, because you're upset with me or something. Who knows. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Why do you keep saying I'm happy to have not-so-well-written articles appear? I'm not. I've simply pointed out that the review process as it stands does nothing to prevent that. If you find an article not to your liking, don't post here to complain about it, just WP:SOFIXIT. The people who participate here already share your concerns about quality, on the whole, so you're preaching to the converted -- and insulting and annoying them at the same time.
So please cut out the snotty, superior tsk-tsking. It's not helping. [11] EEng (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
As long as you stop trying to silence me for pointing out the appalling articles that are being continually delivered to the main page via the DYK process, I'll do my best to stop the tsk tsk, as long as you stop pissing about with jokes that aren't funny and continually starting new sections every time you get overly sensitive about a discussion that indicates that you're not quite in control. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Section break

Extended content

It doesn't have to be a rule. I always carefully edit everything I submit or review for DYK. It is just common sense and should be common and expected practice. However, we are all volunteers here, and we need to try being more civil and less contentious (or snarky) in these discussions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC) + 1 Victuallers (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You do and I do as well. But common sense or not, most people do the minimum required to get their DTK barnstar, so if we want everyone to do that, and reviewers to enforce that they do that, the DYK criteria are going to have to spell that out as a requirement. Will you join me in trying to raise the criteria? EEng (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I will. I would think that the article creators, nominators, reviewers (and those who promote it up the line) are each individually responsible for the quality of the article (it should be written in reasonably well-constructed and carefully-edited English, with an adequate number of WP:RS. If it isn't, then it should be either fixed or bounced back to the lower levels to have it fixed. Just doing a pro forma rubber-stamped review does not acquit one of responsibility. Our signature is our certification of quality. To paraphrase Orson Welles, the quality goes in before the signature goes on.
It's about ownership or stewardship.
I've always either made the changes myself or bounced it back without brouhaha. I always assumed I had some discretion, responsibility and the power to effectuate my decisions. {This may be an occupational hazard.} 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, so what change can we propose to the criteria that will help all nominators and reviewers feel that same sense of duty? Perhaps something like the criteria for B-class (WP:WikiProject_Wikipedia/Assessment#Quality_scale) but maybe only Points 1, 3, and 45 [fixed]]? Or perhaps we should raise the bar, and make DYK require articles to meet all B-class criteria? EEng (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, B-class article imply that not only are these articles eligible for GA nomination, they are also sufficiently long enough and stable enough. Many DYK articles are neither long enough nor stable enough; some DYKs refer to recent events, so it may be a while before it is sufficiently stable—and then, by that point, it is no longer eligible for a DYK. However at the minimum, the sources' reliability, article's verifiability, etc. should be at least B-class, if not the length or stability of the article. So, I'd say 1, 3, 4, and 6. 2 and 5 can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Epic Genius (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I would say 1, 3, 4, and 6. 1 - Appropriately referenced is critical. 2 - These are defined as our newest articles; they shouldn't be expected to be complete or fully cover the topic; they're still in development, so I would not include 2. 3 - Defined structure; yes. We don't want a random collection of information that reads like "Giraffes are the tallest animal in the world they live in Africa and eat trees they aren't the biggest animal by mass but they are the tallest they..." Information should be grouped in logical sentences and paragraphs and sections. 4 - this is what started this whole discussion is articles that are poorly written. It should be at lease well enough written that each sentence makes sense. 5 - I don't think we should require supporting materials, although if they are there more the better. 6 - This is similar to 4, but I think while 4 is discussing poor grammar 6 is disucssing technical or insider language. I think if we're featuring an article on, say, a concept from the Hindu religion on the main page it should be comprehensible to someone who isn't Hindu. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
First of all, sorry -- I originally listed Points 1, 3, and 5; but I meant 1, 3, and 4.
Re ONUnicorn's comments, I think Point 6 is asking too much as long as we keep the "new content" theme of DYK. (I happen to think the whole new content obsession is the true root of DYK's quality problems, but I'm not tilting at that windmill any time soon.)
Obviously Point 1 overlaps criteria already in DYK rules, so it would be great if that part of the DYK criteria could be harmonized with the B-class criteria to the extent possible. EEng (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@EEng: Well, obviously, the text has to be understandable; otherwise, what is the point of writing the article if readers can't understand it? Epic Genius (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
But we need to distinguish between what we'd like an article to be like now (or want it to be like eventually) and what's reasonable to expect from a new article. Now, if you want to join me in calling for an end to the "new" requirement, then we can reasonably expect articles to meet much higher standards, because people will have plenty of time... EEng (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
An article should, at least, be written in English, and in an encyclopedic tone, as is expected of all articles on Wikipedia. Why don't you propose a new criterion that defines that fundamental tenet of the project? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we all agree that, as a start, we want something like B-class Point 4? It reads

The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.

But I think that last bit re MOS is too vague. Maybe we need more like what GA calls for with respect to writing quality, which is

In fact, maybe what we want is some subset of GA, not of B? EEng (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure. GAs are often nominees for DYKs as well, and GAs pass very easily as DYKs, so for non-GAs nominated for DYKs, one would expect the same standard. Epic Genius (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think the majority of current submissions would need substantial work to meet 1a. Perhaps we want to combine B-class Point 4 with 1b? EEng (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's reasonable. It should flow and not create grammatical screw-ups that a first grader could fix. The article doesn't need to necessarily be absolutely typo-free on the first try, unless it's already a GA. Epic Genius (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

So what do other editors think?

The proposal on the table for discussion is to add the following to the DYK criteria:

Thoughts? EEng (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. These ideas are contrary to the fundamentals of DYK which include "Articles must meet the basic criteria set out on this page but do not have to be of very high quality. It is fine for articles to be incomplete (though not unfinished), to have red links, to be capable of being expanded or improved further, and so on. As DYK's main purpose is to showcase new and improved content, it is not expected that articles appearing on DYK would be considered among the best on Wikipedia." So far as the main page is concerned, the DYK hooks are what appears there and they already get plenty of scrutiny. When I look at the main page myself, it's the other sections which cause me to raise my eyebrows and roll my eyes. For example, yesterday the FA blurb highlighted the supposed flatulence of William Shatner - a rather tasteless BLP violation IMO. And I don't consider that ITN's use of the present tense is grammatical for cases which are now in the past, such as the saiga die-off which took place last month. DYK is not a special problem requiring more rules creep. Andrew D. (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
    You are aware that all blurbs in the ITN section are written in the present tense, aren't you? The fact that DYK regularly appears at ERRORS means that something positive needs to be done, that's not rules creep, it's common sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
But Andrew, do you really think that "contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly", plus compliance with four particular MOS sections (out of the scores of MOS sections we have), is incompatible with "do not have to be of very high quality"? EEng (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Grammar issues are typically unimportant and are often a matter of taste. Our focus and energy should be devoted to fact-checking rather than MOS pedantry. For example, recently we showed a picture which purported to be the FIFA HQ but was actually a different building. That was an error at ITN. I'm not seeing any evidence that DYK requires extra vigilance, as compared with those other sections. Andrew D. (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Difference is, we're talking about the quality of the articles, not just errors in the listing on the main page. Other difference is DYKs are sanctioned by a single editor while ITN is handled by consensus. We're also not talking about MOS pedantry, we're talking about writing in English and in the right tone. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Andrew, being free of "major grammatical errors" and flowing "sensibly" isn't a matter of taste, and far from MOS pedantry, the proposal explicitly excludes almost all of MOS. The bar being set here is minimal. It's not that DYK requires extra vigilance, rather that there needs to be a little more guidance on what to be vigilant for. At the moment when a reviewer says, "This article have has [corrected – see below] a lot of grammar errors" the answer is, "That's not one of the DYK criteria". EEng (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No, my answer would be "that should be 'has' not 'have'". My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk)
I has corrected the grammar error in my earlier post. EEng (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Through I will note the fact that the example given in the op would probably pass it; I'd not classify it as "major error", but a minor one. Of course, if I was it in my review I'd fix it or point it out, but... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose That would completely go against DYK's ethos of showcasing new content, not to mention potentially driving away new editors if there are excessive rules or reviewers who crack down on every little grammatical error (which will happen if these rules are brought in). If people have problems with the wording of an article then why not be WP:BOLD and correct it? It helps the article and writer as well as the project as a whole but DYK is not GA and should not require extra restrictive rules to determine worthiness. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sounds like the criteria for Good Articles. DYK is for new articles. Exposure on the front page brings the checkers, and improves the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support—GAs don't appear on the main page, which is our shop-front window to the world. There is no lattitude for sloppy or bad prose in DYKs by the time they reach the end of the queue. We see far too much of it. Slowing down the shifts is the first way you give people enough time to make them ship-shape. So yes, EEng's suggestion is the very minimum, IMO. Tony (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Later addition: In principle I approve of the proposed text, but I'd like to shift it a little, thus: "The article is reasonably well-written, with no major grammatical errors or clearly illogical thematic flow. The article complies with the manual of style for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, list incorporation, variety of English, units, and unit conversions." This suggestion is a compromise between the competing forces at issue: the expected status associated with main-page exposure, especially the avoidance of obvious sloppiness; the need to ration reviewer/admin resources in improving the quality of the queue. The instruction to be mediocre, quoted above, has utterly no place in a main-page forum. I'm appalled to see it: "[articles] do not have to be of very high quality". Strictly speaking, it's not an instruction, and one could argue that the "very" removes the encouragement of mediocrity. But by grammatical metaphor it is not perceived that way. Instead, the instruction is an official imprimatur for a culture of acceptance of mediocrity. It does not need to be stated, and should be removed. What I'm more concerned about is to foster the post-main-page improvement of DYK articles (almost absent, I fear, with no system for monitoring it, even if by intermittent sampling), and a culture of mentoring newbies who might be attracted in via a DYK hook. And we don't want newbies who are not interested in learning about quality. Tony (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean, GAs don't appear on the main page? GAs are eligible for DYK now, and plenty of them appear on the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this looks like instruction creep to me. Reviewers already have a stack of issues to check for at DYK, expecting them to thoroughly vet every article for MOS compliance on top of everything else will only serve as further discouragement for reviewers. This kind of addition is also only likely to give DYK critics more ammunition for nitpicking, leading to more ill-feeling such as that recently evidenced. I am not necessarily opposed to articles being suspended from promotion from T:TDYK for any of the issues listed above but this is DYK not TFA and we should not be demanding full compliance with MOS as part of the essential DYK criteria. Gatoclass (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as a last hope. That we need to enshrine the fundamental necessity that we should write this English language encyclopaedia in an encyclopaedic tone and in grammatically accurate English is amazing, but if we have to have this written out for the reviewers and promoters to see that, well so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Article classification

Extended content

Article classification is a waste of time. It's awarded and ignored as arbitrarily as a DYK is passed as good to go. I have to say that the example I provided at the top of this thread is a shocking indictment of the process here at DYK, and the thoroughness that the editors apply. The nominator, MichaelQSchmidt is an admin with over 54,000 edits since 2008, the passing editor, Epeefleche has more than 147,000 edits over nine years of editing to their name, the promoting admin editor, Yoninah has over ten years experience and more than 35,000 edits. It was then accredited for the main page by admin Casliber who has over 138,000 edits. So we have a total of four editors, three two of them admins, with a combined third of a million edits, agreeing that the article in question is suitable for main page inclusion. It seems clear to me that the DYK process isn't actually necessarily the root cause of the fault here. I have to apologise wholesale to EEng and others, we're really just dealing with a serious lack of attention from all those involved. If we need to change the criteria, as EEng is suggesting, it could only be to "PAY MORE ATTENTION PLEASE". There's simply nothing more you could add to any criteria to make this any better right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

"PAY MORE ATTENTION" to what??? The criteria don't call for the thing you desire. Until they do, there's nothing for people to give their attention to.
We're not talking about using any article assessments that might be awarded outside the DYK process -- we're using the C-B-GA-FA criteria as a touchstone for thinking about what the criteria should be for DYK's inhouse approval process. EEng (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
BTW, Yoninah is not an admin. But yes, all of them are experienced editors, so it would not hurt for them to give a little more attention to the article's standards. Epic Genius (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Just for your info, ITN dropped the B-class requirement because it was pointless – we should not use the C-B-GA-FA criteria as a touchstone for thinking as it's absolutely pointless and arbitrary – where is the oversight for claiming an article to be a C-class, a B-class etc? It's no different from asking the reviewing and promoting editors/admins to use some common sense to check an article is written in English. If you wish, add something to the criteria that says "Ensure that articles are written in grammatically correct English and are written with an encyclopedic tone". This, of course, is 100% nugatory because all articles in Wikipedia should adhere to this fundamental objective. Getting bored of repeating it now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It probably does not need to be 100% sourced, just sufficient enough that these articles won't be challenged with {{citation needed}}—or even worse, {{refimprove}}. However, the DYK requirements do state The article as a whole should use inline, cited sources. Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source. So, maybe there only needs to be one source per paragraph or something, but there doesn't need to be 1,000 sources for a short start-class-length article, as if the article was about to be nominated for FA. Epic Genius (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Sourcing isn't the major issue right now. It's the fact we have people promoting articles that aren't even written in grammatically correct English. And written like a homework project by a ten-year-old. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey, at least we don't have actual 10-year-olds writing these articles, but just to be on the safe side, maybe the DYK process could also require a rigorous grammar check before the DYK nomination is approved. Epic Genius (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The fact that a grammar check isn't performed is troubling. This stuff goes in the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I know, and that's why I'm surprised that such grammatical incorrectness could exist on articles that are linked on the most-viewed page of one of the world's most popular websites. It's like if Twitter management posted something like "see whats happening right now" on the twitter.com home page. However, we are volunteers, not paid management, so it's our responsibility to maintain our articles and make them error-free. Epic Genius (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Old approved nominations awaiting promotion

With 142 nominations currently awaiting promotion (excluding special occasion hooks) and 361 total, it's easy for prep set builders to overlook the ones that have been waiting for a long time since they were approved, since they aren't listed in any order. (One of these, the eldest, is mentioned in the previous section, but all were approved during the final week in May.)

The following are 14 nominations that were approved at least two weeks ago. Since we're promoting 102 per week, these 14 have been waiting longer than average.

I have not checked these to be sure they're fine, so you'll need to do the usual double checks before promoting any of these to prep.

*May 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Raid on Manila (1798)

Please remember to cross off entries as you promote them, or discover that it isn't eligible for promotion at the present time. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Charlie Challenge in Prep 2

Yunshui and others: this has a NPOV maintenance tag (applied yesterday), so should be pulled or have the tag resolved. There are comments on the talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I've pulled it for now, though it's probably an easily resolvable dispute. Gatoclass (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to say that at present I have no interest in resolving this; that article has rapidly degenerated into a mish-mash of crappy sources, POV pushing, regular vandalism and OR. I wish I'd never started the damn thing, and have de-watchlisted it. Yunshui 雲水 07:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Film plots contributing to fivefold increase

I just noticed Dimension 5 (film) sitting in prep 2 right now, along with its barely parsable hook. It's a pretty weak article, written badly with grammar and typo issues, etc, but what I really noticed was that the majority of the fivefold increase came from the addtion of a verbose description of the plot which, per our general approach to film articles, requires no sourcing. This seems like a bizarrely simple thing to do to achieve a fivefold increase in film stubs, the addition of swathes of unreferenced text that can only really be checked by watching the movie itself. Just wondering if that seemed okay with everyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If it is valid within the guidelines for how to write such an article, it should be valid here, imo. Resolute 15:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's my initial feeling. It seems like a really easy way to write a bunch of unsourced verbose text which no-one can really dispute though. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe so. But I don't think DYK is the place to fight a proxy war against a guideline. Resolute 00:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't the point at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I am shocked that such an article was approved and made it all the way to the Main Page. This is not the kind of material that the DYK guidelines support at all. An article that is 20% text and 80% plot is a no go. The reviewer, who seems to be new around here, should not have approved it without asking for more, referenced copy to be added to sections other than plot, and the prep and queue promoters should not have promoted it, IMO. Regarding the fivefold expansion, it appears that the entire expansion was in the plot section, with the addition of only one citation. This is completely unacceptable. But the damage is done – it appeared on the main page. I went ahead and tagged the article for its excessive plot summary. Yoninah (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not shocked at all. I'm glad you've seen it for what I see it Yoninah. Still, while we have such luminaries as Resolute to back up this kind of thing, what hope for DYK? Let's all write overly verbose and rank-average unreferenced text to get an item above 1,500 characters, add a cited hook in a different section, and see how easy it is to creep onto the main page, backed up by admins and experienced editors alike. Guidelines support it! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I am a big fan of how you hedged when my comment was the only one, cautiously agreeing with me - until you started to get the validation you obviously sought. But then you always were one for talking out of both sides of your mouth. Resolute 23:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh you wound me so. You missed the point as I noted. Never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Plot heavy articles are against guidelines , per WP:NOT#PLOT. Mind you, we wouldn't delete it on the presumption that elements like development and reception can be expanded to outweigh the plot for a standalone film. However, it does fail the basic quality guidelines that DYK requires and thus should not have been promoted. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Well there you have it. A hook passed by J Milburn (an admin with 109,000 edits) and promoted by Cwmhiraeth (with 41,600 edits). With this kind of backup for such a poor hook and woeful content, there's little hope here. I wonder why the editors in question were in such a rush to pass such a below-standard article? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

What's up with the DYK criteria? So, if I create a stub (such as the Erfurter Bahn), and then return to expand it in a month, but not fivefold, it is no longer eligible? Should I then have let it sit in my sandbox, to nobody's benefit, till I've had the time to write more? Who is this system supposed to benefit, honestly? Alakzi (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: You clearly want something from me, or else you wouldn't have pinged me. If you have a question for me, say it clearly. I don't care for doublespeak, as I think I have said to you before. If any of these were the question you couldn't bring yourself to ask: Yes, the article's abysmal. Yes, the article was significantly worse before I touched it. No, I don't care if it's pulled. Yes, it meets the guidelines as far as I can tell. Yes, the guidelines are terrible. (Also, Yoninah, I'm not new here.) I'm not watching this page- if anyone has anything to say to me in particular, ping me or contact me on my talk page. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

A truly fascinating insight into those who claim DYK articles are ready to be promoted to the main page. To quote J Miburn: "Yes, the article's abysmal". Brilliant. Well done for blindly following guidelines, and well done for perpetuating the appalling standards currently upheld at DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
We could spend weeks watching this entertaining escapade. A number of DYK quality issues have recently been raised, yet I'm still struggling to see the purpose of all these threads. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has ignored them out of apathy, as is the case for most proposals that lack clarity. Was there an expectation that this would somehow increase article/review quality? Sure, those that read this might agree with the point being made. For those that don't, or the majority that don't even know about it, nothing will change.
A wider analogy would be watching someone complain about about the quality of articles on Wikipedia in general without seeking a proper solution. Fram was cited in a previous post; they were occasionally blunt but at least they would point to an issue, suggest a fix and ping the nominator/reviewers so that they could learn from it. Here this just comes across as unnecessarily abrasive; by editorialising a problem, strawmanning those who don't agree, shaming the reviewers and then using it as an excuse to deplore the failings of DYK. Highlighting a problem can be quite useful, as with any constructive feedback, but continuously using fresh examples to advance an argument while indirectly pillorying good faith contributors is disruptive.
There is currently a centralised RFC about DYK reform in process which editors can provide input to if the intention was to address the quality of DYK articles/reviews. If the suggestion was to do away with DYK because of those quality issues, I'm afraid there is likely to be opposition. However much I disagree with the way EEng went about it, they have a point on how confrontational this has become.
In short, I respect that editors hold quality in high regard but backslapping each other isn't going to accomplish much. Define "quality" so that others can understand it, get consensus for it and then enforce it. And please nix the sniping. Fuebaey (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
In short quality means writing in grammatically accurate and encyclopaedically toned English. Why should DYK be the only section of the main page not to observe such a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia? If those who sanction and promote articles to the main page fail to observe this, they should not be doing the job, regardless of all the good faith in the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I fear there may be a bit of bludgeoning here so I am going to slink away. I will leave you with your own comment: That wasn't the point at all. Fuebaey (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, if we have people knowingly posting articles they themselves refer to as "abysmal", there needs to be a wholesale change in those we allow to perform such actions. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • All parts of the main page are looking weak today so the idea that DYK is uniquely awful won't wash. Consider:
  1. The current featured article is Money in the Bank — one of several PPV wrestling events in 2011. This is grotesquely puffed up like one of its steroid-pumped wrestlers and so it is difficult to read, let alone critique. But its key failing seems to be that it does not adequately distinguish fact from fiction as it is an open secret that professional wrestling is staged. This item therefore fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:INUNIVERSE.
  1. If you actually believe in what you're claiming, you should be nominating the article for deletion. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. In the news presents its items in the style of a news bulletin rather than an encyclopaedia. There are newscaster clichés like "in tennis"; use of the present tense for past events; overlinking of common words like tennis and India; and it is dominated by routine, scheduled sporting events. This therefore fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.
  1. If you actually believe in what you're claiming, then you should make a proposal at WT:ITN to modify the phrasing of blurbs. You should also nominate the various sports items list at WP:ITNR to be removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. On this day leads on Father's Day — a faux holiday promoted by commercial interests such as the greeting card industry. I'm in the UK and the article has an entry for this country but this is not sourced and that may be because the event has no official standing here. This item therefore fails WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTPROMOTION.
  1. If you actually believe in what you're claiming then you'll nominate it for deletion. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. Did you know leads on the list of crossings of Rock Creek. This is thin stuff as it's mostly red links like Thompson Boat Center Footbridge for which little information or references are provided. This seems to fail WP:LISTN and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. But the good news is that, while I was writing this, DYK has scrolled to the next batch which leads on frigatebird. This is a high-quality article which is actually a vital topic. This is therefore especially encyclopaedic and so we have a winner. Thanks to the editors such as Casliber who have written, polished and presented this fine article for our edification. Bravo!
Andrew D. (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Interesting analysis. Are you doing anything about any of these perceived shortcomings? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Can't see a single person anywhere here asking for perfection, just articles written in an encyclopedic tone and in grammatically sound English. Nothing to do with perfection. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • And I can't see you following up any of your claims with anything more than just a bit of a whinge here. If you believed what you'd written, you'd be doing something about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I was done with Wikipedia for the day and, in any case, the main page is protected so that only admins can update it. But I'm relaxed because, by their nature, most items scroll off the main page within a day or so and then never appear again. But I've started looking into WP:OTD so that I can perhaps get Father's Day spiked in future... Andrew D. (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a lot of middle ground between being featured on the front page and being deleted. The wrestling event might be better done as a section in a more general article such as Money in the Bank ladder match#2011 but such bold moves would not be accepted while an FA is on the main page; you can't even propose an FAR while it's up. And once it's off the main page, I'm indifferent to it as it's then just one of millions of obscure articles. What I especially liked about the frigatebird article is that it's vital and so seems worth spending time and effort upon. Andrew D. (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My ears were burning.....ummm, yeah. okay let's find some better articles...for all across the 'pedia. Reviewers can influence by gravitating to articles with more gravitas at GAN and FAC FWIW. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hook source placement

I have a disagreement with Philafrenzy concerning hook source placement in Martha E. Sloan and Template:Did you know nominations/Martha E. Sloan. My reading of the DYK rules (especially 3b) is that the hook source does not need to be placed immediately following the hook claim, but can be deferred until the end of the same sentence. Philafrenzy (the DYK reviewer despite having now made significant edits to the article) disagrees, and has been edit-warring to "fix" the article so that the source is immediately following the hook claim, first by using the same footnote twice on the same sentence [12] [13] and then, after being reverted twice, instead splitting the sentence into two in order to use the DYK rules to force the footnote to be placed immediately after the hook statement [14]. Is this really an appropriate reading of the DYK rules? It seems over-bureaucratic (not to mention a conflict of interest between the reviewer and editor roles) to me. (Additionally, the new version feels awkwardly worded to me, with the repetition of "also" in two sentences in a row, and I don't see a good way of fixing that without reverting to a single sentence that includes both of the novel features of her presidency.) —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not edit warring. Reviewers are instructed to just fix problems. I was about to tick it as OK now in fact. You had two statements, separated by a comma, the first of which was the hook fact but with the ref at the end after the second statement. I just split it into two for clarity. Don't be so sensitive.
Before: "By 1993, she was president of the whole IEEE, the only person to become president of the IEEE after leading the Computer Society.[2][5]"
Now: "In 1993, she became the first female president of the whole IEEE.[2] She was also the only person to become president of the IEEE after leading the Computer Society.[2]"

(There have also been some minor changes to the wording by both of us.) Philafrenzy (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Both solutions are poor, reptitive prose. The split is a little worse as you have two short and clunky sentences which are repetitive rather than just one repetitive sentence. "By 1993, she was president of the whole IEEE, the only person to do so after leading the Computer Society."[2][5] would be my suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Would not it be better to say "By 1993, she was president of the whole IEEE, the only person to occupy that position after leading the Computer Society."[2][5]? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The hook claim is that she was the first female president so we need something immediately after that statement, whereas the original refs appeared to be in support of the following statement that she was the only person to become president of the IEEE after leading the Computer Society. That is the way I read it and I think many others would too. Sometimes we do go for more clunky or repetition in references in order to avoid ambiguity. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No, we should never go for more clunky or repetition in references. This is an encyclopedia, we strive to write professionally. Repetitive prose and clunky mini-sentences is not the way ahead. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The original wording was ambiguous. The article was fine when I ticked it but if anyone want to change that part to something else they are welcome to do so. I have done my bit. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
There were two different claims, "By 1993, she was president of the whole IEEE" and then that she was "the only person to become president of the IEEE after leading the Computer Society." The first one is the hook fact, the second something else entirely but the refs were after the second claim. What was ambiguous was what facts the refs were supporting, the second claim, the first, or both. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. Just because there was a comma, it didn't make it "ambiguous" in the slightest. That's absolutely incorrect. Just because a reader has to wait until the end of a sentence to find a reference, it doesn't make it "ambiguous". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
That's fine, you see it differently, but as the reviewer I have to do the best I can with it and the original wording seemed and still seems problematical to me. Change it to something more to your liking if you wish. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
There have already been two suggestions that are superior, just above these comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Bot that updates the main page is down

DYKUpdateBot, which handles the automatic promotion of queues to the main page and archive of the old DYKs, is apparently down. It's been 100 minutes since the last update was supposed to be made, and the bot hasn't edited since finishing the most recent update at 15:08 on June 17.

In addition, DYKHousekeepingBot, which generates the tables of hooks (total and approved) by date on the queue/prep page and the nominations page, is also down; it's last update was 00:17 (a bit over four hours ago), and it usually updates every half hour.

I have notified Shubinator, the owner of the bots, on his talk page. In the meantime, we're stuck unless an admin knows how to do a manual full update of the DYK section of the main page: not just moving the hooks, but archiving the old set, and handing out credits to the people who created and nominated the hooks in the newly promoted set. If you can handle it—I've pinged Allen3 who usually does the manual updates, but hasn't edited since June 16—by all means go ahead. Otherwise, we'll have to wait for Shubinator or Allen3. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Materialscientist is just now doing a manual update. Looks like we're set for 12 hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Labs is going through a nasty systemwide outage, see the Village Pump for more info. Once Labs is back up I can restore the bots. Shubinator (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
We need an admin to promote a prep to queue. Once that's done, we would then need a knowledgeable admin to do a manual update of the main page, which is technically overdue as of three minutes ago. Thanks to any admin who can help. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Which hook?

A question: When Template:Did you know nominations/Fred Baker (physician) was promoted to Prep 4, the promoter (User:Cwmhiraeth) used Alt1. However, the reviewer (User:Yunshui) had said they preferred the original hook. Not a big deal, but can we use the original hook, or was there some reason for using the alt? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Although the reviewer can express a preference, it's ultimately the promoter's preference that matters. If the reviewer does not approve some of the hooks, then those should not be used, but the promoter is free to pick from the ones that are approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Never mind, then. I was not trying to cause any additional work for the volunteers who maintain this project. --MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I wondered whether the word "conch" was in widespread use and I thought the ALT1 hook was more interesting, so I went for the latter. If someone wants to change it to the original hook, I will not mind. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I can't really speak for other countries, but in the United States, the word "conch" is in widespread use because many schoolchildren have been exposed to William Golding's Lord of the Flies since the early 1960s, most often in the second year of high school. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I liked the initial hook more personally, but I've no objection to using the alt. FWIW, "conch" is a fairly common English word, used to describe the shell, the mollusc or the instrument. Yunshui 雲水 11:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Purge

FYI - At least from my computer, the "List of DYK Hooks by Date" is over 24 hours old since it was updated, and the purge function does not appear to fix it. --Epeefleche (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  • The bots are back as of a few hours ago; the Labs problem which kept many bots from working for nearly two days was discussed above. Generally, when the purge function doesn't work, it's because DYKHousekeepingBot is down due to a Labs or Toolserver issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_115&oldid=1070604732"