Wikipedia talk:Did you know

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed.

Transclusions on nomination page, suggested solution

background discussion from WT Village Pump (technical)

This problem has existed for a few months on Template talk:Did you know. Once you get down to the newest subsection dates, the templates don't transclude very well. We were told back in September that the problem was that page is exceeding Template limits Post expand include size. At that time, we had a large special occasion holding area for various special events. The holding area has very little in it now, and the number of nominations we have are otherwise a lot less. The problem is worse than ever. Regardless of what is causing this, can it be fixed? As the internet expands, so does the size of everything programmed into it, and DYK won't be the only ones this happens to. How do we fix it for the future? — Maile (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Abandoning Template limits would be a decision that would need to be taken at WMF level, and they're vanishingly unlikely to authorise it since it's not a bug, it's an intentional feature to prevent DDOS attacks. The way around it is to use fewer transclusions; remember that each DYK nomination includes {{DYK conditions}}, {{DYK nompage links}}, {{main page image}}, {{DYKsubpage}} and {{DYKmake}} plus whatever else the reviewing bot adds, so each transcluded nomination counts as six or more transcluded templates. ‑ Iridescent 22:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC) The standard fix for template size problems is to substitute templates and to remove any nested transclusions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Exactly how would DYK go about that? — Maile (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC) On a quick skim, the {{DYK conditions}} template doesn't appear to have any great use and has three nested templates of its own, so getting rid of that would save four templates-per-nomination immediately (with the current 53 nominations, that's an instant saving of over 200 templates, which will probably solve the problem on its own). Basically, go through the five templates I list above, and anything that's not actually both essential to your process, and essential that it remains unsubstituted, think about whether it would be possible to do without it or enforce substitution of it. You could also probably shave quite a bit off by ruthlessly enforcing a "no untranscluded templates in discussions" rule, and clamping down on anyone who uses {{od}}, {{tq}}, {{done}} etc in discussions. ‑ Iridescent 22:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Neither {{DYKmake}} nor {{DYKnom}} should be of concern, since they're commented out. I imagine that increased use of the {{DYK checklist}} for reviews is also contributing to the problem. Does the use of the {{*}} template contribute to the problem or not? It's currently being used by the DYKReviewBot. One template that we absolutely need to retain is the {{DYKsubpage}} template, since it is the final substitution of that template that closes the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC) Every time this happens I hope it will finally be the motivating factor to do the seemingly obvious and move the reviewed/approved nominations to a different page. DYK that nobody can read that thing on a phone? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC) Oh, and the answer is yes, templates that are actually transcluded all count, so if there's a bunch of templated bullets then that's definitely contributing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC) Then calling Intelligentsium, to see whether the templated bullets can come out of the reviews done by the DYKReviewBot, and any other avoidable templates. Also pinging John Cline, who created {{DYK conditions}}, to see whether there is some way to get the job done more efficiently templatewise, assuming that the job still needs to be done. I have no idea whether the 2015 conversion of {{NewDYKnomination}} to invoke a Module with the same name rather than do the work in a template would have affected the need for DYK conditions or not. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC) Thank you BlueMoonset for your kindness and astute manner; inviting me to join this discussion. I was not aware of it until now, nor did I know anything of the circumstances forbearing it. I am therefore disadvantaged from giving an answer; ore the research I've yet to do. When I catch up with the topic, however, I am confident that the answers being sought will be found. If I wasn't so Spock-like, I can imagine myself getting all butt-hurt about not being notified of questions being asked of these templates, perhaps others as well. I was told in the past, things about my style in writing; and before that, of many ill effects that style was cursed to engender. Here, it seems that enduring months of template malfeasance was preferable to enduring discussion where I would invariably be. Being all Spock-like; and all: I feel terrible that this may in fact be. I really do.--John Cline (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

We have to do something soon. The nominations page is quickly dissolving into nothing but wikilinks with no transclusions. Yes, I know the Prep/Queue page has always been used as the holding area. We cannot control how other people edit nomination templates - i.e. large amounts of text, template comments, additional image suggestions. The way it has always been is not the way that will work for the future.

Below is my suggestion. — Maile (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggested solution

• The nomination page stays but only includes those which have received no approval whatsoever.
  • Reviewers who only are only interested in non-problem hooks have less to scroll through to find something of interest.
  • This would make a cleaner page for first-time reviewers who get confused by the glut we now have.
• The Prep/Queue page stays exactly like it is, nothing changes about how it works.
• A new subpage is created where any nomination that receives an approval is moved there by a bot (or human).
  • Special occasion holding areas, including April Fools' Day, appears at the bottom of this page. It stays consistently as is, in the fact that hooks are only moved here after approved on the main nominations page.
  • Prep promoters draw from this page.
  • Reviewers who like to check for problem areas on approved nominations look here.
  • Any disputed approval and any post-approval ALT hooks added are worked out on this subpage
  • Any hooks pulled from Prep, Queue, or the main page are put back here.

Please add comments below

Comments

• Yep, sounds like an excellent idea to me too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

  The bot will now used the substed the template {{*}} - it's weird that the page exceeds the transclusion limit so easily though. The previous time involved {{hat}}, {{hab}} which were being used more than once per nomination, and had several transclusions underneath as well, whereas {{*}} seems to be just a Unicode character. However I think it may be a bit of a hassle to move hooks between two pages - if you move them the moment they are seen by a human, you would probably quickly get the same problem on the second page, but moving them back and forth would be a huge hassle. Intelligentsium 00:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

  I know you have worked hard on the bot, but we didn't have this problem before it was activated. If the problems with it can't be ironed out soon, I think we are just going to have to retire it. That would surely be a better solution than having two separate nomination pages. Gatoclass (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

  I agree it's more trouble, but I think having a place where approved noms are gathered, for further intense scrutiny by the "eagle eyes", will extremely helpful, as well as solving the overflow problem. EEng 18:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

  The bot had been down for a few weeks, and this problem continued even in its absence. — Maile (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support, and... can we add the provision that nom page stays open until the bot closes it (maybe at the moment the hook moves to the main page, or -- better -- at the moment the hook comes off the main page)? EEng 18:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

  And have any dialogue on pulled hooks happen there, so that any nominator, reviewer, or other participant on that nomination would be aware of it as long as they watch-listed the open template. I don't know the mechanics of having a bot close the nomination, but it's worth asking Shubinator if that's possible to do in conjunction with whatever else DYKupdatebot does. — Maile (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

  Exactly. I'd also like to add a further suggestion that adding the green tick (which is presumably what will trigger the bot moving the nom page to this new "approved area") should always be accompanied by a tentative designation of exactly one of the (possibly several) ALTs as the one to used. Further discussion in the "approved area" might change that, but this way once the nom moves to the "approved area" there's just a single ALT that the "eagle eyes" (our precious editors who focus on quality control) will have to focus on checking. EEng 01:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  If closing a nomination just involves subst'ing the DYKsubpage template and marking it as passed (with humans responsible for moving the noms between the various pages, except for queue -> main page), DYKUpdateBot can do this while promoting the set (not while taking it down). As BlueMoonset noted, the bot will not know about comments that should go into the "2" field. With this model, how will folks know which admin promoted the nomination into the queue? Shubinator (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  The promoter simply posts on the bottom of the nom page e.g. ALT1 to Prep4 (without image). ~~~~. The bot closes the nom as it swaps the hook set onto Main Page (i.e. at the same time the credit boxes are posted to creator/nominator talk pages) and the 2= could be Swapped onto Main Page 0800 22 Jan 2017 UTC. This way, all concerns prior to the actual main-page appearance can be discussed on the still-open nom page, where it belongs; concerns arising after that time have to go through ERRORS as now.

  I think it would be ideal if, while we're at it, we changed the bot actions of posting credits to editor Talk, and closing the nom pages, to the moment the hook set is swapped off of the main page. Then the nom page really stays open for the entire life of the hook, "cradle to grave". But I recognize this might be more complex to do. EEng 02:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  Mark me as opposing the further suggestion: the reviewer should feel free to check and approve as many interesting hooks as seem appropriate and are properly support in both article and sources, but not all reviewers are the best judges of which is the best, and sometimes the person assembling a prep set will pick one good hook over another good hook because it better balances the prep set. To limit it to exactly one hook of the reviewer's choice also reverses the deference we've given to the nominator regarding proposed hooks.

  As for the promoter, may I suggest that the promoter be required to fill in the 2 field with their promotion message? The bot's closing of the page will cause the time of closure to be added to the page. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  The reviewer can approve as many ALTs as he or she wants, but (my suggestion is) that just one of them will be designated, tentatively, as the one that will appear. Further discussion might change that, selecting a different ALT, but starting at this point there would be only one ALT on the table at a given time for a given nom, so that attention can focus on it for error-checking and so on. To increase quality and reduce errors appearing on Main Page, it's essential that the checking process begin further upstream than it does currently i.e. currently this doesn't start until Prep, and now it can start when the nom is moved to this new "approved area". But it needs to focus on one potential hook at a time; if multiple hooks are in play, the checking just can't be thorough. I don't buy that this constrains prep set assembly enough to outweigh the advantages, and again I say that the designation of a single hook is only tentative, subject to change. EEng 05:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support. It will make it so much easier to scroll through the set of approved hooks when building prep sets. Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This is an excellent suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support sounds fine LavaBaron (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support, since I have no major objections. I do have a couple of doubts though. First, my understanding of the technicalities is not great, but if this problem is arising from people using too many templates without substituting them, it would seem that this is relatively a small fix: and that unregulated use of templates in the review process is going to create a problem again sooner or later. So, wouldn't it make sense to create some guidelines for folks editing the nomination pages, to help with this? Second, I find that very many of the hooks that need reviewing at any given time, and indeed the ones requiring the most attention, are not "fresh" nominations, but those that have been reviewed already, but require a new reviewer for whatever reason. @Maile66: where would these fit in your scheme? Vanamonde (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93 Regarding the guidelines, it does begin to be instruction creep. We cannot control what editors really do, no matter how many guidelines we write. As we experience on this talk page, a lot of editors aren't reading the guidelines anyway. So, we can spend a lot of time spinning our wheels and complaining on the talk page about those who do what they want, but we cannot control others. As to your second question, perhaps I wasn't clear. The minute a nomination receives a passing tic, it gets moved to the new page. There it stays, and any further issues or comments happen on that page. That means turn-around ticks on review questions, pulled hooks that were already promoted. Anything. EEng has suggested we keep the template open until when/if the nomination is off the Main page. Keeping it on that page does not close out the nomination, but leaves it there in a way that anyone with a given nom template on their watch-list will be aware it needs attention. New (first time) reviewers will have an easier time with unreviewed templates than figuring out why an already approved nom is in the midst of revision for one thing or another. — Maile (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  @Mail66 and Gatoclass: I think you're right about the guideline creep, but I didn't necessarily mean another page or another bullet point in the current set. What I mean is that we can do minor things that should still add up to something substantive. For instance, some folks mentioned templates (DYK checklist) that are only used at DYK: we can add a note to the documentation saying that they must be substituted, and also possibly have a bot substitute them every time. We can add to the DYK template edit notice, asking people to minimize their use of templates. And so forth. I imagine that other folks can think of other options. Vanamonde (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Per Vanamonde, I think what we need to be doing is working out why this problem is occurring, and take steps to eliminate or minimize it, because it never used to occur even with 350 nominations and now it's occurring with just 150. If the number of nominations builds up again, the problem will recur. Gatoclass (talk) 06:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comments: Keeping the nom open up until (and even through) the main page appearance seems reasonable to me, so long as the technical template issues can be addressed. I think it is fine and appropriate for a reviewer to choose a hook, but also to leave the choice open to the promoter, but I would like to see some reasoning posted. I've had a few cases where I've wondered why a hook was chosen (or not chosen), which I find frustrating and yet asking the promoter every time could get awfully intrusive given the relatively small group of set builders. Having another approved hook available is also useful in cases where an issue arises, because sometimes swapping hooks rather than pulling might be reasonable and appropriate. I would also like to see an explicit requirement that all ALTs be reviewed because I've had at least one case of offering several and only the first being reviewed / promoted on the presumption it was my preference (an incorrect assumption on that occasion, but understandable and arising from poor communication on my part). EdChem (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  I believe you make a valid point about the ALTs being reviewed. I've noticed the same thing. If all hooks are not reviewed, then the review isn't complete. It does a disservice to both the nominator and the promoter. Also, I have no problem with the promoter leaving a small note on the template about why a given hook among several available was promoted. — Maile (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, Maile66, with my Timothy N. Philpot nomination, only the ALT0 has been reviewed and it was my fall-back option if all the others (which I think are more interesting) are rejected on undue negativity grounds. So, I posted here at WT:DYK requesting input, but the thread attracted no responses. I'm not sure what to do because the rules technically require all ALTs to be reviewed but making an issue of my case will focus on the reviewer, who is behaving as others do and does a lot of DYK work. EdChem (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Good idea. There are currently several structural problems and the proposal looks like a sensible way forward. If there isn't one already, it would be good to have a page to document the process flow so that it's clear how a nomination progresses from page to page. Andrew D. (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I've just converted Template:DYK checklist to use Module:DYK checklist, which makes each checklist take up about half the post-expand include size that it did before. This has resulted in 12 more nominations being visible at the bottom of Template talk:Did you know, but we are still quite a bit over the limit. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I find it worrying that there isn't one bit about why this is happening - I don't mean technically, I mean temporally. The number of new articles continues to decline, there appears to be no (major?) change in the number of noms being posted per day, and I don't see anything about the technical limit being changed. This is the only time I've noticed it - it seems to have happened before but I assume for a short period? So why now, in 2016? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Maury Markowitz: I think the cause of this might be the bot, which adds a bunch to text to every nomination. Pppery 20:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

    Ahh, so it's based on the total text, not the number of transclusions? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

    Yep. (It's actually more complicated than that, but) Pppery 21:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz We have actually been discussing this a great deal on this talk page. A year or two ago, our individual reviews weren't so complicated, except in the case of drawn-out threads. Most were pretty brief. But graphics, text, little check templates, and a lot of thing have increased the size of the individual nominations transcluded. We also now have the bot that does a preliminary review. However, that bot was down for several weeks, and the problem continued. When we pushed it to the limits, the visual kind of went kaflooey. Think of what happens with your browser if the cache doesn't get cleared for a long time - eventually things aren't working right on a given page. It's kind of like that. Have you read the green hatted text at the top? We've exceeded our Template limits Post expand include size, and only WMF can give us more. And that isn't likely to happen, because WMF has safeguards in place to prevent a Denial of Service attack. Little things help some, like not putting checkmark templates on the nomination. But in the long run, we'll be pushing the limits and need to come up with a solution. — Maile (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I did, and also visited the link you have here. Neither stated this clearly, nor included any specific numbers or examples. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Summary and implementation?

So it's one thing for there to be a lot of support, but it's another for someone to do it. What next? EEng 01:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• We do need to work the mechanics of this. And we need a bot to help, perhaps Shubinator's bot or something already in existence that just need extra code for this. — Maile (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

"Just..." EEng 02:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The nomination page seems to have returned to normal. Has someone actually resolved the problem, or is this as the result of some faulty nomination being promoted and archived? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that interesting? — Maile (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but it's only a matter of time before the problem comes back, and there were other good reasons for doing this. Thus I hope the extensive paid and pampered staff in charge of doing things like this get right to it. EEng 05:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

EEng, the problem did not fade away gradually but came to a sudden conclusion. One moment there were a host of nominations not properly displayed and a few hours later, there were none. This happened, as far as I can tell, late on the 12th November or early on the 13th. I think it was due to a problem nomination which was promoted and archived at that time, and will likely not recur. I suspect, without good evidence, the Moses Bensinger nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It's been a problem in the past and (I repeat) there were other reasons for doing this. (Commenting mostly to keep the thread alive.) EEng 19:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

There is more than one theory about why this happened, and we don't know for sure. But at this point, it's not happening. This would certainly support the idea that exceeding Template limits Post expand include size was not the problem after all, or this would still be happening. We have recently seen how one background edit can affect DYK like the bottom card being removed from a house of cards. We don't know why this happened, and we don't know why it stopped. What I have proposed here about a separate page for approved nominations would be a large undertaking to implement and maintain, unless there was a bot involved. I think the above Supports are mostly because it would be easier for promoters if we had a separate page for approved nominations. I yield to the majority, however this turns out. But we still need to get it implemented if we go with it. — Maile (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset, Cwmhiraeth, and EEng: I just noticed right above the special holding area, we are having this transclusion problem again. And it's getting worse. It magically clears up for a few days, and then clogs up again. One of the great mysteries of the universe. — Maile (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Maile, the number of active nominations (and therefore templates) has been steadily increasing, so it's natural that we'd run into the transclusion problem. It had been happening with 160 or more active nominations; now it's happening with 250/260 or more. That's quite a difference. If we had four or five prep/queue sets built at any one time, we wouldn't be having transclusion problems at the moment, though if the number of noms continues to build, we would regardless. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

FDT

I have recently expanded out FDT (song) (to avoid unnecessary surprise, the "D" stands for "Donald", the "T" stands for "Trump", you can guess the rest), and in principle it meets the criteria of a new DYK nomination, with a possible hook "... that rapper YG claimed that the US Secret Service tried to block release of his song "FDT"?" However, given the recent brouhaha over all things Trump at [1], I would really like to gain a consensus here before going ahead with it. Your thoughts, please? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

No objection against featuring this article at DYK (suposing it passes a standard review). However, that hook smells of promotional attention grabbing (the claim may be true, but may equally be a "look how dangerous we are" ploy to get attention) and we shouldn't contribute to this. Something more neutral and independently verifiable would be better. Fram (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. That's a strong claim and needs a strong source, which these ones do not seem to be. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Threesie, do you fancy a role as "wiki-editor-in-residence-at-an-Ecuadorian-Enbassy-of-your-choice", perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• And here for a moment I thought FDT was about sending your mom flowers on Mother's Day. As the editor proudly targeted at the AE discussion, I have no hesitation about this. I'll make the nomination myself. Rolling Stone is definitely a reliable source for the artist's claim, which is all the hook presents. However, on reading the sources I would extend the hook thus:

... that rapper YG claimed that the US Secret Service tried to block release of his song "FDT (Fuck Donald Trump)", and two of its lines were partially blanked on the song's album release?

EEng 17:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I stopped short of that for the simple reason that I think writing "Fuck Donald Trump" in bold on the main page is probably as risky as trying to cross the US-Mexico border with no passport, wearing a T-shirt that says "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

When that clue-challenged admin took me to AE I worried not at all, because I have faith in the intelligence and fundamental good sense of the community as a whole – faith which was, I am happy to report, overwhelmingly validated. I feel the same way here, both with respect to my fellow editors here at Wikipedia, and my fellow citizens here in the United States. It's the name of the song. EEng 19:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

... and we certainly wouldn't want the front page flooded with disappointed political historians of Senegal, would we? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Eh, only it's not the name of the song. It's what the name of the song stands for but there's no reason for needless profanity on the front page when the artist was too much of a tool to use the long-form name himself. Just leave it as a surprise for those who click through or (at most) add American-style punctuation F.D.T. to make it clear that there's something they might want to see but we're not showing them yet.

Absolutely you should move forward if you want to promote your hard work on an article, though. — LlywelynII 07:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake -- I was mis-lead by the lead (how ironic). And I did no work on the article -- I'm just the hooker. I've modified to suit:

... that rapper YG claimed that the US Secret Service tried to block release of his song "FDT" (standing for "Fuck Donald Trump") and two of its lines were partially blanked on the song's album release?

Ritchie333, is the article ready for nomination? EEng 08:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

EEng I haven't created a nom myself but the article is now long enough to qualify for one, so go for it! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

... add American style punctuation? Those good folks over at MOS:PUNCT would get a real wake-up call. Harry never got any, and neither did the Foos (... although those nice village boys did.) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Martinevans123, I know you're just having fun but the good folks over at MOS:PUNCT know all about what I'm talking about even if the editors of your linked articles didn't. (Although from what I can tell, the Foos didn't use periods themselves, so no reason for us to add them.) — LlywelynII 17:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

So, YG used periods?? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Template:Did_you_know_nominations/FDT_(song), and BTW once again I find that the discipline of distilling the source into quotes, to support the hook directly on the nom page, has led to a more precisely accurate hook. EEng 19:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm sick to death of Americans and Brits surreptitiously taking political pot shots at their adversaries in the "Did you know..." section. November 25th featured a quote calling a pro-Brexit Vote Leave group "post-truth politics", today's complains about Republicans siphoning votes by running as Green Party candidate, and now some idiots think it's a good idea to put "Fuck Donald Trump" on the front page.

That's enough, grow up. There are better places to make an ideological stand than posturing on the front page of Wikipedia. How would you like it if I and some of my like-minded, fellow Canadians started placing obvious ideological trolls relating to Canadian issues here. What if we started featuring articles on third rate songs like "Fuck Rona Ambrose/Justin Trudeau/Tom Mulcair", or featuring quotes calling pro-separation Bloc Quebecois members "Dirty, lying liars"? We'd seem pretty pathetic, wouldn't we. Philip72 (talk) 06:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

New article: Shooting of Benjamin Marconi

I've come across the article on the shooting of Benjamin Marconi, created a few days ago and eligible for DYK (assuming there is no ITN nomination). It's at AfD at present, but I think it will survive. As a crime story with a living suspect, I wonder about its suitability for DYK and for potential hooks, like:

• ... that police officer Benjamin Marconi was shot and killed while sitting in his car writing a parking ticket?
• ... that after a black suspect was arrested for the shooting death of white police officer Benjamin Marconi, a Texas County Judge posted on Facebook that it is "Time for a tree and a rope..."?

These wordings avoid the name of the suspect and the judge, but are they likely to run into "unduly negative" territory? There might be an alternative in:

• ... that the suspect in the shooting of Benjamin Marconi got married between the shooting and his arrest the following day?

Opinions welcome, including from Parsley Man, E.M.Gregory, and Chief Red Eagle as the three main editors / contributors to this article. EdChem (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Also wondering about something like:

• ... that County Judge James Oakley deleted and apologised for his Facebook comment "Time for a tree and a rope..." under the mug shot of the black suspect arrested for the shooting death of white police officer Benjamin Marconi?

or

• ... that a Texas County Judge deleted and apologised for his Facebook comment "Time for a tree and a rope..." under the mug shot of the black suspect arrested for the shooting death of white police officer Benjamin Marconi?

Trying to decide whether to nominate as one hook or two since there are now two eligible articles. Input, please. EdChem (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd imagine that any mention of the Facebook comment will be ineligible due to the unduly negative criterion. I'm not sure how you can combine the two articles in a single hook without having to focus on the negative territory, so I'd imagine that separate DYK nominations is the way to go. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, BlueMoonset. Do you think mentioning the post without the quote would be seen as unduly negative, maybe something like "a comment seen as alluding to lynching", which is supportable in RS? EdChem (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Uninvolved input requested

Please see John Dominis Holt, II and Through the Wilderness. I'm not sure what "a DYK delegate" is, but this needs another voice. — Maile (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I have posted to the Holt and Wilderness nominations. I believe that Maile66 is correct that IndianBio's review of the Holt nomination is inadequate as it does not address the reviewing criteria. It would be fine (IMO) to post a brief QPQ-requirement compliant review which raises a notability issue (which this one does) and expresses that the criteria will be addressed if the nominator addresses the notability concerns or it passes an AfD, but that is not the case here, and Maile has provided a further review which renders such further comment from IndianBio moot. IndianBio is free to raise an AfD, of course, as the nominator (KAVEBEAR) has declined to act on IB's concerns, but I think the article will survive an AfD. As I see it, the issues faced in this specific case are:

• Can a reviewer on the Wilderness nomination (like Maile) unilaterally deny the QPQ credit which IB is claiming for the Holt review, especially in the case where another reviewer (LavaBaron, in this case) has already accepted it?
• If not, is there community consensus here at WT:DYK to deny the credit in this case and require IB to do an acceptable QPQ review for use on the Wilderness nomination, or to take some other action?

On the more general issue, what are we as a community going to do about claims of QPQ credit for reviews which are inadequate on their face, or subsequently shown to be seriously flawed? When I do a review, I look at the QPQ review and if I think something needs further consideration, I ask for it, but I suspect I am in the minority and that at least some reviewers simply check that some review was done. Fram and The Rambling Man have both given distressingly regular examples of reviewing problems where removing a QPQ credit would be a justifiable action, IMO, and I think being more willing to deny credits would be a helpful step to improving reviewing standards. Starting two sub-sections for discussion of the specific and general issues. EdChem (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Adequacy of QPQ review of DYK nomination of John Dominis Holt, II article

Situation: John Dominis Holt, II article (DYK nomination), nominator KAVEBEAR, reviewer IndianBio claimed QPQ credit as nominator at Through the Wilderness article (DYK nomination), accepted by reviewer LavaBaron, challenged by Maile66.

Question: Is the QPQ review of the Holt article adequate for claiming QPQ credit at the Wilderness article? If not, what should be done.

• Review inadequate and replacement QPQ review required for Wilderness nomination: As proposer and in line with comments here and at the two nomination pages. EdChem (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

You conducted this review [2] (for a nom ultimately withdrawn) and did not explicitly state you had checked for Copyvio or QPQ in your first comment, yet tried to claim credit for a QPQ yourself [3]. Seems to be the same thing you're accusing IB of, no? In the future, don't bother pinging me into this this kind of stuff; I have limited time at WP and prefer to devote it to content creation, not trying to gather scalps of other editors. After this [4] it should have been clear I want nothing to do with "silly season" stuff. LavaBaron (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Review adequate as a work-in-progress The review does not address the five core DYK criteria, however, it's not unusual to impose a "critical stop" when a reviewer believes a serious issues has been discovered, then continue reviewing against the criteria when the issue is resolved. In this review [5], for instance, EdChem fails to review against the five criteria (not addressing Copyvio or QPQ at all), instead focusing on resolution of an issue he felt was a "critical stop", yet was given an immediate QPQ credit anyway (as customary). The fact User:IndianBio used a "?" tick, instead of a fail tick, indicates he - like EdChem - is operating this as a review still in-progress, which is fine. Let's calm down, take a step back, set the pitchforks down, and see where the review goes. Cool? Update - I just did the review myself and credited it to the original reviewer. It took me 11 minutes. Problem solved with minimum heartache and hair-rending. (There's almost always an easier option than starting a debating thread with multiple voting options, and pinging-in half-a-dozen editors for days of argument.) LavaBaron (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Taking no action because the outcome of the work-in-progress can't be known as Maile's action rendered it moot is a reasonable position, and one I considered. As for your attempts to provoke me by casting aspersion on my DYK work [6] [7], trying to side-step this discusion [8] [9], and attacking a QPQ of mine [10], others can decide if my editing is problematic. I have noted your request for no further pings [11], and will respect it. EdChem (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Take a breath. To descend this discussion into "silly space" by saying I'm trying to "provoke" you by simply pointing out that your own QPQ had the exact same problem [12] you're now trying to use IB's QPQ to scalp-collect off of really underscores the problematic nature of this expansive thread you've started. No one is out to "get" you. No one is trying to "provoke" you.

In the meantime, I think it's in the community's interest if you stop sitting on KAVEBEAR's excellent nomination with nitpicking just to prove a point, which it seems like you're doing. And, if that's not what you're doing, then just consider backing off and let an uninvolved editor complete the review. Cool? LavaBaron (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron, I leave it for others to form their own views on your actions. If the consensus is to accept IB's QPQ, I will accept it. Regarding KAVEBEAR's nomination, I will be happy to give a tick myself when it is compliant and not in danger of being pulled (and no, I will not be claiming a QPQ because I don't need to do a full review of it, most of it is done already). Any other uninvolved editor is free to complete the review, I do not WP:OWN the review of the nomination, I only contradicted your review as there was clear non-compliance with the direct citation requirement and the ALT0 proposal was questionable in accuracy (to the extent Kavebear has now struck it). As you know, I have also looked at another Kavebear nomination, made copy-edits to the article, and Kavebear has expressed a willingness for me to do the full review, so I suggest he does not see my contribution as problematic. You have now done a review, which will prevent me claiming QPQ, which I suspect was part of your motivation, but I will still look at the article in an objective way because your actions do not reflect on Kavebear's work. I have not pinged him in this post as he has expressed a desire to avoid discussing issues outside article topics (though I will on nominations), and I have not pinged you here as you requested not to be pinged.

To me, inadequate reviews are an ongoing issue and IB's QPQ is but one example of a more general topic, which is why I tried to structure a specific and general discussion. I believe IB's review was inadequate, and admit that had Maile not intervened and an ongoing discussion developed (similar in kind to the Simplot case), I would see it differently, which is why I think your position (as I understand it) that we don't know what else IB might have said / done and so the QPQ should be allowed is arguable. The DYK community will either find this thread useful, or not, which is out of my control. I do not claim my approach was the best, or even necessarily good, it is what seemed reasonable to me. EdChem (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

"You have now done a review, which will prevent me claiming QPQ, which I suspect was part of your motivation ..." For the third time, no one is out to "get" you. People review articles to help out at DYK, not because they're orchestrating a sweeping, Machiavelian plot against you. Let's cut the conspiracy theories and personal attacks and focus on DYK. If that's what you're really here to discuss, great, but it seems every 200-word speech you shotgun out includes these insinuations about how DYK reviews are a process for realizing dark, hidden motivations against you. This silliness is not a productive use of anyone's time. Maybe take it to userspace. Cool? LavaBaron (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where to put my comment, so I'll do so here. IndianBio's review is clearly not eligible for a QPQ. If he had started ticking off the usual DYK criteria – "new enough, long enough, adequately sourced, no close paraphrasing, etc." – and then mentioned the notability issue, then a reviewer of his nomination would have seen that his QPQ was "in progress" and would have given him credit for it. But to zero in on the notability issue just looks like a drive-by comment. Yoninah (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

General issue of what to do about allegedly inadequate QPQ reviews

I have no specific proposal here, I think we need a community discussion to see where consensus might be, but my immediate thoughts are:

• Any reviewer can and should request changes to a DYK review or deny the credit during the nomination in which the credit is claimed, depending on whether s/he believes the QPQ review can be salvaged or not.
• The nominator can comply or call for another reviewer to express an opinion, either by posting at the nomination or requesting at WT:DYK, but not by asking a specific editor. The third reviewer can modify their decision based on discussion, but it will stand unless consensus is sought at WT:DYK.
• In cases where a serious problem is subsequently discovered (say in queues) and the nomination re-opened, the editor who pulls the hook and re-opens has the option to deny the QPQ credit for that article on the nomination where it is claimed, based on the seriousness of the issue and the adequacy of the review. For example, I review article X and claim credit on article Y. A coyvio issue on X is discovered in prep, and the hook for X is pulled. I think my QPQ credit on Y could and likely should be denied. However, if X was pulled because of a good faith error over understanding of wording in sources, then denying the credit may not be justified.
• In the case of a credit being denied because of a subsequent pulling of a hook, the editor whose QPQ review credit was denied could also call for a third opinion or request a WT:DYK review.

How do these ideas sound? Any suggestions, comments, criticisms, alternatives, etc.? Any and all views welcome. EdChem (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose We don't need to generate another four paragraphs of rules, amendments, and corollaries at this light and fun feature, DYK. Our swollen and indecipherable volumes of legal arcana are already virtually incomprehensible to digest for anyone who doesn't have either a J.D. or copious amounts of time to do nothing but sit on WP all day. Let's get back to content creation rather than rulemaking. LavaBaron (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• Ed, I can see where you are coming from, but I can also see endless problems. Occasionally we get a review like this one that is manifestly inadequate, with the reviewer not understanding what a DYK review is about. There are easy to spot and deal with. But a larger problem occurs with denying credit when it has already been claimed on another nomination. If that hook is in the queue, does it get pulled? Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• When the QPQ credit is being used to support a nomination, then I skim the other nomination to see how that worked out. If if seemed that the review was inadequate then I will suggest that the reviewer might do another one to make sure that they are keeping their end up. Likewise, if there's a problem with my own work, I might chip in an extra QPQ to make up for it. But I agree with LavaBaron that we shouldn't turn this into a full double-entry accounting system. A bit of nagging or nudging should suffice. Andrew D. (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

In a nutshell

Inadequate reviews are one reason why LavaBaron got put on editing restrictions. — Maile (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but the primary issue is whether IndianBio's review is adequate. LavaBaron's acceptance of it is a separate issue. EdChem (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Maile mentioned LavaBaron here. LavaBaron may have had problems with reviews in the past but the recent ones I have seen have been satisfactory. This is about an inadequate review by IndianBio, which in my view should not have been used as a QPQ, but IndianBio being a relative newcomer to DYK, allowances can perhaps be made. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

My mentioning this here, is to say there is a precedent in what has been done about inadequate QPQ reviews. — Maile (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

OK. Understood. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Except it comes across as shaming other editors. You may want to refactor. LavaBaron (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. It's a fair statement of fact that there are both general project problems and specific user problems. To highlight one which has resulted in sanctions is perfectly reasonable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Disagreement noted. LavaBaron (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

(→) Thank you for this discussion. I would be glad to do another QPQ based on the DYKC. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for final resolution

Out of fairness to IB, we need some resolution here. EdChem's "e-baby" nomination has now been promoted [ed - (after EEng overrode the original nom)], though both Pppery and me objected to it due to his decision not to check for copyvio in his QPQ. I don't want to act out of turn so can we do a quick consensus check to see if IndianBio's nom can also be green-lit now on the basis of his current QPQ, or if IB's nominations are to be held to more stringent standards? LavaBaron (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• For those dizzied by the rapidfire nonsense here, the issue is whether IndianBio's nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Through the Wilderness should be allowed to cite Template:Did you know nominations/John Dominis Holt II as QPQ credit. EEng 07:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • And, unfortunately, IndianBio is getting some (IMO) questionable advice at User talk:LavaBaron#Through the Wilderness dyk nomination. Perhaps someone else might offer something more helpful for IB? EdChem (talk) 07:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

EEng - when expressing disagreement, can you please explore different words to use other than "nonsense"? Thanks so much - LavaBaron (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I would if it weren't nonsense. EEng 08:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Promote IB's nomination under the e-baby precedent; equal treatment for all editors, no two-caste DYK LavaBaron (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Do not allow IB QPQ credit, therefore do not promote IB's nomination, and trout (or worse) LavaBaron for his pointy waste of everyone's time with his sad attempts to salve his bruised ego. IB's "review" of the John Dominis Holt II nomination was nonsense. EEng 07:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

"sad attempts to salve his bruised ego" - Please don't bring personal attacks here, it's disruptive and derails the potential for the quick resolution of this open question we're trying to achieve. You've recently been blocked by Nakon, Mike V and many others for personal attacks so should definitely know by now that you need to explore other outlets to let off steam instead of attacking other editors. I also don't think IB appreciates his excellent contributions being described as "nonsense". Thank you for your consideration of my request. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, aren't you cute, trying to get me in trouble with your casual pings of admins! Every once in a while a benighted person such as yourself tries to embarrass me by invoking my block log, not noticing such threads as (for example) "Hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers", "Unblocked", and so on; overlooking that one of the admins you pinged was seriously proposed for desysoping as a result of his blocking me, and that the other came in for what might be charitably termed a serious trouting; and failing to perceive that my most recent block was, literally, a joke. You'll need to try much, much harder.

Whatever may be the value of his other contributions, IndianBio's review of the Holt nomination had nothing at all to do with the DYK criteria, and certainly doesn't merit a QPQ.

You've wasted huge amounts of others' time here trying to vicariously relitigate the imposition of the quite appropriate special restrictions placed on you because of the low quality of your DYK submissions and reviews. EEng 08:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Just calm down. This is an edit discussion, not the Fourth Crusade. LavaBaron (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Please calm down yourself, it appears you're almost writing your own exclusion warrant from this project. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Do not allow it Yes, I am aware I am arguing for an inconsistency, but the system is biased in favor of people who accept these reviews. Any uninvolved editor can promote a nomination, and it would seem incorrect to pull one from prep for procedural errors (although I seriously considered doing that. Pppery 15:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Do not allow it - the review really did not outright touch much on the actual DYK criterias. There was input on notability and so on, but then abandoned by IB. So the "inconsistency" is between "did not explicitly cover one item" and "did not really cover the DYK criterias in general".  MPJ-DK  16:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Do not allow it - It's not a case of one criteria or another being missed in a review. It's a case of absolutely none of them being covered. It has absolutely no value in telling a promoter it's ready. That's what reviews are all about, to check off the criteria so that a nomination can be promoted to prep. Lacking all of the criteria, it is not a review. DYK Reviewing guide — Maile (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

So, — Maile , just to be clear - if I decide not to review against Copyvio in my next review, provided I review against everything else, I can count it for QPQ just like EdChem? Want to make sure I understand that this is an option we all enjoy, not just a special privilege you're extending to EdChem. This would definitely take a load off. LavaBaron (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• The Holt nomination was ticked by Maile66 nearly a week ago. The Wilderness nomination had an objection from Maile pointing out what LB missed. I had the impression IndianBio had already agreed to provide another review with comments here and on the nomination page, which I thought brought a resolution. If I am mistaken about that, I don't see a consensus here to require another review and this discussion has stalled, so I think it is open to anyone independent to close this discussion and act on the nomination. EdChem (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not what happened. Promotion was arrested because it was claimed IB's QPQ did not review against each of the five key DYK criteria. Now that your own nomination has been promoted with a review that did not check each of the five DYK criteria, we need to sort-out whether IB enjoys similar privileges or not. The strange nature of this situation has prompted confusion among many, and IB has even asked me what's going on at my Talk page; unfortunately, I can't answer him. He deserves clarification. He also should not be expected to do more work than is expected of other editors. LavaBaron (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear here EdChem, if the same situation arose in another nomination and if that is promoted, then my nomination would deserve the same treatment as well. I'm willing to do another QPQ, however I need a fair assessment. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Great point. Simple equality and fairness seems to be all those of us without special QPQ privileges are seeking. LavaBaron (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• @IndianBio: the problem with your review in the Holt review for which you claimed QPQ credit is not that you raised an issue of notability, that is fine for a DYK review or in plenty of other WP venues. It is not that others disagreed. It is not that you did not cover all the criteria. The problem was that your review was mostly opinion and did not address any of the DYK criteria as described in the guide to reviewing. We can't know what you would have done had Maile not done a review, and in that sense you were unable to remedy the situation, but the contribution as it stands is not a review against the DYK criteria or any part of them beyond questioning notability. If you had posted " Questionable notability, suggest refocus as article on Holt family", it would have said the same as your review but it not being a review would be more obvious. When I write a review, I put in as much as seems to me to be needed to help the nominator / creator bring the article to DYK standards / compliance. Sometimes that means saying quite a bit, sometimes things are ready and so much less needs to be said, and sometimes I post a comment which I would never dream of claiming for QPQ. The consensus now seems to be not to give your Holt review QPQ credit, so I suggest that you pick another article to review, and make sure you address the guidelines at WP:DYKR. I also suggest you reflect on why LavaBaron's views are not gaining traction, and it is not because of bias. You don't have to do all of the review in one edit, you can post back here for input if you like. If the review is incomplete, I suggest a brief note on the review that there is more to come. The nomination you review need not be promoted for credit, just so long as it is sufficiently thorough. Article length and nomination. Article quality and referencing. Hook supported, interesting enough, inline citations. Copyvio and paraphrasing. QPQ. I am sorry that you have ended up the focus here, you are far from the only editor to do an inadequate review and the general issue of reviewing standards is what concerns me. The DYK community can be helpful, supportive, and inclusive, but we also have difficult times and LB has already been restricted once and seems to me to be heading towards a DYK ban – none of which is your problem. Short version: reviews that address the DYK criteria are needed for QPQ credit, and also earn the regard of other reviewers. I will give you any help I can, if you want to ask, or seek support from other more experienced reviewers, or both. EdChem (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

What about reviews that don't address copyvio like this one [13]? All we're trying to find out is if all of us can do reviews that don't address copyvio and get QPQ credit or just some of us? It's a simple question with no ulterior motive; I just want the opportunity to save a little time in my QPQ reviews if it's an option that's available to me and I think other editors would appreciate being able to do so as well. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hook Input - J. W. Lonoaea

Nomination page: Template:Did you know nominations/J. W. Lonoaea

Kavebear has proposed two possible hooks for this article, and LavaBaron has approved the first. Kavebear prefers the second, and I think it is a good candidate for the quirky spot, but am concerned it might be seen as misleading. The basic facts are: Lonoaea was a Hawaiian legislator who voted with the majority in the House in choosing between two candidates for monarch. A King was elected over a Queen (widow of a former King). The Queen's supporters rioted, targeting legislators who supported the now-King. 13 were injured, Lonoaea the only one to die. The proposed quirky hook is:

• (ALT1): ... that J. W. Lonoaea died because he voted for a king instead of a queen?

Is this acceptable? I'd like some outside views before approving it. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

My view is that, since you've made eight edits to the article over a two-day period, you probably shouldn't be approving it. If someone else wants to, however, I'm sure that's fine. LavaBaron (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Disapproval noted. I would accept EdChem's suggestion as common sense, and a good attempt at trying to improve the DYK project. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our DYK rules state that a person who has written an article can't review it; changing the rules requires a wide consensus, not a unilateral declaration of "common sense." EdChem has (as of this timestamp) made nine contributions over two days to the article and appears to be continuing to edit it. You, however, are free to okay the Alt-1 hook if you fancy. Not a problem at all! LavaBaron (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron, I will not approve ALT1 since you object. An objective observer would see that my edits are (a) copy edits which do not change the meaning but improve the language and (b) adding references so that the facts in hook ALT0 (which you approved) and ALT1 were actually directly cited. DYK reviewers doing minor corrections is not uncommon, FYI. Before I made any edits, the article looked like this and neither ALT is even close to cited. I checked if KAVEBEAR objected to my reviewing in light of my copyedits, and he did not. By the time you gave the tick (to an unspecified ALT) and wrote Hook is immediately and correctly cited in article to Alexander's "A Brief History of the Hawaiian People," the article had only the statement Lonoaea died cited, and that due to re-drafting I had done and without access to the reference you cited (perhaps Google Books shows you more than a snippet, but it does not for me), and it was only with subsequent changes I made that ALT0 was actually referenced in the lede. In other words, your review of ALT0 was wrong about a basic DYK criterion. I could have pointed this out at the time, but instead fixed the problem because KAVEBEAR should not be inconvenienced for your mistakes. Now, you might note that I asked for outside views, so do you have some contribution relevant to the DYK community commenting on the acceptability of ALT1? EdChem (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh good lord, same old tactics eh Lav?  MPJ-DK  04:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@EdChem: thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention. I have completed the review and posted my comments on the template. Yoninah (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Obeying the rules? Yeah, same old. (Though, I admit, I am intrigued that those who are such unbending sticklers for every obscure sub-rule and tertiary corollary at DYK are usually the first ones to green light short-cuts and "common sense" exemptions for themselves and their friends.) LavaBaron (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Great - thanks! LavaBaron (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

And back to the topic. As noted above, I think the proposed is a reasonable "quirky" hook. And remember, one and all, let's stay on-message now, even if we do know big words or use superfluity to attempt grandiosity over our fellow editors. Less is more. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if someone were to fix the citations in the article so Alt-1 was actually and correctly sourced, it would be a great hook. Just grand! LavaBaron (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3 - Muhajir

... that the Sindh Mohajir Punjabi Pathan Muttahida Mahaz was the first political party in Pakistan to use the term 'Muhajir' in a political context?

I'm sorry, I simply don't get this, or why it's particularly notable or interesting "to a broad audience". Perhaps the nominator Soman or the promoters KAVEBEAR and Cwmhiraeth could shed some light on this. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Well as I understand it, the term "Muhajir" originally denoted an immigrant associated with the movement of people from Mecca to Medina. The hook refers to the fact that the term is now used in Pakistan for people who relocated from India, and that the MPPM were the first to use the term in this way. Perhaps you can suggest a better way of expressing the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. During the Partition of India millions of Muslims migrated to Pakistan, mainly Urdu speakers. Initially they were known in Pakistan only as Urdu speakers or North Indians. The Mujahirs themselves preferred to identify themselves simply as Pakistanis. The notable fact here is that with MPPM the term 'Muhajir' was used to denote a ethnic identity in a political context, as tensions between Muhajirs and Sindhis simmered in Pakistan. In the 1980s the Muhajir revival turned violent and became a major feature in contemporary Pakistani politics. --Soman (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so it means something to our Pakistani readers. Fair enough, but clearly fails the "broad audience" test which many are overlooking these days. If this kind of thing continues I'll advocate we remove that DYK rule. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, in the context of hook-i-ness evaluation, I let "intriguing" stand in for "interesting" where applicable. In this case, I'd click exactly because I don't know what Muhajir means (though apparently it's politically significant) and I'd want to find out. EEng 04:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Removing part of DYK 3a

So, the current rules for DYK state:

"The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience."

My interest here is in the latter clause, i.e. interesting to a broad audience. This is purely subjective and, in my opinion is being ignored. Therefore we should remove it. There seems to be no effort at all to ensure that hooks are "interesting". Indeed, some promoting admins have claimed this part of the ruleset to be not important or not something worth considering while pushing these hooks through. Time to remove a rule that is being ignored. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Even here, on the microcosm of the DYK talk page, we see that what is uninteresting to one editor is interesting to another. I was initially opposed to the ambiguity of this hook, but was outvoted by numerous other editors, so I promoted the newly revised version. I still think the rules should say something about being "interesting", but maybe we shouldn't spend so much time scrutinizing every single hook on this one point. Yoninah (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with The Rambling Man here. However well meant that was when it became part of the rules, "interesting" is unquantifiable. You can't measure it, and a handful of reviewers is not a sampling of "a broad audience". — Maile (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

So let's remove the rule. It's obvious that little if not no effort is given to finding a hook that's interesting to a broad audience and as it's so subjective, it needs to be removed from the rules. That way we can withstand all the criticism thrown at DYK for boring hooks because it simply doesn't matter how boring they are. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

That was added by Nikkimaria in February 2012. Perhaps Nikkimaria was following a consensus then, but it would be nice to have their feedback here. — Maile (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

That would be interesting, but right now we have a situation where this "rule" is overlooked, ignored, denigrated as "not important", so while we wait for explanation as to its addition, let's discuss its removal. There's clearly no way of determining an objective "interesting" criterion, and time and again hooks are promoted which are clearly not "interesting to a broad audience" so I would say this caveat needs to be removed post-haste. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Even if subjective, I think it's worth trying to find something interesting for a large number of people. I realize that this statement does not fix any problems, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Certainly not helpful if promoting editors are ignoring it and deliberately so. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus Removing it from the rules would not prevent any reviewer(s) from civilly prodding a nominator to come up with an alt hook, or from offering one. At this point, this possibly only serves as one of those things somebody can trot out to support their own viewpoint. — Maile (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: Actually that text predated my edit - the earliest version of it I can find is 2007. FWIW, I agree both that uninteresting hooks pass through and that they oughtn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

 Removed from the rules. — Maile (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I reverted. I don't see a consensus above for removing a longstanding criterion. The requirement that a hook be interesting is an essential aspect of DYK IMO and removing it is going to leave reviewers with no justification for challenging uninteresting hooks, which is likely to lead to a serious degradation of hook standards. Gatoclass (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

OK. I don't care. — Maile (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

" ... likely to lead to a serious degradation of hook standards ... is doubtful given the evidence provided. A handful of hits on most of the items in the set analysed by Colonel Warden, just two hooks showing up as being mildly more interesting than the baseline mediocrity. The project has so many hoops to jump through with so many rules, just to culminate in a few hundred hits on the main page for most of the content, surely there's some kind of cost-benefit analysis that needs to be applied as to whether DYK is actually worthwhile in any sense. Particularly given the relatively astonishing rate of errors, thankfully most of which are caught by just two or three editors prior to main page embarrassment. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Nikkimaria, uninteresting hooks pass through and they ought not. For example, the picture hook in the current Prep 2 provokes in me a "So what?" response, and the Holocaust survivor hook further down has a good image and a much more interesting hook. I can't swap them, though, because I approved the latter hook and I don't think the set preparer should be overruled unilaterally. EdChem (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think "generally interesting" is a more appropriate phrasing than "to a broad audience" - we don't know what a "broad audience" is, so the term is either useless or an excuse to restrict subjects that some people do not care for with comments like "Well I personally never find "XYZ" interesting". The idea is not to be restrictive, but to not be boring and pedestrian.  MPJ-DK  04:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• The clause in question is not subjective. The effectiveness of hooks is measured by recording the amount of click-throughs that they get; the bigger the number, the better. Of course, it is difficult to predict this exactly in advance and so we should content ourselves by looking at the hooks which did especially well or especially badly. This feedback will then help editors improve subsequent hooks. For example, let's look at yesterday's bundle. The number of views has been added in bold so we can see how they did:

• 4061 ... that Air-Cobot (pictured) is a French research and development project for a wheeled collaborative mobile robot able to inspect aircraft during maintenance operations?
• _672 ... that Cybele Records has published award-winning audiobooks, "portraits" of living composers, and in 2016 the complete organ works of Max Reger?
• 2036 ... that 2016 Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mark Callahan once ran for the Oregon House of Representatives under the Green Party label in order to siphon votes from the Democratic candidate?
• 2910 ... that the Palace of Cerro Castillo is the summer residence of the President of Chile?
• _748 ... that Slovenian gymnast and Olympic medallist Boris Gregorka later coached the double gold Olympic medallist Miroslav Cerar?
• 6123 ... that around 1100, Yaozhou ware was accepted by the Chinese Imperial court, but several decades later it was described by a poet as "extremely coarse and used only by restaurants"?
• 1638 ... that Montreal architect Maxwell M. Kalman designed more than 1,100 buildings, including Canada's first shopping centre?
• 7614 ... that The Passion of Christ was moved from one church to another, which saved it from being destroyed by fire in 1904?

So, Edelseider and Johnbod can feel pleased that their hooks scored even better than the picture hook. However, Gerda should please note that her hooks are not working so well; this is not the first time that I've noticed them coming last. Andrew D. (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

One of my hooks just went to the stats, probably because it mentioned "sin against religion". I know how to be "interesting" but am still not willing to find some relation to sex or crime in every hook about classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

ps: the Cybele hook generated 607 hits for Max Reger, my topic of the year, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

So, in summary, it's clear that current DYK crops are actually not broadly interesting based on this metric-based approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If I may give my lay opinion on that matter - as in literature, films, the stage, and in general, the arts but also advertising and journalism: emotions and/or drama work best. Hooks should always aim for the dramatic or emotional angle in order to attract attention. Of course this implies that only subjects should be nominated that have, at one stage or another, gone through hard times, moved the hearts of people or caused something terrible. --Edelseider (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

That can be summarised as "nominate things that are actually interesting". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes but no. It's rather "nominate only things than can be made to sound thrilling." Anything can be interesting to certain people. But there are more or less objective criteria to separate "dull" (nothing dramatic happened) from "exciting". --Edelseider (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Given main page hits of less than 1000 for some items, we're really in the realms of generally "not interesting". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Edelseider: we might add to your list anything that's "first", any celebrity hook, and any sports hook (aside from that ill-fated Slovenian gymnast in the hook set above). Yoninah (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

"Any sports hook"? Wow, there is such a divide between the United States and the United Kingdom when it comes to cricket or base-ball, rugby or American football, association football (aka soccer) or basketball that you can always be sure that a lot of people will never click on a specific sports hook. Sorry, I'm going off topic here. :) --Edelseider (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Let me offer some perspective here on the numbers. Yesteday's featured article, SMS Lützow, had 189 page views yesterday.  MPJ-DK  00:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please look at the stats again. 189 are the stats for Nov 28, Monday, the day before it was on the MP. Tuesday's stats aren't listed yet. — Maile (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You are right I did not look at the time.  MPJ-DK  02:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Oftentimes nominators, especially inexperience ones, simply pick a boring hook when there are much more interesting facts in the article to build a hook from. In those cases, it's a good idea to encourage reviewers to gently prod the nominator for a more interesting hook. That said, some topics just aren't very broadly interesting, and these should not be completely excluded from DYK, not least because of the extreme subjectivity of deciding what's interesting.

As far as the rules change, I'd perhaps support removing it from the main rules, but adding a supplementary rule saying that reviewers may request a more interesting hook, but the review should not be failed on the basis of interestingness alone. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• While there are many ways it could be tinkered -- "interesting" might be changed to "interesting or intriguing", for starters -- the interestingness requirement should remain, and if, after appropriate prodding, no one can suggest an interesting hook (yes it's subjective, but almost every decision editors make is subjective) the nom should be failed. DYK would benefit greatly from cutting throughput by a factor of two. EEng 05:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Making statements along the lines of "it is clear that this hook is boring" is not helping the situation, because it brings us no closer to any objective assessment of "interest," which I for one believe to be impossible. There is a step we can take though, that does not toss out the requirement altogether, but also does not fall into the trap of trying to make everything interesting to the majority of Wikipedia's readers, and thereby falls into the familiar trap of systemic bias. Require a hook to be interesting within the framework of a certain topic. A hook about Western classical music, such as Gerda Arendt frequently proposes, does not have to be interesting to everybody, because then we are stuck finding click-baity factoids in articles that do not contain them. But it should be interesting to anybody with any interest in Western classical music. Thus "Did you know that Bach's cello concerto was played on a cello" would still be disallowed. Oh, and I'm loving how easily the conversation slips from "hooks are not interesting enough" to "DYK is full of errors and should be scrapped." I know WP:COATRACK was meant for articles, but I rather think it can be applied here, too. Vanamonde (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK that Bach did a lot for the cello, but didn't write a cello concerto? - Thank you, Vanamonde. I believe that whatever we do, we shouldn't stare at clicks. While some hook inventers go for the little unusual fact, I try - for a person, a company as above, a piece of music - to give those readers a more general idea who will not click. - Clicks say nothing. Just compare Danke [14] and its creator [15]), - just because one hook mentioned ... see above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

XD, Gerda "Suite" is what I meant, my apologies. I was paying more attention to the general point, thank you for understanding. Vanamonde (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, Andrew D. is quite mistaken to propose click-throughs as the criterion on which to base hook legitimacy. This is unfortunately a misconception that is commonly made. It would in fact be pretty easy to vastly increase the number of click-throughs for DYK. We could start by just featuring, or highlighting, any fact that had anything to do with sex and violence, because they are proven hook winners. Where sex and violence are not available, we could simply resort to clickbait. For example, instead of posting one of the hooks above:

• that Cybele Records has published award-winning audiobooks, "portraits" of living composers, and in 2016 the complete organ works of Max Reger?

- we could go with something like:

• ... you wouldn't BELIEVE what Cybele Records got up to last year!!!

I can guarantee you that the latter would get literally thousands more hits, but does that make for a more successful hook? Only if you judge on the number of click-throughs alone, because by any other criteria, such hooks would be an embarrassment to the project.

Hook success can be gauged in part by click-throughs, but it can never be the sole criterion. This is an encyclopedia not a tabloid, our goal is to educate and inform, not merely to entertain or excite interest, and the tone and content of hooks has to reflect those general aims. It doesn't mean we can't at times be playful, just as reputable news organizations may sometimes employ puns and other amusing wordplays in their headlines, but it does mean there are standards to maintain.

With regard to the current wording of the rule, ie the phrase "interesting to a broad audience", I have long maintained that it is problematic, because not every hook can be of interest to a broad audience, but have struggled to come up with an alternative that would not further weaken a rule that is already too frequently ignored. In that regard, I think Vanamonde's suggestion in the post above may be worth considering. Gatoclass (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Gatoclass: Thank you. How is this for a first attempt, which we can edit/tweak as we like: ""The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting, quirky, or unusual, within the general topic of the article." Thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

A bit vague IMO. I was thinking more along the lines of "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience, or failing that, likely to be of interest to somebody with an interest in the particular topic." Gatoclass (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Two responses to that. First, if we're allowing things interesting to a specific audience, surely it is not necessary to mention the broad audience? Also, The reason I said "general topic" is because "particular topic" can get too specific. I just want to pre-empt arguments that hook X is interesting to "people interested in the history of the manufacture of porcelain in yunnan province in the 1800s" or something absurdly specific. Or even to pre-empt the argument that the proposed rule might allow that sort of argument. Willing to be persuaded, though. Vanamonde (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Gatoclass' suggestion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: if you want more specifics: firstly, I think it's important to maintain the phrase "interesting to a broad audience" because that is the gold standard for which every hook writer should be striving. What we need is simply a qualifier for that requirement, along the lines of "but if you can't manage that, you must at least achieve this much." With regard to your suggested addition of the words "quirky" and "unusual", while they can be important components of a good hook, in practice, a lot of users make the mistake of trying too hard to find something quirky and unusual when a perfectly good hook addressing the main topic of the article is already there right under their noses. So I don't want to see these aspects unduly emphasized. With regard to "general" v "particular", however, you may have a point. Gatoclass (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I take your point about including the "broad interest", and I'm absolutely not hung up on "quirky" etc. I do hold, though, to my point about preventing something too abstruse, which you seem open to. So, how about something like "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience, or failing that, must be interesting within the general topic of the article." Vanamonde (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I still prefer my own wording (with the possible exception of the word "general") because that final phrase ("interesting within the topic") doesn't read with sufficient clarity to me. Gatoclass (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

And I, who have not bothered to read the above, would still humbly suggest that intriguing be added to the list, if we're going to have a list. Take it from an experienced hooker -- a little mystery reels the clients in. EEng 01:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Count me as one who is fully in support of dumping the undefinable phrase "interesting to a broad audience". Inclusion on wiki has never included a caveat that a topic be "interesting", only that it meets notability standards. If it meets those standards, DYK should at NO point be saying "well its boring, so it shouldn't be on the main page".--Kevmin § 16:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps just turn it into mostly editing advice: The hook should have a definite fact mentioned in the article. DYK also seeks to promote interesting hooks. Please propose a hook that is as interesting as possible. All hooks are subject to editing consensus and well referenced, interesting hooks are likely to be promoted more easily. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC) (As an aside, my one encounter with this 'rule' was when a reviewer argued racial discrimination was not interesting -- we went with what they proposed but I was unimpressed, to say the least.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Appropriations Committee Suite

I was reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Appropriations Committee Suite and came across this concern. Can contents in DYKs be copied verbatim Public Domain sources? A few paragraphs in Appropriations Committee Suite is copied verbatim from http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/art/resources/pdf/Appropriations_Committee_Pages.pdf . --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Public Domain materials are fine for any article, but I don't think the text counts towards an expansion or as part of the 1500 characters of a new article. EdChem (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

What makes you "think" that? LavaBaron (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

If we equate "public domain" text to text copied from other Wikipedia articles (because they're basically the same type) then it becomes clear that it cannot count towards the 1500 characters. If I create 5 related articles and put them up for DYK and they all have an identical "background" section, then only 1 of the 5 articles can count that text, the others have to have 1500 characters BEYOND that, thems the rules.  MPJ-DK  16:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyediting an article during a review

I have had reviews criticised by LavaBaron (who I am not pinging as he has asked me not) for being incomplete (here) and because I had done copyediting of the article (here, where Yoninah expressed disagreement). I have just commented at the Template:Did you know nominations/Bexley Hospital after copyediting the article (written by LoopZilla). I have also suggested ALTs. I would like the DYK community views on:

1. Is the review I have done reasonable to claim for QPQ?
2. If not, when an article looks like this (the Bexley Hospital article before I nominated it), are my choices to do a review which says a copyedit is needed and thus claim QPQ credit or copyedit it and then leave it for another reviewer?
3. More generally, where is the line when making minor changes / corrections to an article and also being a reviewer?

Thanks. EdChem (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have routinely copy-edited an article when reviewing it, both here and at GAN, sometimes extensively. A number of folks reviewing things I have nominated have done the same. Essentially, I think this is because the review process should be about helping the article get where it needs to get, rather than being a prim-and-proper process where the reviewer does not touch the article in question. Of course, the reviewer needs to maintain a certain degree of independence, and shouldn't get too deep into the article: but in my view, doing grammar and syntax fixes is just fine. Vanamonde (talk) 08:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely nothing should get in the way of improving articles. If there are examples of poorly promoted articles as a result of the reviewer improving them and then passing them just to get the QPQ, I'd like to see them. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• TRM, a QPQ credit applies no matter what the outcome of the review. My point is that I turned this into this which I think is an improvement, and don't think it should preclude me from reviewing as well, and if I just reviewed saying a copy edit is needed, I don't know if the outcome would be as good. EdChem (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• The whole reason I create DYK nominations is to get more eyes on the article in question and improve bits of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• EdChem, I'm not disputing that. The only issue I can see is some perceived COI if a reviewer improves an article simply to pass it for a QPQ. Even if that did happen, the outcome would still be an improved article which (hopefully) meets the minimum standards of the DYK process. Complaining about copyediting articles during review is counter-productive and counter-Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, any complaint about positive copyediting should be dismissed out of hand. If there is some process that trips on it, and it doesn't seem this is the case (?) here, then it's the process that is in the wrong. People routinely copyedit my FACs, and I'm grateful for it! Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Theoretically, that's fine with me. However, maybe, for the benefit of those of us who are under continuous threat of sudden death for violation of any rule no matter how obscure, we could make a list of (a) rules we can ignore, and, (b) rules we can't ignore? Or maybe even a list of (a) editors permitted to ignore rules when they cramp their style (DYK's Platinum Titans), and, (b) editors subject to immediate dismemberment for ignoring a rule (DYK's Untouchables). Speaking as one of the Untouchables, I think many of us would find this helpful. LavaBaron (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Nobody dies (at least not directly) from DYK debate, no-one is a platinum titan or a golden immortal, nor is anyone untouchable, but your ongoing demonstrations of big words is noted. The point is copyediting any article on Wikipedia to make it better is a good thing. End of. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

And passing an article for DYK that one has edited violates our rules. End of. But, as we've routinely established, some DYK editors only have to obey the spirit of the law, while others have to obey the letter. Are we going to amend this rule for everyone or just grant another one-off waiver for an upper caste editor requesting a post-facto exemption? LavaBaron (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

And passing an article for DYK that one has edited violates our rules for the avoidance of doubt, can you specify which rule says that any article edited at all by a reviewer cannot be passed by that reviewer? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Per the nominations page, "Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding or nominating an article may review it", which logically means - unless one wants to WikiLawyer or WikiWaltz around it - any editor who has been involved in writing an article may not review it. LavaBaron (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Considering both are acceptable behaviors for a GA reviewer and anyone giving FA/FL input I am fairly certain that this is a case of the one WikiLawyering doing the WikiWangTango being a Baron of Lava.  MPJ-DK  00:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I have read the writing/expanding as referring to writing a new article for nomination, or x5 or x2 expanding for nomination. I don't see that it necessarily means copyediting, and further, I think that such an interpretation is arguable but not persuasive. EdChem (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: I disagree - clearly the entire project dies due to DYK debate. The entire purpose of this mechanism has been lost, and seems to have turned into a debating society. I signed up on DYK to easily get more eyes on my articles. It is no longer easy. I have had FACs go through in less time than DYKs. This is killing DYK, and killing the wiki. Editors are clearly upset over this, and you can see it by perusing the noms list. And what do we do about it? MOAR RULEZ! Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

  I don't really follow your argument but I am very tired and a little ill. DYKs should still remain "quality content" and whatever route is taken to achieve that should not be dismissed. The fewer inadequate reviews, inadequate nominations, inadequate promotions etc etc the project has, the better. Wikipedia has suffered this project for far too long and thankfully, albeit years too late, some moves are being made to drag the quality up a few notches. If that means fewer DYKs are nominated or make it to the main page, so what? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Starting a new section since I accidentally put a comment in the wrong place and now it's taken root and it's too late to move it

• As much as it pains me to to do so, I have to agree with LB on this point. Once you start contributing significantly to the article (even just copyediting -- significant copyeditinng, I mean) you can't be the reviewer. I've often begun a review, then decided I could do more good copyediting, so abandoned the reviewer role. The reason for this is clear: once you become a contributor, you're no longer the "fresh set of eyes" the reviewer needs to be. EEng 00:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you EEng, however, you put this in the wrong section. This section has to do with whether a QPQ that does not review for copyvio is adequate for QPQ credit. The section above has to do with the copyediting thing. LavaBaron (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that's rubbish. I've copyedited loads and loads of GANs and made them better and described what I've done and why I've done it before finally passing them in review. The edits aren't major, just copyedits, but it doesn't help Wikipedia one iota to play bureaucrat and sit on the fence and say "well, you could do it like this" and wait, and "not quite what I meant, try that" and wait and "ooh, nearly" and then wait more. What a pointless pursuit. We're not building a space shuttle here, independent peer review is great but no-one dies if it's not 100%. Time to get practical and improve Wikipedia rather than turn it into some "if you don't mind" mindless exercise. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps my memory deceives me, but I believe somewhere it says that reviewers should not have contibuted substantially to the article. EEng 00:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. But even if it was the case, I do not equate "copyediting" with having "contributed substantially". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I endorse the comments made by TRM. Reviewers should be able to tweak and copyedit articles without disqualifying themselves from the review. I think most reviewers have sufficient discretion to be able to decide for themselves whether their additions are substantial enough to need reviewing by a third party. I do not think however that users should be permitted to both review an article and personally claim a DYK credit for contributing to it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

"Sufficient discretion" and the modern DYK result in the empty set. That is clear from this thread, no? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Any thoughts on these edits[16] [17] which were done to an article while EdChem was reviewing it for DYK? This isn't a simple question of copyediting, despite how EdChem is positioning it. He has a history of making substantial, functional edits to articles while he's reviewing / passing them for DYK. Quite often the articles he's passing look substantially different than they appeared at the point of nomination, usually as a result of direct edits he's applied, rather than suggestions for improvement or the simple addition of a comma here or a period there. LavaBaron (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Those edits are not copyediting in the strict sense, but I would describe them as tweaks and no, I would not necessarily consider such tweaks to be disqualifying for a reviewer. I have made scores of similar tweaks to articles as a reviewer and gone ahead and finished the review. Per TRM, improvements to articles are paramount and DYK suffers a chronic shortage of reviewers, if we have some reviewers who are willing to go the extra mile and make useful improvements as they go, so much the better for the project. Gatoclass (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I would think the appropriate, and rule compliant, course of action in this circumstance would to point-out the "tweaks" to the editor with the suggestion the editor makes them and, if the editor chose not to do so, then to recuse oneself completely from the review and make them oneself. (In background, EdChem did the first part of that correctly - offering these as suggestions to the nominator [me], but then - when the nominator declined to make these edits due to him [me] questioning their encyclopedic nature - EdChem charged ahead and made them himself while continuing to review the article in which he was now an active editor in the article in a content dispute with the nominator.) LavaBaron (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I think I would have to agree that if a reviewer makes edits that are challenged by another editor, it would be better for that reviewer to step aside and allow somebody else to complete the review. Gatoclass (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate you agreeing, Gatoclass. While we're at it, I also feel that EdChem announcing to everyone I'm "headed" for a TBAN [18] doesn't have a whole lot to do with hook development and prep, which is what this forum is for, and borders on WP:BAITing. I understand EdChem doesn't agree with your, my, IndianBio, and Pppery's concerns with the suitability of his QPQs but I really think disagreement can be more constructively expressed. Maybe you can remind him that people are allowed to express different opinions from each other in Talk? LavaBaron (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Can a review be credited as QPQ if it fails to address all the core DYK criteria?

To ensure two unrelated questions aren't mixed together, we should separate the matter of editing a DYK article one is reviewing from the separate question of whether or not the review EdChem did for a QPQ (credited here) meets the standards for a QPQ credit. To wit: the review did not state whether or not it included a copyvio check. Can a review that doesn't check for copyvio receive QPQ credit? LavaBaron (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Not Reasonable for QPQ Without addressing the copyediting question (I've already expressed my opinion elsewhere on that) I !vote on the separate issue of the different QPQ review (you did here) that it is not adquate. You failed to review against all of the key DYK criteria, namely copyvio. Many, many editors have had, and continue to have on a daily basis, their QPQs delayed or arrested altogether for missing one of the criteria in their review (e.g. here among a thousand other places I've previously cited). Unless we throw aside all pretense and just acknowledge we have a two-caste system at DYK - one caste against whom even the most obscure rules are relentlessly enforced with no quarter given, and a second caste of Golden Immortals who get to claim "common sense" exemptions to core rules and GF "oopsies" - you'll need to address each of the DYK criteria, including copyvio, in your reviews to claim QPQ. LavaBaron (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Strong no per LavaBaron. Don't encourage lazy reviews omitting criteria. Pppery 01:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Pppery: Please indicate where the laziness is in Template:Did you know nominations/Scott Simplot, the case LavaBaron is complaining about which the nomination ended when he withdrew it. EdChem (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
    • ... by not bothering to check for copyvios in your review. Pppery 01:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
      • You mean in a review which never reached a tick because it was withdrawn by LavaBaron? The one where it is obvious I have been reading the sources and so would have seen a copyvio? The one where I could have (and did) check Earwig (here, re-check for copyvio yourself) and missed mentioning it in the face of other issues? Can you seriously suggest that what my work was (a) inadequate and (b) inferior to reviews routinely accepted for QPQ? EdChem (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was inadequate. I mentioned this to you almost immediately in that review, in fact, when you stopped reviewing it altogether and began simply providing the full text of WP:PROMOTIONAL claims and WP:PUFFERY you wanted added to the article as a condition of passing it. You seem to have confused the job of reviewer with that of managing editor. LavaBaron (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• All: LavaBaron has taken it upon himself to deny the QPQ in his review of Template:Did you know nominations/e-baby. I could make an issue with his omission of any comment on close paraphrasing, or general policy compliance. I could note cases where he only reviews a single ALT. Suffice it to say, it is clear he has an issue with me, that he is unilaterally pre-empting consensus, and that his views on copyediting appear to be in a minority. I would appreciate action based on whatever consensus emerges here, both on my reviews of Simplot and the Hospital for QPQs. I put a lot of time and effort into the Simplot review, made changes to the article which LavaBaron appreciated at the time, IIRC. The nomination ended when LavaBaron over-reacted to an ALT suggestion and withdrew it, so no final tick was given. I think the review was far more considered and thorough than many (most?) I see. EdChem (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

When you say I "overreacted" are you referring to the thread where I was told to drink my own semen, and where gay-bashing 8th grade Alt-hooks (e.g. "Scott Simplot has a Gay sister who was married to a Butch") were being shotgunned out? [19] Sorry if I overreacted. Next time I'll be more aware of when I've wandered into the DYK Locker Room and keep my mouth shut. LavaBaron (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The intention of the relevant rule is to prevent "rubber stamp" reviews that fail to address all criteria. However, this is really meant to apply to passed reviews, not failed ones. Reviewers are entitled to identify issues with a nomination as they go, and if the nomination fails or is withdrawn before all criteria have been addressed, that should still be considered a legitimate review. Gatoclass (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

While I used to agree with this, a consensus has now been created here (at EdChem's instigation) that "as you go" reviews aren't acceptable for QPQ. Until EdChem can demonstrate he has the DYK Immunity Idol this month, he will need to follow the same standards to which others are now being subjected. LavaBaron (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

EdChem, just ignore him -- no need to respond. Everyone sees what's going on here. EEng 21:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

EEng, thanks for the words of support. I've being trying to ignore LB, but it is a challenge, even though I know he is trying to bait me. It is frustrating that he can disrupt a nomination and I feel like I can't get anyone else to comment, though. EdChem (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, so far, both User talk:Pppery and myself have opined in this thread to point-out your QPQ review was inadequate. I guess you can just say that you're always right, that everyone who questions your work must therefore be "baiting" you, and that the only reason no one rushes to your defense is because you just can't get anyone's attention, but I don't think you're all that likely to improve as an editor by taking an "EdChem vs The World" mentality. No? (It's a shame you're still sitting on IndianBio's review for failing to address all the key criteria in QPQ as your own review is now passed-through with the same failing. Guess what's good for the goose isn't for the gander?) LavaBaron (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

EdChem, just ignore him -- no need to respond. Everyone sees what's going on here. EEng 06:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC) The expression is What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Having taken the trouble to look a little more closely into this dispute, it does appear that EdChem has opposed the principle of "as you go" QPQ reviews in one context while defending the same concerning a claimed QPQ of his own. Perhaps I have misunderstood the arguments being put but that's how it read to me.

Regardless, the substantive question here is with regard to whether "as you go" QPQ reviews should be acceptable or not. On reflection, for the sake of both clarity and rigour, I think it would be appropriate to insist that a reviewer wishing to claim a QPQ review credit must address all aspects of a nomination in his review, whether the result is a pass or hold. That way, there can no misunderstanding of what the requirement is, and it will be easy to identify valid QPQs from invalid ones. That said, I see no reason to re-litigate the nominations that led to this discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass, EdChem has no problem with the notion of an "as you go" review. I indicated that LB's view in that regard was arguable. However, the original review of IB's was not the start of an as-you-go approach, it made some poor comments on notability and added a bunch of comments which had nothing to do with the DYK criteria. We can't know if it would have become a proper review with further additions as a subsequent review rendered that moot, so we are left to form a view on what was contributed. LB is complaining about my Simplot review which was focused on article improvement, the hook, and DYK criteria, even if it made no mention of copyvio, as if it and IB's several lines are in some way comparable, which I do not accept. IB will either do another QPQ or the current one will be accepted, and while I have a view, the decision will not be mine. Please, however, don't buy into the absurdities which LB is posting... and if you have been looking into my work, you might notice that LB keeps appearing. I am not enjoying him following me around, in case you are wondering. EdChem (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@EdChem:, possibly I have done you a disservice by suggesting that you may have taken a self-contradictory position, in which case I will apologize. My larger point, however, is that if it is difficult even for the likes of me, a veteran of DYK, to see the distinction between one allegedly valid "as you go" review and another allegedly invalid one, then wouldn't it be better to clarify the rule so that it is clear to all what the requirement is? (Edit: Struck part of the previous comment for clumsy wording and lack of good faith). Gatoclass (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Thanks for the apology and the striking. If you look at my first comment on the QPQ review in question, I allowed for the possibility of an as-you-go approach, and recognised that pausing for a notability concern is reasonable. However, please look at the review IB did, and think about what DYK criteria it actually addressed. Then compare that to my first post on Simplot, where I focus directly on DYK criteria and add suggested approaches to addressing it. Are these really so difficult to distinguish? To me, the only argument I can see for seeing IB's as allowable for QPQ is that the possibility of addressing the criteria was foreclosed by Maile's intervention and review. On the point of clarifying the rule, I can't argue that isn't desirable... but the bigger issue for me is on inadequate reviews. Sadly, it is clear to me from the way this discussion has all developed that nothing will be achieved on the larger issue at this time. EdChem (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I asked User:Maile66 if I can also enjoy the option of not having to review against copyvio if I review everything else and still count it as QPQ, similar to EdChem [20]. I do a lot of reviews and this would save me a a bunch of time. IndianBio is also wondering if he can enjoy this privilege as well, as are I'm sure other editors. Can you clarify if this is an option all editors enjoy or just select editors? Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

EdChem - your review also had "a lot of comments that had nothing to do with DYK criteria" such as suggestions for content additions (while not reviewing against things like copyvio) [21]. Still not sure I see a difference between what IB did and what you do, other than the fact that IB, like me, is one of the Untouchables caste at DYK and you're not. Definitely open to correction if I missed something, though. LavaBaron (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, all this "untouchables caste" nonsense really needs to stop. It absolutely undermines your position and makes your argument(s) seem petty and vindictive rather than substantive and actionable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

LB, you forget that content additions were needed when length was in issue and the criteria prohibit stubs. EdChem (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Rule D2 and video game articles

Rule D2 requires inline citations at a minimum of one per paragraph, but carves out an exception for the introduction and plot summaries. In this DYK nomination for the video game The Global Dilemma: Guns or Butter, nominator Maury Markowitz has stated that video game articles do not require citations for gameplay sections. Is there an established consensus for DYK that gameplay sections are similar to plot summaries and so fall within the D2 exception? EdChem (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• I took a look at D2, and the way I read the rule, it looks like plot summaries (and intros) are only subject to the "no citations" exception when they summarize other portions of the article that are substantiated by inline citations to reliable sources ("... excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content", emphasis added). Therefore, if the "gameplay" section does not summarize other content that is substantiated by inline citations, then I think citations should be added. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • See, my impression is that plot synopses are usually assumed to be sourced to the original work, thus they don't have explicit citations to such. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Jo-Jo Eumerus, I stand corrected. I just discovered MOS:PLOT, which says: "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible." If we treat a "gameplay" section like a plot summary, then the relevant guideline tells us that citations are not necessary. Speaking from my personal perspective, I think we should require citations for plot summary sections, but it looks like there is longstanding consensus against such a requirement. C'est la vie. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Yeah, this is a funny one, anyone can write the minimum length required for a DYK by creating a hell-and-all lengthy plot synopsis for a book or a play or a movie or a video game and not need one single citation for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

No, you still need to prove notability, and that requires cited content. If there is just a plot summary and nothing else, there's no proof that the subject is notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

No, the article needs notability, but the plot section can occupy 90% of the prose, without reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that having non-referenced sections (other than the intro) is problematic, partly because plot sections can easily slip from description into evaluation / critique / opinion. I also think there is a potential for a did-incentive to reference. In a recent DYK I wrote (Six Dance Lessons in Six Weeks), the plot section is referenced but TRM added a "cn" tag in the plot. I didn't mind addressing it, but the situation is absurd if I could have removed it and all references, or simply not included any, and the article would have been policy compliant, but having included refs, the nomination can be held up by a request for more in the plot section. (Note: I am not referring to the other "cn" TRM added, which was necessary and something I had meant to reference earlier and forgot.) EdChem (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you somewhat made a rod for your own back with your diligence because you'd referenced most of it, so I felt you should go the whole hog and reference all of it. An alternative (perfectly acceptable to Wikipedia and the DYK process for character counting) would have been to remove all references within the plot section! Absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

"Absurd" is an excellent choice of word for the situation, I agree. I also see that I am open to being asked for additional references in a section which technically requires none... but I will continue to include the references nonetheless. I believe that references should be provided as a matter of routine, and so I include them, and if more are needed, I'll look for those too. With the video game case I posted above, I do think that references should be required, but if the rules / consensus say that references are not mandatory then I won't require them. Whether DYK rules lead to inadequate referencing at times is a larger issue of which this is a single example. EdChem (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Depends on what the plot section contains. A straightforward synopsis is not an issue. If there is the slightest bit of analysis, opinion and the like, citations are needed. Anyway, oftentimes when plot sections are cited that's because they are a) derived from another synopsis (which tends to run into the "second hand information is often poor" issue) or b) copied from another synopsis (which tends to run into the "copying text from elsewhere is usually copyright infringement" issue). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

To add to comments above, there is a reason that WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF insist on concise plot summaries, as to avoid giving editors too much room to go into details only sourcable to the primary source. The concise aspects forces editors to key attention on main, obvious details which usually aren't covered otherwise in reliable sources but obvious to anyone watching/reading the work. If you can source a plot summary, great, but 90% of the time there's little you can get from RS for a full plot, so keeping what is implicitly sourced to the primary work as concise as possible is the next best option. Do note that in longer works one should use citations to point out where things are occurring in said work and/or provide quotes that establish context to meet WP:V. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Speaking for the VG project, we do not consider unsourced gameplay sections to be acceptable, as sourcing for a notable game that has received some type of coverage will cover gameplay aspects. There may be fewer-than-normal refs per prose ratio in such cases, and some reliance on the primary source is acceptable to a point, as long as the points are obvious and do not require intricate knowledge of the game, but moreso than not, we really ask people to source gameplay as much as they can. --MASEM (t) 16:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: Would you please express a view on the specific section at issue, The Global Dilemma: Guns or Butter#Gameplay? As I read it, at present this discussion has "apparently not required but should be" (Notecardforfree), The Rambling Man), "not required as notability elsewhere" (3family6), "maybe, depending on content" (Jo-Jo Eumerus), and "yes, references required" (Masem), but all of these are generic views rather than looking at the specific article. I am inclined to pass Maury's article once QPQ is sorted, but further specific opinions on the article are welcome while the QPQ is done. I think I've run into a case where existing practice is unclear. EdChem (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be sourced, but there is going to be some difficulty sourcing it to third-party works due to the age and period of the game's release. It can be sourced to the game's manual, and perhaps some points to the book by Crawford that is a reflection back on his works, but the amount of detail in that really needs at least a cite per paragraph, and which should be possible from the manual alone. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz, would some referencing as Masem suggests doable? EdChem (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course, the manual is online. But honestly, what is the point of adding pointers to every para that all point to the same place? This is completely out of hand, people have forgotten why we are here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The hooks in Queue 5 are now on the front page, but the queue has not been cleared. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Cleared. Vanamonde (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Can some admin please update Template:Did you know/Queue/Next from 5 to 6, since Queue 6 is the next queue to be promoted? Also, Queue 5 should be completely empty of everything except a single line, {{User:DYKUpdateBot/REMOVE THIS LINE}}, like the other empty queues are. (Queues are not cleared the same way Preps are.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Done, I think. Thanks for the note, I'm still new to the admin side of things :) Do you know why this happened? Aren't these steps usually handled by the bot? Vanamonde (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Vanamonde, yes, the cleanup is supposed to be handled by the bot and generally all goes according to plan, but sometimes the bot chokes during these steps, or during the step immediately prior to cleanup. Fortunately, the bot's usually able to restart itself with the next promotion, but in the meantime, human intervention is required to empty the queue and/or update the number to the next queue in line. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I see, thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Here's a list of the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through November 15. Right now the nominations page shows 255, of which 107 have been approved, but that doesn't include the 27 nominations that can't transclude because we have too many transcluded templates to show them all. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three that are over six weeks old and urgently need a reviewer's attention.

Over two months old:

• October 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Give Thanks With a Grateful Heart

Over six weeks old:

• October 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Chase Walker
• October 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Death of Irene Garza

Other old nominations:

• October 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Corruption in Angola
• October 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Bhaktha Sri Thyagaraja
• October 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Josh White (racing driver)
• October 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Angola at the Lusophony Games
• October 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Rudraveena (film)
• October 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Aubrey Lewis (athlete)
• October 29: Template:Did you know nominations/George S. Zimbel
• October 30: Template:Did you know nominations/E. Jerome McCarthy
• October 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Pat Loika
• October 30: Template:Did you know nominations/The J's with Jamie
• October 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Saw Shwe Khet
• October 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Farmdrop
• November 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Sloggett's vlei rat
• November 1: Template:Did you know nominations/José López scandal
• November 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Guan ware
• November 2: Template:Did you know nominations/I Am Seven
• November 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Montrose Center
• November 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Ted Budd
• November 3: Template:Did you know nominations/L'îlot de La Boisselle
• November 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Monroe Karmin
• November 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Idol Death Game TV
• November 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Sarai Gonzalez
• November 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Kambalny
• November 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Y Sap mine
• November 12: Template:Did you know nominations/To Build a Home
• November 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Lolita (Leah LaBelle song)
• November 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Democratic National Committee chairmanship election, 2005
• November 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Suciacarpa
• November 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Order of the Lion (Malawi)
• November 13: Template:Did you know nominations/William H. Cornwell, John F. Colburn, and Arthur P. Peterson (three articles)
• November 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Left Front (West Bengal) (six articles)
• November 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Aluminium triacetate
• November 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Furstenberg–Sárközy theorem

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) 06:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Template mislabeled

Template:Did you know nominations/ Dong Yuanfeng under the November 30 nominations was created with an extra space after the slash. A blank page comes up when you click on "Review or comment" under the nomination on the WP:DYKN list. Yoninah (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I moved it to the title without the space. I think the issue is automatic space trimming in unnamed parameters. It was also acting like it was on the DYKN list when you were actually on the nom page itself. Pppery 00:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)