Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 116

< Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Robert McClenon in topic RFC: Changing the newness requirement for DYK from 7 days to 30 days
Archive 110←Archive 114Archive 115Archive 116Archive 117Archive 118→Archive 120

7 day requirement and NPP

Latest comment: 9 years ago40 comments13 people in discussion

Lately I have been doing a lot of new page patrol. The backlog at New pages feed is currently a little more than a month old (reviewing articles from April 18 on June 4). I've been working on the oldest ones first.

It sometimes happens when I'm reviewing new pages that I find one that I think would be great for DYK, but by the time I find it it's about 6 weeks old. The rules for DYK are that it must be nominated within 7 days. This doesn't make a ton of sense, as by the time the DYK appears on the main page it's been sitting in the reviewing ques here for a month and is at least a month old anyway.

I know at least one person who frequents this talk page would like to see the "newness" requirement eliminated. I don't want to see it entirely eliminated, but I think 7 days is a little harsh, especially given 1. the backlog at NPP, and 2. the fact that articles don't typically spring into existence on Wikipedia fully formed like Athena bursting from the head of Zeus, but rather develop over a period of days or weeks, and 3. New editors often aren't aware of the DYK process or how to get their work featured here.

I'd like to see the newness requirement loosened to include articles created or expanded within 30 days from when they are nominated. That would have three benefits:

  1. It would allow improved quality of the articles at DYK, because authors wouldn't feel as rushed to "finish" the article in 7 days, but rather would be able to do more research, and leave the article for a few days before coming back to proofread.
  2. It would enable those of us working on the NPP backlog to have the pleasure of highlighting the treasures we find instead of all the focus being on deleting and slapping cleanup tags. (A huge problem with some NPP volunteers)
  3. It would encourage retention of new editors who do good work, as NPPrs could nominate their articles for DYK and seeing their work on the main page would please them and encourage them to continue.

~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Man, I am so totally behind this you can't believe it. The newness requirement‍—‌especially the incredibly rushed seven-day requirement (it used to be five days, believe it or not!)‍—‌is at the root of everything wrong with DYK, and here's why. In a moment, all kinds of people will arrive to explain to you that it's the purpose of DYK to showcase new content, and defend that axiom as if it's obvious new content is something worth showcasing. But it's not obvious, while what is obvious is that focusing on extremely new articles is the reason that the material we deal with here is of such low quality.
The true reason for the newness requirement is that it puts an arbitrary choke on nominations, limiting the amount of material coming through. (In a moment someone will scold you for proposing to "open the floodgates" so that "we will be overwhelmed".) Implicit in that attitude is the assumption that we have to run everything that's nominated, as we do now -- almost all nominations close successfully -- and that any kind of evaluation of merit is necessarily "subjective" (it is, to a large extent, but so what? -- we're not robots here) and therefore either unworkable or unfair.
So that's the way items are selected here at DYK -- not on any kind of merit (article quality, interestingness) -- but merely on newness. We need to get some backbone and adopt actual standards, and start rejecting most of what comes through. Opening up the newness requirement will make it easier, not harder, to find a small number of worthwhile nominations, because we'll be allowing relatively well developed articles instead of newborn rushed ones. EEng (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I echo what EEng said: stop the rush and stop the clamour for medals and credits and WikiCup points etc. Focus on new stuff, sure, but quality new stuff. That DYK has become a dumping ground for an almost daily inclusion of articles on tributaries of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania is a prime example of our lame acceptance of the sub-mediocre. This stuff is not interesting, not quality, nothing of the sort. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree with EEng and TRM. As the change from 5 to 7 days has been without controversy, I've been meaning to suggest 14 days. However, I'd not thought about the possibility of NPP picking up overlooked articles, so why not 30 (or even more) days? After all, the focus ought to be on interesting hooks to interesting well-enough written articles. For almost everything in DYK, our readers aren't going to know or care how long ago the article itself was started. And for stuff where there is an actual topicality pressure, we have ITN anyway. Edwardx (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I like this idea. I have nominated one or two articles I found at NPP for DYK, and might do more if the expiration issues did not complicate things. Patrolling the page is a logged event, so we could just change to the language to within 7 (or 14) days of the review. VQuakr (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I like the idea of changing the language to w/in 7 days after the review as an alternate to my original proposal. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Support this idea for the reasons given above. When readers see "new and recently improved content" they just assume it is fairly recent, they don't care whether it is 7 or 30 days and we regularly run very old content because it has been expanded. Most readers will not be checking the history or the age because they don't know how an article is made anyway, or care. 30 days sounds good. It can always be changed back if it doesn't work. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
A wonderful idea to invigorate the project which has my full support. So many DYK hooks are insufferably dull these days, and a month limit would be good and the reward of a main page feature might attract some editing newbies. I wouldn't necessarily be against removing the date limit all together, I've very often sufficiently expanded a page that is many years old (and deserves a wider audience) knowing that I'll never put the effort in to get it to GA. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with all the points made above. I'd also like to do away with the "approve the hook at all costs", even after the nominator has disappeared and it's left to the DYK reviewer to finish it or else. If nominators knew that both their article and hook could be rejected for lack of quality or interest, they would put more effort into it, and we'd all benefit. Yoninah (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Please continue discussion in this section re the general idea of increasing newness requirement from 7 days to (for example) 30 days.

I don't see how 30 days solves the original problem: NPP is currently taking about 42 days after creation to patrol a new article, so the article would still be ineligible. If we were to carve out a special exemption for NPP-found articles (suggested by VQuakr), then the current 7 days should be more than sufficient after the NPP tag is added. There's also a potential hitch: like all other nominators, patrollers would be responsible for providing quid pro quo reviews along with their nominations after they submitted their first five freebies. If they aren't prepared to do this, then we're not going to get many new article nominations from this very significant change to DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
It's like I was only away for a day. Plus ça change... Belle (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought that after I posted, that 30 days would still put us behind, but not as far behind; plus I still wanted there to be some limit and I figured a month was nice and easy for people to wrap their head around. I also like VQuakr's idea of changing the language to X days after the page is patrolled; but even in that instance I think increasing the time from a week would provide additional benefits in terms of increased quality.
I'm not sure how many DYK noms would come from NPP patrollers. I know I would nominate some, and gladly provide QPQs, but then I also try to improve most of the articles I tag, whereas a lot of people that do exclusively NPP work are focused on deletion and tag bombing. I think there'd have to be an effort over there to convince people that recognizing the good along with recognizing the bad is part of the territory, including maybe adding a DYK script to the page curation tool so it does it semi-automatically the way it does the AFDs. Part and parcel of that would be encouraging QPQ as part of the process. But we can work on that over there once we've agreed over here that a slight change in the DYK rules is warranted. Also, I've put a message over there encouraging NPPers to participate in this discussion.
I'm not too worried about, as EEng says, "opening the floodgates". I don't think this change would increase the number of noms that substantially, though I do think there would be an increase. At any rate, if we try it and are overwhelmed we can discuss other changes. (Some of which, like requiring a minimal standard of quality, or voting on which hooks are the most interesting, are probably warranted). ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Wait, is the proposal to simply increase the "newness" limit to 30 days (or something), or is it to add a special provision of X days after it's patrolled. I don't like the latter -- one more strange rule, and one that involves an unpredictable element i.e. when NPP gets to it. Someone creating an article ought to be able to know he has 30 days to nominate, without wondering when NPP will get to it. And the new 30-day limit should apply to everything (new articles, expanded, GA) not just new articles. EEng (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Then let's stick with my original proposal and not complicate things. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyone else? EEng (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Since the original reason was to help NPP, but 30 days won't help NPP since they're closer to 45 days, this is a non-starter for me. (I'm not wildly in favor of an NPP exception, but it would have been "newly discovered" articles, and presumably with a certain amount of quality control since patrollers would presumably not want to nominate articles that would require them to do a lot of fixing to meet DYK standards.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This proposal started with NPP but has clearly tapped into a general feeling that the 7 day limit is fairly arbitrary and may be working against the quality of nominations. There doesn't appear to be any objective reason why it should be 5, 7 or any other number of days (though I would be against no limit at all and have no objection to 14 days either). Those that still write articles may feel different from those that only critique other people's work, never putting their own work up for the judgement of others. As someone that writes a lot of articles I can say that they are often part of larger projects and take longer than 7 days to mature as research for later articles reveals material relevant to those recently completed. It's true that they sometimes stay in the queue a long time where they can be worked on but they also sometimes get reviewed very quickly and then an article that is not as good as it could be finds its way on to the front page. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and by encouraging those in the know to develop a new/expanded article offline or in their sandbox, the stupid newness criterion works completely against the WP ideals of collaboration and openness. A thirty-day limit would largely eliminate that silliness. EEng (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Most of the collaboration seems to take place once the article is on the main page so should each set stay up for longer? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, assuming we can't make the sets bigger, we'd have to run fewer hooks per day, and then we're back to selecting items on merit of some kind (article quality/interest and/or hook interesting-ness), which I think would be great but which seems to be a hard sell around here. EEng (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I would prefer 30 days to the current 7. In practise, we have plenty of unreviewed nominations going back further than that and so we could make it 60 days without significantly disrupting the current workflow. We are not ITN and so there isn't usually any pressing need to get the material up immediately. Andrew D. (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There appears to be a clear consensus in favour of 30 days (without prejudice to changing it back or otherwise tweaking it if problems arise). Can we close this now? Philafrenzy (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I oppose this because we already have a load of unreviewed noms already and this is another potential floodgate opening that the nom page will get swamped and several noms could get ignored for months. I would recommend that if this is instituted then a rule stating that reviewers must review the oldest non-ticked nom first in a cab rank rule. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
That's the sort of rule that might work if we were being paid (like cabbies or barristers) but won't work I think when everyone is a volunteer as not everyone's reviewing abilities are equal. In my experience neither cabbies nor barristers will necessarily take you where you want to go or accept a brief even if it is their turn. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I've worked up a draft of revised rules and reviewing guidelines in my sandbox. This draft does 3 things:

  1. Increases the newness requirement from 7 days to 30 days
  2. Adds a requirement that articles be neutral point of view.
  3. Requires reviewers to read the article and check for spelling, grammar, and confusing sentences; fixing it if possible and asking the nominator/creator to fix it if not, and not promote stuff that's awful.

Feedback? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we say that we already have consensus on 30 days and discuss the other matters separately as they are vastly more contentious I would think? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that. Do we have consensus? (It seems like it here). ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I have been bold and changed the rules to 30 days as there does appear to be a strong consensus on this, if not unanimity. Revert me if you disagree. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
What I see above in bold are two Oppose and only one Support. And that's usually how these things are settled inbetween the endless rambling threads. — Maile (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, very few people have been involved in this discussion. I'm somewhat neutral on the subject matter at hand. But I really believe this needs to be done as a formal RFC like the one above. A shortened clear and concise version, without all this huge wall of text people are not interested in reading. Put the appropriate topic Template:Rfc, so others will know to join the discussion. And it needs to be closed by an uninvolved party. — Maile (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
This seems rather bureaucratic. Do you genuinely not believe there is consensus in favour from the comments above? People are not required to bold their votes and I think "I am so behind this" etc is pretty clear. Who would be uninvolved? Only those active at DYK read this page. This is a reversible change to project rules, not a change to Wikipedia's basic policies. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Philafrenzy, this kind of major change should involve an RfC, a longer discussion hopefully involving more people, and yes, a close by an uninvolved party, which you are clearly not. Maile was quite right to revert you. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I haven't complained about being reverted - that's fine. My complaint, if I have one, is the proposal that we should do the whole discussion over again when any fair evaluation of it would indicate support for the change by a fairly wide margin. The people have already spoken. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm counting 8 supports and 2 opposes; but yes, I was thinking we needed more input which was why I hadn't boldly changed it myself, but rather worked up a draft in my sandbox. I'm opening two RFCs further down on this talk page.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 23:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I would also add that the majority of repeat nominators are conspicuous by their absence in this discussion. Whether that is because of summer vacations, or any other reasons, the only thing really clear about this is that a very small number are participating in this discussion. Also, it hasn't been that long since we changed from 5 days to 7 days. Now it's 30 days. There needs to be more voices in this. And you get an "uninvolved party" to close it by going through the process of requesting that at Requests for closure. — Maile (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


OK, but how will we thin the herd?

Extended content

Let's suppose for a moment that the discussion in the subsection above ends with a decision to loosen the newness requirement. Then comes the hard part: it's hard to predict, but this will increase nominations by a factor of maybe 2 to 4. How will we select among them? I say that every day we vote (no discussion, no consensus -- straight voting, because interesting is simply a gut instinct, not a logical conclusion) to pick the 10 most interesting hooks out of the current pool of nominations. These 10 then pass to the next stage, which is review. If at the review stage an article is found unsalvageable after sufficient effort, then the next day's vote will be for 11 (instead of 10) to make up the deficit. Nominations that don't get voted in after D days are (by popular indifference) not interesting enough, and so get dropped from the pool.

Obvisouly there are a lot more details, and I've thought this through a lot more than I'm revealing here, but that's the general idea; more details on request. But I'm certainly open to other approaches to "thinning the herd". EEng (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

That makes for a lot of new rules and a lot of monitoring. Why not just change it to 30 days and leave everything else the same and see what happens? Additional rules can then be introduced if necessary based on evidence not speculation. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I think it will be less work since we'll be posting 1/2 as many hooks per day. But I like your idea. Let's change it to 30 days, and see what happens. If there's a flood of nominations (there will certainly be some kind of increase) we can switch back immediately to 7 days (to turn off the tap) while we think what to do.
However, I think we should be running fewer hooks no matter what, based primarily on a popularity contest for "interestingness", and at the same time raise article quality standards at least somewhat, as already being discussed elsewhere on this page (or did we move that to a special subpage yet?). But trying the 30-day rule for a while might tell us something that will help in thinking about that. (Warning: it may take a while for the word to get out and the effect of changing the rule come to "steady state".) EEng (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The results are unpredictable which is a reason for being incremental. It's quite possible that article length increases, making them harder to review, without any increase in the interestingness of the articles, so there could be a net increase in tedium, but it's worth trying. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Then as the one who opened this subthread I'd like to propose we suspend it and concentrate on just the 30-day question in the subthread above. EEng (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

English, again

Latest comment: 9 years ago72 comments11 people in discussion

In Prep 1, Overjoyed (album) has nuggets like "As announced earlier, an talk show would be held after the concert", "as Heo liked Lavigne as an artist ever since", "The DVD includes the singing performances of Heo such as a music medley of SS501 era, the after-talk show held after the concert, and photo shoot footages among others"... Please. Stop. Promoting. This. Stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Please. Stop. The. Snotty. High-handed. Tsk-tsking. It. Doesn't. Help. Quality -- even fundamental grammar and style -- will never improve until that becomes one of the DYK criteria -- please participate at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#So_what_do_other_editors_think.3F. EEng (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The point is it's queued up for main page inclusion. Thanks once again for your help in this matter. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT EEng (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, pulled. I'm not here to teach people to write in English. That's a fundamental requirement of the encyclopedia and does not need to be enshrined in the DYK criteria. You know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, not even half pulled. The hook was removed, but the DYKmake credit remained in the prep, and the nomination template was left in promoted state. I've done the clean-up, but it makes me wonder how many other nominations have been left in limbo like this one was, no longer appearing on the nominations page. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sorry about that, it's more important to ensure the item doesn't get near the main page than worry about the DYK credit system. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry -- can you point to this fundamental requirement that articles must satisfy? And if you can't, how are reviewers supposed to know about or enforce it? EEng (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
That'd be in the title of the Wikipedia. If you can't write in encyclopedic English, it shouldn't be on the main page. Seriously, how many times do you need to be told? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia allows articles to be in bad English, poorly written, etc., though with the hope that eventually they will be improved (see WP:NOTPERFECT). I've asked you to point me to anything saying that articles linked from the main page are any exception to that, and you've been unable or unwilling to do that. I think there should be an exception i.e. articles linked from main page ought to be required to meet a higher standard, but for the moment there's no such requirement. You keep saying over and over that there is, but there isn't. Seriously, how many times do you need to be told? EEng (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Complaints about poor English - do they help improve DYK?

I'd very much like to hear others' opinions. EEng (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Given the poor standard of much DYK content, I'd say yes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't ask whether concern about quality (which I share) is justified -- I asked whether berating other editors helps to improve quality. Also, I'm primarily interested in the opinions of those who actually participate in DYK. EEng (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
"I'm primarily interested in the opinions of those who actually participate in DYK" Really? Since when does Wikipedia restrict legitimate commentary on content to those responsible for creating it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Those who have been participating here regularly are in a position to tell whether TRM's whining has improved things or not. If you want to review all the archives to come up to speed, your evaluation would be most welcome. EEng (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Those here who have thanked me for my edits (of course you can't see that) would certainly be happy to tell you how many articles at DYK I've fixed up. I don't just sit and whinge, unlike others........ The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Just ask reviewers and promoting admins to make sure articles are written in English. If you think you need a DYK criterion for that, you're barking. Start doing something about the quality, and stop bitching about people pointing out the detritus that is continually (daily) being advocated for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, let's shoot the messenger and ignore the message.</sarcasm> We get the fact that you and TRM don't agree. Going on about it won't help. Creating a "let's have a go at TRM" sub-thread won't help, because it's not going to be constructive and it will just spiral off into a distracting side-show if we're not careful. So I closed this thread, and you thought it the best course of action to reopen it, albeit amending the subheading to make it only 98% obvious who you're aiming at instead of 100%. On the bigger point, defending the right of poorly written articles to appear on the main page just because there's no specific rule against it isn't going to help the cause of DYK, incidentally. I don't think the DYK criteria specifically say that articles appearing on the main page in the DYK section have to be written in the English language, in fact. Some things are just too obvious to need saying. To quote TRM, "It's a fundamental of the encyclopedia that it is written in grammatically correct and encyclopedically toned English". That's not even close to asking for prose that "is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" and ought to be achievable. BencherliteTalk 17:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't recall your being around here lately, so you may be forgiven for completely misunderstanding what's going on here, including thinking that I'm "defending the right of poorly written articles to appear on the main page" -- quite the opposite. I have to run out now, but when I come back I'll lay it out for you. (Don't worry -- it'll be short.) EEng (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't bother on my account. You're fighting with someone who is on your side when it comes to article quality at DYK, and want to make it personal to boot? Wow, talk about missing the bigger picture. I'm glad I've not been around much here recently. </leaves> BencherliteTalk 19:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
EEng is looking for a change to the criteria. Something along the lines of "make sure it's not bang full of grammar errors, typos and non-English prose". I would argue that this is fundamental to the existence of the Wikipedia and doesn't need to be enshrined at DYK explicitly. If our reviewers and promoting admins don't actually understand that we need quality above DYK credits then they shouldn't be allowed to promote garbage to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Amen to that. BencherliteTalk 19:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
+1. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"You're fighting with someone who's on your side" -- that applies in both directions between TRM and me. The difference between us is that one of us is actually trying to figure our how to improve things, and the other just keeps coming back here day after day to complain. There are many problems with the DYK process (both its criteria and its procedures) that keep us stuck where we are. These are just some highlights:

  • The "new content" obsession means articles are often in rough shape when they arrive, and a big chunk of those participating are novice editors
  • There are too many editors involved in each nomination, so everyone's tempted to think someone else would have checked this or that

Some of us are trying to revamp the process to address those kinds of problems -- see Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/RFC_DYK_process_improvement_2015.

  • (most germane to the current discussion...) There's nothing in the DYK criteria that call for anyone to check the writing for grammar and basic style.

It's all very well to say that "everyone" should know better, but the fact is that saying that over and over clearly isn't helping. I've been trying for at least six months to get that changed -- see Special:Diff/666377673#So_what_do_other_editors_think.3F. As you'll see there, there really are people who think that basic style and grammar shouldn't be required, so if you care about our quality problems please participate there.

The kinds of efforts going on at the two links I just gave are real work, unlike the snotty tsk-tsking TRM engages in day in and day out. EEng (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You need to realise that your continual acceptance, even promotion, of the mediocre, or worse, is damaging Wikipedia. I tell you what, I'll just pull every hook that doesn't meet basic grammar and tone requirements of an English-language encyclopedia until the DYK apologists get the hint. I may "tsk tsk" but at least I just don't hang around, pissing in the wind, making wisecracks. We should expect our reviewers and admins to acknowledge that articles should be written in grammatically correct English with an encyclopedic tone. If they can't do that, they shouldn't be allowed to accredit items for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
As I said to you the other day: go soak your head. Where in the fuck do you get off referring to my "continual acceptance, even promotion, of the mediocre"? It's exactly that kind of shit that causes me to repeat, every time you come here: Cut out the snotty, highhanded, tsk-tsking. It's not helping.
Now give the diffs or take back your bullshit. Everyone's sick of you spewing insults right and left. EEng (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, The Rambling Man, I'm calling you out. Either back up your accusation with diffs, or be known to all as a liar who just says whatever pops into his head. EEng (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Well liar liar pants on fire to you too. Just a quick browse of this page and the recent archives demonstrates that I have the support of several editors here while you, well you don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 
"I'll tell you the problem with DYK - immigration. All the world's evils are down to immigration. I can't find my socks because of immigration, seriously."

Here's my take on it. DYK is for new articles and editors. Expecting brand new editors to spontaneously write encyclopedic prose with the full knowledge of our major policies and guidelines is kind of like Cnut wishing the tide would just bugger off somewhere else or Nigel Farage thinking "maybe I'll get in next election" - it isn't going to happen (unless they're a sock). To get the level of service required mandates more work than I can personally give, which is why I haven't focused on DYK much recently, and probably won't for a while longer. In the meantime, the conversation is just getting too personal; I'm sure I could sit down and discuss this over a pint in a pub somewhere, and it would probably be a more enjoyable experience than sitting on a computer terminal, but we can only work with what we have. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Well that's just it, these DYKs are not being written by new editors at all, they're being written by editors with thousands of contributions. They're being promoted by editors with thousands of contributions. They're being sent to the main page by editors with tens of thousands of contributions. I'd buy it if you were right, but take a look at Prep 1 right now, credits heading to editors with 30738, 41537, 8529, 88771, 345159, 139188, 2835, 548578, 102308, 18668, and 54648 edits respectively. The least "experienced" editor has been here for six and a half years... And I don't think anyone asked for "full knowledge of our major policies", I'm happy to fix up some of these articles, I just ask for them to be written in English and with correct grammar, or at the very least that they are not promoted to the main page until such a time that they are. This isn't about bashing the editors of the articles, it's about questioning the motives and competence of those who sanction these kind of items for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
So you would not support the proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#So_what_do_other_editors_think.3F? EEng (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I know Nigel's a bit of a Cnut, but there's no need to call him a sock. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC) "Does my super-indenting look big in this??"
  • Whenever people start carping about DYK, I go look at the current FA and usually find similar issues with that. For example, right now the current FA is Underground Electric Railways Company of London. I was reading this at lunch as I'm interested in the topic and found the blurb/lead jarring to the extent that I was contemplating copy-editing it. It starts, "The Underground Electric Railways Company of London (route map pictured), known operationally as The Underground for much of its existence..." There's an immediate issue of the capitalisation of the word the mid-sentence which caused so much trouble in the case of the Beatles. Notice that London Underground uses lower case for "the Underground" in its lead. I could go on but my point is not to nitpick that particular article or issue but to demonstrate that you can lift up any rock on the main page and find something to point at underneath. On the whole, the current FA and current DYK set are all quite interesting and well done and so we should be distributing compliments and praise to all concerned. I like reading something fresh everyday and generally find the overall quality to be excellent. Please keep up the good work. Andrew D. (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    That is, of course, fascinating, and it's great you take so much interest! Incidentally, TFAs are nominated way in advance so if you find the blurbs objectionable you can always do something about yourself rather than find yourself choking on your ciabatta. I think you've fundamentally missed the point again, but that's just my opinion. We're not talking about the odd capitalisation issue at DYK, it's about writing in English, which many promoted articles fail to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Second request for The Rambling Man to back up his accusations

EEng, we can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way. The easy way is to accept that this thread is closed and stop this now. The hard way is to unarchive this discussion, carry on, and wait to see what ANI has to say about your behaviour. BencherliteTalk 10:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
[Copied from above, so everyone can see what's going on]

You need to realise that your continual acceptance, even promotion, of the mediocre, or worse, is damaging Wikipedia. I tell you what, I'll just pull every hook that doesn't meet basic grammar and tone requirements of an English-language encyclopedia until the DYK apologists get the hint. I may "tsk tsk" but at least I just don't hang around, pissing in the wind, making wisecracks. We should expect our reviewers and admins to acknowledge that articles should be written in grammatically correct English with an encyclopedic tone. If they can't do that, they shouldn't be allowed to accredit items for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said to you the other day: go soak your head. Where in the fuck do you get off referring to my "continual acceptance, even promotion, of the mediocre"? It's exactly that kind of shit that causes me to repeat, every time you come here: Cut out the snotty, highhanded, tsk-tsking. It's not helping.
Now give the diffs or take back your bullshit. Everyone's sick of you spewing insults right and left. EEng (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, The Rambling Man, I'm calling you out. Either back up your accusation with diffs, or be known to all as a liar who just says whatever pops into his head. EEng (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Well liar liar pants on fire to you too. Just a quick browse of this page and the recent archives demonstrates that I have the support of several editors here while you, well you don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
None of the other editors commenting on this thread has participated here in the last six months at least, so have not been able to observe your outrageous behavior. One more time: The Rambling Man: give the diffs, or take it back. Until you do, I have no problem stating:
Rambling Man is a liar who says whatever pops into his head.
EEng (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
This Statler and Waldorf routine won't be complete without one of you breaking the fourth wall. Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Postscript

  • I appreciate that The Rambling Man has now stuck [4] his statement about (what he called) my "continual acceptance, even promotion, of the mediocre, or worse, [that is] damaging Wikipedia". For my part, I wish that I had merely labeled his statement "grossly unfair and contrary to fact", instead of calling him a liar. EEng (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

plain image with caption

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please see Talk:Main Page#I was bold. I have instituted the use of {{plain image with caption}} for TFA and OTD and after 2015-06-18 00:00 UTC I would like to add it to DYK and ITN as well. Sorry for the late notice. I figured if no one actually took action, the perennial discussion of how to resolve the "can't figure out what the image is of" problem for ITN and OTD would just dissolve into nothingness as it always does. True, DYK and TFA don't really need it, but I thought it would be good if all four sections of the Main Page were in sync. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 22:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I for one have no idea what we're supposed to do with this news. EEng (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list has been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section of seven nominations is for those that were first submitted at least two months ago, in the hopes that someone will do the review they currently need.

As of about eighteen minutes ago, 139 nominations are approved, leaving 220 of 359 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that are the oldest.

Submitted over two or three months ago:

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) 03:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination with June 22 suggested date

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

A week or so ago, I nominated Skintern for DYK. The lead hook referred to the (apparent) tenth anniversary of the term first appearing in print, which I thought might be the least controversial aspect of a potentially problematic article (which I think I handled pretty fairly) and thus an ideal hook (how often do we get to take note of the tenth birthday of a word?).

So far no one has reviewed it, and I see that it will soon be time to put sets of hooks together for that date. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I had a look at the article and I think it is fine, but the June 22nd hook uses the word "first", and we can't be sure that the word skintern hadn't appeared in print elsewhere before that date. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I did look. As I noted, Google returns no earlier uses. Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I won't have time to get into this, but I'm gonna have to play my occasional wet-blanket role. I think skintern is a neologism that hasn't gained enough traction to have an article. (Sorry, Daniel, but I have to call 'em as I see 'em.) EEng (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
One word: Sources. I found quite a few. Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Without exception (that I can see) the sources introduce the term as a novelty it doesn't expect readers to understand -- it's either in quotes, or introduced by such phrases as "Someone has even coined a word for the phenomenon: skintern". That's the sure sign of a neologism. When it attains the status of gofer -- so that it's used in passing without special introduction -- it won't be a neologism anymore.
And statements like "By the middle of the next decade, the skintern phenomenon had been observed in public and private offices around the country", given without source, are classic SYNTH/OR that needs to be cited to a serious source in a position to make a statement like that. EEng (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Joe Eula

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

The Joe Eula DYK, now in Queue 1, has been promoted using ALT1, which I'd suggested and subsequently renounced as cheap. Could we use the original hook, which is a fair bit more insightful? Alakzi (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the prep promoter. I agreed with the DYK reviewer that ALT1 is much more hooky than the original. The idea is not to summarize the article or write expository sentences, but to "hook" the reader into clicking on the link. Without an accompanying image, I didn't find the original hook interesting at all. Yoninah (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
People with the tiniest bit of interest in the arts would appreciate the original hook. "Hookiness" should be weighed against a hook's encyclopaedic value. I fail to see how the OH is an expository sentence or a summary, by any measure, so I've no idea why you brought that up. Alakzi (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I would agree that the ALT1 text is more 'hooking' — it is more likely to attract a larger amount of people than the album artwork hook. It says something about the temperament and character of Eula, which is a defining quality of any artist. I disagree with the statement that hooks should be weighted against encyclopaedic value, since the point is to intrigue the reader in the most effective manner; as long as what you're focusing on is evidenced to be true, which is indeed the case here. Another hook which might work better if the focus is to be on Eula's artworks might be that he created artworks for the works of Miles Davis, Liza Minnelli and the Supremes. Webdrone (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
We should not be using an anecdote to allude to the artist's supposed temperament. It's cheap laughs and is in no way encyclopaedic, but - as you disagree with accounting for encyclopaedic value - there's probably little else to say. Alakzi (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I am ok with either, I just believe that the first one will act as a better hook device. If encyclopaedic value is the focus, maybe the fact that he helped mould Halston's style or that he created work for many famous couture houses would be more appropriate. Webdrone (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd picked his work on the Miles Davis cover because I can relate to it. These other ones are probably more representative of his work as a whole - I agree. But if we're gonna discuss alternatives, it'd be better to reopen the hook nom, and there's no time for that now. Let's just stick with what we've got. Cheers. Alakzi (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree, there is not enough time. Do you want to have a discussion about the role and function of the hooks just for the sake of the issue? My talk page is currently a blank slate and I like constructive discussion. Webdrone (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 00:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Typos in Queue 3

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There are several grammatical issues in this hook set:

... that Afternoon Tea (pictured), a children's book by John George Sowerby and Henry Hetherington Emmerson add comma was considered by Kate Greenaway to be "blatant piracy" of her book Under the Window?
... that one of the most renowned Polish-Jewish composers of popular music add comma Jakub Kagan‎, who formed the Kagan's Jazz Band in the interwar Warsaw, died during the Holocaust in occupied Poland?
... that the wife of Naman Ramachandran, author of Rajinikanth: The Definitive Biography, said that she had lost him to Rajinikanth while he was researching for the book?

The set is also bottom-heavy with bios and middle-heavy with non-bios. Yoninah (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

In addition, the single quotes around "Idol Killer" should be double quotes. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure there's a surfeit of admins happy to do this, who haven't been chased out of here yet again. I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Error in Queue

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The third hook of Queue 4 incorrectly gives the value as 120 tonnes, which is off by about 20,000 pounds. The source, the U.S. Department of Defense, lists it in "tons". The incorrect conversion should be replaced with something like "120 tons (110 t)", "120 tons (110,000 kg)", or "{{convert|120|ST}}". The template outputs: 120 short tons (110 t).

I see that this had the correct value in the nomination and in Prep 4 until it was edited. The same error was also introduced to the article, which I've already corrected. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Mandarax! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Apparently we all make mistakes, after all. EEng (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Not me (if you see something that looks like I made a mistake, I'm just testing your awareness). Belle (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Belle excepted, of course. I thought that went without saying. EEng (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

St. John's Day

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

is 24 June, - sorry I came up late with a suitable article for DYK, Template:Did you know nominations/Christ, unser Herr, zum Jordan kam, but it still needs a review, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

24 June is rather soon, the hymn is associated with that date, not much point in showing it 2 weeks later, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to Dr. Blofeld, it's now reviewed. The day is mentioned first in OTD. Any chance to get it in today, perhaps - as done before - as an additional hook to the next set? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Changing the newness requirement for DYK from 7 days to 30 days

Latest comment: 9 years ago54 comments22 people in discussion
NAC: No consensus. There are 8 Support !votes and 10 Oppose !votes, and both sides offer reasonably good arguments. Due to no consensus, the status quo remains at 7 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 20 July 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.

This is an RFC to determine if there is consensus to change the newness requirement for DYK from the current "articles created within the past 7 days" to "articles created within the past 30 days" (roughly one month). Perceived benefits include:

B1. Improved quality of the articles at DYK, because authors wouldn't feel as rushed to "finish" the article in 7 days, but rather would be able to do more research, and leave the article for a few days before coming back to proofread.
B2. It would encourage new page patrollers to look for quality articles and highlight those instead of all the focus of NPP being on weeding out junk.
B3. It would encourage retention of new editors who do good work, as NPPrs could nominate their articles for DYK and seeing their work on the main page would please them and encourage them to continue.

Perceived drawbacks include:

D1. Fear of DYK being overwhelmed with a flood of new nominations that would previously have been ineligible due to age.
D2. Concerns that new page patrollers will be reluctant to do quid pro quos or to nominate articles to begin with.
D3. Concerns that NPP often runs more than 30 days behind (true at the time the idea was first proposed, but since then the backlog has dropped - on 6/18 we're reviewing articles from 5/21), and thus won't be helped by this proposal.
See also: Wikipedia talk:Did you know § 7 day requirement and NPP
.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 23:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Seriously? The same rationale was given when extending from 5 to 7 days, and it hasn't had an effect on the general quality of submissions. Some people rush, some don't.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I don't care about any of the listed benefits or drawbacks. The newness requirement is irrelevant to anything -- readers don't care if content is new -- and merely distorts all kinds of processes in annoying ways. Therefore it should be, if not dropped, then loosened as much as possible. EEng (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Anything that allows an editor more time to hone an article can't hurt. Right now, an awful lot of submissions seem like rush jobs. The difference between a 2-day extension (5 to 7? Really? And somebody expected that to make a big difference?) and a 21-day extension may be dramatic. Or not. Either way, it's worth a try. We can always change it back! MeegsC (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    • If the current batch of submissions look like rush jobs, that's because they generally are. Take a look at how long people actually take to write articles. I guarantee that at least 80% of them don't even spend five days on one article, let alone a week. Allowing people to nominate older articles doesn't immediately make them take more time to actually write said articles. Those who know they need a while can work in user space (Sudirman, for instance, appeared on DYK almost as it is now; there weren't any substantial changes between DYK and FAC. The article was completed in user space.). This isn't to say that all quickly written articles are bad; I'll maybe spend three or four hours on something like Thomas Parr Monument or Benteng Pendem (Cilacap). That's enough for a solid start-class article, maybe even a C-class if the sources are readily available. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The current limit is too short and leads to unfinished articles being nominated in order to meet the deadline which then require significant editing by the nominator or reviewer to bring them up to the required standard. Often they don't get that extra attention before they reach the main page. The shortness of the existing limit thus works against the interests of this project. As successful DYKs invariably go to the front page we should prioritise quality over newness (which our readers don't actually care about anyway). Philafrenzy (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but for none of the perceived benefits (B3 at a pinch). DYK is meant to encourage new editors, but we only give them seven days to write their first article, discover DYK and discover how DYK works. Any articles from other sources get round the the seven day requirement now (regulars create their articles in userspace or offline or work on them after they are nominated), and often by the time a submission is approved it can be months since it was nominated anyway. (I still want infinity days but you lot won't let me have it [pouts and stamps foot]. Hmpph). Belle (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Some interesting data (all of these are current DYK nominations):
  • Of the nominations (all on T:TDYK under June 16) there is exactly one which would have benefited from a longer limit. Every single other article in this sampling (aside from the GAs) was brought on Wikipedia in 2 days at most. You could give a limit of a year, and the results would still be the same. Honestly, I'm concerned that this proposal has had such support; it strikes me that we need to help editors improve their writing, not give them more time that they won't ultimately use. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Data: n. "facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis." Fact: When I posted that, those were the articles listed under June 16. Fact: the time spent writing the articles listed under June 16 was as listed above. If you dispute this, please provide your own sampling, rather than make smug remarks which don't even use the term correctly (Anecdote; n. "a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person."). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Fact: An anecdote can also be "an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay", as here. Fact: The problem is not one of sampling, but interpretation. Fact: Many or most of these were obviously developed off line, with (fact) minor changes made once in article space. Fact: You aren't seeing the articles that aren't nominated at all because the author doesn't want to deal with the stupid newness requirement. Fact. Fact? Fact! EEng (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Fact. Fact. Fact. Fact.
@Crisco 1492:, Thank you for providing examples of articles currently at DYK; but you miss the point. The point is not that articles currently at DYK need more time; the point is that less time is preventing articles from reaching DYK, especially articles by new editors who don't know about the DYK process. Here are some better examples:
Examples of articles this is proposal would help

Hammerton Killick was created by Coolpug05 on January 27. Coolpug was a new user. I discovered it on January 30, did considerable clean up; additional research; and expansion of the article and nominated it on January 30 at which point it looked like this; it was technically ineligible at that point as it was only 1,424 characters. I continued to research and expand the article for the next month virtually right up until it was on the main page on February 26. The last edit I made to it before it appeared on the main page left it looking like this. There were a couple fixes by other people prior to it appearing on the main page, and one fix while it was on the main page; since then I've pretty much run to the end of what the sources can tell me; I'd like to find some more info on his earlier life and get it up to GA, but I'll need to do some serious digging for that. At any rate; that's the sort of difference a month can make in an article.

For Wyandotte Caves, the first article I submitted to DYK back in 2006 (when the requirement was 5 days instead of 7 and the length requirement was 1,000 characters instead of 1,500); I began the re-write on July 24. There was already substantial info there - I was replacing a copyvio and eventually merging the article with another article on a duplicate topic - and I was already familiar with the subject so I didn't have to do as much research. I was a fairly newish editor and wasn't sure about nominating it for DYK, but I realized I could and did on July 28. A lot of people don't figure things out that fast, and a newish editor can learn a lot in a month, including how to nominate their article for DYK.

Holland's Magazine, currently sitting in with approved nominations, on the other hand, only took me 2 days to basically write; and is essentially as complete as I think it'll get (I'll probably read it over a few more times and see if I can clarify some points, but it's pretty much done). So I'm not saying it'll always take a month; but what I am saying is that having a month gives newer editors (like I was in 2006) longer to discover the process, and articles that need more work and effort like Hammerton Killick time to develop.

Lastly, since this started with me wanting to be able to nominate articles I find on New Page Patrol, rather than articles I have created; here are some articles I've stumbled across today that I would nominate if the newness requirement was a month rather than a week:

  • Wat Phra Si Sanphet Created by Collosoll on May 24. His only edits were to that page. It needed some cleanup and referencing converted to in-line citations, (which I worked on) but that's essentially all it needed and would have made a good DYK once that was done. If the requirement was 30 days I would have nominated it. Moreover, the first edits after 5/24 were on 6/4, meaning the earliest anyone would have found it and nominated it was 11 days after its creation.
  • HMS Flamingo (L18) - Started May 24. The creator HantsAV isn't exactly a newbie, but they have no DYK credits despite having authored 42 articles, all of which seem to be on ships. This strikes me as an editor who is very focused on one little corner of the project and maybe doesn't get out enough to navigate DYK on their own. Nevertheless I'm sure they would appreciate having their work recognized at DYK. The article wasn't as interesting (to me) as Wat Phra Si Samphet, but I'm sure I could have found something hooky, and it was overall in better shape than that one.
  • Nora Pouillon - Worked on in a sandbox and then moved to mainspace on 5/24 by ArthurColle. Although the creator has been around since 2012 he only has 50 edits, so I'd consider him new. Seems like this would have been a good DYK article if the 7 day requirement was 30 days.
  • Hooky Rothman - Could use some work; overly reliant on a single source. Created by Ellis.Donnie, a newish editor who seems to be gradually learning to cite sources after being repeatedly warned and having some articles deleted. Through looking at his talk page I also found Battle of Sunset Strip. Both of those are interesting; and if the newness requirement was 30 days I could work on improving the sourcing in them and would nominate them.
~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Almost everything here works better with collaboration, and it would be much easier to work with others on new articles if we had 30 days to do it. Readers don't care how new/old the articles are. Even if there is a "flood", which seems unlikely, then we can look at raising the quality threshhold and sift out dull hooks and poorly written articles. Edwardx (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you mean DYK has seemed completely incapable of raising quality and sifting out dull hooks and poorly written articles, that's true. Just some of us aren't ready to give up and accept that yet. EEng (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
And if people had more time, then more experienced DYKers could more easily lend a hand to, or even mentor, the newer folks and help them rewrite their articles and liven up their hooks. Edwardx (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Precisely. EEng (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: editors who need longer can simply work in user space. If there is a need to have an article instantly, create a stub and work on the 5* creation in user space. - Btw, the Beethoven mass was an expansion of a 2005 stub, - it would be a shame if we had no article on it until now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
ps: also you can nominate as soon as it's long enough (some don't even wait until then), with all the time for improvement from then on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
But Gerda, this means that you are advocating avoidance of the 7-day rule by people that know about it while newbies (who don't know the loopholes) fall foul of it. Belle (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't advocate "avoiding". I think it's a good idea to assemble an article in user space, out of sight for the general public, for everybody, especially for newbies. - Define newbie: someone going to DYK can read the rules, - perhaps the rules could even say: "If you are afraid you will need more time work in user space". - I learned differently because someone nominated my first article without me even knowing what the letters DYK stood for. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The idea of creating articles by collaboration in article space is one that will have to prized form my cold dead neurons. If people want to do it offline, in user space or in Draft space, fine. But it creates "owned" articles, leaves a lot of useful work wasted, and can lead to unnecessary merges. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC).
  • Support. I have never strictly enforced the time limit anyway, and given the much longer lead times from nomination to promotion compared to the times when this rule was originally written, I doubt it will make much difference to formally extend the eligibility time. The time period cannot be extended indefinitely however as some have suggested, as this would completely eliminate the "newness" requirement which has always been an essential part of this project. (Speaking of which, I would like to know what has happened to the mainpage spiel about "new or recently improved articles" as that ought to be a non-negotiable feature of the project in my view). Gatoclass (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - ONUnicorn, I just wanted to commend you on what a professional and concise job you did setting up these two RFCs. They are both very clearly stated and are generating participation. — Maile (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 12:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose I don't see any need for this. It's possible to write an acceptable article in a few hours, so within a day, if you are prepared (e.g. have sources to hand) and know what you want to write, so five days, never mind seven days is more than enough time for many if not most articles. If it isn't – if you only can manage a few minutes at a time, or need time to find sources – then use a draft, or write it offline, or recruit other editors.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- I actually thought we were still operating on a five-day cycle, so even seven days seems like luxury. If people want more time to produce the best article they can then the GA rule gives them a second chance at DYK. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- I'm not convinced by any of the purported benefits. We have enough volume with this requirement. Would we be better off with two or three or four times as many nominations? I don't believe so. Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - the newness criteria made sense when WP was small, the userbase would perhaps have been significantly likely to have seen "old" articles. Now things are very different. If we have too many candidates, perhaps we could prioritise stuff that actually is interesting or surprising? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC).
  • Support - Increasing the window to 30 days will open up the process much more to casual editors who aren't familiar with the ins and outs of it all, and make it easier to collaborate in article space. --diff (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We have only recently raised the limit from five to seven days, and I would not object to raising it to ten, but thirty days is quite unnecessary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It has been argued that this will allow new editors to be introduced to DYK. I think this will have the opposite effect. Newbies are not going to wait weeks and weeks to have their work noticed. DYK used to be good at identifying new articles by new editors and then rapidly showing their work on the main page. (Cwmhiraeth is a later example). I would like to see this objective return and we concentrate on restoring our ability to improve the encyclopaedia and help the project. Tweaking the 5/7 day figure has made little difference and that was meant to cause the improvements now associated with this change. Victuallers (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I dont see any rational benefit to the increase, as most new writers are not going to take 30 days on an article, and most expansions projects are not taking even 7 days. Using the hypothesis that it will result in submission of articles that are better written is in utter contrast the the first supposition used, that the submissions are from new users. New users do NOT know wiki guidelines and often do not have english degrees to write perfect prose.--Kevmin § 17:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I still don't see any compelling reason for a quadrupling of the time allowed before a nomination must be submitted, from one week to one month, nor am I in favor of dropping the newness requirement, which is being advocated by some of the supporters. It doesn't take long—one encounter—for a new user to become familiar with the DYK process. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Let's turn it around: what's the compelling reason for having a 7-day requirement (or any other short-deadline requirement) in the first place? If the answer is, "Because DYK's mission is to showcase new content", then I ask: since when do readers care whether content is new -- or if they do, do they care that it's 7 days' new instead of 30 days' new? EEng (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
No, let's not. You want a change to the status quo, and I don't see a compelling reason or need for it. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
You state the obvious. Can you offer no reason at all that a newness requirement has anything to recommend it? I won't be surprised if the answer is "I can't", but it would be nice to have that out in the open. Rich Farmbrough put it well above: "The newness criteria made sense when WP was small, the userbase would perhaps have been significantly likely to have seen "old" articles. Now things are very different. If we have too many candidates, perhaps we could prioritise stuff that actually is interesting or surprising?" EEng (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
And who decides what is "actually interesting or surprising?" That's a highly subjective judgement. And what criteria would one use to filter nominations? The point of DYK as it stands is that it encourages the creation of new content, that would be out the window if the only criterion is what someone thinks is "interesting". DYK also serves to remind readers that Wikipedia is not static but a dynamic, growing body of knowledge to which anyone can contribute. Which also happens to be why I think the blurb about "new content" on the main page is an essential part of DYK and I would like to know what the heck has happened to it. Gatoclass (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: The line "From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content" was removed on 12 June by Mr. Stradivarius, following this RfC. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I did see that discussion earlier on, but I never read it as a proposal to completely eliminate the blurb but to relocate it - and I don't think I'd be the only one to be thus misled. It seems somebody tacked on a proposal to truncate the previous wording to just a link saying "Recently improved articles" and there were a few "support" !votes for that. But it didn't even read like a proposal. The RFC was also closed early because of lack of interest and the closing admin noted that consensus was based on "a tiny number of people" that would probably require review, sentiments with which I fully concur. I think this issue is important and needs revisiting, but it will need someone to come up with a workable alternative wording as I agree the previous arrangement wasn't optimal either. Gatoclass (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I have always had a problem with DYK as part of the gamification of Wikipedia, but since I have only been peripherally involved, have been reluctant to express that opinion too forcefully.
It seems to me that the point of DYK is to function as part of the Main Page, to draw readers who are so inclined into areas of Wikipedia they might miss, maybe also to stimulate the mind. By extension it will encourage new editors. The award system should be, and probably is, a recognition system, recognising something worthwhile you have done, but that you would have done anyway. (See #Straw poll below.)
As to what qualifies as interesting or surprising, certainly it's subjective, but I suspect that if we ranked 100 DYKs we would get a very high correlation between rankings.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC).
We seem to manage okay with subjective criteria when determining what appears in WP:ITN. If we were ever to have too many DYK candidates, we could develop some criteria and refine them over time. Edwardx (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know much about ITN, but as I understand it you might select one "blurb" from perhaps three nominations for the day. DYK by contrast is posting between about 16 and 24 new hooks every day - and DYK articles/hooks require scrutiny of a lot more issues. Even now, this project struggles to adequately process all the nominations - a fact that DYK critics never tire of pointing out - so how would we manage if we had to add a straw poll for every hook? I just don't think it's a practical option. Gatoclass (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The whole point is we should not be posting so many hooks per day -- instead of 16, we should be posting 5 (for the whole day), selected as follows. Every day 20 nominated hooks are randomly selected, and we vote among them -- no discussion, no consensus, just raw, primal voting for what people think is most interesting. The top 5 vote-getters pass on to the next stage, which is the usual review of the article and so on.
Losers go back in the pool, unless they've been up for a vote twice already, at which point they're closed as too boring.
Notice that we don't even look at the article until its hook has been voted as one of the most interesting. That way we do 1/3 as much reviewing, and can give each article 3X the attention. So voting cuts work instead of increasing it -- and increases the interesting-ness of hooks, too. No more "Did you know that Star X slipped and fell getting off the bus?" EEng (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
A process like that would not be nearly as simple as you suggest - for one thing, what about article quality? Surely we wouldn't be wanting to promoting a more "hooky" hook for a very basic article over a fully developed article whose hook may not be as catchy. In fact, if we were to have such a process, I would put article quality ahead of hookiness as the prime criterion - users who have worked harder on their nominations are more deserving of recognition.
Otherwise, your method would probably weed out the very worst hooks, but it would not otherwise improve hook quality, as hooks for the most part are much of a muchness. And for a relatively small gain in overall quality, you would be heavily penalizing the majority of contributors, who for obvious reasons would be highly unlikely to support it. Gatoclass (talk) 08:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Like I said, after a hook is selected then the article is checked for the usual DYK quality requirements (hopefully somewhat higher standards than we have now, but that's another story); if it can't be brought up to snuff in the usual way, then it drops out. If, in that first-stage voting process, people want to weigh relative article quality along with hook hookiness, that's fine. (Again, there's still the minimum-quality check, as just described.)
I'm not suggesting weeding out the worst hooks, I'm suggesting selecting only the best 1/4-1/3 of the hooks we take now. This isn't penalizing anyone, because everyone's not entitled to get their article on DYK, just like not everyone's article can be an FA. The whole problem with DYK is that it's like the Special Olympics -- everyone gets a medal! Until we get away from that nonsense DYK will remain the mess it is. EEng (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
After making that last post, I took a look at the 24 hooks currently in the queue. 23 of them struck me as good, solid hooks, two or three were standouts, one was weak but acceptable. After selecting the standouts and discarding the iffy one, I would hate to have to decide which three or four of the remaining perfectly good 20 hooks to retain for promotion as I would have to do under this proposed system of yours.
I am not necessarily opposed to the notion of weeding out substandard hooks, but it ought to be doable without disenfranchising the majority of nominations IMO. In fact, there isn't actually anything to stop someone from pulling a hook now that they think is not up to scratch - I do it regularly when active on this project - but for some reason it isn't done much. Perhaps we could do more to support the rejection of substandard hooks, but attempts to do even that much in the past have met with substantial opposition. Gatoclass (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
That bit about picking interesting hooks is just EEng wandering off-topic again [smacks him with a ruler. Bad EEng. Bad]. I think we'd get hardly any more nominations by increasing it from 7 to 30 days: all the regulars either work in userspace or draft and hence cheat the seven day requirement, or have got it down pat to be able to turn out a qualifying article in less than seven days. The only new sources of nominations will be articles from editors that either don't like working in userspace or those that are new (and bewildered) and careen around in an alphabetti-spaghetti whirlwind of Wikipedia policies and rules and don't realise until the third week that DYK exists and that they could have nominated their article. Belle (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: DYK is barely able to keep up with the number of nominations it currently receives, there is no need to expand the number of nominations. --Allen3 talk 16:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    It doesn't keep up; I've just reviewed a nomination from March. Where do you think all these new nominations are going to come from? There's no secret project of people working away on articles that they only get ready for DYK on the 8th day and then every time curse that they weren't one day quicker. All this will do is space the nominations out a bit more and hopefully mean they are in a better state because they haven't been nominated in a mess just so they can be nominated by the deadline. Belle (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    So your solution for s system the "doesn't keep up" is to increase the number of incoming nominations while doing nothing about the number of nominations being closed? Your math(s) does not add up. This is basic queuing theory. For a real-life example, imagine a busy store with long lines at the check-out counter. Your solution in analogous to increasing the number of customers while leaving the number of cashiers constant. As anyone who has ever experienced this arrangement can tell you, the result is almost always longer waits. --Allen3 talk 00:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    No, that's not my solution at all. I'm not trying to solve the not keeping up problem here, just pointing out that "barely keeps up" isn't right. My supposition is that we won't get a flood of extra nominations by increasing the newness limit; all we will do is level the playing field for new editors that don't know how to squirrel their work away in userspace until it is ready to be a "new article". Belle (talk) 00:59, 24 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.

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 10:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Template trouble

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I was unable to review Wilson Creek because the template was blank. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't look blank to me. Did you remember to turn your monitor on? EEng (talk) 05:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem didn't arise when accessing the template directly, but when using the "Review or comment" link from the main nominations page. I've fixed it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, Mandarax, you're so clever! EEng (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I can see that the problem was caused by renaming the nomination template when the article was moved to a new name. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 22:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Lists

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

At Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Baking_mix, User:Northamerica1000] stated "Nomination withdrawn, because the word "list" was used in the article. Note to self and all DYK participants: never include the word "list" in a section or subsection header when working to create a new article". It is my sense that he has done just that in Lawn game (currently in Prep 1) - avoided using the word "list" for a series of short (usually one-sentence) paragraphs about various lawn games, which are really a list. I'd like to hear what others think about this. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria: Rather than complaining here about the state of an article that has already been expanded five-fold by my diligent work, perhaps consider instead spending your time expanding and improving the article itself if you're dissatisfied with its state. That's what I would do. For example, you can sort the content by country as a starting point for further expansion. Afterwards, you can perform research to find sources and expand the article from those sources, as I have already done as a starting point. The article has significant potential for expansion. If you don't approve of Lawn game, then reject the submission, explain why at the nom page, and take it from there. See also: WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. How would this entry being on Main page be inappropriate? I think your comparison is bogus in this case. Instead, at the very least, consider spending perhaps ten to thirty minutes of your time to expand the article. After all, building an encyclopedia is what this project is all about. North America1000 14:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree that lawn game is a list, even if it isn't currently formatted as one. MeegsC (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Previewing tomorrow's Main Page for queues and hooks

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Currently, we have prep area 1 and prep area 2 to preview for tomorrow's Main Page. Shall we add more for more experience and all that? I want to see Queue 1 and other Queues for tomorrow. --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Add a requirement for reviewers to copy edit the article

Latest comment: 9 years ago37 comments24 people in discussion
NAC: There is rough consensus against adding a requirement for DYK reviewers to copy-edit the article, mainly because it would discourage them. It was noted that DYK review is not GA review. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 20 July 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.

This is an RFC to determine if there is consensus to add the following (or something similar) to the Reviewing guide

  • Read the article through at least once, looking for
    • proper spelling and grammar
    • substantial compliance with the manual of style
    • sentences, paragraphs, or phrases that are confusing or unclear
    • copyedit what you can, and ask the nominator/author to fix what you can't. Do not promote articles that are not readable.

~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 23:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose (with regret). Anything like general compliance with MOS is asking way too much (even GA doesn't require that) and "substantial" is a surefire invitation to trouble. If we couldn't get interest in #So_what_do_other_editors_think.3F then this sure won't fly. Sorry. EEng (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I would be happy for the reviewing guide to say that reviewers are permitted to copyedit or improve the article, but I want to stop far short of saying that they should. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Reviewers should not be required to do so. They can (and should) oppose promotion if the quality of the prose is really bad (i.e. broken English), but that's about it. One of the frequently stated purposes is to draw new editors, and if someone sees an errant apostrophe and says "I can fix it!", then that purpose has been fulfilled. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment — how about removing the bit requiring "substantial compliance" but keeping the bits about proper spelling, grammar, and clarity? If the nominating editor can't/won't fix the article (perhaps with help from an appropriate quarter — maybe including the reviewer, or other interested DYK party) then the article doesn't get promoted. Doesn't seem like too much to ask, particularly since few DYK submissions are from real newbies. MeegsC (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, we had a proposal very much like that already under discussion in another thread, but as has happened so often it was dying on the vine. Here's what was under discussion there, with slight modifications:
EEng (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, here's the link to the other one: RFC DYK process improvement 2015. — Maile (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
No actually, that's a different discussion -- we've got too many reform threads going at once. Here's the thread I was talking about: #So_what_do_other_editors_think.3F. EEng (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - With the caveat that the reviewer does not have a duty to fix all the errors if they don't want to. The duties of promoters should be dealt with separately. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is workable, or as they say in binary opinion world: Oppose Belle (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it's a nice idea in theory, but in practice if everyone did it properly the lag on DYKs would be insane. Of course, the people who won't do it properly will gravitate to the front of the queue, making WP:ERRORS run overtime. Not really a good long-term solution, I think. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's all good part of a good review anyway, but I see no need to put another burden on reviewing. If an article is not readable/comprehensible, a reviewer can probably say so after one paragraph, - without a requirement to read the whole thing. If I see mistakes that I have faster fixed than described, I fix, - without a requirement, because it's simpler for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I think the overall idea is a good one but I'm not taken with the proposed wording suggested above. Like Gerda, I too make copyedits to fix minor things that I spot. If there are more substantial issues, like the article being so badly written that it's manifestly unsuitable for DYK, then I ask the author to fix the issues and reject the nomination if s/he doesn't. I think we do need to say something about writing quality and provide some guidance for both nominators and reviewers, but I don't think the current proposal really fits the bill. I'll have a think about it and see if I can come up with an alternative. Prioryman (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - while articles should be not promoted that contain incomprehensible text or which need substantial copyediting, we cannot expect reviewers to go through nominations with the thoroughness of a GA review. Gatoclass (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose. The problem with this is could render certain articles effectively unreviewable. If e.g. you see an article today which needs significant copy editing you can review it mentioning that problem. It can then be fixed by the editor best able to do so, maybe the nominating editor, the author, or another editor who has particular expertise in the topic. Expecting the reviewing editor to fix it would mean editors would skip articles with the most problems/on more obscure topics.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral -- pragmatically, I read -- and copyedit as necessary -- every article I review for DYK, so such a rule wouldn't make much difference to me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentSupport - Good criteria. I believe this should be both the reviewer and the editor who promotes it to Prep - dual checks for the same thing. This would help a lot...if followed. My question, what does DYK do if any given editor repeatedly ignores this and promotes anyway? — Maile (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not stuck on that exact wording; the proposal is to add that or something similar. We can eliminate the bit about complying with MOS, or even just change it to a note that says, "reviewers should read the article, and should not promote articles that are poorly written or don't make sense." ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    I agree in principle with this. It strikes me that most DYK reviews are based on hitting the existing criteria alone, and not even considering if an article is written in English or in an encyclopedic tone. Copy-and-paste character counts are recommended rather than readability and sense-checking, not the kind of "quality control" we should have in place for items going onto the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support amended criteria per ONUnicorn above. We should expect reviewers to read the whole article, we should expect them to be aware that this is an English-language encyclopedia and therefore we should expect to see articles being promoted that meet a minimum quality standard. Comparing this amendment to GA is silly, although I've seen one recently promoted GA today that was way below even a C-class article. That's the problem with the "one reviewer, one promoter" paradigm, which is exacerbated by the "easy to win points in contests" and "QPQ reviews" issues which have been covered ad nauseum. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    Comment a lot of the opposition seems to be able to be summarised as "well that should sort of happen anyway" or "reviewers can already reject nominations" or "why make reviewing so much more difficult". The answer, in order, is "it doesn't", "they don't" and "it should be standard procedure". The point is that we're still seeing items queued up and heading to the main page which are not written in grammatically correct English or encyclopedic tone. I entirely reject the claim that this is because the items are being proposed by new editors, one prep area's nominators I checked had a combined total of 1/3 of a million edits. These are people who should know better. Reviewers should know better, and promoting admins should know better. But it appears not to be the case. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    I take it that you are in favour of editors who do not create content being blocked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    I'm in favour of people remembering that we are here to create body of encyclopedic work, not to promote mediocrity and not to become a second-class social media experiment. What do you think this project is about? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    Please familiarize yourself with our basic behavioral guidelines, starting with assuming good faith. Your reply is in contravention to that guideline. It would be very helpful if you would take a moment to read it again. While you raise many good points, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. Certain areas of Wikipedia require good interpersonal communication and social skills. If you don't feel that you can help in those areas, then feel free to avoid them. Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    I don't need your response to everything I post on Wikipedia. Your position is well known to me. If you can't see an absurd question for what it is, then you shouldn't really comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The fact that some articles nominated for DYK require copyediting demonstrates the fact that not all editors have the skills necessary to copyedit the articles of others. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per above. Succinctly argued. I would support making it compulsory to edit the article that you approve and make a minor addition. Victuallers (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I would support making it compulsory to actually read the article rather than just check the hook and copy-and-paste character account, which seems habitual here amongst the QPQers. We don't need skills to copyedit, we need to recognise if articles are written in English and in an encyclopedic tone. If people can't do that, they should not be promoting articles to the main page, admins included. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Copyediting is a difficult skill. Many people's copyediting skills are poor - it hasn't been taught at school in this country for two generations - and the MOS has grown to the point where only the most experienced editors are intimately familiar with it. Moreover, I am uncertain about what the effect of this rule would be. I just submitted an article, James Franck. It is written as a featured article (although it is unlikely to ever be submitted to FAC). It is long an detailed. Copyediting would take a long time. At the moment, a reviewer would find that WP:MilHist reviewer already certified it B class, so it is fully referenced and "free from major grammatical errors". So all they have to check is the hook sentence. If this would require better than B class, then the reviewer would be faced to with having to read and review the whole article. So the upshot would be that the large well-written article gets passed over in favour of a smaller one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • tentative Support - seems like a good idea to me. Copyediting in a broad sense so something is readable is something most folks can do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you really think that asking for DYK articles to "substantially comply" with MOS is realistic? Even GAs don't require that. EEng (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Copy editing is not a common skill to begin with, and given the massive amout of guidelines that we ALREADY have its would make the miasma even worse. In addition there is the problem of reviewers being forced into copyediting on a subject they may not even have a good understanding of, such as looking at the terminology in a geology or paleontology article, it makes the article worse just as often as it helps.--Kevmin § 17:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: While I have no objection to specifying that reviewers should read through the article at least once—they should certainly do so anyway—the MOS requirement is completely out of line, since it's an FA-level criterion. I'm fine with the "Do not promote articles that are not readable" statement; it seems obvious to me, and could easily be added today to the DYK rules at WP:DYKSG#D7 with only minor rewording. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would support reading the article through completely — and flagging up any problems found with clarity or grammar — but requiring one or more copyedits seems a bit over the top. What if you don't find anything wrong (i.e. with a good article)? Do you change something anyway? Strange requirement. MeegsC (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    Well I guess in those rare circumstances, you could just add a note to the review saying, "read whole article, no copyediting required from my point of view". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This would be a way to scare away new reviewers. If they discover they have to rewrite an article as well as review it (which under current rules would be contradictory as you can't review an article you have played a part in editing) then they quite likely would back away. This is DYK, not GA. The current system of reviewers pointing out major issues (as well as correcting minor grammatical or spelling issues) and letting the nominator take another look works OK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:15, 24 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.

Image lead hook Prep 6

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

History of Roman and Byzantine domes - Would someone please check the image and make sure it's OK to run? It's interior architecture in Istanbul, Turkey. Tell me if I'm mistaken, but the way I read Commons:Freedom of panorama#Turkey is: " For architectural works, this freedom is only valid for the exterior form." — Maile (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, um, yeah... except the copyright on the Hagia Sophia expired, like, 1000 years ago. EEng (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Tyus Battle in Prep 1

Latest comment: 9 years ago22 comments6 people in discussion
".. that Tyus Battle scored a deciding goal in the 2014 FIBA Under-17 World Championship three seconds before the first period ended?"

Firstly, I thought he was a basketball player, so shouldn't it be a "basket" rather than a "goal"? Secondly, how could this be the "deciding goal" if it was in the first period, when presumably other points were scored in the second period? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Reading the article, it calls it a basket and says that it was the score that took his side ahead, and they retained the lead for the rest of the match. IMHO it's not a very exciting claim, and distracts from the more interesting claim that he scored in a world final. --Dweller (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I still fail to see how the goal/basket that put a team ahead is "deciding" if both teams go on to score more goals/baskets... I think the claim is simply untrue. But perhaps it's a ENGVAR thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I agree with you. It's not "deciding". Both issues in the hook need fixing. --Dweller (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I think he means "decisive". I changed the hook. Yoninah (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
You can't say that. It wasn't. --Dweller (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Yoninah, the match was won by 7 points and a basket is only worth 2 or 3 points. --Dweller (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

How about: "... that Tyus Battle won a gold medal in the final of the 2014 FIBA Under-17 World Championship?" --Dweller (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Better. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
If a DYK regular doesn't pop by soon, I'll fix it myself, but it feels rude. --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I've done it now. --Dweller (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing this! I didn't see this discussion and was just about to pull the hook when Dweller changed it for me :)
However, there appears to be another issue with the History of Roman and Byzantine domes in Prep 6. The hook says the pendentives of Hagia Sophia (pictured) form part of a hemisphere seven percent wider (than the Pantheon), but the article appears to be referring to a theoretical dome that may not have existed. Can someone check on this please? Gatoclass (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
You're right. I don't understand the choice of factoid: there are so many more interesting claims in that article. --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
For example, there are some contenders in these two sentences: "Built by Anthemius of Tralles and Isidore of Miletus in Constantinople between 532 and 537, the Hagia Sophia has been called the greatest building in the world. It is an original and innovative design with no known precedents in the way it covers a basilica plan with dome and semi-domes." --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I will pull the hook until a new one has been settled on. You are welcome to suggest a hook if you have something in mind. Gatoclass (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
"the greatest building in the world"... that wouldn't be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary sources, would it? EEng (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you work that into a hook? If so, I might be able to verify it quickly and return this to the prep area. Gatoclass (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I missed your point. But if it's a quote and presented it as such, it wouldn't be an extraordinary claim, just somebody's opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, EEng's point covers a lot of the decent claims in the article. Bounce it back to the person who developed it? --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I've already returned the nom to T:TDYK, so he will see it there. But I was kind of hoping someone might come up with a decent hook I could verify now. Gatoclass (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Surely pendentives are by definition part of a theoretical sphere (and hemisphere) that in cases never existed. I think you have taken a literal meaning when the architectural and maths meaning was fine. Victuallers (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
They are an actual structural element of some buildings, whether they form part of a "theoretical sphere" or not. And the hook refers to an actual existing structural element, not a theoretical one, whereas the article refers only to a hypothetical one. So the hook doesn't square with the article, if you'll pardon the pun. Gatoclass (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC
I read "form part of a hemisphere" as "form part of a theoretical hemisphere" - if that extra word makes it OK then can you tick it - I found that hook intriguing as I had not come across the pendentive word before. I have also added a saucy but I think low risk picture hook - could you move it to queue if you have time. Oh yes and hello again. I was beginning to think I was going to get the "longest serving DYK award" but you have returned. Welcome again Victuallers (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 10:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

That one ended up being nine hours overdue :/ At least it's done now. Gatoclass (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stub Contest

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

...will be run again in August. Signups are at Wikipedia:Stub Contest/Entries. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Coffee production

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

There appear to be eight coffee production noms at present plus a coffee liqueur nomination. I like coffee as much as the next person but I fear our readers may overdose on caffeine if these all go through. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and we have a Lackawanna River blurb approximately every other set, almost all of which, in my opinion, are completely without interest in any shape or form. We're overdosing on coffee and un-named tributaries of an unknown river in an unknown location of no interest to anyone. Perhaps we ought to think about how our readers look at this section, of course "interesting" is entirely subjective, but blitzing them with coffee and river outlets day-in, day-out, will just turn everyone off. Perhaps we could have a moratorium on such, and only feature one per week, for example? There seems to be a huge backlog of other blurbs, there seems no good reason to prioritise coffee and minor river blurbs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I haven't read all the coffee ones but the one I have been reviewing (DRC) needed extensive reorganisation and copyediting to make it suitable for DYK which is a problem as it makes the reviewer one of the major contributors to the article. I don't mind, but it makes the process very time consuming. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with a number of these articles that have been promoted to the main page. I have made extensive copyedit on at least two of them in the past week or so. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for overall workability

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Did you know/RFC DYK process improvement 2015 — Maile (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

<bumping>this so it doesn't archive. EEng (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Removed bump. I closed this as no consensus. Nobody was looking at it - too many other proposals at the same time.— Maile (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
For future reference, Maile, the presence of the word <bumping> doesn't prevent archiving, but rather the act of inserting it reset the n-day archive delay. EEng (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Pretty sure it's the latest sig date in the section that's considered by the archiving bot, not merely inserting new material. (This is being posted at around 7:20 on July 6, but with only my username for the sig, just to help test this belief.) BlueMoonset (talk)
BlueMoonset, I'm pretty sure you are correct as far as normal talk threads. What had preceded this, was that I had a Template:Do not archive until on this thread, to keep it from being archived until the RFC closed. EEng later added an html version of Template:Bump for the same reason. Once the RFC closed, I removed both, but had only mentioned the bump in the summary.— Maile (talk) (also not putting the date here)
I'd be astounded if it didn't consider all timestamps, no matter where in the thread. BTW, <bump> isn't anything other than straight text. EEng (talk)

Multiple article hook

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have moved the multiple coral article hook into Prep2. I tried to balance the hook set with otherwise short hooks so I think its overall length is adequate. The coral hook has been approved for 18 days now, so there has been adequate time for anyone to say that they think there is too much common text between the articles for the nomination to be eligible. The main source for all of them is the IUCN and the wording of large parts of this is identical for each coral. Personally I doubt that such a large multiple hook of similar corals is desirable, but I believe the nomination falls within the DYK criteria and have acted accordingly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Usually we run fewer hooks in a set with an excessively long hook, so I've moved one hook to another set. Gatoclass (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I removed a second hook from that set as the coral hook is about three times longer than a standard hook. Also, I didn't want to see a good quirky go to waste beneath all that coral. Gatoclass (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about a BLP

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Does Jason Lewry count as an unsourced BLP, as it has one external link, which doesn't work? I'm certain I can improve the article to 1500 characters (which is more than 2x), but don't think I can get it to 5x (which is 3000ish words). Joseph2302 (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

An external link is not a source, especially since it's not verifying anything in particular in the article. Knock yourself out and go for it. — Maile (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Joseph2302, but this would not be eligible as an unsourced BLP. There is a very useful source in the Infobox which verifies lots of what's in the article. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Good thing we have people who double check on this site. — Maile (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, didn't see that one (although I really should have known it was there). Looks like it's 5x I'm going to have to do then. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Got it to 5x, so nominated it. I'll try not to let the number of ex-Sussex cricketer DYK nomination get too many, like the coffee production ones. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there some error?

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I got a message that step 3 of DYK nomination procedure was not followed at Template:Did you know nominations/Thikana (film). I checked again but found no errors. Can someone look into this? Regards, --Skr15081997 (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I saw the same message on another user's talk page, and after visiting the nomination I saw that everything was fine and "GTG". -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 09:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I got the same message, but it was correct, my DYK wasn't transcluded. Strange that it had had an initial review. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC).
Same notification here, but I also have reviews on my nomination, and it appears in the nominations page. It looks like a bug to me.--Kevmin § 17:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The previous list is due for archiving, so I've compiled a new set of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing. As of the most recent update, 131 nominations are approved, leaving 209 of 340 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) 03:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Giving this a bump to prevent archiving; most of the oldest are still awaiting review, so there's no immediate need for an updated list. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

100 years later

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I hope the caption got somebody's attention. I would like to nominate the article Joseph O'Dwyer for DYK. I got as far as filling in the template, but then got lost on the directions for what to do with it. "Did you know that Joseph O'Dwyer, a physician at the New York Foundling Hospital, invented a method for intubation that greatly reduced deaths caused by diphtheria, especially in children? Did you know that the Fell-O'Dwyer method was a significant contribution to the medical specialties of Anesthesiology and Critical Care?" When I happened across the article it was a stub with all of two sentences. After researching the man, I think he deserves much more than that. Articles are still written about him over 100 years after his death. Mannanan51 (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done User:Maile66 took care of it for you. Yoninah (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph O'Dwyer, added to the DYK nominations list under July 5. — Maile (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Queue looks pretty empty, possibly overdue?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, I don't know much about the prep/queue/Main page process, but it looks like Queue 5 is the next to update, but it is empty, as are all Queues currently and most prep areas (Template:Did you know/Queue). Please look into this, thanks. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Images still need protection?

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Does the image in a DYK set still need to be manually protected before promotion to the main page, or is it done automatically by the software now? Gatoclass (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I used to manually protect it as per the instructions until I was told by someone at Commons not to do so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
That will save me a bit of housework then, thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Queue 3

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Sorry to rain on the parade, but the hook about Ark: Survival Evolved fails point 5 of WP:DYK#Content since it's about a video game, but doesn't tie into the real world. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Then, Jakob, as an admin, it would behoove you to remove the hook—preferably replaced with one from, say, prep 4—in the next 15 minutes before queue 3 is promoted to the main page at 00:20 UTC. That is, unless the word "player" is a sufficient real-world tie. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I brought it to this page for two reasons: 1) to see if anyone else agrees with my assessment and 2) having never pulled a hook, I would have to guess at the correct procedure. The hook seems to have hit MP already, so perhaps it's a moot point. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Point 5 has always been a bit contentious and should probably be expressed a little less strongly. Having said that, the fact that the hook refers to "players" arguably makes it compliant with the existing rule. Gatoclass (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone object to "20th century in ichnology" being the picture hook for Queue 6?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The paired nominations for "19th century in ichnology" and "20th century in ichnology" have recently been passed, and are slated to run on consecutive days. The 19th century hook is slated to be its queue's image-bearer, but the 20th century hook is currently not for its queue. I think these hooks work best as a pair and it would be a shame if they were "broken up" by one being the lead hook and the other being buried when it has an excellent image available for use. I talked with User:Cwmhiraeth about this and he expressed concerns that other editors might find it too repetitive for both ichnology hooks to be featured with images and suggested that I consult the community here on whether or not they would approve of both hooks having images. I think these hooks have great synergy and that they would work best being equally prominent. How does the community feel about the 20th century in ichnology nomination being accompanied by an image in its respective queue? Abyssal (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The 20th century image is difficult to make out when it's tiny as it would be on the main page. The 19th century image is better at that small scale. Considering the 20th century one is currently chillin in a que by itself I don't know if whatever image will be there is better or not; but that may be the reasoning for not including the image. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Multiple article hooks

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

Hi, I'm proposing that if you contribute over five articles in a multi hook, especially over 10 articles that you only have to do five QPQs. I have a Mexican municipality one which is approaching 20 articles and it's a bit daft in all honesty to be expected to review near 20 different articles and quite difficult to find that many to review at any one time actually. Would five articles to review for big multiple hooks be more reasonable?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Rosiestep and Nvvchar might also be interested in commenting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, someone reviewing a multi-article nom has to do nearly as much work as for multiple single-article noms - they have to check length and newness of each article, policy compliance, paraphrasing, etc. Reviewing a 20-article nom could easily take far longer than 5 single articles, despite it being only one hook. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
A hook with 20 articles?! I'd suggest you break that up, as most readers are likely to abandon that before they start. They certainly aren't likely to click 20 times on one hook! It may also decrease the chance that someone chooses to QPQ your hook too — that's a lot of work! MeegsC (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
As Nikkimaria points out, the checks all need to be done for each article. And there's extra work making sure that material isn't duplicated from article to article, since each article needs its own original material (it's only eligible as original once); the more articles there are, the more cross-checking needs to be done. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: multi-article hooks require a great deal of work on the part of reviewers, and are an imposition in that way, even as they save space in a set. I think a one-for-one QPQ requirement is perfectly fair, and don't want the QPQ rules to encourage enormous multi-article hooks by giving them a discounted rate. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with BlueMoonset. Over time the number of unreviewed nominations tends to mount up because some nominators are not required to do QPQ reviews. The multiple QPQ reviews done by the nominators of multi-article hooks helps to redress the balance. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Per BlueMoonset, hooks with a large number of nominations are far from ideal, and the current arrangement helps somewhat to discourage them. This proposal would encourage the production of long multis and that would not be a positive development. Gatoclass (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • 20 articles? I think you should have to do QPQs in a Fibonacci sequence for every multihook that has over five articles (8 QPQs for 6, 13 QPQs for 7, etc.); so, Dr B, for your twenty article multihook you would owe 6765 QPQ reviews; quick, let's vote it in. Belle (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 09:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Old approved nominations awaiting promotion

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

With 100 nominations currently awaiting promotion (excluding special occasion hooks) and 319 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.

The following are 16 nominations that were approved over two weeks ago. Since we're promoting 102 per week, these 16 have been waiting quite a bit longer than average. Date given is date of approval.

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.

Please remember to cross off an entry as you promote it or discover that it isn't eligible for promotion at the present time. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

C.J. Grisham

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Hi. I've written an article about military blogger C.J. Grisham that I think meets the criteria as a DYK article. Do the "copy edit" and "overly detailed" templates need to be resolved before I can submit the article to your Wikiproject? I'm not sure what else needs to be cited or how much information to cut. Do I need to suggest a hook too? I'd appreciate any advice. Thanks. 72.74.201.209 (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, articles with cleanup templates are not banned from DYK, but we would be unlikely to promote an article with unresolved issues of that type. More importantly, the article looks to me to have another problem, namely the quality of the sources, which appear to be mostly rightwing blogs of dubious reliability. There is nothing to stop you submitting it to DYK, but I'd say your chances of getting it promoted in its current form, if at all, are remote. Gatoclass (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Which ones are right wing blogs? I can remove them if that's the main problem. 72.74.202.74 (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I am very reluctant to get involved in any way with this article because it looks like major work will be required to get it into shape. The article has so many sources that just trying to figure out which of them might meet WP:RS is a job which looms as a time sink. If you want my advice, you should just stick to what has been said about Grisham in major news sources with a reputation for reliability. But in having a quick read through some of the article, I encountered the claim that The Atlantic and WorldNetDaily "joined" a milblog blackout protesting Grisham's treatment - the sources for which are to a blog post on theatlanticwire.com which merely reports on the milblog blackout, and for the WND claim, a blogsite called susankatzkeating.com which so far as I can tell, doesn't even mention WND. So right there are basically two major claims with no apparent sourcing at all - which makes one wonder how many other errors of fact might be hidden in this very long article. Gatoclass (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Could you suggest someone who might be willing to help me? 72.74.202.74 (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody at the Military history project? They seem to have wide-ranging interests, and this guy's former military. MeegsC (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. 72.74.202.74 (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Don Pablos

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to nominate Don Pablo's for consideration for DYK. Its expansion was started on 18 June 2015. If accepted, I proposed the following hooks:

  1. ...that Don Pablo's was once the second largest full service Mexican restaurant chain in the United States?
  2. ...that Don Pablo's was once owned by a Georgia apple?

Thank you for your possible consideration. 107.216.165.224 (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for expanding the article and for your interest in DYK. Unfortunately, to be eligible, a five times expansion must be completed within the seven days prior to nomination. In this case, the expansion began over three weeks ago, and the article went from 1173 prose characters to 2835, which is about a 2.4 times expansion. Sorry. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Wrong hook in prep area 4

Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

In Prep 4, User:Dreamyshade and I would prefer the following hook be used for Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church:

Thanks in advance! Raymie (t • c) 18:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"got burned down"? No way. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, that's understandable then. I know @Dreamyshade: would prefer the first hook (which she wrote), but now that you say it it sounds awful at the end there. Raymie (t • c) 19:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Why not "was burned down" or, simply, "burned down"? "Got burned down" is terrible wording, but the point can be made by rephrasing. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, "was burned down" sounds a lot better. Raymie (t • c) 19:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
How about:
After all, you can't talk about something being burned down and then have a current photo of it! MeegsC (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point. That said I know @Dreamyshade: wanted Vesey mentioned in the hook. Raymie (t • c) 20:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay then:

Thanks for the refinements! The meaning I wanted to convey with "got burned down" is that the sources clearly say the original church was intentionally destroyed in retaliation, instead of being a blameless accident, and these improvements make that more clear. An issue though with explicitly mentioning "white supremacists" in the hook is that many of the sources are ambiguous on who did it. The current sources for that sentence say:

Looking at other sources that the article currently uses, I see:

Trying to draw a coherent story out of these five sources, it seems clear enough that angry white people destroyed the church, but it's not clear whether they were "white supremacists", so I'd suggest amending the hook and the article to "angry white people". Dreamyshade (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Then it needs to be changed in the article, which clearly says "white supremacists". MeegsC (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't say "white supremacists" in the article any more, it says "angry white people". But the last hook proposed says "white supremacists", so somebody needs to propose a revised hook before it can be substituted. Gatoclass (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, I substituted the last proposed hook omitting the reference to "white supremacists". It should be self-evident who burned the church down from the context. Gatoclass (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Advice from the old timers, please

Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

(Or newbies if you know the answer; I just figured the veterans would be clued up.)

This article (nom) makes use of various Wikipedia or Wikimedia pages as cited sources, which seems a bit dodgy to me. Is there some policy forbidding (or encouraging) this sort of thing? Belle (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

How about WP:GOODREFS. That article also uses YouTube and Wikipediocracy. — Maile (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Based on the refs in the article, only one of which is potentially an RS, the article uttlerly fails GNG. EEng (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you; I've knocked the nom back; tough but fair, that's me. Belle (talk) 10:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
For the record, that's not true. If a secondary source comments on e.g. a controversy (external to WP) involving a WP article (Article A), then the article discussing that controversy (Article B) might e.g. include material from Article A which the secondary source alludes to but doesn't quote in detail. In that case Article B would cite Article A for that purpose -- just like any other primary source, because for the purposes of Article B, Article A is a primary source. EEng (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I would still dispute that, since the article being cited can change between revisions, and figuring out which revision people consulted in writing articles is OR. We should rely on the external sources. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Stated absolutely that's just not right -- WP:CIRC, second paragraph. EEng (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
What never? Well, hardly ever! EEng (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
And when we do it should always be a WP:permalink. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC).

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The previous list is two weeks old and could be archived at any time, so I've compiled a new set of the 40 oldest nominations that need reviewing. As of the most recent update, 75 nominations are approved, leaving 218 of 293 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) 06:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead hook and image for Prep 2

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Godavari Pushkaram was added to Prep 2 in accordance with a special occasion request for July 14. It was pulled due to copyediting problems. It is now ready to go back into Prep 2, although another lead hook was inserted in the meantime. Since I was involved in re-editing and approving the nomination, could someone else put it back in Prep 2? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done Gatoclass (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

QPQs for non-self-nominations?

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This is probably a stupid question, but...

According to the reviewing guide, QPQs are not required for non-self-nominations, but I don't see anywhere in the rules or supplementary rules that this is stated. Are QPQs required for self-nominations? If so, then the reviewing guide is outdated and should probably be altered. If not, am I missing something in the rules/supplementary rules? Should this exemption be made more explicit there? ~ RobTalk 00:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That was voted on recently and the process changed so that if you nominate something, you are expected to review something - regardless of whether you expanded the article or not. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Casliber is correct, but you still won't be required to review anything until you have five DYK credits (currently it appears you have two). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I was asking for a review, rather than a nom. Thanks for the responses! Is it safe to say the reviewing guide should be updated, then? I see Casliber did just that. Thanks again! ~ RobTalk 12:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Main Page image caption

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After testing in multiple browsers (Chrome, IE, Firefox) and operating systems (Windows, Mac OSX, iOS), testing of image captions on the Main Page is complete. If there are no other objections, I plan to institute this on Saturday, July 18.

WHAT THIS MEANS
For DYK, you'll want to replace the current image syntax with the new {{Main page image}} template.
<div style="float:right; margin-left:0.5em;" id="mp-dyk-img">
[[File:ZooKeys - Dactylotrochus cervicornis.jpeg|100x100px|''Dactylotrochus cervicornis'']]
</div>

becomes... 

<div style="float:right; margin-left:0.5em;" id="mp-dyk-img">
{{main page image|image=ZooKeys - Dactylotrochus cervicornis.jpeg|caption=''Dactylotrochus cervicornis''}}
</div>

Things to note:

  1. Image size will be increasing to 120px width by default.
  2. If you are using an image with portrait orientation, try to avoid really skinny images (where the aspect ratio is like 1:3 or something). You can also use WIDTHxHEIGHT syntax if you want, but note that there will be a gap between the right edge of the image and the right edge of the container.
  3. Media files can be used too. Just put the filename in the image parameter.

True, DYK doesn't have the same problem as ITN/OTD where the image does not always go with the first item, but it will look better if all four sections (including TFA) go with the same format. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 16:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_116&oldid=1137408642"