Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 79

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75 ← Archive 77 Archive 78 Archive 79 Archive 80 Archive 81 → Archive 85

Prep 3: Volunia

Another one that seems destined to annoy those who find some hooks overly promotional of the product (as opposed to promoting the article), but more importantly, the claim seems unsupported. The claim in the article is to an article in Polish which, according to Googletrans, cites the developer (which means it is a promotional claim, not a disinterested review) as saying that it is "is an attempt to show how the future might look like search engine" (don't blame me: it is an automated translation: an editor in the nom process offered "According to Marchiori, it is an attempt to show what a search engine of the future may look like"). An attempt to show what something might look like is not the same as being the future of the product, and the claim of the developer should be tagged as a claim from a vested interest, not merely a reported opinion. Kevin McE (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

In this instance, the nomination discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Volunia raised all the right issues. I've edited the article and hook to better match the various translations, including making it clear that this was the developer's statement. The hook is still in prep, so anyone can edit it. --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

Can a reviewer make copy edits to an article they are reviewing? --Ishtar456 (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely - if the edits become more substantial then it's normal to let someone else take over the review. Mikenorton (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, in this case I am just talking about really minor stuff.--Ishtar456 (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Bot update of Main Page is Late

Looks like the bot didn't do its main page update 45 minutes ago. Is there an admin around who can either kick the bot or do a manual update? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Manual update performed and a note sent to the bot's operator. --Allen3 talk 17:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! The bot was apparently down for the previous update, too. I hope there will be admins around to do any necessary manual updates until the bot is back in working order. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Up and running again. Shubinator (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 2:McCormack

I'm still not happy about use of a team nickname that is not widely known, but more importantly in this case is the claim of Prince William being "brought to his knees". A journalist on a small local paper evidently does not understand the meaning of the word literally, because a bow does not involve kneeling. Nor did McCormack do anything to the prince: whatever bodily gesture he made was made by him, without her being an agent of it. A silly error in a small local rag should not be raised to the profile of the Main Page of one of the most visited sites on the internet. Kevin McE (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I edited the hook rather severely. See if it works... --Orlady (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks fine to me: truthful even! Thanks. Kevin McE (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 3: Iranian power plant

The initials PSPP are not part of the name of this installation, nor are they an abbreviation that will be recognised by the vast majority of our readership. It is clear from the rest of the hook that Siah Bishe is a pumped-storage power plant, so the initials are redundant. Kevin McE (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Good points. I edited the hook. --Orlady (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Backlog of passed articles

There seem to be a lot of passed articles still listed on T:TDYK, going back as far as the start of February. Do we need to increase the turnover of DYKs on the Main Page? What frequency are we working to at the moment? Prioryman (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The large number of passed noms isn't necessarily a backlog. Some of those "passed" noms probably should not have been passed, and an ample supply of passed noms makes it much easier to build a balanced hook set. Right now we are publishing 18 hooks each day, which is pretty close to the rate at which new nominations are appearing. --Orlady (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification. Prioryman (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Burton Bridge (1322)

If possible could someone take a look at this nom (Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Burton Bridge (1322)) later today? It would be nice to have it on the mainpage for the battles 690th anniversary on 10 March, but due to work I probably won't get a chance to look at any comments and make any changes between the end of today and then. Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's sorted now. Prioryman (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thanks User:Mikenorton for looking at this, it's much appreciated - Dumelow (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Special holding

I've searched the archives (briefly) and only really found something from 2010, so hopefully someone here can help with a more up-to-date answer.

How long can/should a DYK hook be kept in the special occasion holding area? I'm working on an article that would be great for 15 April, (specifically, the 100th anniversary of the Titanic sinking) but don't know how soon I should nominate it. The article is pretty much ready to go, though not yet in article namespace. Cheers, matt (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a hook held over for April 5, which I reviewed a few days ago, so April 15 should be no problem at all. GRAPPLE X 11:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Unless it's changed since the last time I checked, six weeks. 15 April - 42 days = 4 March, which means you're fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers guys. matt (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Overlong hook (Prep 1) – now Queue 5!

The hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Young v. Facebook, Inc. comes out to be 217 characters—spaces are always included—well above the ceiling of 200 characters. It needs to be shortened.

Also, I had a problem with the use of "as" in Prep 3's Template:Did you know nominations/Chandramukhi (character) and was going to change it to "because", but that would have put it over the limit, since it's at 198 now. However, looking at the Chandramukhi (character) article, I don't see any support at the given links that she "was the first person to decline the Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actress". The sources do say she declined it, but not that she was the first person ever to have done so. Is there another source, or have I missed the money quote? If not, then it needs to change. Perhaps to:

At 180 characters, this would a better length as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Rejiggering the Young v. Facebook hook, how about Alt1: ... that in Young v. Facebook, Inc., Judge Jeremy Fogel found that despite having walls and posts, Facebook was not a physical place? GRAPPLE X 20:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I think you lose the core meaning without the ADA. I would add a phrase from the original to the end of your Alt, which brings the total from 129 to 184 characters (though perhaps "for the purpose of" could use a little tweaking):

I was shocked to discover, when I returned from an errand, that the original, overlong hook had been promoted to [[queue|5}}, where it currently sits, and cannot be edited now except by an admin.

Should we add a step to the "move to queue" process that specifically states that the person doing the moving should be sure to look at this page to make sure there are no outstanding issues with the prep area? It would have been easy to take care of the issue in the course of the promotion, and frankly that's when it should have been done if the promoting admin wants or needs to promote the prep area.

Lest the same thing happen with the Chandramukhi hook, which doesn't have its prep area listed in the section header, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and change the hook myself as soon as I've posted this. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, good! We needed another reason for flagellation of the administrators who participate in DYK. (Please note that the persons who move hooks to the queues (i.e., administrators) are the very same people who can edit hooks once they are in the queues. And, FWIW, I edited that hook). --Orlady (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I saw that you edited the hook, and it was better than the above suggestions. Thanks. To be clear, the idea is not to flagellate, which sounds quite uncomfortable, but place another item on a standard workflow checklist as a memory aid. Or do you think it's a useless or inappropriate thing for admins to check? I took a quick at the current checklist involving the queues, and I think it's a bit out of date regardless, since it specifically refers to prep areas 1 and 2, rather than the four currently in use. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The Source (Ingres)

It is in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1 ( nom page), but why the image is removed? --SupernovaExplosion Talk 01:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I promoted it sans image because the last nom I promoted from you included the image. Besides, I think it's more interesting for someone to hear "that exquisite dream of innocence" without seeing the painting as it makes them curious as to what the painting looks like. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
As a side note, it says at the top of T:TDYK that not images proposed will be used. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Um, so what are you saying? You will not include image from two of my subsequent nominations? The nom from me that included the image is Le Sommeil, after which Go Topless Day was featured without image. I still feel this hook will be far better with an accompanying image, especially because The Source (Ingres) is a historically important painting. Not being stubborn, just curious. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 02:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
What he is saying is there are more nominations with pictures than can actually be run with pictures. I think of my last seven DYKs, all had pictures included with them and only two actually ran with the pictures. It is just simple math for how DYKs can go together all at once. --LauraHale (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly. I had replied about 6 hours ago but I lost my connection before posting. It was give or take like this:
  1. The top spot is highly sought after, as you can probably tell. Generally I try to balance my promotions so that the same author(s) don't have nominations in the top spot too close together.
  2. For the 2 preps I built this morning (my time), about 8 pictures were cut. Most of the hooks currently ticked at T:TDYK have pictures, so there are some which are cut.
  3. When building the preps, we try to keep topical diversity in the lede hooks. Hence we don't feature six pictures of female water polo players in a row, or five pictures of extinct maple species, or four OWM (old white men), or three Indonesian singers, or two factories in New Jersey, and I've never seen a partridge in pear tree.
Sometimes high quality images are skipped. When the images for Nia Dinata and Dewi Sandra weren't chosen I was disappointed too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
See Hierarchy of genres, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I get it. Thank you all for the clarifications. :D --SupernovaExplosion Talk 14:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 6 : Zengedi

Nobody has praised the author for bringing either this book, or the concept of life (which we are told is the translation of the title) "into the street demos and sitting rooms of near-future Tehran". The critic praised him for bringing the genre of Sci-Fi into that setting. Additionally, the hook is in breach of MoS by having a wikilink within a quote (not a part of MoS I have much time for when it is unambiguous, as in this case, but nevertheless, Main Page should follow the rules) Kevin McE (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

How about this rewording of the hook: ... that Greg Egan's science fiction novel Zendegi was praised for taking the genre "into the street demos and sitting rooms of near-future Tehran"? —Bruce1eetalk 07:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
That would have been some improvement, although the quote was about the writer, not the book, going into a previously unexplored setting. However, the meaningless version sat on the main page for eight hours instead. Kevin McE (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This hook was on the nominations page for two weeks and in the prep area for 27 hours before it was moved to the queue. If people who are interested in after-the-fact quality control would get involved in the review process, perhaps there would be fewer after-the-fact complaints. --Orlady (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
This is part of the after-the-fact quality control process. No disrespect intended to the admins who patrol this area, but if there are not sufficient of them to act on that which is drawn to people's attention, then there is an essential flaw in the system. It should also be asked why a blurb that was an inaccurate representation of the facts was A) proposed, and B) promoted. Kevin McE (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
It would still be helpful for more concerns to be raised earlier. In particular, changes to hooks would be far better discussed on the nomination page prior to promotion so that the article writer(s) and/or nominator has time to participate. Some of these last-minute changes have reflected not looking at the article itself carefully enough to judge the appropriateness of the hook (this happened with one of mine), and some have been purely matters of taste. On the other hand, when there is a real issue, it's best when the author(s) and/or nominators fix it; they have primary responsibility as well as probably the most knowledge. Just because we need an admin to change something once it's in a queue doesn't make it properly a job for an admin to judge the hook. Admins are not moderators. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, I was hounded out of nominations pages. I'll act on, or raise here, issues with hooks as soon as I notice them. If our error catching process is going to have any reliability, it needs to be responsive at any stage. That the nom sat for 2 weeks without anyone even querying the fact that the hook was not supported by the article shows that that stage of the process is far less demanding than it should be. That being the case, the later stages need to be ready and able to act. We asked the readers of our Main Page whether they knew this: they could not have known what was never true. Kevin McE (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Frankly . . . how can you have been hounded out of nominations pages? Have a look at Template Talk:Did You Know right now, and you'll see lengthy discussions about numerous nominations. More than one person has said at this page that they're weirded out by how many and how long. I look at the Queue page too - not only are there often missing "that"s and grammar errors (not everyone's a good proofreader), but quite often the article could do with a good proofreading (for the same reason, article reviewers aren't always good that catching such problems, and we recently had someone here asking whether they were even allowed to; personally I regard it as part of reviewing). But criticisms that involve changing the hook's meaning should be raised as early as possible; that's only polite, as well as much more practical. (It's also been mentioned on this page that the writer(s)/nominator would appreciate a message letting them know that such a concern has been raised. I know sometimes it can't be helped, one doesn't notice a problem in time to raise it at the nomination page, but I think that's a basic step of courtesy that all of us who roam the Queue page should bear in mind.) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Orlady and Yngvadottir, hook queries should be raised as soon as possible to avoid last-minute scrambles. —Bruce1eetalk 05:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone doubts that it is better to raise the issues earlier. The questions are A) are there enough editors willing and able to apply a high standard of rigour to do that?, and B) what can be done if inaccurate or unsupported hooks are only spotted late? Kevin McE (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 2: Gilles

We should not be passing uncited opinions of artworks: who are we to declare Watteau's painting to be "poignant". Kevin McE (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It maybe is a didactic adjective that comes to us from the editorial voice and WP:SYNTH present throughout the article. Consider:

As for the Watteau portrait, it should be clear by these observations that a "definitive" identification of its subject—as either Pierrot or Gilles—is not possible. As Francis Haskell has pointed out (and the remarks above imply), not only did Gilles "wear the same costume" as Pierrot, but both generally "had the same character" throughout the 18th century: Pierrot, like Gilles, "was a farcical creature, not a tragic or sensitive one".[35] (Pierrot will become tearful and tragic only in the middle of the 19th century, in the hands of Paul Legrand.)[36] The conclusion is irresistible: that "the consumptive Watteau has invested the figure of Gilles with some degree of self-identification, and Mrs. Panofsky has also pointed out that on many other occasions when painting Pierrot figures Watteau not only gave them a predominance which was absolutely not justified by the nature of the parts they were called upon to act, but may even have hinted at something Christ-like in their role."[35] The quibbling over the identity of the figure in Watteau's portrait (encountered everywhere in related sites on the internet)[37] is, in short, misguided [note: there is no citation for who finds it "misguided", and note 37 is entirely WP:OR: it states the wikipedia editor's own cursory search through a site that disagrees with their opinion, and disagreeing with the editorial voice is, of course, "quibbling"!].

Am I the first to take issue with this? Dahn (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
In fact, there's yet another serious reason for concern: while the hook suggests that Watteau's portrait is of Gilles, and "poignantly" so, the article itself mutters that it is still a matter of debate whether it is actually Gilles or Pierrot that's in that painting. It does cite authors who will say that it is probably more of Gilles than Pierrot, but, even with the slanted editorial guesses I cited above, it fails to indicate that this is in any way the scholarly conclusion - and everyone who says otherwise is "quibbling"!
Please move this hook back to T:TDYK and save wikipedia the embarrassment of publishing such glaring original synthesis. Dahn (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I edited the hook after it got posted to the main page. I probably did not fully address the issues raised here. To be candid, if I had taken the time to read these comments thoroughly and delve into the art history background referred to here, the hook would have spent its full 8 hours on the main page before I was done. I have a hunch that the lack of clarity here regarding the issues helps explain why no administrator dealt with this hook while it was still in the queue.
If you want fast action from an administrator, please provide a concise and clear statement of what is wrong and how the problem needs to be fixed. --Orlady (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

To Dahn: Thanks for your helpful responses to this article. (I wish I had seen them before the hook was so far advanced in the queue!) I see clearly now how my own judgments are shadowing the "Gilles and Pierrot" section, and so I have revised the last paragraph of that section (with which you find particular fault) to read as follows:

As Francis Haskell has pointed out (and the remarks above imply), not only did Gilles "wear the same costume" as Pierrot, but both generally "had the same character" throughout the 18th century: Pierrot, like Gilles, "was a farcical creature, not a tragic or sensitive one".[35] (Pierrot will become tearful and tragic only in the middle of the 19th century, in the hands of Paul Legrand.)[36] "It is", writes Haskell, "hard to resist the conclusion that the consumptive Watteau has invested the figure of Gilles with some degree of self-identification, and Mrs. Panofsky has also pointed out that on many other occasions when painting Pierrot figures Watteau not only gave them a predominance which was absolutely not justified by the nature of the parts they were called upon to act, but may even have hinted at something Christ-like in their role."[35] As Haskell seems to be implying, there may be at least as much Watteau as either Gilles or Pierrot in the portrait.

The hook was unfortunate. My original wording of it made it clear that "Gilles" was attached to the figure of the painting for "almost three centuries" of its history (only at the end of the 20th century has that name been called into question). When I was asked to shorten the wording, I fell back on the assumption that anybody who knows anything about the painting at all would know that "traditionally" it has been regarded to be a portrait of Gilles. I don't know what you mean by saying that the article "does cite authors who will say that it [the painting] is probably more of Gilles than Pierrot ...": the only author cited, Haskell, states clearly that both Gilles and Pierrot wore the same costume and had the same character, thereby implying that the argument that Watteau's figure is one or the other is moot.

That the portrait is "poignant" is widely repeated in the art-history literature, but I will footnote it to ensure it's not confused with an opinion of my own.

I have scoured the rest of the article carefully and can find no other unreferenced remarks. I hope these changes (which will be made if you approve) are sufficient to remove the scare-tags. If they are not, please elaborate and I will revise accordingly. Thanks for your help and attention. (I have also left this note on your talk page.) Beebuk 08:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Human rights DYK

Did you know, Khazar's last DYK appeared yesterday. Every time I look at his legacy, other problems seem smaller. Look, thank him (I did in January), and perhaps take a few on your watch list, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

International Women's Day

Is March 8th. There are lots of hooks in the special occasions area waiting for this day (some of which I nominated, so I'm not moving them to prep areas). We can be filling the March 8th prep areas with these hooks, rather than race horses, etc. --Orlady (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Please consider starting with an Australian/New Zealand woman's bio at 0:00 UTC when it's the day time in Australia & New Zealand on March 8th, and not start with a European woman's bio when it's the middle of the night in Europe, etc. Also, if we are picking racehorse hooks, please pick one about a filly or a mare. Thank you. --PFHLai (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC), 18:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Not too worried about horses, but it would be really nice if we could ensure we have a woman bio DYK four times, at relevant times to celebrate this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Sophia Taylor is a New Zealand bio that's been given the green tick, so if somebody could promote that soon, that'll be good (it's 8 March in the morning here already). Schwede66 19:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for getting Sophia Taylor into Prep 4 so quickly. Let me just point out that if the preps get moved to the queues in the order they are currently in, then this New Zealand article will appear on the homepage for the first time at 1 pm on 9 March (NZ time) at this end of the world, i.e. one day late. Schwede66 20:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Prep 4 has some hooks about European women, so it would be good in Queue 6 (8 am, London). The current set in Queue 6 has hooks about North American women, and would be ideally moved to Queue 1 (8 am, Los Angeles). (Note: the Sophia Taylor hook mentioned above has been removed.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I've just swapped them. --PFHLai (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
All about Europe, Oceania and North America, isn't it International Women's Day? So, I've created this hook related to Asian woman. Can someone care enough to review it?, thanks. — Bill william comptonTalk 06:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: I've moved this one into the regular March 8 date; if reviewed in time, it can be move to the special holding area, but the instructions are to put them under the regular date until review. I did take a quick look, and I'm not sure it qualifies: prior to expansion, there was a single footnote, and I believe that's enough to disqualify it from the special BLP 2x rule (it's barely 2x) and require a 5x expansion. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy (re)-review, please?

The following noms could use a speedy (re)-review so that the hook can be used for tomorrow:

-- Thanks. PFHLai (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding images after the fact

When using the Commons, clicking edit after adding the page results in the original template appearing. I can then edit the template with relative ease.

Doing the same for DYK does not result in the same behaviour. Instead, I'm left in an editor that contains text utterly unlike the original I worked on.

In this particular case I simply wanted to add an image, one I had failed to do on the initial entry. But when I click edit, I'm utterly baffled by what I see. It looks very little like what I entered, and there's certainly no obvious place to put the image.

So, can DYK work like Commons? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK is a different project than Commons with different needs. The template was designed the way it was to make the nomination and review process easier. I asked for feedback many times when I was designing it.
I can add instructions to T:TDYK explaining how to add images after the fact. In the meantime you can come here and ask another editor for help. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Maury, pls follow this example. Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2012 (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) 14:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bot, not sure we've spoken recently. I'm sorry that we've failed to feed the Qs recently. Can I just compliment you on your well mannered reminder and on the stirling work you do for the project. Have a barnstar. I have moved a set to Q1 bu the way. So in your own time Victuallers (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2012 (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) 22:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As an update, I've loaded up two hooks (not the third as one of mine is in it), so we have three empty prep areas if folks wanna load up...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 4: Busted

This is meant to be an encyclopaedia written in an appropriately formal tone. We should not be describing a broken leg as "busted". The desire to portray puns in DYK does not invalidate MoS. Our Main Page should give readers confidence that the project is serious in the way it deals with its content. Kevin McE (talk) 07:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Kevin, it doesn't detract from the hook at all to use 'broken' - 'busted' is just forced. Mikenorton (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Fixed it. Agree "busted" is too far on the colloquial side...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm glad someone else spotted this one. I had to leave for work ... --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
So is it going to be changed? Still on there.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 20:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
It had been changed: PFHLai reverted to the original proposal. AGFing that he was unaware of this thread. Kevin McE (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't know about this discussion here. And yes, "busted" was indeed colloquial. I chose the word "busted" because that's the name of the horse, and I thought that was funny. Busted had a busted leg! It's too late now that the hook has left MainPage. But I must point out that, even if there is clear consensus, a fix that introduces a factual error must not be made. The leg was not broken. It was a tendon injury. It's too late now, but perhaps I could've used some inverted commas there.... --PFHLai (talk) 05:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
More to the point, perhaps you could have used a proper encyclopaedic tone. Even colloquialisms have established meanings, and a "busted leg" dos not mean any unspecific injury, it means broken. Another victory for the "though on the nod" nature of the nominations process: another fail for WP:ERRORS, where this consensus was flagged up for nearly 4 hours. Kevin McE (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you think you could take a slightly less sour tone? This really is not a major issue in the overall scheme of things and it does not deserve the level of censoriousness that you're bringing to it. Please keep a sense of proportion. Prioryman (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Dramatic tone aside, Kevin isn't wrong (and his frustration is understandable).
This was an inappropriate word choice (even if the leg had been broken, which "busted" indeed implied).
Can we please put factual accuracy and professionalism above a desire to be "funny" (at least on days other than 1 April)? —David Levy 10:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I thought there must a bone fracture to say "the leg was broken" but "busted" could refer to any problem that made the leg not to work properly. If I'd felt that the word "busted" is so inappropriate (I thought it was just a bit "chatty"...), I would not have used it at all. I have no problem if the word "busted" gets replaced. But I have a problem with replacing that with "the leg was broken." If I had known about this discussion here at the time, I would have joined in and we could have come up with a different fix. Anyhow, it's too late now. --PFHLai (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC) [Actually, I was having a late lunch and coffee break at work at the time. Not sure how long I could stay to discuss, but I would have at least left a note and asked for a different fix. --PFHLai (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)]
Obviously anyone is free to have whatever they choose on their watchlist, but it seems extraordinary to me that someone would have enough interest to prepare and propose an item for the main page and then not watch its progress through the system... Kevin McE (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I watched the progress while the nom was on T:TDYK. The change was made afterwards. I did not know about the change till I see the hook on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 15:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Informal .
a.    to hit.
b.    to break; fracture: She fell and busted her arm.

[source]

It's one thing to make a mistake, but please don't blame others for their conventional interpretation of your wording. —David Levy 20:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, David. This is the second time in the last half-year that you've found such a mistake of mine on MainPage. I thought a word meant one thing, used it as such for decades, and found out from an internet link provided by you that I have been mis-using the word for decades... sigh... No, no one else to blame here, David. Just me and my poor command of the English language. --PFHLai (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 2: Water polo goalies

ENGVAR issue: I could make a reasoned guess as to what is meant by a pool deck, but it is not a phrase I have ever heard in UK English, and given that the issue in hand is rules that originated in Scotland, such a foreign phrasing seems inappropriate. Suggest pool surround or edge of the pool. Kevin McE (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 3: Crufts

The dog show is Crufts (with an s, but without the apostrophe that probably should be present). Kevin McE (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I changed that, to go with the article title and avoid the pointless redirect. What am I missing? Dahn (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 3: Mrs Romney

To add even before one name in a list of people included for the same biographical event is the type of editorialising we should avoid. There is no reason why this guy should not be the son of someone who spent some time studying drama. Suggest deletion of even. Kevin McE (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"even" removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Advertising (re-raised)

This point was archived recently but I feel the exposure has been too low and will continue to raise it until there has been additional discussion. As per 15 February:

Over the last few weeks I have noticed multiple 'Did you know?' items that I felt were borderline advertisements. In particular, product and company-related entries written in such as way as to place the focus on other aspects of the statement(s) whilst still mentioning (and linking to) said companies and products. I would like to know if anyone else has noticed this and/or feels that policy should be revised; my motion is that 'Did you know?' nominations should not include trivia regarding present day companies and their (present or historic) products.

Today's additional example:

"... that by acquiring the commercial division of the Norwegian Mapping Agency, the company now called Nordeca became a market leader in leisure maps in Norway?"

prat (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I invite you to find another interesting point in that article, which I would not have chosen to write - I managed to rescue it at AfD and so a new editor gets a DYK :-) (And I do consider it interesting that a commercial company bought the national map producer. Maybe I'm just easily amused . . . ) I also commented rather late on the previous thread, so I'll recap - unless we close DYK to articles on companies or their products, the "interest" part of DYK's remit is inevitably going to draw attention to a company that that company may well welcome. I don't see this as inherently problematic, any more than our exciting interest in anything else. I believe I understand your concern, but I don't share it. --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Here, I agree there's a problem with the almost advertising nature, specifically the phrase "market leaders", as well as the "present" tense of the word "now". That all reads like a company press release, and while an interesting hook, it's not encyclopedic. Maybe they became the largest-selling leisure map making in Norway? I dunno exactly what, but adword-speak definitely is a problem here. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Umm, I think you've misread the hook, and I checked the article too, just in case. The word "now" refers to their current name. They made that acquisition a name or two ago. Maybe that helps? The article contains no original research and no statement about their current market share in the leisure maps field - I didn't find any such info in the reliable sources about it and it would be transitory anyway :-) The hook fact is simply that they went to the top of the market by taking over what had been a government service. (It probably didn't hurt that they subsequently bought a competitor, but again - the article doesn't analyze sales statistics. As a business writer, I am not very good :-) )
Even it its meant to establish the recent company name, its the "market leaders" - which are words bandied about by public relations editors to mean lots of things, even if it is meant sincerely and accurately here - that sparks the larger problem. As I can't read the articles that are used to source that point (via language), I don't know what other words or other ways to phrase that specific point. And of course, with it posted, I don't expect it to be changed. But this should highlight an issue that when one uses peacock terms in a hook for a commercial company or product, that sets off a lot of flags about promotional or advertising. Peacock terms should be changed to specific, non-biased statements, or qualified to defer that wikipedia itself is making said claim. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The source says simply that: market leader. In reference to the past. I think what would be peacock would be attempting to rephrase that; in all its vagueness, that's the statement made. But as I say, maybe with fresh eyes someone can find a better hook? --Yngvadottir (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, it's too late to worry about the specific hook now. But its a point to consider for the future. Reliable sources can and will use peacock buzzwords in place of more substantial superlative terms ("the largest" or even "the third largest" reads much better than "market leader") that would be better in the hook. Because of the language barrier on the sources, I've no idea what to replace that current hook; nothing else from the article seems particularly hook-worthy, but addressing the size of the market in more concrete terms would be my first approach. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
That would have required original research. Also, I must admit I don't see the problem - a market leader is a modest claim, and even if the sources and thus the article had said the market leader, what would that mean? That the hook entices people to run out and buy a hiking map of Norway? Far worse if I'd paraphrased it as "dominant" or "leapfrogged the competition." It's sober and neutral and it doesn't say "best" or make any other qualitative judgment. Yes, this is going to come up with articles on companies - unless there's something interesting about them that's peripheral to their making money. Obviously it has to be judged on a case by case basis. But I honestly do not see either peacockery or free advertising here, except in the mere fact it's getting mentioned. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
At least in the States, "market leader" is a loaded term without numbers to back it up. I've seen a company by sales list themselves as a "market leader" despite being like 6th or 7th on the list, or when they have only 5% of the total market whereas other companies have 20+%. My point is that there's a DYK-appropriate fact here, but without ability to check more sources due to the language, I don't know what the change is. Let's say, for example, that they became the second largest seller of leisure maps in the country. That is a better phrasing than "market leader", even if being 2nd isn't normally all that great. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. So here's another from today that I don't agree with (quite aside from the fact that it's something entirely fictional with questionable significance or conceptual relevance to other works of art) regarding a very current and modern product.

.. that Toby Litt's novel Journey into Space takes place on board a generation ship?

I really think we need some more rules here. This is far too close to advertising for comfort. prat (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. So here's another from today. This one is so obviously advertising a service that it's ridiculous.

... that the developer of Volunia, a potential competitor to Google, has said it may represent the "search engine of the future"?

We need more rules here: Page view stats prat (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That's nothing: it got through the nominations procedure and was listed without even acknowledging that it was a vested interest who made the claim, and without acknowledging the qualified nature of the claim. People who like products/bands/films etc write articles and propose them for DYK (that is natural enough), and will have, at least subconsciously, a propensity to write favourably about them. The review process (largely because of its you scratch my back... nature) is not rigorous enough to stall many of these. Kevin McE (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I take exception to the assumptions here. For one thing, I very much doubt I'm the only one who puts up for DYK articles to which we came by circuitous routes - often, in my case, having run across the article and often the topic at AfD. Some people look for new editors' articles and nominate them. Neither of these is fannish; I assume there are other non-fannish motives I'm not thinking of. For another, we're admonished to avoid negative hooks about BLP's, and that's a good rule of thumb anyway; who wants to see a DYK section full of snide digs at people and things? I believe there's a general bias toward the good, or at least the harmless, among both nominators and reviewers. Thirdly, I have said here often enough that I loathe the quid pro quo requirement, but it most definitely is not a mutual backscratching society. More like a circling of the wagons - the incentive is to do a good job reviewing the article, and help the reviewer/writer out where necessary, lest DYK suffer another hurt and embarrassment from a hook being pulled. (or lest one develop a reputation as one of those "hasty reviewers" we keep reading about, because that's the quickest way to get people microscopically examining one's articles for commensurate carelessness in writing - since the critics forget that not everyone is good at being an examiner). At base, I think the issue is that the poster sees interest drawn to a company as a bad thing. I've pointed out before that I disagree and see it as no more of an inherently bad thing than interest being drawn to a sports team, a location where people might conceivably spend tourist dollars, or a citizen of any specific country. (By the way, Nordeca got 462 views on its day being linked at DYK. Supporting my point about being the subject of a DYK hook hardly constituting effective publicity even if one does for some reason think seeing that hook would predispose people to rushing out to buy hiking maps of chunks of Norway.) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Where do you get the views per day stats? It'd be interesting to see what the stats are on the other DYK's identified as iffy. prat (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
@Pratyeka: From what I understand, the rules that already exist aren't being followed. I've worked for places that reacted to situations like this by adding ever more minute rules. The result tended to be company failure, lay-offs, etc. Usually they would have done better if they'd educated people on what the real goals/problems were, and then relied on their initiative, intelligence, and good faith. Instead they institute a bureaucracy's worth of rules, apparently in the hopes that a few would be followed - and got no one left to follow the rules except a bunch of human robots. The intelligent and non-depressed quit. The stupid, lazy, and depressed stayed - and stopped using their brains.
OK, well perhaps if there's more rules it's not a good thing. But if there's no rule prohibiting this kind of borderline advertising then I think a quick statement could be considered. I don't like huge numbers of rules either, but if there's no rule then anything goes even when people raise queries like these... prat (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Now in the case of DYK it's worse - there seems to be a lack of agreement on the goals. I'm not sure if agreement can be reached - it seems as if the atmosphere has gotten too adversarial for any kind of agreement to be easy. But more rules won't help that either.
My take, without ever having read the actual DYK page, is that right now it sounds like there are dual goals. The first is to draw people in to the breadth of wikipedia through showing them a cross-section of random trivia. The second seems to be rewarding contributors to new or expanded articles with warm-fuzzies. Both seem reasonable to me. I just don't see where anything advertising-like is justified, from any perspective. prat (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
As for the issue of "advertising" - it looks like it's another case where either there's no agreement, or there's a working consensus now being challenged. Personally it feels like a tempest in a tea pot - I'd rather focus on lack of contributions, departure of existing contributors, failure of the quid-pro-quo requirement, etc. Kobnach (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
If there's a lack of contributions, why not look at making it easier for people to make suggestions? This could be a button that people could make visible in their preferences that allowed them to select an article or a fact to nominate for DYK. I'm sure there's some coders who wouldn't mind implementing such. prat (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
--For page view stats, see the links grouped near the top of the History page for the article. There's also a link to the stats for the appropriate time-span in the templated message that appears on the creator's and nominator's talk pages and the one that appears on the article's talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I think this one really illustrates my point... Volunia page view stats. prat (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
If you look at the trailing seven day traffic volume for the site, you don't see a Wikipedia bump in traffic that would make DYK worth while for a company to get main page views that translate into page views for their site, which in turn translates into "new customers." That said, the article barely crawled over the line length wise, and the NPOV nature of the hook and the text could have been challenged in the process if the guidelines were followed (I've tagged at least one DYK Double Fine Adventure I reviewed that way, said it was a concern and left it up to those moving into the prep areas because while it can be difficult to find balance when reviewing as there are conflicting opinions on how things should work. You can get slammed coming and going.) --LauraHale (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Alexa is a very poor measure of real world traffic. In addition, the branding exposure on the Wikipedia page is undeniably a significant asset for a startup company in and of itself. In my view it really seems difficult to attempt to argue that posting Volunia on the front page of Wikipedia did not benefit the company. prat (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I would suspect a bump in traffic anyway if the traffic was a sizable portion was from Wikipedia on the day. (And I'm aware of how Alexa works. I've probably got two or three pages discussing it total in my dissertation.) I see no correlating date. Getting a mention on a DYK on the front page is nice, but it is a one time opportunity and not recurring. The best option for utilizing Wikipedia isn't actually through DYK for a commercial corporation, but in getting external links to their site on other pages of Wikipedia because Google favours those links. (And there is SEO consensus Google is not transparent in how they evaluate links, so this is an issue.) It is why GLAM projects like the British Museum like links, plus all those links on multiple articles do drive some traffic... en masse and when they are on highly visible pages. A company page is also valuable because it implies credibility about a company in other ways. I've yet to see very many conversations with marketers talking about the value of going through the DYK process for front page appearance, but I have seen and discussed with a few marketing industry people about the value of a page existing and keeping it neutral. Just not sold on this. The stats do no bear out this being a problem. --LauraHale (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's another example of a DYK from today that I feel should be excluded on 'is a current commercial product' grounds:

... that Kaytek the Wizard, the second of the novels by Polish author and pedagogue Janusz Korczak to be translated into English, has often been compared to Harry Potter? prat (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2011–12 Princeton Tigers men's basketball team

Would anyone consider making this a late addition to prep area 2 which is destined for queue 4? That queue will be on the main page during the team's playoff game tonight. I will be working a bit on this article to expand it today.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Prep 2 appears to be already full. You haven't given reviewers much time, and it's not like this is a major holiday or anything. I would say it should just run when it runs. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with Rjanag. Under 48 hours is not enough. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 4: Volage

Per every mid-sentence occurrence of the word in the main article on the subject, transit of Venus should have a lower case t Kevin McE (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever corrected this. Kevin McE (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 5

Jews in Mauritius

We only have an approximate figure for the Jewish population: 40 is not so high a number that it is obvious to assume that it is an approximation (the confusion would not arise if there were a population to 40,000 somewhere under discussion) Suggest add about or approximately, as stated in the article. We know nothing of the religiosity of these two score odd individuals: they are Jews, but not necessarily followers of Judaism, so the link should point to the former term. Kevin McE (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Now on Main Page: anyone willing and able to act? Kevin McE (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Nikkimaria took care of that one. --Orlady (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Malacological Society

Being an officer of this group of molluscophiles is not sufficiently ingrained in popular culture to be recognised as an established proper noun in the way that President of France is: lower case p for president. Kevin McE (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Now on Main Page: anyone willing and able to act? Kevin McE (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I fixed this one. --Orlady (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 2: Kosovo

... that one can see almost the whole of Metohija (1,290 sq mi) from the heights of Dulje? That fails H10. I considered adding the word "Kosovo" somewhere, but maybe you omitted it because Serbs might object to that description. If so, then should we at least say it's in the Balkans? Art LaPella (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I added Kosovo to the hook. It's my understanding that both Serbs and Albanians call the region "Kosovo"; the disagreement is over who it belongs to. --Orlady (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


And why is the area of a European region being given in sq miles? Kevin McE (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Khaled Ali

Help needed to fix this nom template. It's not displaying properly on T:TDYK. Tks. --70.31.8.76 (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. I'll inform Ocaasi how to fix their signature so that it won't break templates. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Something's funny

Something funny is happening on the nominations page under Justice and Development Party (Libya). On the nominations page, the second half of the review for Template:Did you know nominations/Paintings by Adolf Hitler appears, but it does not appear in the editing window, so I can't erase it. Yoninah (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Paintings by Adolf Hitler needed some fixing. It should be ok now. —Bruce1eetalk 11:26, 15 March 2012 (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) 13:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Prep 4: Balance of hooks

Assuming it is an accident, but two Oregon hooks on one set seems to lack balance. Kevin McE (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I swapped some hooks to change that situation. --Orlady (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Using multiple DYK review icons in a single review

Lately some reviewers have been using upwards of half a dozen DYK review icons in a single review to highlight each of the many aspects being covered. Is this useful, or confusing? I would have thought the latter, but I'm not one of the people assembling prep areas and looking for noms that have been passed.

In addition, I believe the software that generates the List of DYK Hooks by Date table on the Queues page uses the OK icons to determine which are verified and which are not. Would such multiple usage cause issues with that software, or is it not an issue? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As a human, I find the use of multiple icons in a single review to be confusing when I try to skim a nom to determine its status. My observations of the software behavior have led me to conclude that it uses the last hook in the template to determine the status of the nom. --Orlady (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Attribution-template issues

When Template:Did you know nominations/Illinois Central Railroad No. 790 was created, the nominator (Ishtar456) forgot some technically required bits, such as supplying the creator's name (himself) and bolding the link for the nominated article. I've fixed everything that I know how to fix, but I'm not sure if I properly fixed the template that will be used to notify him that the article has appeared on the Main Page. Please look it over and fix anything that I overlooked. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked the DYKmake template with these edits. The talk page notification should now be delivered correctly. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
And I've fixed the nomination's {{DYK nompage links}}. For future reference, note that there's no need to move the subpage just because its name differs from that of the article(s). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Echoing Mandarax: pagemoves like this are almost never necessary. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, sorry; didn't know that. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"Yahoo" on Queue 1

"Yahoo" in the 4th hook should be "Yahoo!". Don't forget the exclamation mark. --70.31.8.76 (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --Allen3 talk 15:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Please also add an "a" after "on" in "on Yahoo! message board": it doesn't make grammatical sense otherwise. Thanks! Oh, and should a link for "Yahoo!" be added, i.e., "on a Yahoo! message board"? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Done. --Allen3 talk 18:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 1: Aeroflot

A plane cannot be upside down on take-off: it crashed upside down shortly after take off. Kevin McE (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Just added "shortly after" as suggested. --PFHLai (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Refunded QPQ credit?

From Template:Did you know nominations/Kony 2012 - "refunded QPQ credit I have in the bank". What??? 159.83.4.148 (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've just left a note about this on the refunder's usertalkpage. Hopefully he'll get here and post an explanation. --PFHLai (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I have a two QPQ dredit from Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Same_text_in_multiple_articles.3F.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 2; Abbas Kazmi

No grammatical justification for the capitalisation of diplomat. Kevin McE (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Applied lowercase 'd' as suggested. --PFHLai (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 2: St Patrick and Llantwit Major

There are innumerable legends abut Patrick's early life: that he was a priest at Llantwit is but one of them. It is not so much the being kidnapped that should be qualified by the "reputedly" tag, as any assertion about his age/role at the time. Kevin McE (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

How do you want this hook fixed? --PFHLai (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
As already suggested, by moving the impact of the word reputedly. Maybe that Saint Patrick was reputedly a priest at the monastery of St. Illtyd of Llantwit Major when he was abducted by Irish pirates, later becoming the patron saint of Ireland? Kevin McE (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I moved the word "reputedly" up as suggested. --PFHLai (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 2: Bad Girl

A cover version credits the writer(s) of the song, not a previous performer. Once it had been performed by the Pussycat Girls, it was not Rihanna's song, but it was still Chris Brown's work (and that of 5 co-composers). Kevin McE (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

How do you want this hook fixed? Remove "Rihanna"? Insert the other co-composers? Remove "version of"? Add "previously"? Pull the hook and ask the nominator to clarify/re-write the hook? --PFHLai (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Hard to know, because there is little substance to the hook, which essentially says "this is a song that two different artists have recorded." Perhaps that "Bad Girl", originally recorded by co-composer Chris Brown with Rihanna, has also been performed by The Pussycat Dolls? A song might be covered: a version of a song is not. Kevin McE (talk) 08:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps that the song "Bad Girl", originally recorded by Rihanna and Chris Brown, was covered by The Pussycat Dolls? I am putting this on MainPage for now. --PFHLai (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Seems fair enough to me. Kevin McE (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Writers, researchers, fact-checkers

Hey folks. User:Ocaasi has organized a opportunity for Wikipedians to get free access to a large online database. Here's the breakdown:

  • HighBeam Research--an online, pay-for-use search engine for newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias has agreed to give free, full-access, 1-year accounts for up to 1000 Wikipedia editors to use. HighBeam has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications, most of which are not available for free elsewhere on the internet. Aside from a free 7-day trial (credit card required), access to HighBeam would cost $30 per month or $200 per year for the first year and $300 for subsequent years, so this is a wonderful, free, no-strings-attached opportunity. To qualify, editors must have at least a 1 year-old account with 1000 edits. Please add your name to the WP:HighBeam/Applications account sign-up page if you are interested.

Might help you with your next DYK. The Interior (Talk) 18:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Question about a new article DYK rules

Hi, I just started a new article, Age of Steam Roundhouse, that I have a good hook for, however, there are some sections that are re-written sections from other articles. These sections concern the histories of individual locomotives (CPR 1293, CPR 1278, CN 1551 and GTR 92). I originally wrote about them on Steamtown, USA. I paraphrased myself, added some new material and abbreviated these sections as much as possible. My question is, can my article be considered new for DYK purposes, or would it be considered an expansion? I do not want to nominate it if this is an issue. Thanks.--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It would count as new, but the original material would have to amount to at least 1500 characters of prose; discount the re-written borrowed material and see if the article measures that much, and if so then it's fine as a new article for nomination. GRAPPLE X 21:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Well that is a relief, and thanks for the quick response. I have at least 4000 new characters in the new material. Thanks, --Ishtar456 (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Prep 2: Chrisye song

Chrisye has no more recorded a song called alone than Frank Sinatra recorded one called A mi manera. we can't present the translation of a name as though it is the name of something, unless that translation, applied to that paricular artistic work, has gained English language recognition. Don't think there is an easy fix on this, other than sending it back to noms to find a totally different hook. Kevin McE (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 3: December 1992 weather event

"...washed over 20 whales onshore Cape Cod, killing seven of them..." Should have a preposition between whales and onshore: could be at, on or, per the article, along. Kevin McE (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Added "along" as suggested. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on Main Page affecting April Fools Day Tradition

There is a discussion on the Main Page relative to the April Fools Day tradition that would affect this page---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 00:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the same discussion to which attention was drawn in a message here on 26 February. Kevin McE (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Missing entries from archive?

I got a DYK notice on my talk page that my submission appeared on the main page on 17 March. Although I never saw it there, I'm pretty sure it did appear there because hit statistics show a spike on that day.

My question is, why doesn't it appear anywhere in the archives for March 2012? This makes me wonder how many other are missing from the archive. Is this archive updated manually, or by a bot? ~Amatulić (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason it's not in the archive is because it was pulled from the main page here. The archiver only archives those hooks that made it to the end of their main page run. —Bruce1eetalk 13:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
See Talk:Red Deer Cave people for the reason it was removed. —Bruce1eetalk 13:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Enzo Petito, Teatro San Ferdinando

There is a DYK nomination for March 6th for Enzo Petito and Teatro San Ferdinando which I have attempted to review. There seems to have been a change of mind at some stage and the review page redirects to a new, unformatted page for Enzo Petito, Teatro San Ferdinando and Piccolo Teatro (Milan). The result is that things are a bit haywire and my positive review of all 3 articles does not appear on the nominations page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The nominator moved it; see the history. I suspect this makes the new nomination untranscluded? Yngvadottir (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I've patched everything up. As I noted, the comment made it unclear whether the third article had received a full review. Also as I noted there, everyone should remember, please do not move nomination pages! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Much as I figured, including its being way, way, way beyond my ability to fix. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry about that. I added another article to a recent nom but I deleted the original page an renominated to avoid any redirect problems and will do that in future.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:35, 20 March 2012 (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, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK hook for National Masturbation Day

Not sure why "in the US" wording is included in the final DYK hook. It is celebrated in Japan also. My original suggestions did suggest it is an international event, not an American event. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 08:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

If it is National, it should specify which nation is meant. There are a lot of them. Kevin McE (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Would you believe it? Only 132 Google hits for "Wankers of the world, unite!" It's as if the various chapters are each pursuing some solitary avocation. Wnt (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2012 (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) 22:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Disappearance of Rebecca Coriam

This was just approved a while ago; I hope there would still be space to put in for tomorrow. Queue 6 would be most ideal as it would correspond to the time frame of the event one year ago. Daniel Case (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I moved it to the prep that should become Queue 6. --Orlady (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Even with an intervening hook, I think it's a bad idea to have two hooks about company negligence or apparent negligence in the same set. If the Rebecca Coriam is in Prep 4, I'd strongly recommend moving Seton Medical Center to a different prep area altogether. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry; I realized after posting the above that I should be WP:BOLD and move Seton myself rather than wait for someone else to do it. So Seton's now in Prep 1. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Documentation of nomination process difficult for newcomers

I've just nominated a DYK for the first time for ages, so had to read the instructions. Unfortunately they disappear at each stage: you get to Template_talk:Did_you_know#How_to_post_a_new_nomination, add the article name, and leave that page. You see helpful info as at Editing Template:Did you know nominations/test, those pink boxes ... and you hit "Save" and they disappear too. It would be easier for newcomers if these opened up a new tab/window so that you could return to the instructions you were reading to see the next step! PamD 10:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you access your navigation history and open any previously visited page in a new tab? --PFHLai (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC) [This suggestion was meant as a temporary aid. --PFHLai (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)]

Request for speedy review of time-sensitive DYK

I've added a nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Lifeboats of the RMS Titanic. The article will be linked from the Featured Article box on the Main Page on 15 April, so I'd very much like it to get some exposure before then so that it can be refined in time for the anniversary. I'd be grateful if someone could give it a speedy review so that it can be added to a queue within the next few days. Prioryman (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Doing now. I need about 10 minutes to finish as of time of writing. (Half done.) --LauraHale (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2012 (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) 22:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This is due in about 15 minutes now and still hasn't been seen to. Anyone with admin powers free?
Done, though someone will need to clean up the counters. --Rschen7754 23:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Seton Medical Center

I've raised this at Main Page Errors already as it has serious issues and is on the front page. The hook says:

... that Seton Medical Center was fined $100,000 when the cap of the breathing tube of an elderly woman was left on, suffocating the patient?

while the article says

In 2012 the hospital was fined $US 100,000 for causing the death of an elderly female patient by improperly installing a feeding tube in a manner that prevented her from exhaling.

I can't find the nomination (everything's been rearranged since I last did a DYK) to check how this happened.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The nomination is here: [[1]]
The cited source for that information in the article says "after a patient in a vegetative state suffocated when a nurse failed to remove a cap on her breathing tube", which is basically what the hook says. A later paragraph gives more detail: "When a vocational nurse changed the woman's tube on June 24, she failed to remove a cap ... With the cap on, the woman could not exhale." Perhaps the problem is with the article, but the hook accurately reflects the news source. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is with the article. The original proposed hook mentioned a feeding tube; it was pointed out that that didn't make sense, and an alt (the current hook) was promoted. I guess the article was never amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
It hadn't been amended until I got to it shortly after writing the above; it now says breathing tube. However, alt hook or no, the DYK should not have been approved until the article had also been corrected. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Error on front page

There is an error in the last hook currently on the front page, that for Mitchell Red Cloud, Jr., in that the word "action" is included twice by mistake. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I've copied this to WP:ERRORS. —Bruce1eetalk 12:33, 23 March 2012 (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) 14:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Group theatre of Kolkata in Prep 4

I see two significant problems with the nomination of Template:Did you know nominations/Group theatre of Kolkata. The first is that the article has an entire section that is not only unreferenced, against DYK guidelines, but that "Prominent theatre personalities" section even has an "Unreferenced section" template on it. The second is that the hook has a phrase that is incomprehensible in context: "that arose contrasting with". It's effectively meaningless without explaining what the contrast is based on: is it the size of the stage, the color of the buildings, the number of actors in a show? At best, a reader can conclude that there's something different about Group theatre, but that's far from being an effective hook. I would probably try to avoid the blah word "contrast" with something more catchy and clear.

I think this hook should be withdrawn until it can be fixed, and before this set gets pushed into a queue. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Contributor not credited with DYK

I credited a user with joint participation in the creation of a DYK, because the user added a new section to the article and contributed a distribution map. However, the user subsequently did not receive the credit. Although the user reviewed the nomination, I added him/her as a joint creator after the review was completed, so there was no conflict of interest. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

For future reference, if you want to give someone else credit for joint creation of a DYK nom that already exists, you need to add them to a {{DYKmake}} template in the nom, which in this case would read {{DYKmake|Chilean jack mackerel|Obsidian Soul}}. That template is transferred to the prep area and queue, where it tells the bot (or the admin who manually updates DYK) who to give credits to.
Regarding this specific situation, I have copied the DYK credit from your talk page onto Obsidian Soul's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2012 (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) 06:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Titanic weekend next month

April 14/15 is the centenary of the Titanic disaster, which will be the subject of the Main Page featured article of the day (Sinking of the RMS Titanic) on April 15. In conjunction with that, there are going to be a number of new and expanded articles on the topic and related matters. Four are currently listed in the special occasion holding area at T:TDYK#April 14/15 (Titanic disaster anniversary). They have not yet been approved (and only one so far has been reviewed). However, we should have enough soon to have one Titanic-related article per queue for the centenary weekend, which I think will mean six articles in total (assuming six rotations in two days). The anniversary will result in a huge amount of traffic to Titanic-related articles, so these DYKs will certainly attract a lot of interest. Are people OK with that suggestion? Prioryman (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I might have one.--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm okay with the suggestion for a special DYK section, but it is premature to move any DYKs to such a holding section before they are reviewed and passed. The current four should be returned to their original dates. Do put a note with each nomination stating that it is intended for the Titanic anniversary, so they can be moved upon approval. By moving them now, you make them less likely to be reviewed rather than more. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Should we do something on 11/12th? When the ship set sail? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Project from Wikipedia India

Hello, I wanted to introduce a project from Indian Wikipedia, based on this site http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Taj_India.ogv Have fun! :)

Best --Juliana (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, if you want to do any DYK about India, please do get in touch with me, User:Ansumang, User:AroundTheGlobe, User:MikeLynch. All of us are interested in Indian content, and would love to help out. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

A general thought

A further thought stemming from the section above (with apologies if this has been brought up before - I suspect it might have, but searching all those archives is beyond me at the moment). I really don't like the "The DYK section publicizes new or expanded articles" restriction on DYKs, for a couple of reasons...

  • There are zillions of interesting facts in Wikipedia that we could be using to generate front page interest, but many of them are in older and mature articles - I think the aim should be more towards attracting readers, not publicizing new articles. "Did you know that Tycho Brahe had a silver and gold nose, employed a clairvoyant dwarf named Jepp, and kept a pet moose that died after getting drunk and falling down stairs?" would be great, but we can't have it because the article is not new and has not been recently expanded.
  • Basing it on new/expanded articles emphasises "DYK collecting" above informing and entertaining our readers, leading to people working to get their DYK counts up rather than looking for the best snippets amongst the the masses of great stuff we already have.

Any thoughts? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK is not for random "Gee whiz" facts -- anybody with a free website can highlight those. The emphasis on new articles is intended to highlight new content and encourage creation of more good new content. --Orlady (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I've never viewed that as a "restriction", but instead the "point" of DYK. I've always thought that DYK was designed to showcase new articles, doing so with interesting snippets to attract readers. Harrias talk 20:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I know that's the way it currently is, What I'm suggesting that is not optimum. I think the front page should be used for attracting readers, not writers - I think it's too high profile to be aimed at anything but readers. Are the window displays of major stores arranged to attract new employees? Of course not - they're there to attract new customers. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Also, I don't think readers who are attracted to a DYK would care whether the associated article was written yesterday or three years ago - I seriously doubt the "From Wikipedia's newest content:" bit makes much, if any, difference to most people. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
How would you propose it worked? Would there be a minimum level of quality from the article (some sort of reviewed B class for instance - possibly by the trusted DYK folks ;) ) or would facts be able to be drawn from any article as long as it met MOS and referencing requirements? Harrias talk 20:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I really have no idea of the details at the moment - but I think getting bogged down in detail would be a mistake anyway. Let's see if there's any support for re-examining the purpose of DYK first - detail won't matter if there isn't. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a grand idea. Expanding the scope wouldn't preclude submitting new or recently expanded articles, it would just open up additional possibilities and get more exposure for mature and more mainstream articles. We're not there yet, but we're on a trajectory where at some point in the future, there will only be trivial or extremely obscure articles left to create or expand. So the content at DYK will get ever more ridiculous as time passes. Maybe it will take 5 years or 10 years, but it will happen. And about your window display analogy, I'd argue they serve dual purposes. They're to attract customers, but they're also to serve as motivation for clothing designers to create clothes that might get put in the window, thus increasing their reputation. --Laser brain (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there are some good points there about window displays - but I do think the focus of the front page should be predominantly aimed at readers. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I personally agree, except I don't see it as very strongly linked to the problem described above. A bad blurb can just as easily be created from an old article. All the same, if there's support for the idea, why not? FormerIP (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it was the blurb that was the problem above - I think it was that new articles are becoming associated more and more with news, and a news story like that was just a poor DYK subject. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
It would be interesting to quantify that, actually. The first step towards changing something is to understand where you are starting from. From there you can decide where you want to go and how to get there. Resolute 23:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
We had a huge series of debates a year or so ago where these and other questions were considered; I don't think there's much an appetite for re-opening the issue for a while. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, it might be too soon to re-examine this again. But I think Laser brain is right that we will need some change at some time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I have to disagree that we will run out of valid encyclopedia topics, or even come close to doing so, any time soon. I'm frequently appalled at how poor our coverage is. In any case, a significant number of DYKs are expansions - frequently of one- or two-line stubs. Perhaps realizing that it includes such necessary expansions makes it easier to comprehend why we still need to encourage new content? I'm very much against turning Did You Know into just a list of "quirky facts". Its strength is that it both showcases interesting information and encourages content creation. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Yngvadottir, Johnbod and Orlady that there is no reason or need to change what DYK is. It has been discuees quite recently by contibutors and participants in the project with the consensus being no change is warranted.--Kevmin § 22:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
How do you propose to prevent a repetition if this fiasco then? The editor concerned doesn't accept that they made a poor decision, they are extremely experienced and as far as I can see a contributor of a wide range of good stuff. The process / criterion that permits such a posting is plainly inadequate, otherwise why are so many editors in good standing raising concerns? Leaky Caldron 22:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
To be honest I do not see any problem that needs changing when it comes to the availability of articles that qualify for DYK, which is what this section of discussion is about. This section is not discussing the Gemma McCluskie hook but about changing the scope of articles eligible to be nominated for DYK.--Kevmin § 23:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I firmly believe that any talk of Wikipedia being "complete" or "no more encyclopedic topics exist" is unforgivably Anglo-centric. I am an Indonesiaphile, which comes in part from living there, and look at the redlinks here, here, here, and so forth. All very notable, most without articles. That's not even counting award winning films from Asian countries (Jamila and the President was submitted to the Academy Awards, and is still a redlink). Then we have notable works of literature, many of which I've easily gotten to GA class (Sitti Nurbaya, Belenggu, Saman, and hopefully Atheis soon). There are tons which don't have articles on either the English or Indonesian Wikipedia.
Yesterday I was at a presentation about the Lontar Foundation's collaboration with Wikimedia Indonesia to write about Indonesian writers and related subjects. One of the attendees, a former magazine editor, asked why Wikipedia's coverage of Indonesian history was so poor. I must agree, it's terrible. The article for Trisakti shootings didn't exist until I wrote it, the articles on the presidents are mostly a mess, wars and kingdoms either don't have articles or have tiny stubs. Let's not get started on cultural topics...
Clearly there are many more articles which could be written, as the above story surely applies to many countries as well, with their own heroes, film industry, literature, etc. DYK can keep its current vision; we just need to get rid of our anglo-centric ideas. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not enough for those gaps to exist, though. Someone's got to be filling them. FormerIP (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
That's what our prolific DYKers, like Crisco above, are doing. If you watch the noms here, whole categories of topics are slowly being filled out. Wonderful series of Bach cantatas, racehorses, English country churches, extinct crustaceans, emerging-world journalists, national historic places of the U.S., hurricanes, earthquakes, australian athletes, etc. The DYK sensibility is part of the ethos that allowed Wikipedia to achieve its already staggering breadth of coverage. I think it's really neat. The Interior (Talk) 02:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly. I've spent the better part of a year filling in gaps, mostly on Indonesian topics. It struck me the other day when I was writing Wim Umboh how many of the linked articles I created (probably 90% of the biographies linked). Same goes with the biographies linked from the Chrisye article. However, I'm only one editor, and I like variation. That's how one day I'll write about a novel, the next about a dangdut singer known for her sexually-charged performances, and the next about a mosque. If I were to sit for three weeks in a row filling in the heroes template, I'd go mad. (Always nice to see one of the articles I wrote linked here without being the topic of a very angry discussion) Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If DYK is to encourage new articles, why does it need to be in the DYK format? Having a section on the main page titled "New articles" would work and while the case that lead to this discussion might still be inappropriate it would not have had the same impact if it was not in the DYK format. It can still present interesting information e.g. Prince Antasari (pictured): a sultan of Banjar who led a war against Dutch colonists for over three years before dying from smallpox, but readers will not have the expectation that it should be quirky or unusual. If DYK is still used on the main page it could be slowed down and specifically showcase fun or interesting facts. AIRcorn (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea - fewer dyks (or new articles) with a somewhat expanded format like Aircorn is suggesting. As it is now, many dyks don't make much sense in the current 150 word (or whatever it is) format; there's not enough info to draw the reader in and encourages misleading hooks, leading to disappointment when clicking on the article to read. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this idea. A hook should be a hook; a dry, simple statement of a new article's contents would have no real purpose and no attraction to click on. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Bushranger. I rarely, if ever, read a DYK, ITN, OTD or TFA entry unless its presentation actually interests me, simply highlighting "this thing exists" doesn't do that for me. And while I don't usually claim to be a good yardstick, I doubt my stance is a rare one. I always try to make the effort to write interesting hooks, and when I get round to writing a blurb for a TFA I've got in mind, I'll similarly want to highlight the interesting aspects of the thing, rather than dryly stating "here's a thing". A project built on volunteer interest should try to foster interest. GRAPPLE X 19:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
What are you strongly opposing, the whole point of this is to have strong hooks? I also don't understand how adding a "that" before a statement and a "question mark" after it turns something dry into something interesting. In any case the current DYKs don't really convey interesting facts. For example what makes that the disappearance of Rebecca Coriam from the Disney Wonder (pictured) one year ago today was the first such incident in the history of Disney Cruise Line? interesting? While I am glad that it is the first such incidence it is not really surprising, a better hook would contain three or even two such occurrences. DYK and New Articles are two different beasts and not every new article is conjusive to the DYK format. In my opinion the first requirement of DYK should be interesting hooks and that will generally mean finding interesting articles. Presently we confine it to a certain group that meet minimum requirements and aim to publish as many as possible. There is a place for that on the main page, but it does not need to be DYK. If the new articles are interesting they will have intersting descriptors, if not then at least the reader won't be tricked or misled. AIRcorn (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
a better hook would contain three or even two such occurrences - and if there aren't any? Also, quoting from the Main Page: "Did you know...From Wikipedia's newest content:" - nothing there says "Wikipedia's newest interesting content", "Wikipedia's newest intriguing content", or anything of the sort. It says "Wikipedia's newest content", period, and asks "did you know...?" Saying that readers are somehow being "tricked or misled" if a hook isn't "intriguing" or "interesting" is preposterous. A hook should be interesting and intriguing, but interesting is in the eye of the beholder (or, perhaps, from a certain point of view). - The Bushranger One ping only 21:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
You are missing my point. I am talking about having a DYK that focuses on interesting hooks and another section that focuses on new articles. While interesting is subjective, so is ITN, OTD and what article to feature so that is not insurmountable. It is different to the current set up so your quotes from the main page are irrelevant. I never said an uninteresting hook tricks the reader, if anything I was implying the opposite. AIRcorn (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
What empiric test do you suggest for determining if a hook is "interesting" enough though?--Kevmin § 22:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no empiric test for stuff like this. I would suggest doing what they do at ITN to determine if a news item is newsworthy enough; suggest it, discuss it, oppose or accept it. If you only have one a day and a queue it should work. AIRcorn (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
This is different from what happens here at DYK how? If a hook is not interesting enough/to bland, the reviewers often ask for an alt hook or suggest one themselves.--Kevmin § 23:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The difference is that you don't have to look for an alt hook in the article, but an alt article. AIRcorn (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

So nominators would only get one chance to provide a hook they thought was interesting, and if it was rejected by an unspecified group of reviewers, who may or may not have an interest in the subject of hte article, the article would no longer be eligible for nomination??--Kevmin § 23:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This is just in the idea stage, but yes I would imagine it would be something like that. The nominator makes their case and then people comment on it. I don't know what the eligibility rules would be, I would think obvious ones would be one DYK per article and that it would have to meet certain quality standards. If one hook gets rejected then there may be cause to put forward another one during the discussion or initiate a new discussion with a new hook. Maybe more than one can be offered for consideration at the same time. The exact details can always be worked out later. The general idea here (and for most DYKs outside Wikipedia) is to concentrate on articles that present interesting facts. AIRcorn (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Strangely enough this sounds almost exactly like what is already happening regularly at DYK. I see no need to change it when the changes are not actually changing anything.--Kevmin § 08:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
No, it is actually quite a bit different. AIRcorn (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think people who have an interest in any of the sections on the Main Page sometimes overestimate readers' interest in it. I know when I want to look something up, I Google it and go from there to the Wikipedia article that pops up. I'm a more frequent visitor to the Main Pages of foreign-language Wikipedias, when checking what they say about something or whether they have an article on it, and I hardly look at those Main Pages at all - I'll note what the Featured Article is, but other than that I'm looking at the search box. In any event, I have to disagree with the assumption that Did You Know has as its primary purpose presenting fun, gee-whiz facts. It's not the Quirky News section of Yahoo!. It's two things: a showcase of new articles (illustrating our breadth and hard work - and incidentally reminding people that this encyclopedia grows every day; surveys have shown some readers are still unaware they can edit) and a fun thing. I support keeping it as that combination, including stuff that is icky weird, scary weird, and important weird as well as fun weird, because this is an encyclopedia. One of the primary functions of encyclopedias is to inform about things one didn't even know existed. (Another, of course, is to inform about things one deliberately looks up, which is why we need both new articles and improvement of existing articles). Yngvadottir (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Voice UK

Hi, I really need this nomination (Template:Did you know nominations/The Voice UK) moved to the front of the queue. It really has to be moved there as the show is airing for the first time tomorow, and it will be pointless otherwise. Also in the DYK it states, "airing on 24 March on BBC One at 7:00" Which means that if it was on the main page on Sunday for instance, it would be pointless. Many thanks, — M. Mario (T/C) 21:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit dubious about the hook to be honest; it seems to be in breach of WP:NOTADVERTISING: while it may not be intended as such, the hook appears to me to be direct promotion of the show. Harrias talk 22:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I have edited it now. It does not specifically promote the show as no channel, nor time is given. — M. Mario (T/C) 10:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I have sent this to a numerous amount of users as time is running out. Please may it be inserted into the queue now? — M.Mario (T/C) 10:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I have gone for the first ALT1, so please could it be inserted into the front of the queue? — M.Mario (T/C) 12:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the article, the show will run for 11 weeks. There will be plenty of opportunities to run the hook while the show is still a current topic. That will give time to fix issues with the hook(s) and the article. --Orlady (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 2: Theodor Rowehl

I'm grateful that this was plucked from the nominations page and stuck in the next queue, but the hook was reworded and is no longer accurate. The sources don't tell me when he started his photoreconnaissance flights, and there was certainly some gap after World War I, hence the vague "initially"; also they remained the only German strategic aerial photoreconnaissance for some time after the Abwehr hired him, which is what the hook reference actually says, so it's also misleading to refer in the hook to them being self-financed. Can it be put back the vaguer way it originally was, please? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

My fault. I put this into the next queue to fill a hole that was left when another hook was removed and not replaced. I've now swapped it into Queue 2 so that there will be time to discuss the wording before it goes to the main page.
The wording of the nominated hook (... that initially Theodor Rowehl's high-altitude flights were Germany's only strategic aerial photoreconnaissance after World War I?) bothered me. Specifically, both "initially" and "after World War I" are time references, and it seems odd having two separate time references in this short hook. Reading the hook in isolation, I would want them to come together, e.g., "initially after World War I". Your statement that there was some gap after the war leads me to think that the words "initially" and "after World War I" are both inappropriately misleading, as is my suggested substitution of "in the years after World War I". It appears that his flights began some time after the 1921 establishment of the Franco-Polish alliance, he started being paid for his work in 1930, and by 1932 he was no longer entirely a one-man operation. Would it be accurate to say "for a period beginning in the 1920s", or is it possible that he didn't start until 1930?
As for the "self-financed" part, I got that from the article, and one of the snippet views of page 116 of the Kahn book clearly supports my notion that his operation was self-financed at first. It reads: "Entirely on his own, he tried it. On clear Sundays and holidays, he hired a private plane and flew it at 13,000 ft above the forbidden areas. No one caught him. When he had enough pictures, the 26-year-old airman showed them to the authorities. They were dumbfounded -- and pleased. 'I can do more if you provide the money for it,' Rowehl told them. 'I don't have a thick enough wallet myself.'" (Confusingly, that snippet says he was 26, when he would have been 36 in 1930.) For me, the fact that he started doing this on his own initiative, without governmental involvement, was a very interesting aspect of the article.
Here's one suggestion for revised wording that does not mention "self-financing" and does not require any specificity on timing:
  • ... that during a period between World Wars I and II, Theodor Rowehl's high-altitude flights were Germany's only strategic aerial photoreconnaissance? --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • removed a doubled "and" from the above suggested revision. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that would be accurate and interesting, although with the "initially" goes the fact that he single-handedly restarted German aerial reconnaissance. The problem is nobody is saying when exactly he started and when exactly the Abwehr gave him an assistant (or whether that meant just somebody to develop the photos; or that by the time Patzig got the top job the Abwehr also had someone doing non-photo reconnaissance, with binoculars). This is why the original version was vague about dates. (Kahn makes other peculiar errors, too, but in any case subtracting his year of birth would have been OR and very naughty.) The on his own initiative is certainly interesting, but I wanted if possible to reference not just Kahn ... and I also wanted it to be as neutral as possible. This was extremely illegal. Maybe simply:
  • ... that Theodor Rowehl's volunteer high-altitude flights in a rented plane were the first German strategic aerial reconnaissance after World War I? ...... or with a bit more context:
  • ... that Theodor Rowehl was performing the only German strategic aerial photoreconnaissance for a while even after the Abwehr started paying him?
Or here's one I rejected as too rah-rah or too lengthy:
  • ... that Theodor Rowehl spent his weekends single-handedly restarting German strategic aerial reconnaissance after World War I, photographing from a rented plane that had set a world altitude record? (199 chars.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining your thinking, Yngvadottir. I like "that Theodor Rowehl's volunteer high-altitude flights in a rented plane were the first German strategic aerial reconnaissance after World War I?", so I'll put those words in queue 2. --Orlady (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Good deal, thanks! But unless I am going addled, you left out the word "were" and "volunteer". Yngvadottir (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Highlighting the fact that "volunteer" still needs to be added before "high-altitude", and "were" needs to be added after "rented plane". Right now, the hook doesn't quite make sense. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 6: Tom Cruise

The untitled Tom Cruise project hook in Queue 5 has been formatted incorrectly—the article title is a descriptive placeholder, not a film title, and as such it should not be in italics, nor should "untitled" or "project" begin with capital letters. GRAPPLE X 18:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Orlady (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Prep 1 Very Tough Love overlong

The hook for item 5 in Prep 1, "Very Tough Love", is not only 219 characters long including spaces, well beyond the maximum for a hook, but it would be 221 characters with the quotes added around it—as the title of a television program, it should have them. A new, reduced-length hook is clearly indicated. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the hook length, I am also concerned that the hook might have a focus too much on negative aspects of a living individual, Amanda Williams, making it less-than-ideal material for use on MainPage, per WP:WIADYK, Eligibility criteria 4a. --PFHLai (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I've shortened the hook to"... that a judge in the Supreme Court of the U.S. state of Georgia was prompted to resign after "Very Tough Love" was aired on the radio show This American Life?" Let's not have a hook that is effectively saying "Amanda Williams is in trouble" on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I've had to edit your new hook: Williams was a Superior Court judge, not a Supreme Court judge (two very different things). And since Superior Court judges aren't elected statewide, I think "Superior Court judge in the U.S. state of Georgia" is an adequate wording, and lets us avoid more complicated (and precise) wording. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing my error, BlueMoonset. --PFHLai (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Attention Queue 2

Lifeboats of the RMS Titanic is in queue #2, shouldn't it have been held for April 14 Titanic anniversary?--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The author wanted it on the main page well in advance so that it would benefit from all the extra eyes; the idea being that it will be in better condition when the TFA blurb on April 14 links to it. GRAPPLE X 22:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe not per discussion above. I don't understand it, but maybe early on purpose. Sorry.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 2: Des Abbott

"that Kookaburra player Des Abbott": the kookaburra is neither a sport nor a musical instrument: it is not something that is played. The rest of the hook makes clear the team, the country and the sport, so the nickname is superfluous. Suggest start the hook with that Des Abbott and leave the rest as it is. Kevin McE (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Agreed was unneeded and removal was fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 2: Titanic lifeboats

The two mysterious children were not orphans. According to the article, their father (who died in the sinking) took them on the boat without the permission of their mother. Their identity was unknown for a while, but they were re-united with their mother within a month of the incident. They were, therefore, not orphans. Kevin McE (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

They were known as the "Titanic Orphans". I think this can be resolved quite simply by amending the hook to read two mysterious "orphans" (quotation marks to show that the term was used about them, rather than being a literal description of them). Prioryman (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't bring it here because it was difficult to fix, but because it is only within the power of an admin to fix it. Kevin McE (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Indeed - main reason I became an admin was mainspace editing that tools are required for (which is moves requiring deletion and undeletion, history merging, protecting and editing protected pages....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
quotation marks added Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Cas. Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 3: Kwakiutl

The hook has the phrase "behind plants", which not only doesn't make much sense in context, but is not in the article's text at all and seems based on the article's photo. As the photo doesn't give any clear idea of the size or layout of the conservatory the statue is in, using the phrase strikes me as WP:OR at best, and inappropriate in any event.

Suggest deleting "behind plants" and the commas surrounding "into a greenhouse" so it reads sensibly.

The whole hook is a bit of a stretch, as the controversy had been ongoing for a score of years even before it was decided to move the statue to the park (though there is no confirmation that it did), and if so there's a 17-year period when it could have moved from the outdoors to inside the conservatory. Whether it was controversy that caused the move indoors is not actually stated. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

How about: "... that the statue Kwakiutl, currently on display in a greenhouse in Brampton, Ontario, was previously placed at the doors of municipal offices, where his genitals raised a flap?" --PFHLai (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I think "his genitals raised a flap" is a rather poor choice of words - some might take it literally, and assume they were attached to some sort of door-opening mechanism... :D AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
"Caused a stir"? Or would that bring to mind some sort of soup-preparing process? "Raised eyebrows"? That one doesn't even bear thinking about...FormerIP (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I've got it: "smacked people in the face". It's the perfect solution. FormerIP (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm actually not entirely sure the statue was ever placed at the doors of the municipal offices; the article is unclear on the subject. It gives information about the 1972 unveiling and states "It was originally intended to be placed at the doors of the Chinguacousy Township municipal offices." They weren't open yet, and the article doesn't say it actually was placed there. How's this variant:
  • ... that the statue Kwakiutl, currently on display in a public park greenhouse in Brampton, Ontario, was originally set to be sited at local municipal offices before his genitals raised a flap? exposed genitals caused controversy?
I thought about using the name "Chinguacousy Park" or introducing the fact that it was intended for Chinguacousy Township, but much as I like the name it was just too confusing to deal with the fact that the township the statue was made for actually ceased to exist in 1973 when it was split and the statue ended up in the part that went to Brampton. Thus the vague "local municipal offices", since it ended up at the Chingacousy branch of the Brampton library for almost twenty years before moving to the park, and the article doesn't say what happened to the new township offices that were being built—were they finished, did they actually open?—before the breakup of the township made them unnecessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Can we please change "... before his genitals raised a flap" to "before his exposed genitals caused controversy"? It seems to be their exposure that was the problem - and this avoids any ambiguity or double entendres. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
In all seriousness, yes I agree. We need to quickly whip it out. FormerIP (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with the less "cute" wording (and I expect the double entendre was deliberate), though it makes the hook a bit less useful in the final, less serious spot of the set. The hook will be 200 characters on the nose with the change, which is the maximum for DYKs. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, whipped out updated the hook above. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you had, someone must have reverted - it is now showing on the main page... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Not being an admin, I could only fix the wording here (hence "above") and hope an admin would see it. Unfortunately, no admin stopped by to change it in the queue, so I now have a note at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors with the request that the main page be fixed accordingly. It's now up to whoever stops by there that also has the permissions to edit the main page, and people with that ability are even fewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

October Baby on Prep 3

Is everyone okay with this on MainPage? The 2011 film's national release date was only a few days ago. (The article still says "is scheduled for March 23"...) Regardless of the hook's content, putting it on MainPage seems to me like free exposure and "frontpage advertising" for the new movie. --PFHLai (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered about this when I saw it. Where's that admin who's been objecting whenever a DYK is about a company? .... But IMO it's more a reflection of recentism than a DYK problem. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I edited the timing-related wording in the article. I don't find the hook particularly promotional, but YMMV. --Orlady (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup bot

Is there a bot which cleans up incomplete and orphan DYK noms? I've found Template:Did you know nominations/Twinings which was created a month ago but hasn't been commented on, so I don't think that the item was ever listed at T:TDYK. BTW it fails because article was neither new, nor substantially expanded in the five days prior to the creation of that nom. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is: see this section on the nominator's talkpage. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, but if that person then does nothing... then what? Seems to me that the nom is still in limbo. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Prep 2: East to West – already on Wikipedia front page!

The hook states "received 78 adds in its first week", and the same wording is used in the article. The problem is that the term "adds" is not explained, is not linked, and needs to be explained (see WP:JARGON). I suspect it means that 78 radio stations decided to add it to their playlists in the first week of the song's official release (as a single?), but I don't know and the article doesn't say, using the "adds" wording in the lede and the body. The jargon in the hook should be replaced, and also replaced or explained in the article itself. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It's on the main page now. I'd change the wording if I knew what it was supposed to mean.
Please note that anyone can edit the prep areas; if you have this kind of concern about a hook, take it upon yourself to do what needs to be done to fix it. --Orlady (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This hook is already on the Wikipedia main page with only three hours left to run, and was not addressed. If I knew what to ask for I'd put in for a main page error correction, but I don't what the phrasing should be.
It seems that following the "rule" that discussion go here or the article's talk page is not working; the only thing that reliably does work is pulling the nomination out of the prep area and back to regular nomination status, where there's time to properly fix the issue. Hooks are pulled all the time for late-discovered close paraphrasing concerns; if there are serious questions that can't be fixed by simple editing, can the hook be withdrawn until it does? Lately, with the queue regularly empty and only a prep area or two ready to go, there isn't long enough for matters like this to properly be dealt with. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
(adding to note edit conflict above—I hadn't noticed Orlady's post—and my dilemma): Okay, I guess that means if, like you, Orlady, I couldn't figure out what it was supposed to say, then I should have withdrawn it from the prep area until someone with more knowledge could fix the hook (and the article). Next time I shall do that. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Lets simply introduce a new section for recently passed Good articles

Listening to the arguments against including GA articles in with DYKs above, why not then have a small section as Grapple X suggested highlighting recently passed GAs of the "Recently listed good articles" as we see on WP:GA or a snippet like on Spanish wikipedia underneath or above the DYK section? This is probably not the right place to propose that, can somebody point me where it would be? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if there is any way we modify the front page so that it loads different entries each time you refresh the page. Go away from quarterly updates and basically allow more articles (DYK and GA) to stay up for longer periods of time. Resolute 14:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I like Dr. Blofeld's idea for three reasons.
  1. it would link GA to the main page
  2. which can stimulate "production" of GAs
  3. and what is also very important, it would practically introduce supervision of GARs which would probably be necessary before recently reviewed GA is linked to the main page (similar to DYK procedures) - I myself whitnessed many problematic GARs so I think it could really improve future GARs.
I think that Resolute's idea is also very good but only if it can be applied for already reviewed DYKs and GAs. Maybe it would be better to give opportunity to the readers who would like to read another random DYK or GA to just click to the button which would refresh not the whole main page but only the part with such historical GA or DYK? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 1: Henry Kellers

We do not ordinarily post the rank of people, even if they were serving members of armed forces at the time of their hook-featured achievement (see Theodore Rowehl and Ian Molyneaux in the last 24 hours), and Kellers' page is not named with any rank, but even if we do, is there a reason for abbreviating Lieutenant to Lieut.? Kevin McE (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed "Lieut." from the hook. --PFHLai (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Gemma McCluskie

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Are the morons responsible for 'did you know' on the main page out of their f***ing minds?. I shall be calling for all those responsible to be held accountable, and banned from any further interaction with the main page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't formed an opinion on what should be done, but the original nomination is at Template:Did you know nominations/Gemma McCluskie. MBisanz talk 15:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
This did appear to me to be a serious error of judgement and the speedy removal from the main page a justifiable action to take. The DYK review process must take account of WP:Biographies of living persons#Deceased and this means that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment", this includes consideration for how any sensationalist representation might affect McCluskie's family. I know that many experienced editors contribute to DYK, so I would appreciate a thoughtful explanation of what went wrong here and how it will be avoided in the future. --Fæ (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
My own thoughts on this are that the hook itself was fine, but the choice of topic for the following factoid was highly inappropriate. To my mind that should clearly have been in a different queue. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
And you don't consider WP:Biographies of living persons#Deceased relevant here? Even while they are still recovering body parts from the canal? [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
(reply to Paul MacDermott) I am not convinced the hook was fine. She was murdered and her brother has been charged, her headless torso was unidentified for several days. None of these key facts was mentioned in the DYK fragment and none of these key facts was a hook which were only her name, her main character's name and EastEnders. I agree that placement of any potentially sensationalist headline would require careful judgement and discussion to comply with BDP. --Fæ (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
We've had other current murder investigation articles featured on DYK before, and the hook says nothing that isn't in the public domain, but when you put it in the above context it does seem less of a wise move to have nominated this one. Personally I wouldn't have put it forward because I don't see it as being front page encyclopedia material, but I guess we're all different, and everyone wants to get their stuff promoted no matter how macabre the topic. An article I recently nominated, Murder of Jacqueline Thomas concerns a murder that happened in 1961 which was only solved a few years ago, and I felt that did meet the criteria. Maybe what we have to do is establish some clear guidelines on what is and what is not appropriate for the content of a DYK. Maybe anything that is currently the subject of an investigation should be out, or a rule that a certain number of months/years must have lapsed for certain topics to be included. Say two years. So, Jacqueline Thomas would be fine because it happened half a century ago, but Gemma McCluskie wouldn't because it happened a few weeks ago. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
We don't need 'guidelines', we need common sense, and good editorial judgement. Given that this DYK nomination seems to have been motivated by efforts to win the WikiCup [3], rather than by concerns for the reputation of Wikipedia, it seems blindingly obvious that such judgement is lacking. If we can't trust DYK contributors to show common sense, we should get rid of it entirely. Far too often it is full of dubious 'factoids' that are of little relevance to article content anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how DYK works but I think this was the flow:

At what point is someone supposed to notice that it's utterly inappropriate? --Laser brain (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I've notified the contributors named above of this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Amazing. I've seen DYK misused to publicise fringe stuff, but this is inexcusable. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
This was a very, very unfortunate lapse of judgement from all concerned. I don't think there's any excuse for it. The question is what needs to be done to prevent a repetition? Prioryman (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I'd be happy for the DYK section to be removed from the front page entirely - but this isn't the appropriate place for that debate. Meanwhile, I'd like to see an explanation from those responsible as to why they considered this appropriate - though frankly, anyone capable of such an error of judgement should'n be let within a mile of the main page. Given the near-unanimous agreement that this was inappropriate, and the fact that this will have been seen by thousands of readers, this can only have resulted in harm to Wikipedia's reputation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Well I complained about gay pornographic articles appearing on a Saturday morning/afternoon and nobody considered it an error of judgement or harmful to wikipedia's reputation so I don't know why this should, after all its been reported.. Few would give a damn what the McCluskie family might be feeling and think that reporting it would damage wikipedia's reputation in the same way having articles on grubby films about men having anal sex on the front page don't seem to bother anybody. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Some material removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Comment on the topic alone, don't forum shop. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Some more material removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC). ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Seriously, both of you: drop it. WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U respectively, if need be. This isn't the place. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like people reviewing it were more interested in technicalities like how many words were in the hook, rather than whether the topic was actually suitable - and in my opinion it blatantly wasn't. It was a very poor misjudgment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I mean, what do you expect? Two of'em are English wikipedia administrators... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
A few points:
  • I agree with AndyTheGrump (and others) that this DYK was inappropriate.
  • I agree with Boing! said Zebedee that the editors involved seemed to be more concerned with technicalities rather than whether this was appropriate.
  • We are all human and we all make mistakes.
  • Prioryman's question is the key: What needs to be done to prevent a repetition?
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding concern for technicalities, the DYK Rules are mostly concerned with technicalities such as length of page/hook etc. While there is a section on content, there is little about the "appropriateness" of content. There only content related rule which the hook might have run afoul of is "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided." There's several reasons why this may not have been thought of as an issue, the first of which is that she isn't a "living individual" anymore. Then there's a question of "unduly" (her murder is why she's been getting recent press, so is mentioning it "undue"?), and the definition of "negative" (is being found in a canal negative, or is it a neutral statement of facts?).
For what it's worth, I haven't seen anyone clearly said why the hook was wrong. There's been a large amount of outrage about it (to the point that banning people has been tossed around), but no one has articulated the specific properties of the hook which makes people feel it is inappropriate(*). Unless you can calmly and clearly state why you object to the hook to the point where neutral third parties understand and agree with it, you can't hope to make rules/procedures to keep it from happening again (and "I know inappropriate when I see it" doesn't cut it, even if you're committing to personally reviewing each entry for "appropriateness" from here to eternity.) For what it's worth, I don't have the same visceral objection to the hook that others seem to have. After I've heard the objections, I can understand that it might be questionable, but in all honesty, if I saw it in the absence of the objections, I probably wouldn't bat an eyelash. My guess is the others that reviewed it are probably in the same boat, but it's not conductive to dialog and consensus building when one side is calling you "morons ... out of their f***ing minds" and calling for you to be permanently banned from editing a certain area of Wikipedia, so I can see why others are reticent to speak up against the pro-pillory crowd. (For clarity, the first I've heard of the article or the hook is when I saw the shit storm erupt on Talk:Main Page.)
(*) The clearest I've seen articulated is that the hook violates WP:BLP#Deceased, but I'm still not clear what about the hook violates BLP. "material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends" is the only thing that might be relevant, and, again, I'm not sure how the hook runs afoul. I don't know what implications "found in a London canal five days after she disappeared" has for Gemma's family and friends - I presume they are already aware of that fact, and the fact is widely known, being as it's appeared in newspapers and such.
Short version: If you want to keep this from happening again, you have to calmly clarify what, precisely, made the DYK entry "inappropriate" in a way a disinterested third party can understand. -- 71.217.13.130 (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't participate in DYK so I'm not very familiar with the process. But it appears to me that many people could have objected to the use of this fact, and didn't, and the fact was allowable under the DYK criteria because this problem hadn't been foreseen and presumably hadn't come up before. If that's accurate, I don't see any reason to apply fault or penance to any specific editor(s), or to make any huge changes to the process because of this one instance. Add something to the criteria that would have raised a red flag here, and I'd presume that the DYK editors will be more conscious of this kind of problem if it comes up in the future. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It is important to note that the DYK hook states nothing that hasn't been front page news in the United Kingdom, and in a far more factual manner. While I agree that this probably shouldn't have appeared on the main page at this point, I think that the reaction is in fact an over-reaction. Certainly, to call for people to be banned from having anything to do with the main page is unnecessary. There are plenty of instances in which hooks are rejected for being inappropriate. In this case, presumably the editors looked at the information and saw a neutral, factual statement. I think it is grossly unfair to blame the WikiCup for the hook: just because someone is participating in the cup, it doesn't mean they are churning out anything they can in an effort to gain points. Let's assume some good faith here, and figure that User:Miyagawa expanded and nominated a page here for the improvement of the encyclopaedia. Remember also, that for users outside of the UK, this is unlikely to have been anything they were overtly aware of, and may not have been aware of how sensitive it could potentially be. But given that the BBC News has headlines such as "EastEnders actress Gemma McCluskie's 'arm found'" I don't think that the neutral manner in which our hook was presented is likely to cause a comparatively significant amount of harm. Harrias talk 17:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Let us put aside the possibility of blocking anyone (which I never agreed with). Now, considering the reaction this has received and so many experienced editors took one look at the main page and said this is a failure of editorial judgement, especially running it next to a DYK for National Masturbation Day, can you recommend any possible improvement so this will not happen again? --Fæ (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Just one point about "the DYK hook states nothing that hasn't been front page news in the United Kingdom" - Wikipedia is not the news, and DYK is not the news headlines. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Granted, and I wasn't trying to imply that Wikipedia was the news. Only that far more disturbing headlines had been presented across the British media (not just the tabloids), so the effect of Wikipedia, while certainly not helpful, isn't likely to be a major source of discomfort for the friends and family. I should emphasise that I'm not justifying the hook being posted, merely clarifying that I don't think it is as large an issue as some people do. But that is only my opinion. Harrias talk 19:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I get your point, and I do agree that the DYK was pretty tame compared to some of the lurid details that I expect were in the tabloids. I just think that including it in the DYK section, which is also used for fun facts, makes it look like it's being trivialized, and so has the potential for a different kind of offence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

IMO, this boils down to poor judgment. All this talk about 'well, we've done it in the past' just doesn't fly with me. It likely was inappropriate in the past, and it certainly was inappropriate in this instance. The fact that it was sandwiched between a DYK about a pop song and National Masturbation Day didn't help matters. But, beyond that minor point, this just isn't the place for putting such a story (and in such a crass manner, to boot.)

I'm not saying we should necessarily ban anyone. But, do we really need to enact a policy to account for something that should solved by simple common sense?JoelWhy (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that "common sense" is lacking even in the most highly experienced of editors. Leaky Caldron 17:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

This was a neutral, factual statement about the victim of a recent, brutal murder's body parts. It's blatantly inappropriate to make the hook about what body parts were found where. Regardless of what other news sources have already published, we're talking about what Wikipedia looks like for making this a front-page statement. We are not a tabloid.
An appropriate hook would have been simply, "X of TVSHOW fame was found murdered on DATE." Details about the mutilation of the body are not appropriate for our front page, both due to WP:BLP#Deceased and rather common sense. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Common sense is subjective. This is why the codification of laws came into being. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry to have contributed to the firestorm by having reviewed, what in my opinion was an honest, non-sensationalist hook. As I am not from the UK and a recent hook about the Chardon High School shooting was met without objection, I did not anticipate the outcry. Is the objection outright to the hook or the placement in the queue (I agree the pairing with National Masturbation Day was uncalled for)? In response to Hand, the hook did not mention dismembered or her brother as her killer (the apparent media frenzy surrounding the case is probably more distressing than anything DYK could do anyway) it simply said "body" and did not mention the mutilation. Froggerlaura ribbit 17:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    It's hard to actually say why it was objectionable, but it just struck me as one of those things that was in obvious bad taste and was obviously inappropriate as a front page ad for Wikipedia. I think DYK should be for things that make people stop and think, and say "Hey, I never knew that", and go away feeling more positive for knowing it. And I really don't think that a story about a grisly murder that is very recent and really rather emotive is the kind of "interesting fact" that we should be highlighting. The placement next to National Masturbation Day didn't help, but that wasn't the sole reason. (I didn't see the Chardon High School shooting one, but I suspect I might have had reservations about that too). People have been talking about what policies it might have broken, but I think that's missing the point - in addition to rule-following, what goes on the front page should also be subject to sensitive editorial judgement. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
See WP:BDP: "...material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, is covered by this policy. Questionable material that affects living persons should be removed promptly"... as opposed to using it for a DYK. I'd say the policy covers it. And even if it doesn't, I'd have thought it was blindingly obvious that this sort of tabloid headline doesn't belong on our main page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I think Zebedee is getting close to describing why it was inappropriate. The rhetorical tone set by DYK is "fun facts", and just casually mentioning that a body was found in a canal is not in fitting with that tone. It's insensitive to the family as well—if someone you loved was killed, you wouldn't want to visit an encyclopedia and see, "Hey, isn't this interesting? This person's body was found in a canal." --Laser brain (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • FWIW, the Chardon school shooting hook was about a disturbing incident, but the hook itself was in good taste (IMO): "... that a student witness to the Chardon High School shooting said her math teacher had a bulletproof vest in his classroom that he wore during the crisis?" --Orlady (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes, I think that helps take it more into the realm of "intriguing facts" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah, so if the same exact hook ran in ITN, would we be having this conversation? Maybe the problem is that all current events (within one month) should be posted to ITN and not here. Mea culpa. Froggerlaura ribbit 18:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it would have passed at ITN. It is extremely unlikely to have been considered important enough as a news story. After all, she didn't have an article before she died, or else this wouldn't have been a DYK candidate. FormerIP (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we would have this conversation, yes. It wouldn't be acceptable here after any length of time with an inquest and court case pending. Leaky Caldron 18:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it's the kind of thing that would suit ITN, yes. But I don't think DYK should be arranged around "events older than xxx" at all - it should be about the type of events, not the age of them. For example, a current event that unearthed a genuine fun and intriguing fact would be fine, but a straight report of a murder wouldn't, even if it's not immediately recent - there would need to be something special, unusual, intriguing in the event, and "dead, found dismembered in a canal" just doesn't fit the bill for me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how one deals with chronic failure of common sense, but it's pretty clear that more DYK reform is needed. Topic banning off all four of those involved for a month to send an unmistakable message might be appropriate, to my way of thinking. The main page has been the object of gaming in the past and that shit needs to stop. This may well be an honest failure to think. So if you're involved with DYK — START THINKING!!! Carrite (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    Such measures are meant to be preventative, not punitive. I see no justification for topic banning four volunteers to this project for a single mistake. And for those of you making the suggestion, can I presume you will involve yourself with reviewing to pick up the slack caused by such an action? Resolute 18:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    I also oppose sanctions against people making good faith mistakes. If the process is currently too geared toward technical reviewing, then the process needs adjusting. I think all it really needs is a clarification of what DYK facts are supposed to be for, and I think some aspect of "Interesting things that will brighten your day and make you come back to see what other intriguing information we have here" would be along the right lines. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What about having a specific rule barring the circumstances of recent deaths being mentioned in DYK? That wouldn't mean you couldn't have a DYK about someone who has recently died, just not about how it happened.

AFAICS, the only other alternatives would be to do nothing or to begin discussions about having a taste and decency guideline for front page content. In which case, please put a note on my grave to let me know the outcome. FormerIP (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need a "taste and decency guideline" so much as a "purpose" guideline. DYK should be for entertaining, inspiring and engaging readers, and making them want to come back and search for more amazing facts - the rest should follow. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I'm Miyagawa, the nominator of the DYK hook that has caused this entire incident. Firstly let me apologise for causing this whole mess, however I'm not about to apologise for anything to do with the hook itself, and here's why. Firstly, this was the hook:

... that the body of actress Gemma McCluskie, who played Kerry Skinner in the BBC soap opera EastEnders, was found in a London canal five days after she disappeared on 1 March 2012?

Note for those who are throwing around slurs by saying that the hook mentioned body parts - no, it did not. It specified "body". That was deliberate. It did not mention the decapitation or anything else to do with the hook, that would have been in extremely poor taste. Now if you type "Gemma McCluskie" into Google and watch the headlines - and I don't even need to refer to the tabloid press, you will find currently that the first hit is "Legs 'belonging to EastEnders actress' are latest body part to be found" from the Daily Mail. Then if you click on news, you get the BBC reporting "Arm found in Regent's Canal thought to belong to Gemma McCluskie‎". The hook is tame. Really tame. It makes no reference to the fact that the body was dismembered, and in fact was based on news from three weeks ago. The fact that it was placed above one regarding masturbation was just unfortunate. WP:BDP states that "However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, is covered by this policy. Questionable material that affects living persons should be removed promptly." There is no implication for their living relatives (and the idea of the work I did on the article was to ensure that it was all properly referenced) - nothing in the hook nor the article is new information, or has any implications for their living relatives. Anyway, I'm not going to say anything more on this subject as it'll only rile up the usual anti-DYK crowd. Miyagawa (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A question for you. Is the fact that you are currently competing in the WikiCup (see Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2012/Submissions/Miyagawa) of any relevance to your nomination of this DYK? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure that he planned to claim his five points for it and leave. If you followed the Cup, you'd know that this is not a significant sum of points. In any case, that's a question best saved for Miyagawa's or the Cup's talk page, as it's completely off topic here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that the WP:DYK policy should have weighed against this hook. I don't feel nearly as strongly about it as the OP, but "promoting" one side in an "ongoing dispute" is prohibited. A criminal trial is a dispute, and if you read the article you see a few sentences about the murder, in which the person accused but not proved to be the killer is named. I think that would disqualify the hook. Likewise any other hook about a recent criminal case should be evaluated carefully. The goal of DYK is to point out interesting facts to the reader, and usually what's interesting about a murder is not the condition in which the body was found, but the ongoing criminal trial. Wnt (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I saw this one on the nominations page . . . and this was why I didn't review it. I think it's predictable that it provoked horror in some people, and unfortunate that it was placed next to National Masturbation Day (although I think I would have had doubts about passing the latter if I had reviewed it, under the existing Did You Know standards. However, I do agree that the hook was as factual and non-sensationalist as it could be given the topic and the nature of the sources. It's sad there was nothing else interesting that culd be said about the actress. Heck of a way to have your career overshadowed. Perhaps a rule to avoid recent murders would be a good idea, because some people will find such things in shockingly poor taste no matter how neutrally written the article and the hook. But . . . I have to disagree most strongly that Did You Know should be about upbeat, feel-good facts. It's part of an encyclopedia. The facts of the world, and in any encyclopedia worth its name, are not all upbeat and feel-good. Did You Know should go right on reflecting the encyclopedia and the world in that respect. (In fact we have had 2 threads here recently arguing that anything positive about a company - or a current book - should be construed as advertising and such articles not allowed at DYK. Did You Know should not be a collection of sly digs and sensational hand-wringing. But neither should it be required to be all sweetness and light. That's not what an encyclopedia promotes. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
how is a body found in a canal a "fun fact" or even "interesting"? And this was a person who didn't have an article before the "fun fact"? And the article was created for the "fun fact" and to get the writer WikiCup points? Is that what dyk is about? I do see that some are very adept at collecting these dyks. Kinda defeats the purpose it seems to me, favoring longtime point collectors over new editors. Easy way to get points, especially if the "fun facts" are plucked from the daily news. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not suggesting that DYK should be "about upbeat, feel-good facts", but that it should be about intriguing, inspiring and enticing facts, which will draw people in to want to learn more - there's plenty of gruesome stuff that will fit that bill too, without the very poor taste exhibited in this case. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
What exactly was poor taste about the hook or the article?--Kevmin § 22:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, perhaps this is a side effect of my not being British or something, but I genuinely don't see what was so faint-dead-away offensive about this hook. Is it probably in mildly bad taste to use a hook about a murder so soon after it happened? Yeah. Was there anything offensive, libelous, BLP-violating, or legally problematic for the murder case contained in the hook? Not as far as I can tell, from across the pond in the USA. I'm thoroughly confused about why there seems to be genuine rage about this hook going up. DYK doesn't require a hook to be (as Boing! puts it) "intriguing, inspiring and enticing". It requires it to be interesting, cited, and from a new or newly-expanded article, all of which this hook appears to be, and all of which were verified in good faith by the users noted above. I see no reason why they should be attacked for having done so, especially since our front page regularly features mentions of "anal probe"s, "national masturbation day", and other content considered wildly inappropriate by large swathes of our readership. If we want DYK reviewers to police the good taste of hooks so that our main page can be "tasteful", we're going to have to come up with standards of whose taste they're intended to judge by - AndytheGrump's? Mine? People who have reviewed X number of uncontentious hooks? The problem with "tasteful" is that it's not clear what's rage-and-bannings distasteful about "the body of [person] was found in [place] on [date]" that's not equally distasteful about sexual hooks, hooks about people who have stalked Wikipedians, or putting Gropecunt lane on the front page. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

So you're arguing there should be no editorial judgement involved. In any case, there is some judgement already regarding which featured articles appear. The problem in this case is the context. Readers do not know what the DYK criteria are so will not be aware that it just meets some arbitrary criteria. The phrase "Did you know..." comes across as interesting tidbits, so putting a very recent murder in there is just wrong. I wouldn't say the same of ITN, or even (if it happened to become a featured article) TFA. From memory, Moors murders was TFA and that's one of the most emotive murder cases the UK has ever known, but there was barely any fuss about it. That's because it's not presented in an "Ooo, isn't this interesting" kind of way. Polequant (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
To be precise, at the moment, it is only an allegation that McCluskie was murdered - and our article shouldn't have been saying otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what the article said, but the hook didn't say she was murdered. SilverserenC 00:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Well the police are reporting it unequivocally as being a murder, and all the recent sources report it as a murder, so I don't see it as an 'allegation' at the moment. We reflect what the sources say after all. But this is by the by and should be discussed on the article really. Polequant (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what the issue is here. Is it because it discussed her death? Or that it mentioned her body was found in an alley? I don't understand what harm this does to the family, unless you're saying "publicizing" any info about her death is harming them, but that is something I would completely disagree with. The news is publicizing it far more than we ever could. What exactly is the issue here? SilverserenC 23:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It's the flip "Did you know (ha ha) ... that the body of so-and-so was found in an alley?" Is that really an interesting fact? Is it good for wikipedia that dyk prompts editors to create an article about a murdered person just to get the dyk points for the WikiCup? Gropecunt lane may have been a poor choice for the Main page and bespeaks the same poverty of content in FAs that dyk suffers from. But at least a great deal of editorial supervision went into that article. It was not created in a day and slapped onto the Main Page without a number of thoughtful editors weighing in. I'm amazed that dyk is allowed to continue. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • If the issue is that it wasn't interesting, that's a fine argument, but I really don't agree with the "recent deaths shouldn't be on DYK" thing. All new articles, regardless, should be allowed on DYK so long as they meet the criteria for length, sourcing, and all the rest of that junk. As for Gropecunt Lane, I especially disagree with you, I think it was a fine article to have on the front page, well written and researched. The "dirty words" issue, the same as with the recent South Park one, is really just a perfect example of prudishness, in my opinion. SilverserenC 23:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry that my promoting this hook to prep led to so much anger and outcry. I was not aware of the part about recent deaths in WP:BDP. (Now I know.) Otherwise, I'd have put in a stop. Also, I didn't think about Wnt's point about the story being part of an ongoing criminal trial. That would be another good reason to stop this DYK candidate from further consideration. (Instead I was more concerned about more details coming out soon, making the wikipage unstable...) I will be more careful from now on. It's true that I was paying all my attention to technical stuffs, like hook length and space available, diversity of topics, avoid having too many hooks about things from the same country in the same set, etc. I wasn't thinking about suitability of individual stories. ... In terms of avoiding objectionable items, I'd suggest we keep the 6 queues loaded up all the time. This would mean that all hooks would be available for a final review by more eyes on T:DYK/Q for at least a day before the hooks reach MainPage. Hopefully, bad hooks will be less likely to sneak through. --PFHLai (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
It takes more than one person to make the choice of which DYK hooks to use. All kinds of funny things can get through Wikipedia if luck is on their side (see also "Glucojasinogen"...) - thousands of people can look in on an article year after year and not notice something. This is why crowdsourcing works in the first place, because it can do a better job than individual editors... it's also why it sometimes produces surprising results. Wnt (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, PFHLai, nothing in that hook would have had legitimate bearing on an ongoing criminal trial–it contains nothing not already widely reported in reliable press, after all. A hook appearing on our main page is a lot less visible than headline news on the BBC's website or television news; which leaves this discussion as simply a matter of taste. And on that subject, I myself feel that as written, the hook was a damn sight more tactful than most news outlets. I know that's not really a defence, but I doubt that the same umbrage would have been taken had the same information, worded the same way, been read in a newspaper or news website. There seems to be too much emphasis on the context here—when you think of it, the death of a world leader, a religious figure and several children currently occupy the same box on the main page as cricket centuries and skiing contests, which is as trivial a mix as any seen on DYK. GRAPPLE X 14:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

@Matthew Townsend. I would agree that DYK has some bad eggs every now and again but the reality is that the percentage of articles which cause no problems or complaints with the viewing public is still very high and its only a minority which cause an outrage. Yes the front page should really be symbolic of our best content and I'd like to see more new GA thrown in with the better DYKs, but what one considers offensive seems to dramatically differ from individual to individual. My sister considers wikipedia a joke encyclopedia for the lack of tact putting an article about a gay hardcore pornographic film on the front page on a Saturday morning/afternoon and when I complained nobody could give a damn what she or I thought about it. Personally I am incredulous that nobody cared about that but so many people are worried at what people might think about wikipedia reporting a murder which has been covered in hundreds of credible news sources in much more grotesque ways in recent days. And my complaint about that article was very much more about the timing of it as the timing of this particular article is and the lack of responsibility or plain common sense to judge content. I'd agree that again we lack tact for this particular article but I don't see it as any worse than the article I complained about except in respect to the family of the girl. As somebody said the focus is always on technical issues and we are neglecting at times the subject matter. The reality though is that one article appearing on the main page might offend a few people but is unlikely to seriously tarnish wikipedia's reputation. That doesn't make it right. But its the truth. The reality is that the vast majority of people ignore DYK, simply compare main page views and DYK hits. This won't be the last incident though. Perhaps someday we will be sued for a dodgy article appearing and a little more sense will start to be exercised.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

  • It should be noted that TFAs have drawn attention, as have ITNs. OTDs not so much. That DYK draws a larger number of complaints should be seen in light of the sheer numbers. DYK may run 14 to 32 hooks in a day, while TFA runs one blurb a day and ITN draws maybe one or two a day, sometimes less. That a controversial DYK comes along more often is understandable, since we're essentially running what the other projects would run in a month. But even with 24 hooks a day or whatever, 98% draw no negative comments.
As for the numbers, we shouldn't compare main page hits with DYK or TFA hits. People come back to the main page; they generally don't revisit a page they've read before. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Quite often you'll see an article on a topic which has you shaking your head but very few attract major complaints. I am proud of a lot of our DYKs. The problem is that some of the bad eggs can be so stupid, disgusting or so badly timed it makes one inclined to think negatively of the entire DYK process.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I have to agree, I've seen several which should not have reached the main page. I don't see it as a reason to belittle the whole process, especially when several editors have created or expanded more than 200 articles as part of this program (a drop in the pond, perhaps, but certainly a goodly number for one person). Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Crisco 1492 is to be commended for creating high quality articles on neglected areas, such as Indonesian-related articles. To me, this is what dyk is for - to draw attention to subjects and to areas of the world that are neglected currently by the encyclopedia but deserve coverage for the encyclopedia to be complete. This is completely different than grabbing recent news items. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, and the very reason I edit wikipedia. Unfortunately not everybody has the same ideas of what is encyclopedic...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Crisco and Dr. B above have it right. There will be occasional bad eggs in the bath, but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with them and I never metaphor I didn't like. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I just want to say that I don't see what is wrong with the hook. I think that it was really tame considering what goes on in this world. Nothing that was said was libelous. Wikipedia is done by volunteers. Everyone knows that. I think we take ourselves more seriously than the rest of the world does. I think that the woman's family has a lot better things to do right now than to worry about what was written about it on Wikipedia. Is someone here worried about being sued? If a mistake was made (and I do not see one, frankly) than let's just point it out to the people that made it and move on. They certainly did not mean any harm. Someone said that it was not encyclopedic because she did not have an article about her before she died, but some times someone's claim to fame is the way they died. Sad to say maybe, but that is a fact. But what do I know, I wrote Chardon High School shooting--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Lets introduce recently passed Good articles into DYK

One thing that's struck me about DYK is why does it only have to be for new or recently expanded articles? Considering the quality of a lot of Good Articles in comparison to a lot of our DYKs I've always thought it odd why they are not eligible to feature on the main page, even if for 6 hours unless they are new or been expanded within the time period. I think a mixture of recently passed GAs with better DYKs would improve the general quality of DYKs. Its always nice from my perspective to visit DYKs which are GAs and think we should extend the criteria beyond just new/recently expanded articles. This isn't a proposal to oust DYK, just to feature a good article or two amongst the regular ones. I think GA is important and think it would be nice to provide people with the recently passed GAs on the main page. So I propose that once a GA is passed it becomes eligible for DYK nomination.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. Although not a magic bullet for DYK, it could improve their quality and provide greater exposure to some of Wikipedia's best articles. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support — There are a lot of old articles out there about very interesting topics, but because they've accumulated significant amounts of information over long periods of time, it's almost impossible for someone to come along and expand it to 5x, even if they take it on to GA and FA. Although I'm sure there will be good arguments against this, I see it as an overall benefit to DYK to include this option. – Maky « talk » 11:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Improved quality on the front page can only be a good thing, and focussing on new GAs may address the concern that articles should be "new" as articles which have recently been promoted have usually had substantial amounts of text added. Nev1 (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Has anyone seen the GA backlog? Dahn (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you perhaps explain its relevance here? Thank you, —MistyMorn (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Its relevance is that we're not going to get GA articles promoted at the required rate, especially since reviewers are entirely unlikely to check nominations against an even more intricate standard of quality than DYK. Or, even worse, they pretend to do it, and we end up with a whole batch of GA articles that shouldn't really be GAs at all. (The very incident that sparked this discussion grinds down to a reviewer doing a terribly stupid mistake in a much simpler review process.) The "GA solution" is a Potemkin village. Dahn (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
A backlog isn't necessarily a problem, do you have any statistics for how many GAs are promted every week for example? Nev1 (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
What I know is that an article I largely wrote has been nominated on January 25, and no one yet has taken up the task of reviewing it. Now, the prospect of someone reviewing it or any other article in a half-assed manner just to get it up on the front page is not a real alternative - it just moves the problem around, and makes the temptation of poor reviews and the bad taste even harder to correct. Dahn (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
It helps if you base your opinions on facts rather than narrow personal experience. Reviewers have no vested interest in seeing an article pass or otherwise, so adding the possibility that a GA may appear on the front page is unliekly to affect the quality of reviews. Nev1 (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not discussing vested interest, I'm discussing competence. If you urge the good-faithed users to move en masse into an area where they have a more complicated (and, as Allen3 implies below, more subjective) review process to mess up, while also admitting that the very case here is of reviewers not doing what's required of them in the simplest of terms, you will only end up with a mess to correct. You also make it much harder for anyone to notice and address problems with said review. (As for the "facts" and their context, thank you for showing me to the tip of the iceberg, but I was actually discussing this.) Dahn (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The size of the backlog isn't relevant to whether there are enough new GAs coming through for this proposal, but the rate at which they are promoted is. Nev1 (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
That is what is relevant for you, because that's the only thing you're looking at. Try and step out of that paradigm, and then we're actually discussing something. Or continue to campaign for the change, see it enforced, see it fail miserably, and then return to square one the wikipedia way. Dahn (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
You're talking utter nonsense. Your objection that "we're not going to get GA articles promoted at the required rate" didn't take into account the rate at which articles are promoted, the only way to measure whether there would be enough for Blofeld's proposal. Nev1 (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I quite clearly wrote, immediately after the sentence you quote: "Or, even worse, they pretend to do it, and we end up with a whole batch of GA articles that shouldn't really be GAs at all." I do recall that the reviewers' callousness is the very reason why Dr. Blofeld (whom I hold in great esteem) has submitted this proposal. Unless you come up with some logical argument, as to how making DYK into a GA review process would address the issue of reviewers' competence, you're only entertaining yourself. Dahn (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I don't have statistics, only nominated one, that passed 5 hours later. It was on DYK before (!), and that seems the more normal sequence to me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Rough stats (from GAN history): 51 GAs passed in the last ten days—March 13 07:23 through March 23 08:54—with a low of one on March 15 to a high of ten on March 18. The rate varies widely, and even more so during the drives to reduce the backlog. Currently there are 379 nominees, of which only 49 are in the process of being reviewed. The oldest unreviewed GAN was submitted on December 27, 2011. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
A very strange reason Dahn given that a very small amount of good articles are being promoted every week.. Given that we have what, 24 DYKs a day, 176 a week, the inclusion of select GAs out of the 50 past in the last 10 days seems manageable to me... i very much doubtthe quality of GA reviews would be jeopardized for the sake of DYK as all good articles passing would viable for DYK however long they take to pass so rushing a review wouldn't make any difference!! Not to mention that the GA reviewer wouldn't have a self interest in whether the article writer wants a DYK or not! The way I see it is that we'd actually be getting more articles on the front page which should have been reviewed more thoroughly than they ever would at DYK. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Doctor, we both know for a fact that GA promotion, though stricter in form, is actually subject to at least the same whims as a regular DYK promotion, and is less transparent. Several times on DYK, I had to intervene myself to ask for a re-review of some things that nobody seemed to have noticed - I styled myself into a second, or third reviewer. If people don't care about proper reviews, and only want to see articles promoted, they are just as likely to do a poor job for GAs. If they don't properly understand the requirements, or have failed to even read through the entire article (which happens, I can tell you for sure, in DYK as well as in GA), they are just as likely to miss out on the actual problems. The only thing changed is that the errors will be automatically harder to pick up and correct. Dahn (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
My assumption—and I don't think this idea is workable otherwise—is that only when an article has passed the GAN process and is a GA can it then be nominated for DYK. This keeps the GAN and DYK nomination processes completely independent. There would be a limited period in which the DYK nomination could be done (the usual five days seems right, as if the day of promotion counts as the day of first expansion would). I'm also not too worried about people jumping into the GA review process because of this change: bad reviews have a tendency to get reassessed, and submitting a DYK of an inadequate GA is more likely to point up a problematic GA review. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The average GA definitely has a more thorough review than the average DYK. Does anybody really dispute that? Of course it varies but it seems clear overall to me..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I respectfully dispute that. It has happened to me as well that I get very swift GA reviews. I know for sure that I have a personal willingness to enforce the quality standards in my own submissions (you have been kind enough to note that yourself), so the positive review was quite possibly warranted. But one presumes that the reviewers could not possibly have done the serious task that is required of them - they just added "check" to every requirement. If that happens elsewhere and to other editors (who just go for the flashiness of the article, or feel that their good relationship with the editor is a given), then the end result is, at the very least, the same. Most problematic articles that get unnoticed through DYK do so because nobody ever bothers to, for instance, verify the sources used - or any other boring but essential task. In the GA process, it's usually one guy or girl verifying one article, and, if they don't do the proper job, good luck fishing out the problem, not to mention fixing the problem yourself or gathering consensus to delist such GAs, in the time it takes for it to show up on DYK. Those of us who have had to do troubleshoot DYKs that no one else bothered with before they reached mainpage will realize that adding a GA or two might just make it even more complicated. Dahn (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
You have such quick reviews because most of your articles are nearer FA standard that's why!!! Look at the GA review for William Burges and trying telling me DYK reviews are more thorough!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe. But the fact is that the variation in slack is on par for GA and DYK assessments, only there are more people looking over one's shoulder at DYK. Plus, as we stand, we don't assume that the DYK reviewers are ready to relinquish yet more of their time to also deal with GAs or GAs on DYK. Dahn (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
More to the point. I remember a while back this Romanian user who was in the habit of collecting accolades, building up a false reputation as a reliable user: anyone who would click on his user page would have been impressed by the number of stars and GA icons he had amassed. Many of these (I checked) were there because he had changed (or very often misplaced) a comma or two in a candidate FA or GA. The same user was also absorbed into DYK, writing a huge number of entries on various Romanian topics, usually compiled from plagiarized references, or even falsified references. I once caught that user when he tried to peddle a DYK submission that claimed to verify a text about the 1980s with a reference from the 1940s - he had been told that DYK needed a citation to every paragraph, and he simply added random cites at the end of each one. Nobody, not even he, had noticed the chronological anomaly before I stepped in to blow the whistle.
Users who take up that sort of editing will take it up even more gladly once virgin territory is made available for them. They can write their rants, get an irresponsible buddy to review them for GA, and peddle them to DYK in no time. Would anyone but a handful of users bother reading through, let's say, Dacian Draco (one of our proud DYK entries, rated "B class" at the moment), and then do something about the problems it has - glaring as they are to the naked eye of a competent editor? Or is this a case of asking those competent users to watchlist yet another process, and waste even more of their time trying to save Wikipedia the embarrassment of hosting bewildering tripe on the mainpage? Dahn (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you think all of the GA articles will degrade DYK and possibly be amongst the worst articles in it and cause it more of an embarrassment than currently because most editors are illegtimately editing the articles and blagging GAs. Now that's a first!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Not more of an embarrassment: the same embarrassment, but harder to prevent, harder to fix, harder to tolerate. Dahn (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Some pretty big assumptions being made here. Sure GA's are going to vary depending on who the reviewer is, but the bar is set higher in the first place so even those that slip under it are usually still pretty high. Why would any problems be harder to prevent, fix or tolerate? AIRcorn (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the bar is not set higher: the criteria are irrelevant, if reviewers are not bothered to follow them. As I have tried to explain repeatedly, that problem is only compounded on a GA review, which is less public and much harder to follow by a third-party. The articles tend to be bigger, the references harder to check one by one (if this should prove necessary). It is also much harder to revert a GA review once it took place than it is to raise an objection about a DYK and expect it to be fixed. I know this, because I have noticed glaring, ridiculous problems in large texts that went through both DYK and GA reviews, and I feel it's common sense to assume that the likelihood of editorial slack (remember that it's one of those blunders that got us talking) is only magnified if the texts up for review are larger and more "impressive". What we need is a more careful review process, not an influx of articles with their own specific problems. Dahn (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The criteria are not irrelevant as they are what set the bar and it is definitely higher. Whether that bar is met is another issue and occurs here, at GA and even occasionally at FA. It is actually quite easy to follow a nomination and review, they are conveniently listed at WP:GAN. The review is on its own sub page and you can generally tell the quality of a review simply by looking at that page. It is true that except for rare cases (sockpuppets, bad faith reviews etc) you can not, and should not, revert a GA review, but there is a simple process to remove a GA. Size is an issue, broadness is required for GAs so they do tend to be larger, and this tends to make reviewing slower. I am not sure size necessarily means more mistakes will be missed, reviewers have strengths and weaknesses and can miss things no matter the article size. It can be an advantage in a backwards kind of way. A mistake in a small DYK is going to stand out a lot more than a similar one in a longer GA. I would also assume that if this was implemented it would require the GAs to go through the queues here. This would increase the sets of eyes on them hopefully catching many poor editorial judgements (obviously not all, but then nothing will do that). AIRcorn (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the following reasons:
    1. The DYK requirements currently are stricter the the Good article criteria in a number of areas. Two examples of these differences is that DYK has a minimum size requirement and DYK requires any hook fact to be cited within the article. While I can envision allowing a newly promoted GA to qualify as an alternative to DYK's newness requirement, there is no reason to give GAs a pass on any other DYK requirement.
    2. DYK, like practically every other process on the English Wikipedia, is limited primarily by the availability of willing and able reviewers. This proposal will have the effect of increasing the number of submissions into the DYK process but does nothing to directly increase the supply of needed reviewers.
--Allen3 talk 12:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The assertion that DYK criteria are more stringent than GA is an odd one. Whereas DYK only requires that the hook it sourced, Good Article criteria 2a, 2b, and 2c all relate to sourcing. Nev1 (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Not only the hook has to be sourced for DYK, also inline citations are required, one per paragraph wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected, standards have changed since last time I submitted a DYK. Nev1 (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
They might have changed, but the GA standards are still definitely higher in general than DYK. AIRcorn (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
There might be confusion with the idea: I think the proposal is stating that "being named a GA within the last x days" be added as opinion under criteria 1. Every other criteria for DYK (length, accuracy wrt the hook, etc.) must still be met. The GA quality is not being used to bypass any other quality control measures. It only is creating a new timeframe that an article can be considered for DYK. That said, I would also caveat that an article previously featured at DYK cannot be refeatured because its gotten a GA. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


  • Question. The DYK box currently says "From Wikipedia's newest content". What would it say under this proposal? FormerIP (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
You're implying GAs don't contain new material? Nev1 (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, "Wikipedia's newest content" would be a bit misleading, wouldn't it? FormerIP (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
A single GA wouldn't change it much, and considering the effort that goes in GAs, often entirely rewriting existing articles it could be argued it's new content, though perhaps not "newest". Nev1 (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
DYKs have to be at least 80% new in order to be nominated, and "new" means created within the past five days. GAs are rarely that new, by time or by proportion of material, even when nominated, and by the time they've been passed, the material is usually well over a month past creation (currently, 170 of 379 nominations are at least 30 days old, and 56 are at least 60 days old). Yes, there are exceptions, but the vast majority are old. Whether GAs are a desirable addition is one issue, and what to call the section if GAs are added is another, but please don't redefine "new" here. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's newest content and Good articles maybe I don't know, but it would seem a good idea to link to GAs on the main page..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Question "...it would seem a good idea to link to GAs on the main page.." - I think that it is very good idea. Is it really necessary to use DYKs to link GAs to the main page? Maybe there could be simply a section for recently promoted GAs, regardless if there was any DYK related to that GA?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the argument against was that part of the idea of FA was to get the article on the main page so they believed GA would be stealing its thunder so to speak if we had a special GA section. I'd support it though but I think the best solution is to combine with DYKs.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Aside from being perennial, the number of GAs actually being reviewed and passed of late is alarmingly low, so so there wouldn't really be anything to add. Plus, what would happen in backlog drives? Would DYK only be GAs? Most importantly, I have seen DYKs reach the main page that have waited so long that they actually are GAs when they are on, so in a sense we already do this, no reason to mandate it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
But if it was not limited to new or recent ones and GA's were not on the same rotation as DYK this would no be a problem. How often does is a DYK a GOod article, given the current backlog at GA I would think this would be a relatively rare occurrence. AIRcorn (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Why not! Jaguar (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal. In the spirit of some views above, here is a proposal (for clarification). Simply add an extra eligibility criteria to the "rules", like bullet four below:
DYK is not a general trivia section. DYK is only for articles that, within the past five days, have been either
  • created
  • expanded at least fivefold
  • newly sourced and expanded at least twofold (only if the article was an unsourced BLP)
  • promoted to GA or FA
Promotion to GA (or FA) normally indicates that the article was recently subject to significant improvement (often on other qualities than text expansion). The "newness" criteria is satisfied by requiring that the promotion occured within the last five days before nomination, although both improvement and promotion might be slow processes. The normal DYK criteria, such as citation requrement for the hook fact, still apply. Oceanh (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal—There already exists a ticker listing newly-promoted GAs which sits on many of the WP:GA subpages (Wikipedia:Good articles/recent). What's to say this couldn't be transcluded in a small box below the DYK box? It'd highlight newly-promoted GAs to a degree without relying on writing and approving hooks for them, and would be at the same time separate from DYK yet small enough that they would sit together comfortably. There's also the benefit of it being a bot-updated side effect of the usual GA process so it should require little to no maintenance. GRAPPLE X 21:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I oppose including GAs. The purpose of this project is to highlight new articles and newly expanded articles. There are numerous problems inherent with including GAs to this, such as the ones Wizardman delineated above. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Is this in reply to the above or the whole topic? Because I'm suggesting a separate section which would simply sit below DYK in the layout of the page. Disregard me if this a repsonse to something else. GRAPPLE X 21:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - in fact I support removing the entire "new, or recently expanded" criteria. DYKs should be genuinely surprising or interesting, should be true and should be relevant to the article they are in. All the rest is boat-anchors. Rich Farmbrough, 21:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC).
Sorry to interupt this debate, but I was wondering whether any of you people could have a look at the bottom of the page request? I just really need it done! Once again, apologies for interupting. — M. Mario (T/C) 21:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now. I like the idea of including selected GA's on the main page, but do not want them mixed in with DYK's. They serve two different goals (new content vs improved content). For that reason I also don't like the requirement that they be new or recent GA's, any suitable GA not already featured should be eligible. I would prefer a single DYK style (or some other format) presentation of an interesting GA that is up for 24 hours alongside a section dedicated to New articles. AIRcorn (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Change to Support. It is a step in the right direction. AIRcorn (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - don't mix in GAs with the DYKs. Manxruler (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose DYK is about encouraging new articles that meet some minimum standards of quality and content -- and about enticing users to read those articles by highlighting interesting facts. Its value is not diminished by the fact that faults are found in some DYK hooks and articles -- hey, I have long thought that one benefit of DYK is that it brings additional eyes to new content that needs improvement. Meanwhile, GA is not as wonderful as some people seem to think. I don't remember the specifics, but I recall that there have been multiple occasions when I gave a bad review to a DYK nom because of problems in the article, then discovered (to my surprise) that the article had already been declared a GA. --Orlady (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I've seen more vigorous reviewing and more hands involved in reviewing at DYK than I have seen at GA. I'm not opposed to GAs on the main page, but they should be in a new and separate section. I also don't think increasing the quality of the article will make hooks any more inherently interesting to a wider audience. --LauraHale (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose First off, this should be an official RfC. Second, I think GAs would only distract from the purpose of DYK. If GAs need a section, then they should have a separate one on the main page, not crammed in with these. SilverserenC 06:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I would fully support a separate section for GA articles but would it fit on the main page is the question.♦ Dr. Blofeld
  • Oppose One of the purposes of DYK is to encourage article creation and expansion. Good articles are a different kind of thing (although some articles do indeed get both, sometimes even in the reverse order). It would just be confusing - and chip away at pretty much the only place on Wikipedia where content creation itself is rewarded. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Moral Support Mainly for selfish reasons, I've been spending more time getting existing articles up to GA more than creating new articles. Generally speaking, I think we should explore a way to get newly-promoted GAs onto the main page--mixing them in with DYKs seems like a logical way to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose GA is its own reward.--Ishtar456 (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. DYK passed its sell-by date long ago, and needs to be freshened up. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It just does not add up

I just cannot figure out why, if regular contributors are also reviewing, there is a review backlog. I have been busting my tail on the backlog and I just have to share some observations. 1. There are a couple of prolific nominators who are not reviewing. 2. Some people are placing comments on nomination, not notifying the nom, and not coming back to review days, even weeks, after the nom responds. Yet they take the credit for it on their nominations. I brought this up a few weeks ago, but was told that that does not happen. Well, let me tell you it does. When I see these types of situations I am notifying the original reviewer to go back and finish. It is not fair that they can call a one time observation a review. And that adds to the backlog. 3. I think that it is crazy that we actually have articles passing GA before they get through DYK. It should not be this hard. I think that people have been given way too long to correct issues. I really think that if an article is not long enough by the first 5 days it should disqualify. I do not know why people are given eons of time to expand articles that they nominated before they were long enough. Just problems, no solutions.--Ishtar456 (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Pls see also #Request for Comment: Rule change for DYK expansions not written by nominator above. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I also find that some people who review dont come back to correct/pass when the changes have been made (currently i have DYKs pending for this reason). ALso the reviews are sometime done jsut because they need to be and then passed...sometime someone comes nand retags as not tready. (i have this for my nom)Lihaas (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Prep area 1 Queue 6

The first hook in Prep area 1 uses the word "vikings" without its initial capital letter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. —Bruce1eetalk 06:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
This needs to be changed back by an admin. Viking was an occupation, not a nationality. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The opening sentence of the article Viking would agree with you: the orthography of the rest of that rticle does not. Perhaps the issues should be resolved there first. Kevin McE (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Prep 3 - Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party in Syria should be returned to T:TDYK

This was approved "based on previous reviews" but there were none. I had a cursory look at the article, found the "under construction" flag and went back and wrote just that as the first comment by other than the author/nominator. I also wrote another hook, since the first one was so long. But I made it clear I had not reviewed the article and then, after the flag was removed, indicated it was "ready for review", not "re-review". This article should not be in prep, it has never been reviewed. Marrante (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 5 World Bank

Can the link to the World Bank election be seperated and move World Bank to the respective page and the election to the bolded article?Lihaas (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean it should change to this: the World Bank presidential election
Can someone with admin privileges please do that? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 4 problems, March 27

As noted above, Template:Did you know nominations/Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Syria Region was never properly reviewed and should not have been promoted; it needs to return to T:TDYK, and another hook placed there instead.

Also, for the Encrinus hook, the two commas inside quotes ("sun wheels," "Saint Boniface's pennies," ) need to moved outside the quotes per MOS:LQ: "sun wheels", "Saint Boniface's pennies", and

Thanks for fixing these soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Got the commas - will double check the article - it'd be easier to pass the article (hopefully??) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 6 – Africadoc

The hook gives no clue as to what Africadoc is or does, leaving the rest of it without any context or much interest.

I suggest adding before "founded in 2002" the phrase "an organization for African documentary makers", which would make the second clause "an organization for African documentary makers founded in 2002," and give context to the initial expansion that follows. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea - done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Lost Bach cantata

Admitted, I nominated late, the music is lost, but I still hope it can appear before Palm Sunday. (The Sunday it was not supposed to be performed was two weeks ago.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It's approved now, please take it soon, before Palm Sunday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Prep 2: problems closing templates; too many hooks – please do not move to queue until fixed!

With the exception of the first nomination subpage, none of these have been closed properly. In addition, the templates for these have been removed from T:TDYK, which we don't do any more because they stop showing up there once closed even with the template present, and if the nominations have to be reopened because of close paraphrasing or other problems, they automatically reappear on the T:TDYK page if the templates are still there. Otherwise, they disappear, which is a problem.

Can someone please fix these, move the extra hook to a different queue? I don't know how to do so, or I would myself. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I found the instructions on properly closing the nominations, and have just fixed the first of six. Please do not promote until I give the all-clear. Thank you! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I suggest the problem with this prep having 7 hooks be resolved by removing Marion, Utah and putting it on the April Fools' subpage, as the reviewer had suggested. However, I am not happy with Bernhard Kummer going in the quirky slot as originally assembled - would rather have that returned to the noms page than have it be the quirky. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, fixed; all are properly closed, if miscredited to me for doing so. I'm going to restore the templates to the nominations page now, in case any of them turn out to have issues that call for them to be removed from the prep area or eventual queue.
I'm sorry I didn't see your comment before I finished, Yngvadottir. I left Marion, Utah in the final position and moved Ali al-Sulayhi to Prep 4 so there were only six in the set. Someone else can deal with Marion if they want, and substitute a different quirky hook for it. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

disapearing template

I screwed up a review Template:Did you know nominations/Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Syria Region and it was pulled from the main page. I have done what I could to review it and have asked for a second opinion, but I do not see it on the DYK template. I don't really know how these things work, so I am not able to fix it. Please note the noms last comment to me, I could have let this go, but I'm not like that.

Also, I was wondering why a nom of mine Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret Bechstein Hays, which I requested to be moved to April 14/15, appears there and on the date I originally post it under (I think March 22).

Taking a break from DYK for a while, take care, --Ishtar456 (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The template was one of the last (if not the last) articles from February 24, and the date had been removed from the page. I've just restored it; the review now appears under that date. Thanks for pointing out the problem. It looks like someone else has taken care of Margaret; she's now only under April 14/15. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks.--Ishtar456 (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
You're most welcome. Hope you're back soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Rule change for DYK expansions not written by nominator

Current rules allow for nominators who have not written articles to nominate as many articles as they want. Self nominations require nominators to review an article unless they have nominated five or fewer articles for DYK. There is backlog of unreviewed DYKs as a result. I propose to address this backlog:

  • If you nominate an article you did not write, you are restricted to ONE nomination for ONE ARTICLE in a 24 hour period without the obligation of reviewing another article. For every additional article expansion and nomination, non-self nominating contributors need to list a second opinion for a DYK they have helped close or complete a new review.

Or some rule to that effect being added to the nominating guidelines. --LauraHale (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Support This would help clear the backlog.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 09:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Support -- We should give at least one free nomination as an incentive, but I agree that 3 or 5 in one day is a bit much. Reviews needed! Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Qualified support If we're to continue with QPQ - which I hate - then I don't think there's any justification for making the rules different for nominations and self-nominations. Many of those nominating others' articles have been doing a QPQ anyway; in at least one case the co-author who didn't nominate the article quietly did the QPQ review. Simply require QPQ after the 5th DYK credit for authorship/expansion - whether the subsequent one is a self-nom or not. --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Support Noms by others serve a useful purpose, especially now that non-regular editors find DYK rather more intimidating, as they certainly do. I'd say no QPQ for one in every 24hrs, up to 5 a week. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC) ADDING: or Support Altenative Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Support Sounds fair to me. Without a QPQ, people won't review. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose for several reasons.
Nominating other people's work for DYK is a major contribution to DYK that diversifies content here, encourages new content creators to do more, and recruits new participants to DYK. Additionally, it actually involves a fair amount of work. I skim through the User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult output every so often (generally when the nomination supply is getting thin) looking for possible nominations, and I find that only a very small fraction are qualified. When I find a likely one, it takes me a good while to review the article, review sources, and develop a hook. There are a few folks who do this on a regular basis -- their effort is one that should not be discouraged by asking them to stop work and review a nom every time they are about to nominate somebody else's new article.
This "backlog" is a bit of a misconception. We are reviewing hooks at least as fast as they are being produced (which is as fast as they need to be reviewed), and a lot of the hooks that are "awaiting review" are actually in the middle of review. A little while ago, I skimmed through the unapproved noms on the main page and counted 25 that have been reviewed (sometimes multiple times) and are waiting for a nominator response (or response by a good samaritan who will fix the article), the conclusion of an AfD process, or some other action that is not a DYK review. That was a conservative count -- if it looked like the nominator or creator thought they might have fixed something, or if it appeared to be hung up due to continuing discussion of conflicting ideas about the hook, I didn't count it.
Furthermore, believe it or not, some of us actually review noms when we don't have a QPQ mandate (not to mention the work we do building queues and doing administrator work here) -- and I happen to believe that review work done without the mandate is often of higher quality than what's done when a contributor needs a QPQ to tick off. --Orlady (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Orlady, I am not entirely sure you understood the proposal here. It's to limit nominations of others' articles without QPQ to one per 24-hour period - not to require a QPQ on the same basis as for self-nominations, which has not been proposed here except by me as a minority view. Nobody here has questioned the value of nominations of someone else's article. The proposal seeks only to deal with multiple such nominations per day by the same person. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE, with an alternate proposal to tweak the DYK rules. I have to say that I don't see a backlog. We are running at 8-hour cycles with 6 hooks per shift, not 6-hour cycles with 8 hooks per shift that we used to have. We need more hooks for DYK. What I see is a shortage of use-able hooks, which is a result of a shortage of nominations. There are other reasons for the shortage of use-able hooks, but my work here in DYK mostly deals with the shortage of nominations -- I nominate other Wikipedians' work for DYK. I rarely write articles and ask to have them showcased on MainPage. (Might've self-nom'd three times at the most.) I see myself as a matchmaker. After helping someone find a suitable spouse, I would be happy to attend the wedding and join in the celebration, but I really don't think I should be paying for the dowry, banquet, etc. So, in DYK terms, I'd say that the QPQ requirement should be fulfilled by the article writers/creators/expanders (with the same current exemption to newbies), not by the nominators.
  • e.g. if I nominate another article about a Japanese wrestler by TheFBH (talk · contribs), who has only 4 DYK creator credits, no QPQ review is needed yet. (I am hoping to get TheFBH to join DYK...)
  • e.g. if I nominate another article about a racehorse by Tigerboy1966 (talk · contribs), a wikipedian who is overdue for a DYK25 medal, a QPQ review is required from Tigerboy. Whether I can talk him into doing one, or I do the review for him, should not be an issue. A QPQ should be done. (I won't do the QPQ review unless I really, really, really, really want that hook on MainPage, and Tigerboy suddenly becomes unavailable for whatever reasons.)
Frankly, we should be encouraging more people to nominate, so that we can have better quantity and topical diversity for DYK, and we should not make nominators do more work when they should be out there hunting for more DYK candidates, and introduce DYK to Wikipedians who previously have not participated in DYK. And, perhaps try to bring back Wikipedians who have not participated in DYK for a while, too! Also, I have to say that the 24-hour restriction is a bad idea. Like Orlady, I skim through the User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult output quite often. And also quite often, articles need 4 to 5 days to grow long enough and get properly sources and formatted so as to qualify for DYK. Sometimes I "discover" multiple qualified candidates on their last day of eligibility (sometimes after that 5th day, but this would be another story...). Please don't ask me to choose which one to nominate that day with midnight UTC approaching. I would rather nominate as many potential articles as I can find. You guys can decide not to use them. The nominators can help persuade the article writers/creators/expanders to do QPQ reviews, but please don't require nominators to do reviews. And please don't put in extra time limitation on top of the "5 day" rule. BTW, I review DYK candidates, too -- I just don't nominate those I reject. --PFHLai (talk) 07:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Right, Crisco 1492. If I find your nice articles when they were still new, I would being nominating them for DYK. Under the current rules, no QPQ review is needed if I nominate your articles. Under my suggested "rule tweak" above, you would need to do a QPQ review if I nominate them, but I as the nominator may choose to do the review for you (unlikely, but I might, perhaps just to speed things up...) --PFHLai (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Come to think of it, if the the onus of the QPQ review is switch to the article writers/creators/expanders, there will be no impact on self-nom, but this will close the loophole that allow article writers/creators/expanders to collude and nominate each other's articles just to avoid doing reviews. I like this rule tweak even more now! --PFHLai (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • My point was that we can write articles ourselves, instead of just focusing in one area. Doubt you could catch my articles before I nominate them though Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
In principle, I agree with you. But the problem is that many DYK participants are niche contributors. Not everyone can write outside their area of expertise. And I for one is struggling with botany trying to rescue these plant-related DYK candidates. --PFHLai (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Support (the original proposal) Yes, nominators who find articles might have to do a fair bit of work improving and checking the referencing on article they nominate, but don't forget that nominators who write their own articles have done a fair bit of work writing the article! QPQ should be a requirement for both. Harrias talk 14:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. On top of the mad scramble to get the article presentable within 5-6 days, I also have to do a review. Folks who nominate a lot should have to, too. It's only fair and we value both self-noms and nominations of others' articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: Per Orlady, as well as experiencing the sensation of drowning in rules. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Per Orland and Rosie.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per the above. Nominating someone's article includes a review (and often improving) of THAT article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per or lady and others. We made a conscious decision when qpq was adopted to not apply it as proposed here, so as to avoid discouraging those who would nominate articles of non-dyk regulars and new editors. Unless it's being abused, that remains the right call. Cbl62 (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe multiple nominations per day are being regarded by some as an abuse; and as someone has mentioned, the set-up right now is open to abuse by those who do wish to avoid QPQ. I think we should indeed keep it simple - one rule for everyone - but the alternative is to revisit QPQ. A lot of the arguments here are based on seeing the review requirement as onerous. Ideally, I'd love to junk it. Second preference: same rules for everyone, after 5 credits as article creator, you do a QPQ for each nomination you make. (I don't think teh alternate proposal, requiring article creators to do a review when someone else nominates their article, is fair.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose original proposal ... Nominators should be free to bring in quality, varied content without a QPQ obligation. While I oppose the original proposal, I'd like to see a shift in how nominators work. Rather than simply nominating someone else's article, I think it would be preferable to leave them a note, explaining DYK and suggesting that they nominate the article themselves. (We should have a template for this.) The effort of the person finding the worthy articles would still be appreciated, and they could even claim nominator credit as a kind of "finder's fee". Note: I don't nominate many articles by others, but the last two I did, even though I knew that I was not required to do a review, it felt wrong not to, and I did do reviews for them.

... and Support the alternate proposal; it makes sense. Requiring a review (from any involved party) whenever the content creator's had more than five DYKs, no matter who nominates the article, actually simplifies the rules by removing an exception. It makes for a consistent policy, and just seems fair. A few days ago a WikiCup discussion focused on an unnamed user who's had tons of DYKs on a single subject, and no QPQs were ever done because they were nominated by another user. That does nothing to diversify the content here (quite the opposite!) and is certainly not doing anything to recruit new participants to DYK. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Update. I checked back, and the "unnamed user" has apparently been identified. Tigerboy1966 (talk · contribs) seems to have done nothing wrong according to our current rules, but he's received at least 56 DYK credits and there are 10 more on the nominations page. That's at least 66 DYKs for one user, apparently with no QPQs ever being done. And we have no idea how many other users may have similarly benefited from the "loophole". I find this to be unacceptable. The alternate proposal should prevent this kind of thing from happening again. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Support the alternate proposal Simplifies the rules, and prevents "gaming" the system. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Support the alt proposal The amount of work that is involved in writing a new article or expanding one 5x is very similar or greater in my opinion to that of nominating an article created by someone else. If there was so much more effort then there would not be nominators with 3 or more nominations per day, at least based on the several days it usually takes me to write new extinct taxa articles.--Kevmin § 18:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Support alt proposal. Fantastic idea, I think it would a great change to the rules, without discouraging nominations. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support alternative proposal: Can some one close this? --LauraHale (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I don't see what closing this now would do, except to prevent anything from occurring: there's approximately equal numbers supporting the alternate and opposing either proposal, with slightly fewer in favor of the original (counting you as having abandoned the original for the alternate). Not a consensus for a specific action by any stretch of the imagination.
Just to clarify in my mind: the original proposal limited the number of free nominations for a nominator of someone else's work to one a day. The alternate requires a QPQ for all nominations regardless of who nominates (excepting the first five DYKs by an author), with the onus for doing the QPQ on the person whose article was nominated, whether they nominated it or not. This means, I presume, that if the original author is not interested in DYK, the nomination could conceivably sit and eventually wither, unless someone else is willing to shoulder the QPQ requirement. And does that someone else have to be the nominator, or could it be disinterested parties? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
It would be nice if a bot can scan T:TDYK, identify stale, unreviewed nom (say, 3 weeks after the 5-day), and post a msg to the nominator to ask if the nominator can do anything about the nom -- close the nom, get a QPQ review done, ask for help, whatever needed. If the nominator doesn't do anything for more than a week and the nom rises to the top of T:TDYK, it should be clear the nom is inactive and therefore can be closed with no discussion -- unless someone wants to go in for a rescue.... --PFHLai (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm too busy reviewing to possible ever read this entire thread. But I just have to say that I cannot believe someone said that there this is not backlogged???I have been reviewing for about three days straight and I don't seem to be putting a dent in it. I can count on one hand the number of people who review here with any regularity. I cannot believe that there is such a backlog if everyone is doing the reviews that they should. I have passed a DYK that had already gone through GA!!!! The most I ever waited for a GA review was a month. There are noms here that are 2 months old!!! DYK should be quick and easy. I am for any rule that cuts the backlog. But frankly, no one follows the rules that we have and there are so many no one could possibly know them all. I wish we could keep it simple. A handful of rules that are easy to follow and everyone on the same page. Everyone consistent. When a nom does not pass, than it does not pass. But there is a ton of leeway for noms right now. I cannot believe how much time people are allowed to take to fix issues. I think that if it isn't a quick fix then it should get the boot so that the reviewer can go on to more qualified nominations. Right now there are over 235 nominations out there. I bet that 200 of them are regular contributors and thus should have done a reviews. So by my calculation there should be 200 ready, but there are only 45 and I think I approved 15 of them (at least a lot of them). To me it does not add up. I do not think that we should be having such a long discussion over ways to cut down on the responsibilities that people have to review and I certainly do no think that we should be considering adding GAs to DYK!!!!! I have to wonder how many reviews could have been done in the time it took to write this thread!--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A post with a time-stamp here to prevent the bot from archiving this thread and keep the discussion active for now. --PFHLai (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I oppose, on the premise that thre shuld always be an obligation to review. THats what clears the backlog. Though the problem is how to get a quality review.Lihaas (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • observation: People are abusing the current rule. There are people who have multiple noms going right now, who have had other people nominate for them, thus avoiding reviews. These are NOT noms that would otherwise go unnoticed. These are regular contributors who are just avoiding the review, yet expect their noms to be reviewed. My solution is to not review them. I am not going to spend my time reviewing for someone who has gone to such lengths to avoid it. So, I avoid them. It is my own little boycott of the selfish and lazy.--Ishtar456 (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_79&oldid=1189645164"