Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 103

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102Archive 103Archive 104Archive 105→Archive 110

How offensive is too offensive for the main page?

Even if it met all DYK criteria to the letter, I question whether or not Dead baby jokes should be on the main page. Even if the article could be brought up to pass all the DYK criteria. The insensitivity of this in light of child-death tragedies we see everyday in the news is a little too much. — Maile (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The article tells the jokes. — Maile (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
There's really no need for an article to have three different examples. One in prose is enough. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I feel that we should use limits: we shouldn't put pages about massacres with morbid facts on the main page in my opinion, and, although there is no guideline, I don't feel that putting this article on the main page is right. Matty.007 13:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
We wouldn't tell a dead baby joke in DYK on the main page, just as we wouldn't present grisly details of massacres, but Wikipedia is not censored -- that means that it's perfectly reasonable to discuss the existence of dead baby jokes on the main page. --Orlady (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Palm Sunday

Template:Did you know nominations/All Glory, Laud and Honour, reserved for Palm Sunday, was questioned and should possibly be returned from Special occasions, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Gerda, there's no reason it should be moved from Special Occasions. We've had hooks that had been approved and moved there only to have issues arise and be solved in situ. As long as everyone is engaged in getting it fixed—I've just made some fixes to the article and proposed an ALT hook—there's every possibility that the issues will be resolved before the requested date. Only if the nomination remains unapproved past the date would we need to move it back. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Helped, thank you. On other occasions I heard that only reviewed hooks should be there, but understand that this is different, and that people are aware of the problems. I wonder about a merge with the Latin original, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Rolando Maran

I fancy expanding this to create a DYK hook but there's not much out there right now. However, I note it's a maintenance-tagged BLP, so would a twofold expansion qualify under the "newly sourced and expanded at least twofold (only if the article was an unsourced BLP)" rule? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No, because there are refs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
For a two times expansion of a BLP, there have to be no refs or external links, I have been mistaken about the last part before. Thanks, Matty.007 13:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh right, I didn't even know there were BLPs remaining with "no" refs. Pardon me. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Hopefully the only ones "left" are those recently created. The unsourced BLP rule was implemented in November/December 2010 (Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 62#Including Newly Sourced BLPs at DYK) and the list of known unsourced BLPs was cleared some time ago. --Allen3 talk 14:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, those created before March 2010 cannot be PRODed, and are in Category:Unreferenced BLPs. Thanks, Matty.007 14:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all. Perhaps a minor update to the rules could be implemented to make this more understandable to newbies. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Error in queue 6

Hey there. I started building Queue 6 last night (when it was still in a prep area), and I forgot to remove a "(pictured)" from the third item. It was finished up and moved to a queue before I got back on today. Since I can no longer edit it, I need an admin to remove the extra "pictured". Alternatively, if they could pull it and stick it back in a prep area, I actually want to swap one of items out, but wasn't going to make a deal of it until I noticed the other error. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the (pictured) from the entry. Mindmatrix 18:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of three dozen older nominations that need reviewing. The first section is for a nomination that has been waiting at least six weeks, and the second is for 17 others waiting at least three weeks, the latter of which includes many completely unreviewed hooks. Please give one these your attention if possible; if not, the remaining 18 are also available. Only 14 of 188 are approved for promotion, enough to fill two prep sets. Thank you for your reviews.

Over six weeks:

Over three weeks:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Carthage Treasure

Can we have some extra eyes on Template:Did you know nominations/Carthage Treasure before it hits the main page? It's currently in Prep 3. The link for the hook is [1] (not the link given in the article, but one removed from it, for some reason), but in my view it does not support the hook.

  • Hook: " that the 4th-century covered silver bowl (pictured) in the Carthage Treasure was found in Tunisia but is thought to have been made in today's Serbia?"
  • Source: "A group of five similar vessels were found at the end of the nineteenth century in Kostolac (ancient Viminacium) in Serbia." [...] "The similarity between the Kostolac silver, which was probably made in local workshops on the Danube, and the Carthage silver illustrates the homogeneity of silver production in the Late Antique world."

This indicates that the hook vessel is similar to the Kostolac ones, but instead of indicating that this means that it was probably made there as well, the source claims that this indicates "the homogeneity of silver production in the Late Antique world.", i.e. the opposite of the hook: they look the same, despite being made in separate areas. Can some people check this hook and source and see whether my reading can make sense? If so, please remove the hook from the prep area. @Victuallers, Gerda Arendt, and Sven Manguard:. Fram (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, first I didn't find that source, then I misread it. I would follow your thinking and suggest:
ALT: " ...that the 4th-century covered silver bowl (pictured) in the Carthage Treasure is similar to objects made in today's Serbia?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I have pulled the hook from the prep area for now. Fram (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I wonder why you didn't simply change it in place, as we still have several hours for (unlikely) objections, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
That's what I wonder as well. Of course Fram could restore my doubts as the hook is restored to its place. Would some one else care to assist if Fram is busy? Victuallers (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
"Restore my doubts"? Not really clear what that's supposed to mean. In general, I prefer to have uninvolved input and conclusions; I have removed it, I let others restore it after consensus on a new hook is reached. There is no rush here to get it back, there was some pressure to swiftly remove it though. Fram (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I just found this. As it's been almost two hours, I've completed the removal by reverting the promotion on the nomination template. Since this isn't a matter of rewording a hook but coming up with and vetting a completely new hook—to me, "today's Serbia" means modern Serbia, not the ancient land that is currently located within the boundaries of modern Serbia, so Gerda's ALT proposal is confusing to this reader—it's best to do that back on the nomination; there's nothing preventing this from becoming a lead hook in a later set. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I also did not simply change the hook because the article needed changing as well of course. I still wonder what "restore my doubts" means though. Fram (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Short notice review request

If someone could take a look at this nomination related to the April 15 lunar eclipse in time for it to be posted the night of the eclipse I would appreciate it. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If I'm still the person building prep areas comes that time, please do remind me of this so that I make sure it gets in. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Will do, assuming someone reviews it is in time... --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Taylor Gold

Another day, another incorrect DYK hook in the prep areas. Currently (but not for long) in Prep 2, "... that American snowboarder Taylor Gold was the first athlete with the surname "Gold" to compete at an Olympics?". Now, one of the sources used for this states "FIRST GOLDS AT THE OLYMPICS Along with his sister Arielle and US figure skater Gracie, he will be the first athlete to compete at an Olympic Games [summer or winter] with the family name Gold. (nbcolympics.com, 21 Jan 2014; usatoday.com, 14 Jan 2014) "[2] And indeed, he was one of the first, but not the first Gold competing at Olympics, since he competed on 11 February, while e.g. Gracie Gold competed first at 9 February[3]. I don't know whether Gracie Gold truly was the first, but Taylor Gold obviously wasn't. @Epeefleche, The Bushranger, and Sven Manguard: Template:Did you know nominations/Taylor Gold. Fram (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, it was confusing. Mea cupla. You pointed to, but didn't quote from, the other ref. NBC is the source. It states: "As odd as it may seem, no athlete with the surname “Gold” has ever competed at the Olympics. This year, the U.S. snowboarding team will have two Golds competing for the gold in Sochi."[4] And, of course, one of those Golds didn't compete, due to injury. Your point is well taken.

Let's change the hook to "... that American snowboarder Taylor Gold was one of the first two athletes with the surname "Gold" to compete at an Olympics?".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk • contribs) 14:25, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we scrap the whole surname idea and instead craft something about him being part of a brother/sister pair that were both selected for Sochi and both derailed by injury? That seems more interesting hook-wise. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. How about "... American snowboarders Taylor Gold and his sister both went to Sochi to compete in the 2014 Winter Olympics, but both saw their efforts derailed by falls?"Epeefleche (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I've copied the above three comments to Template:Did you know nominations/Taylor Gold. We should continue the conversation there, for continuity's sake. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

When Björk Met Attenborough

The wrong hook is on the main page - does anyone know why this happpened? Both nominator and reviewer preferred ALT1. Please see Template:Did you know nominations/When Björk Met Attenborough. Edwardx (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened, but as the person that built that queue, I apologize for missing it. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it might've helped if "ALT1" had been bold. It's easy to miss ALTs if they're not indicated as such in bold. Also note that set builders are free to select whichever approved hook they think is best, no matter what the nominator and reviewer prefer (although that doesn't appear to have been a factor in this case). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
And thanks Sven for your work. It is appreciated. (Proposers can put the template on their watch list). Cheers Victuallers (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Sven and Mandarax - your guidance is much appreciated. It's not as if the chosen hook was an unreasonable one, so no harm done. I'm still mastering the intricacies of DYK. For Template:Did you know nominations/Angie Epifano, I've struck out the rejected hook, and ALT1 is bolded. I'm getting there... 09:47, 10 April 2014 (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) 00:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

In Queue/4, I think it is a bit of overlink to link the Wall Street Journal ... and that the hook would be better served by less blue, by unlinking it, so people can more readily see the linked material.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding COI, what can and can't I move to the prep areas?

The rules aren't exactly explicit about what I can and can't move to a prep area because of COI. To clear things up, I have the following three cases:

1) A user nominates an article and provides a hook. Another user reviews and approves that hook. I then come in and suggest an alternate hook (or more commonly, a rewording), which the initial reviewer says is also fine. I then move it to a prep area.
2) I create/expand an article and nominate it. Another user reviews and approves that hook. I then move it to a prep area.
3) A user nominates an article and provides a hook. I then review and approve that hook. I then move it to a prep area.

I believe that the one as acceptable (and I have done this several times already), because there isn't an apparent conflict of interest. I've been treating the second and third cases as unacceptable, but I wanted to make sure. There are three hooks that I reviewed (Mick Parker, Prof. Zofia Daszyńska-Golińska, and Harris Goldsmith), and one that I nominated (Oswald Harding), that I have avoided putting in to prep areas because I felt that it would be seen as unacceptable. Since I've been the person building most of the preps over the past few days, Parker and Daszyńska-Golińska have been sitting there for a while. Am I being overly cautious (or underly cautious)? I would appreciate the thoughts of some of the regulars on this issue. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the answer (and I'll let others opine), I think COI may be too strong a phrase for what you are referring to here. I think the only question is whether or not we want to have an extra set of eyes take that ministerial step -- in 1, 2, and/or 3 -- because the extra person may be more likely to catch an error if they are involved in the process. Epeefleche (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
And of course there is always going to be that extra pair of eyes from the admin who moves it to the queue. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
My own view is that I don't ever promote anything I've reviewed or commented on, the idea is to have yet one more set of eyes on a DYK (that said, sometimes my "eyes" when I promote are a bit on the cursory side...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 21:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Sven, I don't think 1) is acceptable either. If you've proposed a new hook, then you've contributed to the nomination, and it's time to stand aside. Someone else will be around to promote the approved hook you wrote. It's okay to promote an already approved hook and do minor rephrasing as you place it in prep—no change to the meaning or facts, but improving the flow or removing redundancy—but not your own rewrite that needed another reviewer to approve. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK time and queue list are not synchronized

Hey admins... aside from two full preps and nothing promoted to the next queue, did anyone notice that "DYK Time" is off from the London Local Update Time? I presume someone forgot about Daylight savings time or something...? No clue if this is an issue, but I noticed when the last DYK I was involved in went up, it was an hour later than I thought it was going to be based on the local update time template. So something is slightly goofy. Montanabw(talk) 21:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw, queue times are based on UTC, so 00:00 UTC is 00:00 London time (GMT) during half the year and 01:00 London time (BST—British Summer Time) the other (current) half. If we get away from 00:00 UTC because of delayed queue to main page promotions, the bots are programmed to move back to it in 15 minute increments, which is happening now. Things are a bit messed up now because the bot was out of commission and the updates had to be done manually for a while—it's back in service—but we should be back to normal promotion times in another couple of days. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
So basically the local times box has no way to coordinate itself with Daylight Savings Time, where that occurs? I can see that the queues are correct to UTC, but the update times in the local time boxes are off. I suppose an hour of so of watching/not watching is not really a big deal, so long as the clock on the queue is correct, but I noticed the discrepancy. Montanabw(talk) 01:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/K. Rudzki i S-ka

I have made a small change to a hook in Queue 3[5]. The hook for Template:Did you know nominations/K. Rudzki i S-ka stated that it was a small engineering firm, but the article lead (second sentence) reads "By the end of 19th century the company, with its seat in Warsaw and a large factory in Mińsk Mazowiecki, had become one of the largest and most experienced bridge construction contractors in Central and Eastern Europe,", which doesn't read like a "small engineering firm" at all. @Halibutt, The Bushranger, and Sven Manguard:. Fram (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, initially it was :) Thanks for your help. //Halibutt 07:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Need additional reviews or another prep area preparer

I don't think that I'll be able to make a hook, certainly not two hooks, without adding in some of the content I wrote or reviewed. If some people that watch this page could either a) review some more hooks, and/or b) put some of my hooks in (Zofia Daszyńska-Golińska, Mick Parker, Seumas McNally Grand Prize, Oswald Harding, Harris Goldsmith), I would be able to finish the prep areas for the 12th. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Remember you have the Palm Sunday hooks for tomorrow, so that's 2 less that needs doing. Though while I'm here, can I please ask that Ride On, Ride On in Majesty! has it's image included because it is relevant to the day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Boston Strong

The Boston Strong hook occurs in both Prep Area 1 and Prep Area 3, and one of them has the invisible comment "DO NOT MOVE". Art LaPella (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolved
 – Art LaPella (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Titanic anniversary date DYK

I'm not sure who gets to move Template:Did you know nominations/Frank M. Warren, Sr. to the special occasion queue (the way I interpret the instructions, I'm not allowed to), but I'm kind of sad that we're 5 hours into the 15th (UTC) and I don't think it's going to appear on the correct day. Any suggestions on how I can handle this for next time? It's discouraging. Valfontis (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Striking rejected alts

Hi, on the topic of my above post, should we put it into the rules that hooks which are rejected and alts proposed should be struck, to avoid promoting confusion? I am aware that it is hard to make a prep, and this should be done to make promotion easier. Thanks, Matty.007 17:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Support

  1. Per my above comment. Matty.007 17:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Yep. See my comments below under "Discussion". — Maile (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)#
  3. Definitely an issue where the promoter often just takes the top one. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - I've just started helping out in building prep sets and it's a landmine, this would help! Montanabw(talk) 02:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Yes, because if somebody wants to review a hook, if the rejected hooks aren't struckthrough, then he/she won't know which one to review. Philroc 16:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. A form of this already exists in the Reviewing guide. I don't see the point of an additional version elsewhere, or of it becoming a requirement. (Changing "consider" to something that's a stronger recommendation would be okay.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

  • As someone who has tripped over the same snafu, promoting the wrong hook among several offered, I share this frustration. I don't mind this being added to the rules. It won't hurt. I'm just not sure it will help when we already have a lot of rules on more than one page. I have the feeling from some "Looks good ..." fly-by reviews I've seen, that not every reviewer is interested in doing it correctly. Some good-faith repeat reviewers are still struggling over understanding all the ins and outs of "newness", expansion and other basics.— Maile (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In the instance (Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Turney) cited here, the problem was not lack of strike-through font for the unapproved hook. The nomination discussion did not include a clear statement that the original hook was not acceptable. The first reviewer did not reject the original hook outright -- he simply commented on the need for a reference for it. It was the nominator (User:Matty.007) who apparently determined that he could not supply a source for the original hook. In that situation, User:Matty.007 is the one who should have explicitly stated that the first hook was no good, and he should have added the strikethrough. --Orlady (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    • That's the thing: there's nothing (as far as I know, please correct me if I'm wrong) saying about striking unvalid hooks, and see my reply above about factual accuracy. Thanks, Matty.007 18:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, there are a lot of rules around DYK already, so I hope we can "keep it simple." The main thing to communicate to nominators and reviewers is that they (rather, I should say "we") should communicate -- as clearly and explicitly as possible. --Orlady (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
        • I just had a little a-tilt image in my head of one of those "humor" pieces: "What a DYK Review is Not" I'm sure everyone has their own idea of that.
- It is not a stand-alone "looks good"
- It is not a stand-alone "good to go" with no details
- It is not a green tick with no detail
- It is not a green tick without even looking at the article
- It is not faking it by adding your signature on a template so you can cite a QPQ
- It is not adding an irrelevant sentence to someone else's review so you can cite a QPQ — Maile (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Striking is a practice that has evolved over time. There are a number of sides to this problem: reviewers who aren't clear what they're approving, and preparers who don't carefully read the (sometimes extended) review template and miss issues raised with one or more of the hooks. I took to striking problematic hooks in nominations when I ran into a number of rejected but unstruck hooks appearing in prep sets. Some thoughts:
  • When there's more than one hook, reviewers need to specify which hooks are approved—and, by extension, which ones aren't. Even specifying the ones approved happens less frequently than it ought, and mentioning the ones that aren't is fairly rare. Striking the ones that aren't help prevent preparers from selected unapproved hooks. However,
  • Reviewers shouldn't enforce their preference by striking valid hooks that they don't like as much. Striking hooks with real problems—including being uninteresting—is fine, but the preparer should be the final arbiter of which hook works best in the prep set.
  • This proposal isn't going to do away with the necessity for preparers to read through the entire nomination. Just because a hook is not struck doesn't mean it is approved, or that someone has subsequently raised issues with it after an initial approval. If there's any question, the promotion shouldn't be done; instead, a query should be posted on the page (and to the reviewer) asking for clarification. (And what's with promoting hooks with clear grammatical problems if you're not fixing them while promoting? I've never understood that.)
Finally, I have to point out that we have something like what's been proposed as the last item in the DYK Reviewing guide's "Review the hook" section—both specifying which hooks are and aren't approved, and using strikeout on the unapproved ones. Is there a problem with what's there, or did you want it added somewhere else (and if so, where)? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted it to be made more explicit, simply removing the word "consider" in the guide would be fine I think. Thanks, Matty.007 18:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I"m for whatever makes it explicitly clear which hook to promote. Montanabw(talk) 21:46, 10 April 2014 (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) 22:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Please be more thorough and careful in checking DYK (hooks and articles)

Last week, I have corrected or removed three hooks from prep areas and queues (see the section on this page on "Template:Did you know nominations/Carthage Treasure", "Template:Did you know nominations/Taylor Gold", and "Template:Did you know nominations/K. Rudzki i S-ka". These were all proposed, reviewed and promoted, which means three sets of eyes on them (normally), and still they went through with errors. Today, I open Wikipedia and get confronted with Template:Did you know nominations/Beatrice Tomasson as first hook on the main page. I have corrected it, but such things should never get this far. I'll ping the two editors for this specific hook (should the same editor accept and promote?), but the problem is much more widespread obviously. Please take this more seriously. If you don't have the time to do more thorough checks, then reduce the number of DYKs, only promote the best or least dubious, but please let's make this better than it is now. @Northamerica1000 and 97198:. Fram (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, partly my fault. In my original hook proposal I didn't mention the mountain or route by name but when Northamerica1000 proposed the alt hook I should've gone back and checked it against the article before agreeing to it. Thanks for correcting it, in any case. 97198 (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
In answer to the question, Northamerica1000 should not have approved the ALT hook he or she proposed (see WP:DYKSG#H2), and should never have promoted a nomination he or she approved, for the precise reason that there is no double-check of the approval, and problematic hooks can more easily reach the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Fram: Thanks for correcting the hook and making it more specific by including information about the south face of the Marmolada. User:BlueMoonset: Thanks for letting me know. I have reviewed all of the rules and supplementary rules, and this won't occur again. NorthAmerica1000 11:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

A nomination request misses the bus?

Hi! I was wondering: If I request an article to be shown on a certain day (ex: holiday), what happens if the nomination isn't reviewed by then? "Tough luck, buddy"? Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You come here and say which nom for which date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Prep 2

It's now in Prep 2, but you can see from Template:Did you know nominations/St John Passion structure that the words "ist uns die Freiheit kommen" ("came our freedom") were omitted to make it short enough. Although "center of symmetry" is vague and the three dots could mean more text, I think someone who doesn't know any German would wrongly conclude that "Durch dein Gefängnis" means "By your prison came our freedom", not just "By your prison". I tested it by showing it to my son, and he thought that "Durch dein Gefängnis ..." means the complete phrase, not just the first half. Art LaPella (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

We're extremely low on reviewed hooks right now: only 9 of 202 are approved for promotion, and no queues and only one prep set are filled—we can't even fill another two preps.

I've compiled a new set of 35 older nominations that need reviewing. The first section is for a nomination that has been waiting for two and a half months, and the second is for a dozen waiting at least three weeks, the latter of which includes many completely unreviewed hooks. Please give one these your attention if possible; if not, the remaining 22 are also available, all of which date from before the beginning of April. Thank you for your reviews.

Over two and a half months:

Over three weeks:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2014 (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) 07:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Including video in a nomination

I have recently written Priddy Nine Barrows and Ashen Hill Barrow Cemeteries and working on a DYK nom at Template:Did you know nominations/Priddy Nine Barrows and Ashen Hill Barrow Cemeteries. I have taken some aerial video which I wanted to include and used the recomended code <div style="float:right;margin-left:0.5em;"> [[File:filename.jpg|100x100px|ALT TAG]]</div>. from Wikipedia:Did you know#Images but can't get the video to display - any ideas?— Rod talk 09:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it now but the large arrow obscures any picture at 100px - has any other nom included video so I can see how it should be done?— Rod talk 10:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I recall a year or two ago a hook about a dancer or gymnast including a video. I'll see if I can find it. ~huesatlum 13:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Found it! It's the first hook in the last set on 26 July 2012. It seems that that one used the standard image formatting. ~huesatlum 13:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - that also has the large arrow. Will add (shown in the video) to the hook.— Rod talk 13:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Earth Day (April 22) nomination: TerraCycle

Hi! It would be great if someone could review template:did you know nominations/TerraCycle before Earth Day because I have a request to show it on that date. Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Can someone here answer a technical question on this nomination. Yes, it's been 5X expanded, and it seems to be a fine article. However, that expansion happened Jan-April 2014. DYK rules say it should have been expanded "within the last 5 days". Is there a way to get around that for this nomination? This editor seems to have put in a great deal of work on this article in that time.— Maile (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The article had 2039 characters of readable prose at it's peak size on March 30[6], and currently contains 9770 characters for a 4.8x expansion beginning on April 6 (the date of the nomination) . Given that the nominator has been slowly building the article since the first of the year and is so close to 5x anyways, using WP:IAR to round the 4.8x up to 5x should not be a problem. --Allen3 talk 12:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for making an exception! I do have a question though. I'm a newb, and probably don't know what I'm talking about, but here goes: [7] this was the last edit before April 6 @ 1948 characters, and [8] this was the last edit made on April 11 @ 9769 characters. 1948 x 5 = 9740 < 9769 , right? So how come it's a 4.8x expansion? Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about the Allen3's stats, but I already reviewed and passed the nomination. It's been moved down to the special holding area for Apr 22. Good job, by the way. — Maile (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2014 (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) 23:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

De kellner en de levenden hook in Prep 4

Is it just me or is featuring a hook in which Satan sits in judgement at the Last Judgment (a role that both Christianity and Islam assign to Jesus) a tad inappropriate for a set scheduled to run on Easter Sunday (the holiest day of the year in Christianity)? I am not saying that the hook should not have its time on the Main page, but surely there is a better time in which to run this hook. Additionally, before anyone yells "WP:NOTCENSORED" they should take the time to read the policy they are citing and be prepared to explain how delaying this hook for a day would thwart Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. --Allen3 talk 00:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I would agree, and suggest it is moved to another less holy day? Thanks, Matty.007 11:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree. It just wouldn't be right. I remember when we had a similar problem at Epiphany and it was changed because it just didn't appear right. Maybe have it run on Monday but not today. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2014 (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) 14:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK hook removed from the main page for article copyvio concerns

I just removed the hook from the main page for Littlehampton Lifeboat Station (done here) as I had to remove quite a lot of text from the article because of copyvio concerns and because I strongly suspect there may be more (I've proposed opening a CCI on the contributor in question). Posting here in case the DYK regulars want to do anything further about it (such as adding another hook for a different article). Dpmuk (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Ping Cheeseladder, Allen3. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    @Dpmuk:, I am confused by your actions. In this edit, you claim that the block of text you removed was copy-and-pasted from http://littlehamptonlifeboat.org.uk/station-history/. When I go to this page and use by browser's search function to try an locate the string "The current boathouse, which was officially opened on Monday 6 October 2003" (a sentence fragment from the beginning of the text you removed), my browser is unable to locate the text. Then when I perform a web searches using Google, Yahoo!, and Bing, all three report the string occurring in the Wikipedia article but fail to locate this string in any other location. Then moving to this edit in which you claim to remove a copyright violation of http://rnli.org/shorething/discover/bluepeter/Pages/Blue-Peter.aspx and performing similar searches for the string "The stations first ILB was an Atlantic 21-class lifeboat called Blue Peter I" again fails to locate the text that has supposedly been copied from the source. Finally, thinking maybe there is a problem with my usual browser, I repeated these efforts with a different web browser. After all these efforts I am unable to find an original source for these sentence fragments other than the Littlehampton Lifeboat Station article, let alone the paragraph sized blocks of text that you claim were taken from these web pages. What am I missing, because I am unable to find a reason for an accusation of close paraphrasing let along the more serious claims you have made? --Allen3 talk 03:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    In both cases you give, the first part of the first sentence happens to be a very bad phrase to search for as it is likely not to be a problem but was removed because out of context with the rest it made no sense.
    To give an example from the first case you give from later in the parapgraph:
    Original (http://littlehamptonlifeboat.org.uk/station-history/):
    The chart table is used to plot and plan the progress of the boats whether on exercise or service, and alongside are the marine radios used to monitor progress and to communicate directly with the boats.
    Our article:
    as well as a chart table which can be used to plot and plan the progress of the boats whether on exercise or service. Alongside this facility there are the marine radios used to monitor progress and to communicate directly with the boats.
    Which is almost word for word. There are also close paraphrasing issues else where in that paragraph.
    To give two concrete example from the second case you give:
    Original (http://rnli.org/shorething/discover/bluepeter/Pages/Blue-Peter.aspx):
    which is now a common sight all around the coast, confirming the success of the concept not only for rescue purposes, but also as an all-round leisure and working boat
    which remained the station boat until 1985, when it moved into the relief fleet before serving at Kirkudbright lifeboat station in 1988.
    Our article:
    which is now a common sight all around the coast, confirming the success of the concept not only for rescue purposes, but also as an all-round leisure and working boat
    remained on the station until 1985, when it moved into the relief fleet before serving at Kirkudbright in 1988.
    The first of those examples is word-for-word, the second is a way too-close paraphrase.
    Given the above and that the whole article was created by one editor I also have my doubts about the rest of the article, especially given the use of off-line sources which aren't easy to check. In the circumstances I thought it better to remove it from the main page rather than risk having a copyvio article in such a prominent position. Dpmuk (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    My bad. I obviously missed these problems. --Allen3 talk 10:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    No worries. Although I'm currently less active in copyright work (burnt out) I spent a lot of time doing it and as soon as I read the sources I was worried but it's quite easy to miss something when it's not an exact copy of a paragraph or something.
  • Responding to the initial question, we shouldn't add another hook to the main page at this point. Fortunately, the columns aren't too badly out of balance with only five hooks. The next set will be promoted in under four hours. (Generally, we don't move replacement hooks to the main page, since it means they don't get the full period due them.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Irene Greif hook in prep area 3

The hook is "...that Irene Greif is a founder of computer-supported cooperative work?" Neither article really supports this claim. At most, she was one of the people who first coined the term. She certainly was not a founder of something that is such a very broad concept that it must have been taking place for many years prior to the 1984 coining of this particular term. Edwardx (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The statement is in the lead sentence of the article on her, and sourced with Ref 1 Dr. Greif, as the founder of the field of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), is an expert in how people work with computers and how people can work with each other using computers, and she has had a major impact on technology throughout the world in the sharing of work, remote work, knowledge management, and distance learning. However, you are correct that the body of the article only states that she and Paul Cashman merely coined the term and the initials. — Maile (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps I'm being over-particular in my interpretation. I'd better let it go! Edwardx (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Shakespeare queue adjustment

In the event that we only have two Shakespeare hooks for his 450th birthday on the 26th could we change to two queues on that day instead of three. It would be good to have Shakespeare's name in both DYK and on POTD all day.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

In the past there have been discussions about increasing the number of sets to accommodate situations where the number of hooks submitted for a single day exceed the number of available slots, but I can remember no previous cases where the number of sets has been reduced due to a lack of special hooks. I am also not seeing why any 450th birthday is so important that we would want to create a new precedent. --Allen3 talk 23:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
In recent times we have gone back and forth between 2 and 3 sets of hooks per day. As recently as 2011, it was not uncommon to have 4 sets of hooks per day. Changes back and forth between 2 and 3 sets of hooks in a day is not really a precedent as much as it is an accommodation to smooth the presentation of content on an as needed basis. This is just a situation where there is a need to have 2 sets on a given day.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep in mind we are talking about the 450th birthday of a level 3 Wikipedia:Vital_articles (there are only 136 level 3 VA biographies out of the current 1,189,571 biographies on wikipedia).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Allen3: we should not reduce the number of sets for a single day in order to give a couple of hooks more time on the main page. Divide the available hooks among the three queues for that day for maximum exposure, be there one, two, three, or more, sure. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Below both BlueMoonset and Sven Manguard seem to be saying that we are short on hooks being approved and nominated, can't we justify this special request for a 450th birthday of a vital article on those grounds?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
We're not that short, Tony. Among other things, there are three special occasion hooks for April 25. We also have 196 nominations—an historically high number—though reviews are a bit slow at present. I knew all this when I made my above comment about this highly unusual special request, and I stand by it. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Forthcoming shortage of hooks?

Each day, DYK needs 18 promoted hooks in order to do three sets of six. In the past two weeks, we have had only 3 days with exactly 18 hooks nominated, and only 1 day with more than 18 nominated. Over the past two weeks, we've run a defect of 25 hooks, 13 if you don't count April 23rd, which I hope is some sort of error. Is this sustainable in the long term (i.e. is this the normal numbers that the process has seen over the past few months), or should I be concerned? Sven Manguard Wha? 03:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Articles created/expanded on April 10: 14 (short four)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 11: 18 (even)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 12: 25 (up seven)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 13: 14 (short four)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 14: 17 (short one)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 15: 16 (short two)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 16: 18 (even)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 17: 17 (short one)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 18: 17 (short one)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 19: 16 (short two)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 20: 18 (even)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 21: 16 (short two)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 22: 15 (short three)
  • Articles created/expanded on April 23: 6 (short twelve)

Sven, the goal seems to be to be running with a backlog of under 150 hooks. We've been running around 200 hooks lately. More concerning is the slow reviewing, which makes it hard to load preps—as best I can tell, there are more non-self-nominations of late, which don't require a QPQ review. There's a chance that we'll get another spike of nominations around the beginning of May, when the next round of the WikiCup commences. If not, though, we reduce the frequency of the sets being loaded to the main page from three to two—DYK typically runs with two or three sets per day depending upon activity, with an occasional foray into four sets in extremely active times (the 2012 Summer Olympics, for example). We minimize the shifts in frequency, holding off until there's a consensus that it's needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  • PS: I wouldn't worry about April 23, since people have another several days to nominate articles created on that date. Indeed, it's possible that all the still-current dates (April 19 through 23) to grow a bit more with "new" (created up to five days before) eligible articles before each date's cutoff. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    • That's a convention that really doesn't seem to get used. If I move an article to the namespace on the 10th, but it takes until the 11th to set up the DYK, I put it in the section for the 11th. Looking at a random selection of nominees, it would appear that I am in the majority in this. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, the T:TDYK page is quite clear; In the current nominations section find the subsection for the date on which the article was created or on which expansion began, not the date on which you make the nomination. It looks like I should look through and move those who haven't done it right. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

William Shakespeare's 450th birthday being overlooked

At Talk:Main_Page#William_Shakespeare we are discussing if there is anything that is going to be done for William Shakespeare's 450th birthday on the main page. Although we don't know his exact birthday and some claim it is the 23rd, on WP we acknowledge his baptism on the 26th. Personally, I have Template:Did you know nominations/Romeo and Juliet (Pastor) that could be rushed through DYK. Also, due to the special circumstances, if someone wants to help me beef up Malcolm (Macbeth) immediately, maybe we could unwithdraw this nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Malcolm (Macbeth).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

At a minimum, I think we should try to have at least on Shakespeare hook in each queue on the 26th. It would be great if some people come up with one or two more quickies. If you are looking for some subjects, I would suggest some of the characters. Several plays have characters with significant content in character list articles or character list sections.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hooks in need of rapid approval

I am making this subsection for clarity--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:36, 24 April 2014 (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) 07:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do we have overdues?

I'm concerned that the process of moving hooks to prep is becoming difficult. I don't want to discuss particular cases but the idea that editors can revert the process at the last moment is a power that is required - we need to avoid libel and BLP offence. However the idea that that hooks can be withdrawn because they are merely imperfect is going to damage the process. Wikipedia is a process that creates errors. The only way to prevent Wiki editors from creating errors entirely is to stop the process. I would like to propose that there should be an obligation to repair any damage to the process that is required by remedial action. If a hook appears wrong then try and fix it. If a hook has to be withdrawn then replace it with another. I see the number of overdues is increasing. I suspect this may become more frequent if we rely on catching everything at the last moment and then ranting at those who caused the problem (ie keep the process working). I'm certainly taking a break but I thought I'd let you guys have a heads up first. Victuallers (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

One thing that could help with this problem is if more eligible articles were nominated, giving us a larger selection to choose from. I modified the the template that users receive when their articles at GAN get promoted; it now reminds them that newly promoted GAs can be brought to DYK. Let's see if that helps. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
No. You are putting the burden on the one noticing the error, instead of on the ones creating and approving the error in the first place. The only "advantage" of your proposal is that some factually incorrect hooks will not get pulled and will appear on the main page. I noticed your similar approach at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 103#Template:Did you know nominations/Carthage Treasure, where you made a similar request with some veiled character assassination which you refused to explain or back up. It seems as if you consider the process as more important than getting it right, even if that means putting incorrect statements on the main page (I don't know of any examples where the hook was right but "imperfect" that got pulled). I don't think anyone with that mindset has any business being at DYK at all. Fram (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for changing the template Sven Manguard, I brought it up there a little while ago, but received no reply (I didn't know where to change the message). Thanks, Matty.007 17:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
In the limit, the process working is more important than getting it right. Because without a process then the concept of being right is meaningless. Doing nothing is perfect. Doing something is what we are about. We need to improve the process and make it work with less overhead and less heat. Asking people to repair the damage they cause is not the same as allowing factually incorrect hooks on the main page. Maybe I should have made my suggestion less doubtful. My concern is that the drive for perfection will drive out the editors. There are a number of good editors who like to see their work at DYK but they find the process onerous. I have successfully nominated their articles but the work required continues to grow. I am pleased to see that some reviewers are repairing holes when they remove a hook which is good. Well done. It would help if we could identify errors (and fix them preferably) before they are promoted. Thanks. Victuallers (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
If editors get driven out because their incorrect hooks or articles are not shown on the main page, then tough luck. Peole who feel that their trophies are more important than getting it right have no place here. Fram (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Article on Titus Andronicus

I don't wish to get off on the wrong foot and I know that the writers wanted to get something out for Shakespeare's 450th anniversary, but the article on Titus Andronicus (character) linked from Prep 1 is extremely poor. Aside from the hook and a lopsided plot summary it consists of one sentence. The character of Titus Andronicus is studied in more detail in the article of the play which is also linked in the hook. I know that "Did you know..." articles aren't supposed to be unimproveable, but this article probably shouldn't exist if it can't analyse the character in more depth than the article on the play. Bellemora (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I didn't say it definitely shouldn't exist; it may be possible to improve it to a point where it can stand alongside the article on the play, as there's hardly a dearth of commentary on Shakespeare, it's just that I doubt it can be brought anywhere near the standard of an encyclopaedia article in the next few hours. Why would you want to showcase such a poor article on the main page of an encyclopaedia? Bellemora (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know what you mean by "the standard of an encyclopaedia article". It would pass at WP:AFD, because the article should exist, because there is encyclopedic content about this character in the public domain. It passes the DYK standard of being 1500 characters that include at least one encyclopedic fact for the main page. It is in the quality range that is sufficient for DYK. It may not be a scholarly example of encyclopedic prose in its current state, but if we want to celebrate Shakespeare's 450th this is what we have.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Article now redirected. Are we really going to celebrate Shakespeare with an article with one source with background on the hook, when that source dates from 1913, and the main article has much more and more recent information on the same subject? DYK should be a service to the reader, not a disservice. Fram (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to redirect. The content on the character in Titus Andronicus is disjointed. I believe the standalone article would be speedily kept rather than speedily deleted as you suggest.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
N.B. the article on the play does not even have a well developed character section (see Titus_Andronicus#Characters). It is a disservice to send readers seeking information about a character to an article with so sparse a character section. Furthermore, the character section is not backed up by a link to a dedicated character article like Characters in Romeo and Juliet.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
All your arguments for why the article should exist are good, but the article fulfils none of them as it stands. It does not collect the encyclopaedic information that is in the public domain, it does not unify the disjointed information on the character of Titus contained in the play article and it does not serve readers seeking information about the character. I could help you expand it (it would be a good learning experience for me if you'd like my help; alternatively, if I've pissed you off, you can tell me to go boil my head) but I won't have much time over the next week as I have guests. At the moment I think putting it on DYK in celebration of Shakespeare would do little for Wikipedia's reputation. Bellemora (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
DYK is for start-class articles. You are suggesting some requirement that the article meet WP:WIAGA or something. It is not running in the WP:TFA section. Do you feel that the article fails to be start-class? Does it defy any WP:MOS? It does in fact unify information about the character by sketching his role in the play from beginning to end.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
@Fram The "Role in play" section is mostly a edited and slightly reworded version of Titus_Andronicus#Synopsis so I added "See" under the header for that section, as the "Synopsis" section in Titus_Andronicus has more complete information. Parabolooidal (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Stats

My WK VP post about this has not really received an answer that has addressed the significant drop in stats reporting. However, DYK should be aware of this for its DYK Stats count. As evidenced by Main Page stats, something has been wrong since April 18 - the system in place has been under reporting by about 30% since that date.— Maile (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday's DYK Chihiro number

Note that it's a red link. The main references did not exist and this was a blatant hoax. A quick search for the two references that mentioned Chihiro numbers would have shown they were fake references. I found this being discussed at WP:ANI. A real waste of time and now we have to clean up [9]Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It was removed from navbox {{Large numbers}}, that should do most of the cleanup, but for some reason I don't understand yet, there's a delay in showing (or here: not showing) the links after a navbox was changed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
An impressive hoax. (Apparently some mathematicians enjoy elaborate hoaxes.) A correctable issue that I see with the DYK review is that offline sources were accepted in good faith apparently without any effort to verify that the sources exist. It took me very little time (just now) to look up the New York Journal of Mathematics, find the index for the journal volume that supposedly included a key source, and determine that there was no such article in that volume of the journal. DYK reviewers should not AGF on a source just because it appears to be inaccessible or in a foreign language; rather, we should endeavor to find information about sources that we don't expect to be able to read.
Recently a couple of DYK reviewers have AGFed on a sources that I cited, calling them "offline", even though the sources actually were online and free -- I didn't insist that the reviewers go back and look at my sources, but maybe I should have done so to drive home a point!. --Orlady (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The "tick" was given by an editor who had one other edit, inserting information relating to the hoax, in an unsigned edit to the nomination. So, the verification of the hook was actually faked by the hoaxer.  :( EdChem (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
But did that green tick really matter? Based on Orlady's comments above and also looking a bit at Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide and Template:Did you know nominations/Chihiro number and what User:Graeme Bartlett said, while they did mention it was "confirmed" (I presume they meant the unsigned green tick by the editor with only one other edit), it sounds like it probably would have been approved with only the grey tick by GB based on AGF about the ref. Both of these (accepting a review when the reviewer could easily be a sock and AGF about allegedly offline refs) suggest the review process is primarily about catching mistakes or unintentional errors rather than serious hoaxers who know how to game the system. Of course catching serious hoaxers on wikipedia can be difficult since we do intentionally AGF a lot but getting something on the main page does seem to be something hoaxers consider a major feather in their cap. Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
What do y'all think of marking something by "second reviewer needed" if it looks questionable? I saw the "number" hook, avoided it (like all math, sorry), saw people dealing with it and didn't look closer. Had someone questioned the "risen" hook, I would have noticed a problem that I didn't see and, to be honest, still don't see. A quotation in the quirky spot: how would anybody misunderstand that as not a fact that there is some quotation, but take what the quotation says as a proclaimed fact? - A few people seem to see it that way, therefore I will certainly not repeat such a thing. - I may have been "guilty" also of AGF towards Orlady, sorry, I can't help trust ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
My reading of that nomination leads me to think that Graeme Bartlett took final responsibility for the review. While he asked a lot of questions, ultimately he assumed good faith on the part of the contributor and other reviewer. Most of us likely would be have done the same, but hindsight indicates that it should have been possible to determine that the key sources might be fakes.
Since I've dealt with a long-term vandal/sockpuppeteer who had a habit of creating seemingly valid content that was referenced to fake sources (generally out-of-print books), I suppose I may be particularly sensitive to the possibility of making up citations. It takes an unusually clever and determined vandal to do that sort of thing... --Orlady (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
As was said, if it's offline, the reviewer often accepts it AGF, purely down to the way Wiki works. Some are more cautious, and check the books, though it has never occurred to me to do so (not that I have actively dismissed doing it, merely that I have never considered it), but I think cases like this are a wake up call that if there are offline refs, they need checking that they exist at least. Thanks, Matty.007 17:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

ACcepting some off-line refs isn't a real problem, but it becomes a problem when there are no online refs that support the main aspects of the article (e.g., well, the very existence of the subject), and certainly when the editor(s) are not somewhat trusted editors, more care should be taken. Of course, as we saw with ColonelHenry, long-term editors can be hoaxers as well, but we can avoid most hoaxes by being a bit more diligent than what happened here. Fram (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That's actually a rather good point. I wonder if we can add something to the DYK guidelines like "Reviewers should be extremely suspicious of any article whose notability depends solely upon offline sources". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
It was too much AGF on my part to assume that one of the references that talked about the subject matter in part and combined with earlier tick for hook confirmation. Perhaps I should have smelled a rat when the alternate hook proved unsupported at all. Sometime I have found factually incorrect hooks before but they were actually done in good faith. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

How about making autoconfirmed status a requirement for DYK reviewers? It would not of course make the process bulletproof, but nowhere in Wikipedia is. VQuakr (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, VQuakr. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Just throwing this out there, I don't want "online sources required" for all topics, I've been known to heavily use offline and rather obscure sources for some of my articles - but they are typically well backed up by online sources for existence. I think the hooks themselves should likely be verifiable online or such - I've actually scanned and imgured a copy of a page because of such disbelief in a citation. The fact its existence and verifiability could not be proven is the problem - I don't know any heavy text users that would hesitate or worry about providing evidence for such information either. This hoax was blatant and it fouled other areas in its fabrication. Autoconfirmed seems a good place to start the reforms here. If you haven't been on Wikipedia long enough to have that status - why are you at DYK anyways? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

We're extremely low on reviewed hooks right now: only 12 of 196 are approved for promotion, no queues are filled, and only two preps have any hooks in them at all; we can barely fill those two preps.

I've compiled a new set of 39 older nominations that need reviewing. The first section is for a nomination that has been waiting for over two months, and the second is for five waiting at least three weeks. Please give one these your attention if possible; if not, the remaining 33 are also available. Thank you for your reviews.

Over two months:

Over three weeks:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The current set has been on the Main Page for 27 hours

There is a set ready in Prep 4. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess 27 hours is long enough to iron out most of the errors. I would suggest the update frequency is reduced and review quality is increased. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Admin needed to promote prep to queue, at which point the bot will take over. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I always feel helpless when this happens. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Tell me which button to press and I'll do it. I'm half-busy and don't want to foul up yet another DYK promotion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Prep 4 moved to Q6 now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but I think the image still needs to be protected, either on Commons or by uploading it to en.wikipedia and protecting it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Done. --Allen3 talk 20:52, 29 April 2014 (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) 03:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Filling prep 2.....

I began filling Preparation area 2 but have to do some RL chores...anyone welcome to continue to fill it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC) nevermind. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Filling prep 3.....

Bueller...Bueller....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 1 May 2014 (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) 13:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Would appreciate an extra set of eyes

Following a recent third party comment upon my talk page, Hipocrite (talk · contribs) decided to review several open DYK nominations. Could a couple of experienced people take a look at his reviews?

In full disclosure, there is a current dispute between Hipocrite and myself and I am the nominator for one of the affected nominations. A second person has expressed concern about his comments on one of the reviewed nominations.[10] I do not know about his internet connectivity or fluency in Turkish, but the speed with which he was able to perform several of the reviews may suggest Hipocrite failed to check the supporting online sources before making his comments. --Allen3 talk 17:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a single one of my purported "reviews" was a review. They were comments such that reviewers or nominees could address specific concerns related to NPOV that I had. In many cases, said concerns were addressed, in one I had misread the hook, and in others I remain unsatisfied. If I purported to engage in a full review, I would have engaged in a full review. I examined the hooks for obvious failures of the 5 pillars, which is a step that, to date, was apparently ignored. Allen3's comment here is merely a transparent attempt to redirect attention from his problematic behavior which resulted in the promotion of religious proselytizing and hoax content to the main page. Hipocrite (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Issue appears to have resolved itself. Based upon edit timestamps, Hipocrite was in the process of dealing with my concerns with the nominations at the time of my original posting. --Allen3 talk 18:46, 1 May 2014 (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) 21:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Prep 3 is now full. I didn't move it to the queue because 1) I filled it. 2) I have never filled a prep before. I did verify all the facts though (as per filling instructions), so it should be good to go. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please protect the image in Queue 6? The bot is complaining about this error, and won't promote the queue to the main page until the image is protected. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Done. Materialscientist (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2014 (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) 13:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for informal review

I'd like to request a informal review of User:Hasteur/sandbox/Prime Prep. I copied the source from Prime Prep Academy and want to make it a DYK nomination, however I'm concerned that because it focuses heavily on the drama of the subject (that is on the whole the same level as overall reporting) and that it borrows heavily from one news outlet in terms of it's coverage. If I could get an informal review, I would greatly appreciate it. Hasteur (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK should not be presenting religious doctrine as fact

I was looking through the recent archives, and I couldn't believe that the hook ... that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today"? was on the main page. Since when does Wikipedia present religious doctrine as fact? Yes, I know it's in quotation marks and it appeared on Easter, but that doesn't matter. Wikipedia should be presenting information, not proselytizing by declaring that Christ is risen. An actual fact from the article should have been used. Isn't there a rule that fictional/mythological/religious hooks must include a fact which is based on the real world? Agolib 23:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I consider it a rather awful decision myself. I tried to get the hook changed changed, but all I got was the addition of the quotes. I would never have run it, but both a prep builder and an admin (that moved the prep to queue) found it appropriate enough to move forward with. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Created by User:The C of E? Yes, looking at his user page (and user name), that's obviously someone who wouldn't see a problem with this. And then the one that proposed the hook also approved it, good going there. Created and proposed by a deeply religious editor, hook suggested and approved by someone who has "Remember not, Lord, our offences" at the top of the user page, and promoted by someone who has a Bible verse at the top of their user page. The lone dissenting voice mostly ignored. Dreadful hook, should never have appeared on the main page. Fram (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I reviewed the hook, found it rather cute and quirky, not a missionary statement, and it was discussed. The song title would have been shown with whatever hook. I am a bit surprised that this hook causes trouble, while "by his prison came our freedom" was not questioned, nor hundreds of other religious art works, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Editors with strong Christian beliefs are a massive part of our systemic bias, and generally don't even recognise it. Obvious conflict of interest means they should remove themselves from any discussions on items that relate to their religion. HiLo48 (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Garda Arendt, did any of these other hooks simply state the title without any explanation? The only reading of the hook that makes any sense is as a presentation of fact, not as anything else. "Did you know that "Macbeth"?" wouldn't make any sense as a hook and would immediately get rejected; the only reason this one was proposed and accepted was because the subject title could be used as a sentence as well. You find this quirky and cute, but for many people wanting neutrality on the front page, never mind for people of a different belief or atheists, this is not quirky and cute at all but simply unacceptable. This is not comparable to a hook like ".. that in the structure of Bach's St John Passion, the centre of symmetry is "Durch dein Gefängnis ...", expressing: "By your prison ... came our freedom"?". Fram (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe that an intelligent reader will take a statement with capital initials in quotation marks as a fact, nor do I believe that a line of a song can be called a "doctrine" as the title of this thread suggests. I would have been happy with a different hook, but nobody came up with one. I would not have objected to a change in prep, queue or Main page, but there seemed to be no urgency, - your "unacceptable" seems not a fact, but your POV. It was accepted. - I said religious, not Christian, intentionally so, I approve Buddhist ... art as well, and had massive objections to the hymn All Glory, Laud and Honour, see nom and talk (unresolved), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Please tell me, what was the meaning of the hook? If not "religious doctrine", then it was just an incomplete, meaningless sentence and shouldn't have been accepted either. The difference between this hook and other ones with religious connotations should be clear, and your defense (e.g. the comparison with the "by your prison" hook, gives me the impression that you are deliberately playing dumb here. So yes, the hook, and the behaviour of those who proposed, accepted and prmoted it, was unacceptable. Fram (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Not good Christian behaviour at all. HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't get it. Ask our readers if they smiled as I did. I promise not to pass another hook that people like you might take serious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Been away for a few days and just seen this. I don't see how such an article could appear on the main page without mentioning Jesus has risen due to the nature of the article. Even if it was reworded, it still would have said the same. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree it was probably not appropriate. To get a sense of perspective, imagine a DYK that said "...that God is dead?" —Tourchiest talkedits 21:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong comparison, would have been: ...that "God is Dead"? Why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Yep, and that'd be a perfectly acceptable DYK, in fact I'd bet my pay packet that it'd be in the top few DYKs for the month. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
What do you think of my latest: ... VIKTOR DYK (pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you some of you need to get out more. I'm not religious in the slightest, and yet reading this "discussion", I find myself strongly supporting the original posting and the original wording. DYK is designed to hook people into reading articles, not to hook people into joining cults. This hook is nothing more than interesting. If anyone took it in any other way, they've entirely missed the point of Wikipedia, the main page, DYK etc, and shouldn't be allowed to use the internet. Far too dangerous. Now then, time to move along and do something far more constructive, like improve the encyclopaedia rather than just whine aimlessly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought about this for 30 minutes, and after weighing both sides, I agree with The Rambling Man. The hook works, and it works well, but there is understandably a lot of confusion on how to deal with it. For those who are claiming it is not appropriate or neutral, think about it a bit more. We have hooks like this every day on all kinds of topics, but because this one happens to be religious in nature, you're asking us to make a special exemption. And, that's not right. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Please present any similar hook. Shouldn't be a problem, after all we have "similar hooks every day", right? No, we never have hooks that are uterly incorrect or incomplete sentences because in that way we can make a religious (or political or whatever) message. Just look at the the DYK nomination; the original hook was even more blatant, but the addition of quotes was supposed to make it allright by some incorrect reasoning. I am not asking to make some special exemption, this hook is the exemption which should never have been made. Fram (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Fram, WP:DROPTHESTICK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Alternatively, you could recognise your conflict of interest on matters like this, and drop out of the conversation entirely. HiLo48 (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
HiLo, we all have personal biases. Based upon the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#HiLo48's incivility you might do well to consider to what extent yours are coming into play. --Allen3 talk 12:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Remember not, Lord, our offences ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Conflict of interest? Are you suggesting that the editor is a deity? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Good point. If that idea could be absorbed then we could avoid a lot of heat here. Calm views too from Rambling man. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That's not similar at all, because it presents facts. Forget about the religious aspects of this discussion. One of the fundamental rules of DYK is that a hook must present a real-world fact, with extremely rare April Fools exceptions, such as the one a few years ago that was just a "?". The Easter hook did not present any facts, and thus did not adhere to DYK rules, and should never have gone through.64.183.42.58 (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, it would have had the same statement even if it was worded differently. The hook was nominated since 19 March and was held up before running. If there were any objections, they should have been raised there and then instead of waiting until it has run before complaining about it when it is too late. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Containing a statement is completely different to being the statement and nothing more. The hook didn't present any context, it presented a fact (the quotes don't change this, and the fact that the quotes were even missing in the first proposed hook makes the intent quite clear). That a problem is only discovered too late doesn't mean that we are no longer allowed to complain about it, if only to prevent such things happening again in the future. Fram (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we all stop taking DYK so seriously? I realize that I have a systemic bias here, but it's not the fact that I'm a Christian, but I have an admitted fondness for amusing and quirky hooks. FA, ITN, and OTD are all business, as they should be, but DYK should be a space on the front page where you can find the new and weird and unexpected. And if we have to cheat or mislead a little bit, that's all in good, harmless fun. Gamaliel (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No one has presented any remotely similar hooks so far, only claiming that these exist. All hooks bar the one under discussion have the format "that "X" is a Y?", only the opposed one has the format "that "X"?", where X is a piece of religious doctrine and where the hook, as presented by the defenders, doesn't make any sense. Please don't make false claims about the occurrence of such hooks and the normality of it. And certainly please don't ever bring such hooks to the main page again. This is not "harmless fun", this is systemic bias which would not be accepted in the opposite direction (notice how a perfectly normal and correct hook was not accepted to run on Easter because it might offend some people? But this incorrect hook, which has nothing amusing (what exactly is supposed to be amusing about it?), is no problem? Fram (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You want other potential hooks? ... that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" is a hymn played at Easter? or ... that that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" has Alleluia sung after each line? Such hooks do exist and could have been used so it is not false. Again, the nomination was up since mid-march and there was more than sufficient time for objections to the original and ALT to be made, and there were none so it ran. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
You completely misunderstand my question. I don't argue that no acceptable hooks can be made that contain that title. I claim that only using the title as a hook is wrong, and that there are no similar examples, certainly not in the frequencies e.g. Viriditas claim. That's why I didn't ask for "other potential hooks", but "similar hooks"... Oh, and DROPTHESTICK may be an argument someone uninvolved may make, but as the proposer of the original hook, it only comes across as if you don't want any criticism of your actions. Fram (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Still similar hooks. I wouldn't have used DROPTHESTICK if my position wasn't supported by other uninvolved editors. Since it is, I am doing it so that you avoid dragging this on when the debate has long gone (some would argue it went when there was no objection to it being run). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
In what way are these similar? None give "...that" plus an article title, all give "...that" plus a fact about the article subject, which includes a link to that article. What are these o so common DYKs that have nothing but "...that" plus the article title? Where are all these DYK hooks that don't make sense as a standalone sentence (as that is the way the pro-this-hook-crowd wants us to read the hook, not as a statement of fact/belief that gets promoted but as a "normal" hook like there are others every day). It is strange (not really) that the people opposing the hook have no problem seeing the difference between this hook and regular hooks, and presenting examples of similar, equally unacceptable hooks, but that the people supporting this hook have only claimed that the hook is in the same format as many other ones, but haven't been able to present those other ones, and are instead giving examples of hooks that are differently formed than the Easter one and that would have been acceptable. Fram (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Will we ever see a DYK: ... that Bohemian Rhapsody?     Or: ... that "Bohemian Rhapsody"?     Or: ... that Bohemian Rhapsody?

I bet the answer is no, because the hooks make no sense as the title alone as a title does not lead to a complete clause that makes a full question when preceded by "Did you know". So, why was this controversial DYK acceptable? The only argument I can see is because when treated not as a title but as a sequence of words we do end up with a full question, a question that asserts as a matter of fact (and in Wikipedia's voice) a statement of Christian doctrine. c(Did you know that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today"? With the quotes, it makes no sense, without it asserts the resurrection of Christ.) That is biased and should never have been approved. Alternative formulations of the ... that X is Y? form use the title as a title and the fact is about the title rather than viewing the title as a fact. For example, ... that Bohemian Rhapsody is the United Kingdom's favourite Number One? is fine, as would be the suggested alternatives from user:The C of E. Note, as well, that I would find just as objectionable as a hook: ... that God is Dead? but would accept: ... that God is Dead is the debut novel of Ron Currie Jr.? In my view, anyone who does not understand the distinction here has no business signing off on hooks because they cannot recognise when a hook does not make literal sense, and anyone who does appreciate the distinction but sees this as an OK exception appears to have a bias about Christian doctrine. EdChem (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I seem to have arrived a bit after the party here, but I agree with The Rambling Man's comments above, as I do with Andrew's (I proposed the alt hook); we don't have a problem with putting a hook on the main page in quotes from the subject material. Thanks, Matty.007 19:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
And in response to Fram's claim that there are no similar claims: "that I believe I'll dust my broom" ring any bells? Thanks, Matty.007 19:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I prefer "that happiness Is Dean Martin?" which ran on 1 April 2013. --Allen3 talk 19:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Those were both April Fools' Day hooks. A lot of things are allowed for such hooks which would never be acceptable the other 364 days of the year. The form of the JCiRT hook would only be acceptable for April Fools' Day, but I don't think anybody could possibly think that the hook being discussed here would be acceptable as an April Fools' joke. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Special occasion hook for December 23 celebrating Hinduism: [11] Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
That hook is far from ideal, and I would have worded it differently (the hook that was actually approved was better). But, unlike the JCiRT hook, it makes sense and contains a fact: that an ancient text describes an event; and the hook is not of the form ... that "Title"?. So, as far as I can tell, it's not relevant at all to this discussion. Can we please stop trying to find other similar hooks? Even if there were any other non-April-Fools' hooks of the form ... that "Title"? (which I doubt), all it would prove would be that there were previous failures of the system. Just because mistakes may have been made before doesn't give anybody the right to continue making them. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Given that this is being treated like a straw poll - the promotion here was a travesty, and everyone involved in it should be embarrassed for basically perverting an encyclopedia to proselytize. Hipocrite (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I think people are being disingenuous here. 'Did you know that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today"' makes no sense as a hook referring to a title. It only makes sense when read as a sentence ignoring the quotes, and the obvious intention was that it be read in Wikipedia's voice as an assertion that Jesus is risen. (Especially given the initial version without the quotes). The idea that it is not an assertion but only the mention of a title flies in the face of common sense; that hook makes no sense if the title is actually supposed to be read as a title, and I doubt that most English speakers would fail to read it as a statement that Jesus has risen, quotes or no quotes. Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Italics needed in Queue 2

In the lead hook of Queue 2, which goes on the Main Page in less than an hour, two paintings are being compared – not the subjects depicted in those paintings. As such, "Mona Lisa" should be italicized. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

We're extremely low on reviewed hooks right now: only 17 of 198 are approved for promotion, and no queues or preps have any hooks in them at all. We can't even fill three preps (one full day).

I've compiled a new set of 36 older nominations that need reviewing. The first section is for a nomination that has been waiting for over two months, and the second is of five waiting at least three weeks. Please give one these your attention if possible; if not, the remaining 30 are also available. Thank you for your reviews.

Over two months:

Over three weeks:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

No Dyk's in Queue

There are no DYK's in the queues currently. Is there any problem.--Skr15081997 (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Moved. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 3 May 2014 (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) 02:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Prep 3 is filled and ready for final review and movement into Queue 5. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate hook

The last part of the hook for the Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate in Queue 2, "...was watched by approximately 3 million people live on the Internet" is problematic. The citation for the number is a Christian website which in turn relies on an apparent estimate and a rather rough calculation by a PR agency. Perhaps we should preface that with "by one estimate,"? Edwardx (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Adjusted per your suggestion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Edwardx (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not just a PR agency, it's a Christian PR agency[12] "Christianity, the Brand". I'm not happy about using this as a definitive source. Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

  1. Double check the hooks for accuracy. Don't be afraid to tweak word as I did here or pull a hook for needing more attention (instructions).
  2. Upload to picture to Wikipedia & tag with {{c-uploaded}} (or protect at Commons if you are an admin there).
  3. Copy the prep's wikicode & paste into the next queue.
  4. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue page
  5. Clear the prep. Seem the easiest way to do this is revert to the last blank version of the page.
Hopefully that covers it accurately. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll keep an eye out next time it's needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2014 (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) 13:54, 4 May 2014 (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) 02:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Closed nominations heading

When a nomination has been closed, it has a heading that says: "The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page"

Does anyone actually use the talk page of the nomination templates? Isn't it always a red link? Would someone notice it if someone ever used it? I think it may be better to change the heading to just the last 2 options (article talk page and this general DYK talk page), and include a page notice at the nominations talk page warning someone attempting to use them that their comments are likely to go unnoticed if made there. Cambalachero (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I never used it, but it would be a blue link if something was written there, and would appear on the watch list of everybody watching the nomination, so why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, not long ago, there was a confused IP editor who, following this advice, had made a suggestion on the talk page of his DYK nom, which was completely ignored (see discussion). And of course it was ignored – how many people continue to watch a nom template after it's been archived? I fully agree with Cambalachero's proposal. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I won't oppose, but I am one of the users who rarely unwatch, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I cannot see my DYK nomination on the Templates page

Hello all, yesterday I submitted a nomination for a DYK (Template:Did you know nominations/Ayscoghe Boucherett), but it is not showing up on T:TDYK. Am I doing something wrong (this is my first time doing this)? Any help or pointers would be appreciated. Thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC).

Hi Noswall59; the template ({{Template:Did you know nominations/Ayscoghe Boucherett}}) needs to be transcluded on to the nominations page under the date heading for the date you started the article or, in this case, moved it into mainspace. I have done this for you in this edit. I have also tweaked the hook by linking the article and adding a question mark. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 15:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, sorry that was a silly mistake. I will remember that for next time! Thanks for your assistance, Noswall59 (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC).

Digby Tatham-Warter issue

It's probably too late to do anything now, but there is an issue with the hook for Digby Tatham-Warter that I brought up on the main page's talk page, as the hook contains not only falsehoods, but is not sourced to a reliable source. I don't know if it was mentioned above, but what do people think about having the person who closes the submissions as successful recheck the hooks to make sure that they aren't blatant falsehoods? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

They are meant to be given a check when the are being promoted to the prep area. Thanks, Matty.007 12:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
What falsehood? The source clearly says that he did disable an armoured car with an umbrella. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Dispute over black genocide hook

Binksternet and I are having a dispute over the hook at the Black genocide DYK nomination. I pulled the hook from a prep area, with the reasoning that it focused unduly on Angela Davis, rather than on Black genocide. Since then, Binksternet and I have been unable to reach a solution, and I fear that the conversation is getting heated. To stem that off, I've brought the question here.

Angela Davis in 1972

The hook is: * ... that in the United States, Angela Davis (pictured) thought that the African American fear of black genocide, through birth control, was exaggerated?

My position is that DYK hooks should focus primarily and clearly on the subject article, and not unduly shift focus onto another subject. In this case, I feel that instead of writing a hook about black genocide, Binksternet has written a hook about Angela Davis, with black genocide as a conduit to focus on Davis. By his own admission on my talk page, Binksternet is using the Angela Davis-focused hook and image to draw a large number of readers in. While that is the goal of DYK, I don't think that the way he's doing it is appropriate, as I view his tactic as, essentually, clickbaiting.

Binksternet's position is that the hook meets the DYK guideline exactly, as it is "short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article". He correctly identifies that there is nothing in the DYK rules that prohibits what he is doing. He also notes that he achieved a good deal of success with a similar hook, Template:Did you know nominations/Marching fire.

At this point, I am so fed up with the matter that I wouldn't object to the already approved alt running, but without the picture (as I feel that the picture is a good part of why it's so focused on Angela Davis). That's not an option that Binksternet appears interested in, however. The broader DYK community's opinions on the matter are needed. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not mean to try Sven's patience; I just wanted to run a nomination that would be popular, seen by many. Which is why I still want the nomination to carry the image of Angela Davis. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Echo reminder

Reminder to all participants: Echo (aka notifications, pings) does not work on nominations pages. If you need someone's attention and they don't have the nomination watchlisted, you'll need to notify them the old-fashioned way, via their talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, they didn't used to when introduced, but they do now, and have for some time. In the past 24 hours I've gotten four notifications from DYK nomination Template pages: three pings from templates and a plain User:BlueMoonset echo. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Really? Great, let's update the documentation, then. I wonder why I still don't, though...Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll give you a try next chance I get. (Just what you were hoping for, right?) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I've just added two hooks to Prep 3, but another four are needed, and I have to go out for a while. If anyone's around who can put together a set, that would be great. When done, be sure to post here requesting an admin to move it. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}}

Prep 3 is ready. Let's bring it live, ASAP! Sven Manguard Wha? 02:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Processed by TParis. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Planning an RfC on the future of DYK

While most DYKs are unproblematic, too many contain factual errors, copyvios, or are even hoaxes, to list only the most severe problems. DYK often operates as a little fiefdom where Wikipedia policies are ignored (BLP, V, NPOV, ...) for the sake of getting a credit or making the hook "interesting", or out of fear of rejecting any articles. Since DYK appears on the main page and the hooks get potentially viewed by hundreds of thousands of people (and the articles by thousands of people), and partly define the first impression many people will get from Wikipedia, any problems here are a lot worse than elsewhere.

Discussions like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alleged hoax (mathematical topic) featured on front page make it clear that many people feel that changes are needed, but the suggestions are quite varied, from abolishing QPQ or restricting the numbers of DYKs per day to abolishing DYK completely.

The idea is to draft an RfC here, to get a structured, useful format, before going "out" with it. While the draft may happen here, the full RfC should not be a DYK-incrowd thing but a general discussion, promoted through WP:CENT or whatever is needed. Fram (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. I'm sure there won't be any support to abolish DYK, though I don't think we need to be afraid to mention it as an option. But it might be good to brainstorm the (other) possibilities:
  1. Abolish QPQ (But then who will do the reviewing? Who did the reviewing before QPQ was introduced)
  2. Further limit the number of DYKs appearing daily (But then we'll get a backlog - UNLESS we are prepared to reject DYKs that meet the criteria)
  3. Require reviewers to be approved auto-reviewers
  4. ???
StAnselm (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
We could have an extra check on the reviewers, and if they are inexperienced, then do a separate check by a more experienced DYK person.
We could clearly state in the procedure to check article or hook for BLP violation, hoax, misleading statement. V is explicitly stated so perhaps just a bit more on what is expected. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop DYK dead in the water until these issues are addressed. DYK, as it stands, is an embarrassment. Then, for starters:
  • No religious evangelism on the main page.
  • Some better credibility for DYK reviewers. The idea that even the low goal of autoconfirmed is against "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is nonsense.
  • Engage article authors before DYK. Who else is likely better placed to judge a DYK?
  • Don't re-enable DYK until it's no longer harmful to WP's overall reputation.
This is only a beginning, much more review is needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The idea that even the low goal of autoconfirmed is against "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is nonsense. I agree with this point entirely - but, unfortunatly, the WMF does not. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Suspend DYK until new procedures are in place. This week's events are, as Andy Dingley says, an embarrassment. Let's press PAUSE before they are also a disaster. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd propose the following:
  • There could be a FAR-style discussion, lasting for about a week or so, where DYKs are discussed and voted on by the community (rather than just a few reviewers), days before they appear.
  • I'd also suggest to abolish QPQ in favor of a lengthened FAR-style discussion.
  • There should only be 20 DYKs per day, instead of 24, since more bad DYKs are likely to be rejected. The DYKs could come in batches of ten (instead of eight, or six, or whatever number there is currently) and appear for 12 hours (instead of whatever time there is currently, thereby increasing the number of views that your DYK gets).
  • People discussing in the DYK reviews should check the references to see if they exist (obviously). DYKs should only be approved by a more than 80% consensus.
  • BLPs and new articles should be more severely monitored, and the review should last up to 2 weeks for these articles. Epicgenius (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Another possibility: increase the requirements for something to be a DYK. 1500 words existing on the page is an extremely loose standard; there's no particular reason the requirement couldn't be something else, like "has been peer-reviewed", "is B-class or above", or "is a GA". Or, for that matter, "is written by a user with X number of GA credits". Any requirement that called for the article or its author to have been reviewed by an outside editor of standing before it can be nominated for DYK would reduce the rate of these "oops, copyvio/hoax/nonsense/BLP vio" DYKs. It would also reduce (I assume) the sheer number of DYK submissions needing review.

We treat DYK as a newbie's introduction to shiny bauble collection, but if we were starting the whole thing over, would we really think, "Yes! The best thing to put on the main page of the site is huge amounts of mostly-unreviewed content created by people who often don't know what they're doing and then verified by people who just as often don't know what they're doing!"? That's not to say that we don't also have some very experienced, wise editors both submitting and reviewing DYKs - but we also have a lot of inexperienced ones who just know that "getting" a DYK is a sign of being cool.

ETA after some thought: Also, let's empower reviewers, or at least involve more of them in approving hooks. No editor or article should have a "right" to a DYK - if the article or hook isn't adequate, it should be a simple matter to say "no, sorry, this isn't suitable for the main page even if it has enough words/a cited hook/whatever". As the DYK guidelines function right now, individual users are asked to pass - pretty much must pass - literally anything that meets the base requirements (and some stuff that doesn't...) on to the main page. Submitters feel that they are thus entitled to a DYK "credit" if they show up with an article, any article, with enough words and a ref tag on the hook. The quality of every other element of the main page is the subject of hot debate, peer review, and consensus building prior to its appearance on the main page. Why should DYK be an exception? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree that there is a feeling that any article and hook should be accepted as long as it appears to fulfil criteria...and agree this needs to be addressed. To tweak this as of now I'd make one change straightaway, though the mechanics might need some fine-tuning.
Once hooks are marked as good to go by first reviewer, they move into a "prep area zero", where they may be vetoed or confirmed by reviewers. The idea would be that a hook would need some sort of consensus to proceed - roughly 75%. These needn't be full reviews but could be spot checks on paraphrasing, verification double-check or whatever. From here they get funnelled into three prep areas (i.e. convert one current into "prep area zero") and then into queues as per usual. We don't need a coordinator, but the rough rule would be two conformations, or three confirmations if there is one veto and some steps taken to address veto's concerns. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thoughts? Noting that the weaknesses currently are in vetting so we need to focus there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

First, I think the idea of abolishing QPQ is nuts. We need more eyes, not less. I like User:Casliber's idea of more scrutiny in the prep area. Perhaps, once the initial QPQ review is passed, we have something like the process for WP:ITN, where the community !votes yay or nay on the proposed hook and article. Also, User:Fluffernutter raises a good point. At times I've encountered resistance to my reviews of DYK articles when they went beyond a narrow interpretation of the DYK rules. We should strengthen the language of the rules to empower reviewers to go beyond the word count and hook citation and encourage them to address matters of quality, accuracy, grammar, etc. in depth and make it clear to submitters that DYK is not a right or a rubber stamp. Gamaliel (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

What has not been mentioned is that DYK successfully gets hundreds of hooks on the main page, often by new editors, with only a few errors. There are few complete errors: the maths hook was a completely understandable error, I suspect only the most wily reviewer would have found anything amiss. The Jesus hook is debatable. To those who are still arguing that this project needs closing, look at the encouragement it gives new editors (and old editors), it is one of my primary WP contributions. Everyone makes mistakes, don't be too harsh when we do it here. Matty.007 18:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The maths hoopk was in no way a completely understandable event. An editor with only 2 edits participating should have been a major clue (it's something I usually check when I am looking at new edits to articles). A quick search for the two sources that actually mentioned the title of the article seem to be the very least that should have been done. For someone who if I understand you correctly participates regularly here to say this worries me. Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Judging should not be done on editor age (people create perfectly good articles with their first edits), but on the article themselves. We are not screening nominators, but reviewing articles. Thanks, Matty.007 18:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you responding to me? I wasn't talking about article creation, I was talking about an editor with only 2 edits reviewing a DYK. Doesn't that strike you as something to check? Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The importance of encouraging new editors cannot be overstated. Having a way for new articles to easily get on the main page is not a loophole or an oversight or a bug, it's a feature. Retention rates of new editors are falling, and the perception that Wikipedia is a thicket of rules populated by entrenched veterans is rising. Anything that rewards new editors for participating should not be so blithely dismissed or dismantled. Gamaliel (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree. Matty.007 18:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The encouragement of new editors is almost always overstated. We have no shortage of them. More important is the development and retention of casual editors into committed and usefully experienced editors.
I've had a few DYKs dumped onto articles I've created. In each one I've felt humiliated to have such work belittled by an inaccurate and trivial DYK. They, especially with their disconnection from article authors, are no encouragement at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't run any stats, but anecdotally I see many, many, many more DYK issues at ERRORS than I do any other. Mostly it's simple stuff that I would have expected to have been caught during review, e.g. dab links, grammar issues, typos etc. I'm certain the hoax won't be the last one we run inadvertently so let's not get to beaten up over that. QPQ is a root cause of bad reviews, many new editors will make a QPQ review without understanding most of the MOS, most of the referencing we expect etc. Bin QPQ, reduce the quantity of hooks running down to, say, six every twelve hours, focus on quality, not throughput. If some DYKs get binned, so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Abolishing QPQ would quite literally result in a wave of noms unreviewed, the chances of an eligible hook reaching the main page would be pretty minute. As the process would be so much easier, we would get more noms as well, resulting in a GA like backlog (and probably much worse). Thanks, Matty.007 19:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but many QPQ reviews are given on the basis that someone is desperate to get their own nom on the main page, hence the lack of quality reviews. Hence the vast number of errors getting pushed onto the main page. A DYK backlog isn't a major issue, none of it is time-critical. And one we get better quality reviews, we can up the number back to 24 a day or 36 a day or whatever, so the backlog disappears. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
There won't really be any reviews. I have seen only a few people doing regular reviews out of choice, under 10. We cannot really lump reviewing the entire backlog on their shoulders. Also, the backlog would be ever increasing, with no way to shorten it. I am not sure we would get 24/36 reviews a day, we would get less reviews and more noms. Abolishing QPQ isn't the way forwards to me, perhaps some way to train new reviewers (similar to the Wikipedia Adventure, but far less complex and detailed). Thanks, Matty.007 19:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
If DYK reduced its output to say 12 a day, then all you need is 12 reviews a day. I would happily volunteer to do half of those every day I'm active (which is most days) so all you need is the rest of the entire universe to volunteer to do the other six. QPQ is the root of bad reviews, and it cannot be denied I'm afraid. If quality is what DYK is searching for, getting rid of QPQ is the first and the most essential step. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Like TRM says, a DYK throughput shouldn't be the priority here. Every other item on the main page updates once a day, give or take. DYK updates...what, four times a day? Six? Perhaps in days where we had plentiful submissions and reviewers, that made sense. But in the days since, we've been frantically trying to shore up the reviewing in the middle by demanding QPQ when we could instead have just reduced either the inflow (up standards for all DYK noms) or the outflow (reduce the number of times DYK updates per day). QPQ was a stopgap fix that didn't actually stop any gaps. I understand, Matty, that you're concerned about newbies losing something that can feel pretty special, but honestly, to me the main page is not somewhere we ought to be prioritizing sending newbies, exactly because when you don't know what you're doing, you end up in spots like this. You're thinking about this backwards by viewing DYK as a service/venue for newbies ("here, you're officially special!") that's best served by high throughput; instead, it's a service to readers ("here, look at this new, interesting article!") that's best served by high quality. The more we focus on throughput to benefit the newbie submitters, the more likely we are to be doing a disservice to the readers who expect reliable content on the main page. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. The thing is, DYK is meant to be a fairly easy place to get an article: write a start class article, with decent refs and all up to scratch and it can go on the main page. Upping the standards would lose many good nominations (I know many of my nominations would not qualify if, say, the character count was increased), and I don't think that it should be increased due to that. Thanks, Matty.007 19:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Why do we need a fairly easy place to get an article on the main page though? As encouragement for new editors? Then you can implement a rule that people can have e.g. at most 5 "easy" DYKs, and after that it should e.g. be a GA (just thinking out loud, these wild suggestions are not set in stone). Fram (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, Matty, I think you may be approaching it backwards. DYK is intended to be a place to showcase Wikipedia's newest content. That it's easy to land an article there is a side effect of there being very few guidelines for what can and can't go up on DYK, and its ease attracts inexperience because it's known as "that thing that I don't have to put a lot of effort into to get a shiny bauble in exchange". I don't think the intention of having a slot for Wikipedia's newest content is so much "let's create a main page slot that's really, really easy to get into [so we have to keep standards low, because the point is easiness]" as it is "let's create a main page slot for stuff that's recently been added [which is often of shorter length/not peer-reviewed, but if there's higher quality content that's awesome]". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with some of the editors above that the biggest issue is the volume of submissions per day. Maybe capping the number of nominations a single editor can make a month would help. It could also reduce the bauble collecting element and potentially reduce the repetitive nature of many hooks. AIRcorn (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    • In what way is DYK "bauble collecting"? You get a notification that an article you created/nominated appeared on the main page, there is a list of highest views, and medals are awarded for number of DYKs. All very similar say to ITN? Notifications, barnstars... Matty.007 19:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
You just described how it is. AIRcorn (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)As far as I can see, the only issue here is QPQ quality, which needs ironing out. I have no idea how this escalated into a discussion of whether DYK is needed or not, and think that this is a vast over-escalation. I think (as I believe several DYK regulars do, that QPQ is needed. There have been countless requests to reform the QPQ system in various ways, but it has remained relatively unchanged, because despite the odd slip up, it works. Thanks, Matty.007 19:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "QPQ is needed"? Why? To process the backlog? No need, there's nothing time-critical. I'm missing something here... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I guess you weren't here when it was instituted. (Note, that's a honest statement, not an accusation:Internet, tone, etc.) QPQ was instituted because nobody was reviewing hooks. At all. The DYK submissions page took over a minute to load, even on DSL. This is why QPQ exists: because every other incentive for reviewing hooks was tried, and none of them worked. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • QPQ has been a great success. Not only has it allowed large numbers of articles to be processed, but it also serves as a mechanism to introduce editors to our standards, and to the process of review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Not at all, based on the number of errors I see and correct at WP:ERRORS every day. The main page should not be an experimental area for new editors, learning to review items and understanding our standards I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Errors happen from time to time. Obviously, the chance of spotting them is greatest when there are large numbers of eyes on them. That's another benefit of DYK. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)Looking at errors now, there is one DYK issue (only a link which needs adding) to two ITN issues, both sentence structure (fairly fundamental parts). There will always be issues, but major issues come up rarely. Matty.007 19:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Nah, sorry, you both don't get it. Just a few days back, one "queue" of DYKs had three separate errors. And the reason that a lot of DYK errors don't get fixed is that they're off the main page so quickly (which is a good thing I guess)). Overall, it's poor, and it needs work, and QPQ isn't the answer. Getting reviewers who are competent is the answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That DYK causes the most errors is hardly surprising considering it features more facts a day than any other area... That said, I believe poor reviews motivated by QPQ is the main source of the problem. I personally try to do two qualty reviews for every one DYK I request. In the process, I almost always at least see some copyedits that need done (and do them), yet very rarely does anyone even copyedit my articles (and I make plenty of typos, I'm sure). That makes me suspect that a lot of reviews are rubber-stamp/check fact only type efforts, and users don't necessarily even read the articles they review.
On the other hand, QPQ is the main source of reviews. Perhaps penalizing poor reviews (i.e. not counting them) is the answer. Another option is giving QPQ credits for catching errors in the pending queues. A third option is removing QPQ but encouraging qaulity reviews in other ways (e.g. giving rewards for them). I do not think turning DYK into a mini-FAR or ITN style voting is the answer at all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
ThaddeusB makes a good point; and I would agree with his first two propositions. Thanks, Matty.007 20:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
No, if you reduce the throughput on the main page, then you require fewer reviews. Those reviews can be of higher quality. If you stop dangling a carrot (e.g. QPQ) then the reviews will be genuine. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
That would result in a reduction/tightening of DYK noms, either raising the bar much higher, or simply promoting random hooks, both of which are hard, and can be discouraging. I think Thaddeus's second proposal is quite interesting, and deserves discussion (probably the first one, and possible last one as well). Thanks, Matty.007 20:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
No, it would just slow down the nominations and allow the quality to increase back to where it should be. Not quite sure where you get "promoting random hooks" from. "Penalizing" people is wrong, especially if they're doing their best, QPQ credits is double worse as it's just yet another badge to try to win, the only answer is remove QPQ and perhaps do something akin to a GAN drive as ThaddeusB has noted above. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
It wouldn't slow things up at all (though removing QPQ would). If we were reviewing 12 hooks per day there is a chance there would be enough, but what happens when we want to vary hook amount? I have no idea how many reviews there are per day, but given that this stemmed out of something completely unrelated, apart from review quality (which can be taught), I fail to see the problem with QPQ. Thanks, Matty.007 20:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well perhaps not that simple, as a lower throughput would mean a forever growing backlog. Thus, at least one other change would have to be made (tougher length standards, a cultural change to reject some less interestiung articles, etc.). At one time, DYK did not require QPQs, but I always did them anyway in interest of basic fairness. The system worked OK, but broke at some point. (I am not familiar with the history, but I would guess one or more of the regular reviwers stopped doing them.)
Perhaps QPQs should be strongly encouraged in some way, but not required. Then people doing super quick reviews just job to check off a box would not do any. Yet another option, would be to require two reviewers for promotion and two QPQs per nomination. That wouldn't directly address the QPQ quality issue, but would reduce the error rate some. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
It was WikiCup 2010 that was the driving force behind the creation of QPQ. During several rounds of the contest, DYK was receiving 50 or more nominations per day. The group of reviewers that had been handling the bulk of the work could not handle the surge in demand and many became burned out. --Allen3 talk 20:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Nominations would naturally slow as the opportunity to be featured on the main page becomes a pipe dream. Quality reviews are essential here and QPQ doesn't provide them because right now you can guarantee to get your DYK onto the main page within about a week as long as you do your homework and do a QPQ (whose quality isn't, it appears, checked at all). Review quality is paramount and we shouldn't be using the main page to allow new editors and new reviewers to experiment. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I would disagree with the statement "you can guarantee to get your DYK onto the main page within about a week" quite a bit: with over 100 DYKs, I have had a fair number ignored and sit on the page for a while, because people didn't want to review it (often when I nominate GAs, people seem to balk at size). Matty.007 20:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I do want to add that ITN style voting definitely will not work. As an ITN regular I can say, the main problem we have at ITN is that very few people review article quality but vote on the merits of a story alone. TRM & I largely are the only gatekeepers on article quality there. At DYK, people would vote on the interestingness of the hook alone and quality would not be addressed, except perhaps by a couple of dedicated individuals - and that can be done already via the prep/queue areas. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The way I see it, having fewer articles going through DYK would fix the bad review problem somewhat because there would be fewer nominations to concentrate on, ensuring that more time could be spent on each one. A simple way to do this would be to raise the minimum length requirement to 2000 or even 2500 characters. This has the added advantage of stopping stubs from getting through DYK (I proposed this last year, but it got snowed on. Most people seemed to think that that would promote article bloat, but as I pointed out there, articles with bad writing could be [and are] held up at DYK). --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 20:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's take an example from the current queue: 2014 IPC Powerlifting World Championships. The article is solely based on one primary source except for one ref, the highly commerncial looking [13], of unclear reliability. The second line of the artile is "With 360 competitors from over 60 countries, the event surpassed the number of entrants of the 2012 Summer Paralympics of London." Well, no, it surpassed the number of entrants for powerlifting at the Paralympics, and then only because the number there is restricted to 200. And where there 360 competitors? According to [14], there were more than 400. Is this really the quality of article we want on the main page? Fram (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

If the problem with the process is inadequate reviews, then the proposed solution should actually address that issue. Having less promotions or no QPQs won't automagically fix the problem. Actually fixing the review process will fix the review process. If we took steps to strengthen the process, then we may or may not have to overhaul other aspects of DYK, but let's not lose sight of the actual issue here. My suggestions would be more mundane:

  • Rewrite, centralize, and simplify the rules.
  • Make it clear that quality, fact-checking, etc. are an integral part of the review process in addition to the specialized DYK requirements.
  • Make it clear that DYK is not a rubber stamp, or automatic if you get a certain word count.
  • Include an examination of the QPQ review, and not just a check that they did it, as part of the review process.
  • Include a standardized template as part of the review process to insure that all of these issues are reviewed.
  • Have each DYK voted on ITN-style after the review, and have nothing make it to the front page unless it gets at least 3-5 votes.

Any other ideas? Gamaliel (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Mild but visible sanctions for editors who endorse an inappropriate DYK. I'd suggest that voters lose DYK votes for a period of time, and the admin lose adminship for a similar period. Absent this, there's incentive for people to game the system and no real reason not to; you either get away with it (fun!) or your DYK doesn't make it (happens all the time, no big deal). Repeat offenders would receive longer timeouts. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
A policy standard for notability, which should be significantly higher than the standard for keeping the page. DIY shouldn't be a grab bag of the most obscure pages that some editor managed to elaborate.MarkBernstein (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
"Losing adminship" is not a "mild" sanction, nor is it something that's done. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Yet. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
But is "inadequate reviews" really the heart of the problem? As I see it, there is a limited pool from which we can draw the time and concentration of competent reviewers. Imposing reviews of reviews, extra QPQ, etc. doesn't expand the pool—it's just going to lead to more cursory and shoddy reviews. And even experienced and competent reviewers are inevitably going to slip up with some frequency. I think your third point (also made in somewhat different form by Casliber above) has the most merit—give reviewers more leeway to avoid poor articles to increase the efficiency of the process, either by affirmatively rejecting them or by passively ignoring them until they expire after some time point. Choess (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The way to better reviews is to have reviewers who want to review, more or less voluntarily. An article at GAN can sit for 6 weeks, and the way out of that is to politely ask proposers to review an article in turn, not to force them. Once the DYK backlog is six weeks (roughly 1,500 submissions I would guess), the writers of DYK articles will on their own realise that they need to get into reviewing.

I also think one of Thaddeus' suggestions far up received too little attention: We have medals and lists for editors writing DYKs and for editors nominating DYKs, why not for reviewers? It should be not too much work to have a DYK review list and medal, and credits for reviewing, once the hook served its full time on the MP and wasn't repaired, questioned, or pulled.

For the Wikicup, I guess the solution would come on its own, assuming that you must have the DYK credit at the deadline, not just the DYK submission. Let these submissions collect dust in the queue, and cup contestants will automatically come and review. --Pgallert (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

And one more suggestion: At least once after the 'good to go' there should be a second pair of eyes on all hooks and all articles in a set, either for the editor assembling the hook set, or the admin approving it. --Pgallert (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
That's already the procedure. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
At least nominally, but we should expand that second look, opening it up to more editors, formalizing it, and encouraging others to participate. Most of the time that second look is basically a glance, which is how Chihiro number got on the front page. Gamaliel (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I have an idea, let's make two categories of reviewers: experts and novices (or made-up names that convey that idea). The QPQ would stay unchanged for the users coming here: you nominate an article, you review another article. But, for the process itself, a nomination would need 2 or 3 reviews by novice reviewers, or a single review by an expert. The whole process may be managed by a bot (have a list of expert users that we may update as needed, count anyone else as novice, and generate a list somewhere else of which nominations may be ready for closing). An "expert" reviewer may be someone with some given number of DYK, GA or FA, or whatever is considered appropiate. This system may allow for more eyes on things, without slowing it much when unneeded, and would not put the weight of too much complex policies over the people. Cambalachero (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

  • At their best, DYKs can be very good, and they are dreadful at their worst. One thing I feel is sorely needed is a quick fail mechanism. Articles really ought to be close to "good to go" when nominated. Reviewers shouldn't need to have to waste their time to engage in filibusters over fancruft, like a pop idol falling on her rear or again argue at length whether a thoroughly sexist article that has arisen out of some kawai anime and media obsession over the attractiveness of a female Russian lawyer. Sex sells. But this and tabloidism aren't the proper way to get hits, otherwise all we will ever need and get in the DYK slot will be porn.

    Back to quick fail: almost all articles, interesting or otherwise, are guaranteed to reach the main page; few are ever dropped. Articles frequently arrive on DYK doorstep short on wordcount, but are always given time to fatten up; then there are articles that have serious close paraphrasing issues, and the nom is always given the chance to rectify them. I say that if something doesn't get reviewed in one week is obviously not interesting to anyone. Any article failing wordcount and copyright test, or otherwise with issues such that fail to find resolution after a week's discussion deserves to be struck. Such diversions are a drain on editor/reviewer resources better spent at making DYK articles interesting and encyclopaedic. -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

    • To be fair, if something doesn't get reviewed in a week, that doesn't mean it has no value and shouldn't run. It either means it got lost in the mix or that in some people's subjective opinions, they don't fancy reviewing it. What might be uninteresting to some, could be very interesting to others. I do however agree that if nothing is done within a week to rectify any problems, then we should consider the nom abandoned and close it because if someone can't be bothered to fix a problem, it shouldn't clog up the page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm definitely against a "one week no review -> drop article" rule. What gets reviewed and what does not is largely random. Additionally, there is a bias against reviewing longer articles. A time limit on first review would achieve the exact opposite of the stated goal of improving article quality. No objection to closing reviews were the nominator makes no attempt to address issues raised within a week. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • i've had a brief read of the above and I would support some controls over the credibility of reviewers, I think if an article hasn't been reviewed in a week or two then it should be removed from the list (it can be renominated again the future). This would help reduce the backlog. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if you've nominated articles for DYK, but as Thaddeus said, what get's reviewed is a lottery. I nominated Dr Blofeld's GA Enid Blyton, which took a while to get reviewed. Longer items (i.e. GAs) take longer to get reviewed. This method would not help. Thanks, Matty.007 16:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
      • As for this time limit, it should be remembered that people surely feels more comfortable making a review of a topic they have some idea about rather than an obscure topic that is completely new and unknown for them. And, in this equation, purely encyclopedic topics (which are usually obscure, specially if they did not had an article yet) would be left behind "popular culture" topics, which may get reviews sooner. Cambalachero (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this an other one of those lets mend things till they get worse-thing? Abolish QPQ ? No religious evangelism on the main page? What are we going to do with Crishmas, Easter, and so on? Hafspajen (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Break

This has gotten too long to access and contribute without this break. However, some things I see above are:

  • Some better credibility for DYK reviewers. and I would support some controls over the credibility of reviewers Like what? Exactly how would that work, keeping with the WP policy of "anybody can edit". Is one or more persons going to pass judgement over any other editor, and exactly how would the banishment be carried out? Wouldn't that require an ANI? You might ask over there how that would work.
  • There could be a FAR-style discussion, lasting for about a week or so, where DYKs are discussed and voted on by the community (rather than just a few reviewers), days before they appear GA isn't that hissy. But, just for the record, how is the backlog working out at FAC where that IS the norm?
  • Engage article authors before DYK. What does that even mean?

Who is going to form a group and decide who has power over everybody else? While there are some legitimate issues brought up above, what I see most is a not-so-veiled attempt at discrimination. Who sits in judgement and decides to separate the weak from the strong? And as things usually work out at WP, a clique forms and favoritism happens. Has anybody really stopped to consider how teamworks at ANY project on WP? Needs come up, and one or two people at best go to the aid. Everybody else just continues doing their own priorities. Also, if you look closely at reviewers who cut corners, you might find some otherwise respected editors there. The newbie honestly makes mistakes. It's the veterans we already have who need to slow down and really work it. And not ever reviewer has the same expertise. Are we going to be giving a "test" that requires "pass" before anyone is allowed to review? Good look with that. The best thing I've seen above is that DYK rules need to be honed and rewritten. To that, I add that they all need to be on one page somewhere, with all those other confusing pages merged into it. — Maile (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Quite agree that such a proposal would lead to a clique who would sit as judge and jury. No doubt that would drive newer editors away because it would suggest that their review was less valid than a more experienced. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't we have enough cliques. Hafspajen (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The "judge and jury" thing happens already. Some articles do attract less attention, while many get approved by one editor to be pooed by another. But I think it would be a good thing if the rules require each article to be endorsed by at least two independent editors. As to novices being put off, I've seen more than a few with the humility to state on the face of their review that they would appreciate a more experienced eye, which leads me to believe we shouldn't be too patronising towards them. Simple civility is probably enough. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
You're right on with the credibility issue. Anyone can edit, but not anyone can edit the front page, we have it protected, and so there's no reason we can't equally restrict reviewers who decide what articles get on the front page via DYK. A minimum account age and # of edits for accounts who wish to review and approve a DYK would have stopped the Chihiro number. I also think that we should have a requirement that reviewers examine the submitter's QPQ review instead of merely checking that it was completed. Gamaliel (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
You sure about that? The person who approved Chihiro has 59,000 edits and has been on Wikipedia since 2004. They also have quite a bit of experience reviewing DYKs, with otherwise excellent results. I really don't think we should be instigating massive changes because of one regrettable mistake. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the now-blocked User:Partched, who gave a green checkmark to Chihiro number with his second edit. As far as massive changes go, change is coming, and whether those of us who support and work on DYK are part of that or whether that change is forced upon DYK by the greater community, it will happen, because there seems to be a building frustration in the greater community about what they see as missteps and mistakes with that section of the front page. I feel my suggested changes are among the more conservative suggestions offered on this page. Gamaliel (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but that check mark didn't actually have any effect on the nomination. Above I made many possible suggestions to potentially improve things, but let's not pretend any rule will prevent all mistakes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course, no rule will prevent all mistakes, but that doesn't that a rule cannot help address a concern raised by numerous editors on this page. Gamaliel (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • As somebody pointed out, DYK has always been a very collaborative, workshop-type project; reviewers, people who promoted the hooks to the prep areas, and admins who moved the preps to the queues would all check the articles and help make them pass the rules. It was a good way for newbies, especially, to learn about referencing, avoiding copyvio, formatting ... and the community working together. Hafspajen (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Just expanding a bit on the above, I believe it is an effective way to demonstrate to newcomers that creating content is valued by the community and important to the project. Some are concerned about collecting baubles via DYK notifications on the user's page. However, setting up qualifications for reviewers (which I support in theory, not sure how it would work) would also leave the process and individual editors open to charges of bauble-collecting. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 11:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I just thought I'd note that there are some reasonable voices here. Wikipedia's creation process produces errors. The magic is that they are corrected without damaging the process. We have an FA process that makes mistakes and DYK makes more. We can reduce the errors by reducing the number of new articles and editors or by ranting at editors when they make a mistake. Oh and thanks to @Casliber and others who are keeping the process going. Spotting errors is not difficult and making a drama when we discover that an error has occurred is easy too. Thanks to those who quietly improve the wiki and those who encourage and welcome the editors who contribute. Victuallers (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I understand the concern that many people don't get the rules fast. Why not raise the amount of DYKs done that is required to do reviews to 10 or 15 or 20 DYKS, or even 25 before start reviewing DYKs? And they hopfully learn until then. That will eliminate a lot of mess, and make experience count. Only 5 is a bit few. Hafspajen (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    There is a great deal of overlap between the skills and conceptual understandings needed to create a successful DYK and those needed for reviewing (e.g. a basic understanding of copyright and plagiarism, knowing how to evaluate a source for appropriateness and reliability, creating proper citations, ...). It is the development of these skills and knowledge that is key, not the number of past nominations. Unfortunately, as a read through the older listings on the nominations page will usually show, many newer users have deficiencies in one or more of these areas. The question is how to teach or otherwise encourage a user to acquire the needed knowledge without imposing an unsustainable burden on either the DYK project or the English Wikipedia as a whole. --Allen3 talk 14:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Given that the current discussion is generated by two incidents, a hoax approved by a brand-new editor (but promoted by a very experienced one), and an NPOV issue, how would increasing the criteria for QPQ from 5 to 25 help in either case? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Many nominations languish in the queue for weeks at a time. That gives plenty of opportunity for multiple people to provide opinion - if not a full review - prior to a hook being approved. Given that more eyes reduces risk, the questions I would ask of anyone demanding big changes (or, laughably, that DYK be discontinued entirely on either a temporary or permanent basis) are (a) how many reviews do you do now? and (b) how many reviews do you plan to do in the future? It is far too easy to sit in judgment and demand big changes. How many are actually going to be on board with implementation and maintenance? Resolute 17:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Amen, Resolute (the preceding comment was not a religious comment). This scenario is a recurring event here. Why is DYK such a threat? Is there some other pet project they want on the Main Page, and must get DYK out of the way in order to put it there? Let's see how they do as reviewers.
  • Limiting who can participate here seems a lot like the forming of an elitist group, the members of which (indicated above) would be punished if not performing as expected. Where on WP is there an existing exclusionary "members only" club? To limit it would take an ANI topic ban, editor by editor. Good luck with that idea. — Maile (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
What a fine example Resolute’s use of laughably provides of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. If DYK cannot avoid frequent blunders (3 scandals in the last 12 days) and serves chiefly to direct traffic to trivia (Did you know that the mayor of the municipal government of King, Ontario in Canada also automatically becomes a member of York Regional Council? Really?) it needs to be fixed or dropped. It seems fairly clear that the editors participating in this discussion don't think it can be fixed. Let's write the RFC and take it to the community. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, calling your suggestion "laughable" is the civil way of putting it. I'd probably go with "asinine" if I wasn't being civil. Interesting to note that you dodged my questions entirely as well. Resolute 13:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, don't be so arrogant as to think that your opinion represents "the editors participating in this discussion", since you are the only one who seems to think it can't be fixed. Resolute 13:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I see that you and at least one other editor seem to believe that those of us who contribute a large amount of our time to other areas on Wikipedia and thus have no or limited time to contribute here shouldn't be commenting on the merits of DYK. I'm pretty sure that isn't in any of our policy or guidelines. Insiders only are allowed to comment? Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Am I the one other editor, Dougweller? Don't get me wrong. I believe everybody should be able to comment on this. However, it just seems that the ones who regularly want to remove DYK from the front page haven't done much, if anything to improve it. It might look different from the inside if they did. And if they're good, they could help improve it. — Maile (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, those who contribute more at DYK are more likely to understand the process better than those with little or no experience at DYK. I respect Maile as a vocal member of the DYK community, who has contributed here often and well (I am afraid I have had not contact with Resolute). The people who are baying for DYK's removal should first experience how DYK works, rather than judging first. Walk a mile in our shoes. Matty.007 17:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's look at the delights that will meet people who want to help out at DYK. Take, for example, the mildly stale nomination for [[15]]. The underlying article discusses a Russian police official who has been appointed to a post in the Crimea -- a topic of some political sensitivity. Her chief claim to notability is that she looks like an anime character, and this has inspired a number of fan art portraits in Japan and elsewhere. Here at DYK, some 8000 words or more have already been expended; one contributor sums them up:

This is not a valid point to make on a DYK nomination. The article passes all the DYK requirements and there's no reason not to approve it.

Meanwhile, the same article is the subject of active discussion at AN/I, where a number of editors observe issues with BLP policy, WP:UNDUE, and the sexism inherent in making a Russian police officer notable because some Japanese comic fans think she's pretty. In summary, we've spent lots of time and lots of effort in an enterprise that promises such delightful outcomes as:

  • The whole thing gets dropped because the article gets deleted
  • The whole thing gets dropped because the sexist imagery is stubbed, leaving the article too short
  • The whole thing gets voted down
  • The whole thing gets posted to DYK, and we drive a few thousand extra viewers to a wikipedia page that is unimportant at best and arguably an embarrassment

Again: I think this is the wrong forum for the RFC; the fans who like to work here of course want to preserve their foothold on the front page, regardless of the damage it's doing to the rest of the project. I'm tiring of this windmill, and I'm not a good enough WikiLawyer to manage the RFC myself. But something ought to be done to reform or control DYK. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You quote WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and then call the people who dedicate time here "fans"? Fans of what? Have you ever written a DYK? Have you experienced the DYK process? That article you have given is not on the main page due to the DYK process, I am not sure what your issue with it was? There has been one editor who made that comment, but they were corrected. Is there an issue there? Matty.007 19:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
In addition, just about everyone here except you accepts that DYK is OK for the main page, the only person arguing against the DYK process is you. Matty.007 19:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Matty, I'm sure you and I agree that improvements could be made to the process. A good start would be a separate draft page on consolidated and improved procedures that everyone could vote on. Scroll to where this particular thread started, and then ANI. "Shut down DYK" is a recurring event started by whoever wants to. It doesn't take much to agitate it. There are people here who put in a lot of time and sincere good faith trying to do something good for the main page. You are one of them. At WP "where everybody can edit", it's also where "everybody can complain and does". — Maile (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Are we solving a problem or not. One does need experience to review, I can assure you. There are plenty of things to think of. Hafspajen (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think having a bad DYK on the main page for a few hours is a great tragedy. If you look at the stats, articles at DYK attract a lot of edits and improvements; that's a good thing. The fundamental question is: do we want to present Wikipedia as a "finished" high-quality product, or do we want to present Wikipedia as a work in progress. -- 101.117.90.160 (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Today's score: C+

I went to the prep areas and queues to poke holes. Nothing, niente, zip. Lights are on, no one's at home. I did notice that a pink table there suggests that the waterfall is in progress, with a massive throughout of four shifts a day. The continual "overdue" pleas here that pepper my watchlist imply that this is beyond the capability of the system.

So ... main page itself:

  • ... that the actors in Farmland are farmers and ranchers?

    Why not "... ranchers in real life", to make it easier for readers?

  • ... that in 1975, the former general secretary of the Israeli Communist Party, Shmuel Mikunis, joined the dissident Israeli Communist Opposition?

    Textbook example of the so what? hook. Why wouldn't he have joined the communist oppostion? We should not accept hooks that are like pricked balloons.

The rest are reasonable. Tony (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Tony1: Your comments are completely unhelpful, and only serve to antagonize people that are actually involved in the process. If you would like to see improvements to the hooks, feel free to become more involved in the process. There is a very large backlog of unreviewed nominees, which makes it difficult to assemble hooks and prep areas ahead of time, which in turn doesn't leave time for people to comment on or tweak hooks in the prep areas. The set that you "rated" was pushed to the main page well after it was supposed to, as both the queues and the prep areas were empty when the changeover happened. I assembled about half of that, including both of the ones you took issue with, from a very limited selection, on a very rushed timeframe. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
If you have a "very rushed timeframe", then don't edit the prep areas. Having hooks stay on the main page a few hours longer is not as bad as getting hoaxes, copyvios, factual errors, BLP violations, ... There is no rush, nothing needs to be urgently pushed. Please change your approach, your mindset when dealing with DYK; the important thing is not to get as much articles on the main page as possible, the important thing is to get it right. Fram (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
"...from a very limited selection, on a very rushed timeframe..." so slow the process down, take your time, remove this absurd rushing around and improve the quality. This isn't Never Mind the Quality, Feel the Width. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I think more important than adding "real-life" to the Farmland hook would be to remove it or rewrite it completely as it is incorrect. The people featured in this documentary are not actors - they are not playing characters. Belle (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hook removed. Since when did we start linking common terms like actor and farmer for goodness sake? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is always overdue

...I think these kinds of reminders are not helpful, considering the current discussion on precision and thoughtful reviews. That's exactly the kind of message that might urge somebody to quickly assemble a hook set, hurriedly give a check mark to a nomination, and so on. Can't there be another solution, like automatically extending the tenure of a current hook set, without rushing anyone? --Pgallert (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe admins who promote sets should promote 2 at a time instead of just one. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
That would only be possible if two were actually ready, which has not been the case for a while. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, they are helpful: sometimes the prep set is ready, and it's a reminder to passing admins to promote. We're currently going through a slow period when very few people are assembling sets; any responsible assembler is going to take care to vet each nomination before promoting it, even if it means a set is late. To remove a useful reminder strikes me as highly counterproductive. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

  • A new prep is ready. We're about 25 minutes overdue, and an admin is needed to promote it to a queue so the bot can pick it up. (The lead image may need protecting.) Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Reduce to two sets per day?

There are so many 'overdue' messages. Although there are 200 nominations, only 16 of them are verified. Currently, it's three sets per day. --George Ho (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, step one on the road to recovery for DYK is to allow time for nominations to be properly review and verified, and after all, what's the rush? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, two sets per day for the time being makes sense to give the prep areas a chance to fill up again. After the recent issues, we should all be focusing a bit more on quality, a bit less on quantity. Edwardx (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If we do switch over, the ideal time would be with the 00:00 UTC set (the next one up will be that set), because the bot will try to realign with 00:00 UTC if we don't. It's been hard to fill sets lately because of the small selection of approved hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Articles like Template:Did you know nominations/Kent vs Lancashire at Canterbury and Template:Did you know nominations/Onward, Christian Pilgrims are almost ready, they just need the tick after promotion earlier was prevented because of a since fixed issue. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Kent vs Lancashire at Canterbury is not "almost ready" and just needing the tick; the IP made some very correct observations regarding the hook, which is nearly incomprehensible for anyone not into English cricket. Fram (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The corrections have since been made. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • How about 2 set of 7 (or even 8) instead of 3 sets of 6? ITN could use the extra couple lines. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • What are the technical requirements to make a change happen? We are de facto running less than 3 sets a day already, so I will boldly change it to 2 sets of 7 (at least tempotarily, until preps start getting filled again)unless there is an objection. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
    I figured it out. However, User:Nikkimaria already mad ethe switch to 12 hours last night; I will adjust the empty preps to 7 hooks now... Looking ath the histroy, it seems we went to 3 per day to clear the April Fools backlog, so no reason not to swtch back to 2 sets/day now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
We've just added a new "Ongoing" line to ITN (currently as a trial, but it appears likely to remain), so this wouldn't be a bad time for DYK to return to seven hooks. —David Levy 20:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I am also an ITN regular and we could definitely use the space, as we are currently having good participation and high cycle rates. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree, ITN turnover is decent and could certainly use space. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Sounds good, then. Seven sounds like the way to go, then. (It's better that we use up 14 per day than 12.) We should try to keep it to three bios per set (50% or fewer), but we might have to push it to four on occasion if the bio density continues high; I'm hoping that set builders remember that bio hooks should not be consecutive... BlueMoonset (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Farmland (film)

Would someone restore the hook for Farmland (film) to the archive that was removed? Thanks. I am One of Many (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If they do, can they please re-write it and not link common terms, and make it interesting. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
To add context to this request, here is a link to the discussion we had. I am One of Many (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
To add real context to this request, here is a link to the full discussion on my talk page, and here is a link to the concern raised at WP:ERRORS, and here is another attempt to raise the same concern. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
If you didn't like "actors", then why not replace it with "cast members"? I would have had no problem with that. At least in the United States, where this file was made, the cast members of a movie are the actors whether they play themselves or not. I am One of Many (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, if you wanted a hook that said "Did you know farmers in a documentary about farmers were played by a cast of actual farmers?", there are many many many many problems to be fixed at the heart of DYK, not just of inaccuracy, but of utter stagnant dullness. Main page? Srsly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The change was simple: ... that the cast members in Farmland are farmers and ranchers?
I would leave the link to "farmers", since the movie was about achieving a better understanding of what modern farming is. Though I wouldn't have changed it at all. I am One of Many (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Yep, that's what DYK is all about "Farmland featured farmers." Amazeballs. Sorry, but this is endemic now in DYKs, it's a tragic result of the "get on the main page, QPQ, easy street" culture fostered at DYK. Terrible. Note, this isn't the only example, so don't feel picked out. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
If you read the reviews and commentary, you will see that it is the fact that it featured real live farmers, that makes this film at all interesting. Lots of times documentaries are controversial because they don't include the subjects of their films as the actors. I just think you might consider that there are other interesting interpretations that you may have missed. I am One of Many (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Yep, DYK should just be full of "Film featuring farmers played by farmers" hooks. There are no other interpretations to that dull hook. Poor work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
A hook with "Film featuring farmers played by farmers" is dull, but that is not what the original hook stated nor a reasonable alternative for the hook that used "cast members" instead of actors. I am One of Many (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • To answer the original question, the main page DYK archive only contains hooks that remained on the front page for the entire time period. Any hook that was removed while on the main page is not archived, presumably because if we didn't want people looking at it on the main page, we still don't want people looking at it afterward. Also, as it's a record of what ran, it's counterproductive to change it to a different wording ex post facto. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I am One of Many (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2014 (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) 00:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I filled 5 of the 7 prep spots. Someone else will need to do the last 2 as I am going to bed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Prep 3

Why is the hook in the last position hooky or quirky? Yoninah (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not the quirkiest hook ever, but I think it is pretty interesting that a Communist leader was born on the date of the Communist Revolution. If you see a quirkier hook that is ready to go, feel free to promote it and rearrange the prep to put the new hook last.--ThaddeusB (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Some days there are a plethora of good quality funny/quirky hooks approved and waiting for promotion and other days there are slim pickings. After scanning the currently approved nominations, I saw a couple of hooks that look to be of similar levels of quirkiness as the current hook but there does not appear to be any approved hooks that are clearly superior (Different people may have differing opinions). Just another case of the set builder making do with what is currently available. --Allen3 talk 21:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

More views required for DYKSTATS

Can I suggest due to the longer times on the main page, the amount of views needed for a hook to be listed at WP:DYKSTATS be raised by 25% (I.e. 5000 - 7500). The amount can be lowered again when we regain control of the queues. Nathan121212 (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea because it may well lead to it being left if the time limit goes back down. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
It was not adjusted the last time we had two sets, nor with the change from four to three. There's views/hour to compare. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
It hasn't previously been adjusted when the queue has been as frequent as four times a day or as few as two, or even when hooks have stayed longer than a day because of glitches. Let's leave it as is. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2014 (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) 21:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI

The nominations page (T:TDYK) is a category under Barack Obama. Not sure how to remove that. Yoninah (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. BencherliteTalk 22:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio in Zanabazar (dinosaur)

Pinging @Sven Manguard:, @Cwmhiraeth: and @Reid,iain james:. Please remove this article from the DYK queue. It's obvious the article wasn't checked copyvio/close paraphrasing (even though the source is linked and freely available).

  • source: “Differs from Troodon formosus in having a more ovoid-shaped foramen magnum, a posttemporal fenestra that is enclosed by an almost equal proportion of the exoccipital/opisthotic and squamosal …, a deeper paroccipital process resulting in a different positon of the posttemporal fossa relative to the foramen magnum, and the lack of an osseous signature of the ophthalmic branch of the trigeminal nerve (CN V) in the laterosphenoid.”
  • article: “differs from Troodon by a more ovoid foramen magnum; a posttemporal fenestrae that is enclosed by an almost equal proportion of the exoccipital/opisthotic and squamosal; a deeper paroccipital process resulting in a different position of the posttemporal fossa relative to the foramen magnum; and the lack of a osseous signature of the ophthalmic branch of the trigeminal nerve in the laterosphenoid.“

In addition to the copyvio/close paraphrasing issues (there are more), note this line from the article: "Of the 35 teeth, a few at the front of the dentary become more closely appreased, which is a derived condition shared by all troodontids." This corresponds to the source sentence: "The dentary teeth become more closely appreased in the anterior end of the jaw (fig. 30)—a derived condition shared by all troodontids." "Appreased" is not a valid word; it's supposed to be "appressed"(pressed closely together). The fact that the author blindly copied over a typo, obviously without understanding its meaning, speaks volumes about the accuracy of this article. (It's now a GA candidate!). Sasata (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed from Prep 3. --PFHLai (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I did not check for copyright violations because I did not realise the article was open access, as you can see from my comment on the template. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Were you not suspicious when you read through the article? Sasata (talk) 05:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to be specific, this is from[16] - I found a full pdf by highlighting part of the next ("differs from Troodon by a more ovoid foramen magnum; a posttemporal fenestrae that is enclosed by an almost equal proportion") and right-clicking to search Google. The first hit was our article, the 2nd the pdf. I often do this when I'm a bit unsure about whether it's copyvio, and I find a lot more than I'd like. But the real problem is that the copyvio is still in the article and the editor hasn't been warned. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The author was pinged in the first sentence of this section. Sasata (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I am here, and I understand the concern. I was not originally aware of this, because I was off of wikipedia for a while. Regarding the close paraphrasing of the distinguishing anatomical features, I personally find it very hard to modify the wording of the features so that it is not paraphrased. I did not copy paste any information from the ref, although I might have included to much information from it so that the article became to much like it's main source. I will see what I can do to fix the article by creating a draft on my own pages so that it can be reviewed before being moved to the article. I am extremely sorry for the copy violation, and will hopefully change the article so that it can once again be added to wikipedia. IJReid (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I have now moved the information to User:Reid,iain james/sandbox, and changed the wording of the discovery. I have seen that the distinguishing anatomical features section has been removed, which would clear up the first major issue. I realized that the wording of the discovery section, specifically the known material, was a little too close for comfort, and changed up the wording now. Could User:Sasata look over the article in my userspace now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reid,iain james (talk • contribs)
I just saw this thread and want to mention that I've warned IJReid about copyvio issues before, see Template:Did you know nominations/Huabeisaurus. Although in that case he correctly pointed out that the source he copied from had a Creative Commons license. -Zanhe (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_103&oldid=1136061655"