Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 94

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 90

←

Archive 92

→

Robert Alexander Early

Tagged with "[original research]"... This shouldn't be in the queue yet until that is fixed. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hook swapped and nomination for the Early article has been returned to Template talk:Did you know. --Allen3 ^talk 14:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Romulus (donkey)

This article was created 23 May, listed under 5 Jun, and nom'd 14 Jun, by a user who's only edited this article. Totally newbie. I feel sorry for the guy (look at the format of the nom), and submit to the community how to handle this one. I love the donkey photo.PumpkinSky talk 00:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It was moved from Articles for Creation on 8 June, so it qualifies. Got it to 1600 characters (padded the bonkers out of it though). Creator/nominator may have a COI. Leave it up to DYK if it will be run (cute donkey :). Froggerlaura ^ribbit 02:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

And... it was reverted back to the 900 character stub. Sheesh. Let it go. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 05:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

what is the reason for supplementary rule D1?

An article cannot appear as DYK twice. Why? I didn't read the supplementary rules, and fell into the trap at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Aleeta_curvicosta. I went for a 25x expansion (hard work) because I thought of a fun hook for an article I was improving. It last appeared almost four years ago. But now that I know about the rule, I am wondering what the purpose is:

is it considered that this makes dyk gameable? how?
are you worried that readers a will see the same thing twice and get bored? how long do you think they remember a dyk?
are you worried that this would flood dyk with repeats?

--99of9 (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The primary reason for D1 is to prevent gaming the system into having an article receive multiple appearances in a relatively short time (several weeks or months). One of the underlying principles of DYK is that submitted articles should be functional and relatively complete. Without the rule it would be possible for a person with a sizable amount of referenced material to essentially write three articles (one at just over 1500 characters, one and just over 7500, and then the relatively complete article with over 37,500 characters) and submit each instance for a separate DYK.

There have been a small number of articles that have appeared more than once, but in every instance I can (partially) remember the instances have occurred years apart and involved different authors. IMHO, the recent 5x expansion and ~4 year time period since the article first appeared suggest an IAR exception may be appropriate. The one thing that holds me back is that one of the authors involved with the expansion was the person who submitted the initial DYK. --Allen3 ^talk 23:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

In fairness to User:Casliber, it was me driving the dyk, he is going for GA. See User_talk:Casliber#Floury_Baker_request. I guess he had read the rules! --99of9 (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

- This is certainly a nice expansion (and a very good image), but I wanted to make sure that this article's former appearance on DYK was discussed as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  - I too would be prepared to make an exception under IAR. It was run four years ago, there is no gaming of the system, and the article has been substantially improved, which is the objective of the 5x expansion rule. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    - This seems to be a suitable application of IAR.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment- I honestly don't think the reason for limiting articles to 1 DYK appearance is about "game-ability" but rather fairness and giving new articles a chance to make it to the main page. There is a very finite amount of real estate in DYK and we are never at a shortage of hooks vying for that limited space. How fair is it to other editors and other articles to "re-use" old DYKs? If we were running short on hooks I could see an IAR argument but we have 169 potential articles that have never been on DYK before waiting to be featured. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have to agree. I would be willing to consider letting articles have more than 1 appearance on a case-by-case basis - the case above seems like a compelling one - but I don't think it's something that we should do as a matter of course. Prioryman (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ignore all rules? No thanks, not at DYK, where stretching the rules is a routine hobby for some editors. I say this should not be re-run, and that supplementary rule D1 should be reframed for tightly worded exceptions if that is seen to be necessary. Tony (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

~~Right Tony, not shouting you a coffee next time we hang out~~ I'm not fussed. I am happy to leave it if the consensus is to not use it. Been busy and not been on my radar....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Coffee? Cas, no, I want beer. Tony (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a great article and worth taking up to GA but like I said in my comment above, I don't think it is fair to other editors and other articles to invoke IAR in order to re-use an old DYK. Main Page is very scarce real estate and I would rather invoke an IAR to give a new article a chance to be on the main page for the first time. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 13:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Per Agne. a 5yr old DYK appearance is enough to invoke IAR here and showcase a vastly improved article. PumpkinSky talk 13:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Crime in Yemen

Was sadly pulled from hook. I see no problems with the wording. No COI, neutral enough. Can I have a second set of eyes please? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 03:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

From the article: "Law enforcement in the country is said to be lousy, and both the police and the government in Yemen are deemed to be unworthy of trust.[1] Very often do law enforcers in the country abuse their authority to allow others to evade tax or get away with minor or major offences, provided some paper certificates are exchanged for the favour.[9][10] Corruption in the country burns a big hole in the government's pocket.[9]" This does not strike me as neutral or encyclopedic text. This article has no place on the main page in its current form, in my opinion. EdChem (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Queues empty, preps full, again

Pls....PumpkinSky talk 11:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Allen3 moved 4. Thanks!PumpkinSky talk 13:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Crime in <country> articles

A spate of these articles have recently been created by a particular user, I am seeing multiple problems in most of them including poor organization, inappropriate prose and threadbare content. Articles of this type need sensitive treatment and a reasonable degree of comprehensiveness which they currently lack. I suggest therefore that none of these articles be promoted until the issues are resolved. In the meantime I would encourage some of our more skilled and experienced DYKers to put some work into these articles to help bring them up to an appropriate standard. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I note that some seem to be taken, in whole or part, from related articles. Case in point: Template:Did you know nominations/Crime in Indonesia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
As an example (and as noted above), Crime in Yemen has recently been pulled from a queue (nomination here) and contains the following:

Law enforcement in the country is said to be lousy, and both the police and the government in Yemen are deemed to be unworthy of trust.[1] Very often do law enforcers in the country abuse their authority to allow others to evade tax or get away with minor or major offences, provided some paper certificates are exchanged for the favour.[9][10] Corruption in the country burns a big hole in the government's pocket.[9]

This text is neither neutral nor encyclopedic. It speaks in broad generalities (police and government unworthy of trust, abuse of authority occurring very often) which is not fair to honest members of Yemen's law enforcement community, nor is it balanced text as required by NPOV. Colloquial language (corruption burns a big hole in the government's pocket) is also inappropriate. The article is illustrated with the seal of the U.S. State Department. (!) Basically, this article has no place on the main page in its current form, in my opinion. Yet, the submitter sees no problem, it was passed for a main page appearance, and it was promoted to a queue. To me, this case suggests problems beyond merely a series of articles not ready for a DYK tick. EdChem (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking more carefully, these "Crime in XXX" articles have been reviewed and / or promoted by several editors, yet none have noted that rule D7 states that "There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress" and that "Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected." These articles address crimes against foreigners, prostitution, and corruption (briefly), but no other topics. What about something on the criminal justice system and typical sentences, crimes against citizens, rates of violent / property / drug-related / other crimes, and the crime / terrorism links (if any)? Is there information on the "typical" criminals? Are alcohol use, homosexual activity, and public displays of affection criminalised? Is the criminal law based in secular or religious principles? These are just a few issues that occur to me as relevant to a "Crime in XXX" article, and whilst DYKs are new articles and not GAs, taking on a topic as broad as crime in a whole country still requires an article that appears complete and deals adequately with the topic. I am concerned that several reviewers have not recognised / noted both the NPOV and comprehensiveness issues in these articles - not to mention the copyright and length issues raised by Crisco 1492. I agree with Gatoclass that this series of articles be held from approval pending comprehensive improvements. EdChem (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with these comments. I also noticed at least one hook which bothered me to say the least: "... that Sri Lanka (police cars pictured) is cited as "one of the most corrupt nations in the world"?" Even if the factoid were accurate, which I haven't reviewed, the statement is callous. I stumbled upon the article shortly after it was created and added a bit to it myself, but as it stands, the article needs work and the nom needs an ALT. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are very much in line with my own views on these articles Ed, and yes, I agree that they need more comprehensive treatment and better organization before they should be accepted for main page exposure. Gatoclass (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I will notify User:Bonkers The Clown so that he has an opportunity to review these comments. He has become a prolific editor and I want him to understand that his work is valued... just needs a bit more attention. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Noted in WP:ERRORS

This listing where it was stated that North Koreans "got too hungry" made it all the way to the main page. Is this really the kind of hook we agree to and publish on our main page with reference to starving people? Thankfully it was fixed soon after the issue was raised at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Was it me who suggested that hook? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

TRM is correct, a hook that describes the North Korean famine in which at least 250 000 (and maybe more than 3 000 000) people starvged to death as North Koreans getting "too hungry" should never have been given a tick, let alone been promoted to a queue. Simply put, this hook is offensive. Surely we need to look at reviewing standards when mistakes like this happen and it is not just a single inexperienced editor making errors. EdChem (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

please restore link

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It seems that the link for 'big rubber duck' was inadvertently removed before the blurbs were moved from the prep area (currently in queue 1). Unless there's some good reason why it should not be linked, could someone restore it please before it goes live? Thanks, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Y Done. Harrias ^talk 07:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 12:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Need to Edit a DYK? Hook

Hello,

I have just noticed that the hook for Leni Yahil here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Queue/3 -- needs to have a space between the words "advocated" and "a". Can someone please fix this as soon as possible? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Y Done. Harrias ^talk 07:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I really and sincerely appreciate it. Futurist110 (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar-stuff on the home page

Why is it that Gibraltar is still being promoted by Wikipedia? Koehler Depressing Carriage on the home page. It's all about Gibraltar. Could we please implement a moratorium on Gibraltar? No Gibraltar content on the home page until we are sure that the corruption has had time to pass. Jehochman ^Talk 17:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It is the start of another workweek so it must be time for opponents of the "G-word" to once again pummel equine corpses. Attempts to place either draconian restrictions or an outright ban on anything even remotely related to Gibraltar have been repeatedly made (you last asked for additional restrictions on May 12, 2013). Despite the repeated attempts there has never been consensus to impose restrictions more stringent than those already in place. Instead of tenaciously repeating the same set of proposals, have you considered the benifits of dropping the stick and backing slowly away from the horse carcass? --Allen3 ^talk 17:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this on the main page. But there's a cite error on the article, and I would fix it, but I don't understand the sourcing method on that one. Maybe someone else here can do a quick fix.— Maile (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem was recognized at the end of 2012, and restrictions were put in place. Since then it's been "business as usual" with frequent Gibraltar advertising on the home page. I'll keep mentioning this until the problem is solved. Gibraltar is a tiny country of relative insignificance. Why is Wikipedia continuing to allow itself to be manipulated by clever marketers associated with Gibraltar tourism promotion? It's become a test of wills where the corrupted editors insist they have done nothing wrong, and to prove their WP:POINT, they keep festooning our home page with Gibraltar-stuff. Enough already. Jehochman ^Talk 18:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK is a place to feature Wikipedia's newest quality content. Who cares if Gibraltar or Podunk, New York are featured regularly if there are editors interested in creating and improving related articles. Grsz 11 18:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I asked this on Jimbo's talk page as well, but as you seem intent on shopping it in multiple places... How many Gibraltar-related DYKs have there been this year? How does that compare to some other topics? Baseball players? Actors? Military personnel? Reso lute 18:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, when I read Jehochman's comments I was strongly reminded of the immortal words of Buzz Lightyear, Space Ranger. Let's recap. The article hook doesn't even mention Gibraltar. That's because the article is about an item of military technology, not Gibraltar. You wouldn't even know it related to Gibraltar unless you clicked through to it. (Is Jehochman now clicking through every DYK to make sure it's not Gibraltar-related? Because that really would be sad, strange behaviour.) The article is completely uncontentious. It's gone through the usual two reviews as required by the current restrictions and there's no conceivable NPOV, COI or promotional issue with it. Nor is there any issue with excessive frequencies of Gibraltar-related DYKs – we have had just six in the last three months. Jehochman has just come away from an epic beating at RFAR (see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#July 13) and appears to have learned absolutely nothing from it. It's long past time he recognised that community consensus is very strongly against him and to stop the chronic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour on this topic which, quite honestly, is very unfitting for an admin. Prioryman (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, Jehochman, since you're obviously intending to not only continue beating the dead horse but to continue until it's a bloody paste on the floor (and walls and ceiling, no doubt), let's get this out of the way: Fortifications of Gibraltar (a GA candidate, by the way) and Lines of Contravallation of Gibraltar are due to run in the near future, and I would expect there to be a couple more nominations before the end of the month. If you're going to complain, please do it now so that we can get it out of the way and get back to doing more useful things than reading your dead-ender rants. Prioryman (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I dunno. I just can't escape this nagging thought that in the hot gambling spots of the world, bookmakers are giving odds on how many times in one week somebody can complain about any subject matter getting too much DYK mention. Gibraltar would be top odds on that one, but there are others. The odds are just too good for somebody not running bets on this. — Maile (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can't comment about that, but it would be crazy to suggest that Gibraltar's getting too much attention. There were only five DYKs on the subject between March and May this year, out of about 2,000 DYKs. Jehochman only thinks there's too many because he thinks the appropriate number would be zero, which virtually nobody else thinks is reasonable or necessary. Prioryman (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There have been three Gibraltar hooks this month already. Three more Gibraltar articles are waiting in the wings, to appear over the coming days: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know#Gibraltar-related_articles Andreas JN 466 19:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the appropriate response is so what? It's basically just you two dead-enders who are objecting. Give it up and go and do something more useful. Prioryman (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar is a spot measuring 6.8 sq km, with a population of less than 30,000. It's simply overexposed on the main page, mate. (A main page which gets roughly ten million views a day.) We're basically getting back to the levels we had last year, when the Gibraltarpedia competition was in full swing. And that "restriction" of one a day was a complete joke, given that Gibraltar never had one DYK a day to begin with. Why don't you do something more useful, like writing about something else than Gibraltar? Andreas JN 466 00:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is not closed. Can anybody tell me why this tiny spot of relative insignificance should appear on the home page of Wikipedia with much, much, much more frequency than other topics of similar obscurity? Why Gibraltar? Could it be that their tourism board has PAID for this exposure? To me it looks like corruption, and I will keep raising this concern until it has been addressed. The small group of editors who hang around DYK are not necessarily representative of the wider Wikipedia community. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:TFAR, bottom section. The "wider" community. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Evidently, Jehochman, neither are you. Reso lute 14:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I unclosed the discussion. This was a not a good close, at all, and the editor who closed the discussion should calm down. Discussions are usually closed when they are resolved. I don't see that here. The editors close reason was also not good:

"Closing to end the drama on what will inevitably end in WP:SNOW territory. Two vocal individuals have not, do not, and will not make a consensus, so let's drop the stick, back slowly away from the horse carcass, and try again in six months if you still perceive a problem.

Some problems with this are:

Characterizing the discussion as "drama". This is not helpful or kind. There is such a thing as drama, but it is involves personal attacks and so forth. Discussion among editors about reasonable points of disagreement is not drama. It is how we get things done around here. References to dead horses and so forth are insulting and not helpful. The editor should not say things like that if it is possible to avoid doing so.
Citing WP:SNOW is usually called for only in un-contentious situations, where it's simply easier to bypass normal process to save time, since there isn't and clearly won't be any opposition to moving forward. If a SNOW is contested by any reasonable person, that is almost proof that it was a bad SNOW. WP:SNOW is not equivalent to WP:SHUT UP. If the editor wished to close the discussion simply because he finds it personally tiresome (which would not be a good reason for a close), he should say so.
The editor is free to ignore and discontinue participating in the discussion if he so wishes. The editor is not empowered to force all other editors to ignore and discontinue participating in the discussion if they don't so wish. Hopefully the editor, on reflection, will understand the difference and concede this point. Herostratus (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- I could not disagree more with your reasoning. Closing unnecessary and unproductive discussions where the outcome is not in doubt is productive in and of itself. This is usually best done on ANI, but it can also be very helpful in limited circumstances on other pages ... like this one, where we have two admittedly vocal editors pushing for a resolution that is resoundingly opposed, both here and [://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests&oldid=559463941#July_13 on TFAR], by the wider community. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  - I understand your point, but still. Being "admittedly vocal" is not necessarily a bad thing. It's clear (from comments in venues like Jimbo's talk page) that the matter is genuinely contentious, by more than a couple of malcontents. Consensus may change over time and that's what these guys are trying to do. I don't think it's effective and I wouldn't go on and on about it myself (although if it was up to me, I'd also cool it on featuring Gibraltar articles for a good while), and I understand it can be annoying, but it's the sort of thing that it's best to put up with (rolling your eyes privately to yourself is OK) rather than trying to shut down, especially untactfully. The simple fact is this: if the DYK folks are going to continue to feature Gibraltar articles, they're going to have people mad about that, and so they might as well get used to the flak. It'll be good desensitivation training for when and if shit gets real -- that is, for when the DYK's being pushed through are not for a relatively benign entity like the Territory of Gibraltar, but for Exxon-Mobile or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or whomever. Herostratus (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
    - While it's certainly true that consensus can change, it's been, what, maybe a month since the last discussion? Combine that with a related discussion getting shot down 29-3, and what we have is simple: two pointy posters attempting to disrupt a project. I'm no large fan of DYK; I think that subpar articles get promoted and boring hooks lacking in all context are put on our most visible page. However, it's not okay to pointedly disrupt it. As for Gibraltar vs. Exxon-Mobile, that's apples to oranges, and it's entirely ridiculous to allow this to continue just so DYK people can be desensitized to controversy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As to the merits of the case, a couple things seem clear to me, in my opinion:

We should probably not have more Gibraltar stuff on the main page for awhile.
We will.

We will because there's no mechanism for stopping it, absent consensus to do so, and consensus for anything is hard to achieve here. I don't know if, community-wide, there'd be a supermajority in favor of publishing more Gibraltar stuff (my guess would be not), but there certainly isn't a supermajority against it.

We shouldn't do it though because, any other expressed reasons (corruption, potential bad press, perversion of intent of DYK, corrosion of volunteer ethos here, and so on) aside, it is controversial to do it. It makes lots of editors unhappy, and those editors have expressed reasonable cause for being unhappy. It makes me unhappy. Absent some good reason, we should try to avoid doing that.

Because we certainly will continue to feature Gibraltar on the main page, Prioryman makes a fair point in saying "It's basically just you two dead-enders who are objecting. Give it up and go and do something more useful". Obviously it would better if Prioryman expressed himself in a less rude and hurtful way, but the basic point -- there's really no possibility of preventing more Gibraltar DYK's, so at some point it'd be wise to just let it go -- is reasonable.

As a counterpoint, there are times when its called for to keep pointing out a problem if one sees it. I personally find the Gibraltar DYK's annoying but not worth fruitlessly bitching about forever. For my part, I'm going to wait until we get a plethora of DYK's on, say, Exxon-Mobile's various programs and initiatives for environmental stewardship, clean alternative energy, third-world debt relief, global democracy, and so forth (I suppose we'll be seeing that sort of thing eventually), and I'll have more to say then on the general issue of promotional DYK's. Herostratus (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that every argument that has been offered for a moratorium is utterly false. Nobody is paying for DYKs. Nobody is being paid for writing DYKs. Nobody writing any of them has any conflict of interest. The frequency of these DYKs is very low - 8 in the last 4 months, out of some 3,000 DYKs that have run in that period. None of the articles is promotional in any way. None of them are controversial. They are clearly attracting public interest (Neanderthals of Gibraltar - 24,383 page views; Koehler Depressing Carriage - 16,405). The topic is of significant historical interest. There is no need whatsoever for anyone to find these DYKs "annoying", and quite honestly it's clear that the community's patience has been exhausted with the people who keep complaining about this - the dead-enders that I mentioned. Whatever the original issues with Gibraltarpedia were, there's clearly no justification for continuing to harangue and attack editors. It's time this ended once and for all. Prioryman (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Topic skew needs to be controlled, urgently

It's not just that Gibraltar-related topics have a bad smell of COI, whether deserved on not; it's that the DYK insiders—and others we may or may not know who like to join the ride from time to time—indulge themselves with regular repeats of articles on similar topics. As a reult, DYK's extraordinarily privileged spot on the main page represents a weirdly skewed sample of human knowledge. How many Bach cantata articles should appear over any three-month period? Not more than one, I say; but it's been a torrent. Gibralter-related articles should be limited to one every three months, I believe. Tony (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I notice that today's featured article is a fungus - Fomitiporia ellipsoidea. We've had a fungal FA almost every month this year (Verpa bohemica, Amanita muscaria, Inocybe saliceticola, Phallus indusiatus). Stop the rot, eh? And the other FAs seem to be quite formulaic: 7 birds, 5 hurricanes, 5 pilots, 5 videogames, 4 warships, &c. But very little hard science, apart from all the species. It's natural for these processes to follow a path of least resistance but the result seems to be systemic bias. DYK has a healthy focus upon novel topics which provide unusual hooks. I'm doing my bit and I see that Surfers Paradise Meter Maids has just gone up... Warden (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- @Colonel Warden:, you're going completely off-topic complaining about TFA here rather than bringing your complaint to a TFA page, but fortunately this is on my watchlist. As TFA delegate, I can only schedule actual FAs that people write and that haven't yet appeared on the main page, not hypothetical FAs that have yet to be written. See the list at WP:FANMP for yourself: 65 hurricane articles, 73 video game articles, 67 warfare biographies, 89 warfare matériel articles (mostly warships), 38 fungi articles, 46 bird articles (not including extinct birds). And let's not start counting the TV episodes, the US roads or the contemporary music articles. How many "hard science" articles do you see there? Nothing left under chemistry and mineralogy; 1 engineer's biography that I'll run in a while, but can't run soon because we just had an engineer as TFA; nothing left under geology and geophysics; 2 health and medicine articles; nothing left under mathematics; nothing left under philosophy and psychology; 8 astronomy articles and Stephen Hawking (which wasn't up to standard, in the eyes of the community, when it was nominated at WP:TFAR earlier in the year, so it didn't run then). If you don't like the TFAs that are chosen, nominate some you do like at TFAR, or better still, write them! Bencherlite^Talk 11:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  - And it would be great to give preference to FAs with a useable picture. I don't like TFAs that comprise just grey text. Colonel Warden, once a month is quite a bit less skewed that the waterfalls of articles on Gibraltar and other themes we've had at DYK. Tony (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)�
    - Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#New guideline: Home page diversity (a discussion just started by Jehochman) and Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Request for comment - images in TFA blurbs (an RFC I started last month) may interest Tony/Warden, then. I suggest further discussion of TFAs takes place there. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  - (edit conflicts) I have no complaints about Bencherlite who seems to do a good job with the material available. The issue of systemic bias seems common to both FA and DYK so it makes sense to compare and discuss them together. I noticed recently that there was some dispute about the list of vital articles. My impression is that that list is not well-integrated with the FA/DYK processes. How could we encourage editors to work on those instead of the current cookie-cutter topics? Warden (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  - Here's a picture that illustrates the Featured Article problem. Andreas JN 466 13:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I've worked on a hard science FA, Gamma ray burst and you should all feel my pain. It was a very long and difficult process. The solution may be to alert the community to specific areas that need more articles for TFA and see if we can recruit editors to work on them. If somebody started a drive on one of those articles, I could get motivated to help. If you have to run another mushroom, please make a specific note to the effect, Yes, this topic is being over-represented, but we don't have enough alternatives. Rather than complaining, please go work on X, Y or Z, and as soon as they are ready, we can run them immediately. Jehochman ^Talk 12:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- TFA is upstairs. Take the fire escape, go up three flights of stairs, and it's door marked "Roof". Now, as it happens, I have lots of scientist articles ready for FAC: mathematicians, chemists, engineers, physicists ... lots of physicists. And yes, vital articles too. So many, that they will be a constant presence at FAC for the next couple of years. If you don't feel like writing one yourself, you can help out by reviewing. There will be plenty to go around. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Having a limit on how often a particular, relatively minor topic can appear on the main page in the space of three months, as outlined by Tony above, would prevent any recurrence of the type of scandal Wikipedia had with Gibraltarpedia. In addition, it would make sense to establish a rule excluding the following from eligibility for the DYK section of the main page:

articles written for a paying client,
articles written for sponsored contests.

Those should solve the problem. Andreas JN 466 13:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There are two reasons why I find the Gibraltar emphasis less disturbing than the once-every-six-months Square Enix software articles.

1) A DYK is about 1/10 the space of a featured ad article, and appears for 1/4 the time. That means you'd have to run 40 Gibraltar DYKs in a six-month period to rival the advertising impact of Square Enix, and that's not even taking the above-the-fold factor into consideration!
2) Gibraltar is a part of a country. We recognize that some countries are covered more than others because we get more people from them who want to edit. We have better coverage of England than we do of Iran. It is biased, yes, but it is not necessarily a commercial I-get-paid-for-this bias. It is entirely possible that simply putting up a bunch of Wikipedia plaques makes people look at the articles more and edit more. By contrast, the work done by the "fans" of Square Enix from their own company-specific Wikiproject specifically enriches one particular company by featuring their current products.

Until such time as Wikipedia can get the video game ads under control, the worrying about Gibraltar will continue to seem like straining at gnats, swallowing camels. Wnt (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that with Gibraltarpedia it was proven that someone was paid, and the (presently resuming) stream of Gibraltar DYKs demonstrably dates back to Gibraltarpedia. Prove that someone gets paid for putting Square Enix articles on the main page, and I guarantee you all hell will break loose. The problem is that it is difficult to prove. It is impossible in Wikipedia to tell a sports fan writing 100+ articles on their favourite team (I forget the name now ... perhaps someone can jog my memory), and getting all of them on the main page, from a PR pro working for that team who is doing the same. In any case though, the sensible thing would be to introduce restrictions that prevent any topic – whether it is a particular sports team, town or company – from getting undue exposure on the main page, especially if there is a conceivable commercial interest being served. On the other hand, this is Wikipedia, and the people most interested in this topic are those who want to see their DYKs on the main page, and collect baubles. So you're basically fucked. Andreas JN 466 23:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

To give another example, in the first 13 days of this month we have had 14 DYKs on Singapore (vs. 3 on Gibraltar). Now, Singapore is a hundred times bigger than Gibraltar in terms of area, with 150 times the population, but a rate of more than one a day is realistically too much. But no doubt the person(s) writing them will turn up here shortly and complain bitterly that restrictions would mean they are being "punished" for writing about Singapore. It's nuts: it's the tail of editors' bauble-collecting (if not PR) instinct wagging the WP main page dog. Andreas JN 466 23:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Jayen, there are more ways to determine relative importance that modern day borders and population statistics. One means you appear to have missed is the historical record. Modern day Singapore was not founded less than 200 years ago and the earliest recorded mentions of a settlement located on Singapore island did not occur until the third century. Compare this to Gibraltar which has a recorded history going back roughly 3,000 years and archeological evidence of settlements going back tens of thousands of years. When you consider the long-term historical significance of your two examples, it is far from clear that Gibraltar is receiving too much attention while a strong argument can be made that it is receiving too little notice. --Allen3 ^talk 23:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm On what basis, please, other than your just saying so off the top of your head? The facts are, Gibraltar is literally 2.5 sq mi (about one 100,000th) of the Iberian peninsula. There was no place called "Gibraltar" for most of those 3,000 years you mention. According to our good article on Moorish Gibraltar, the first fortified settlement in Gibraltar was established in 1160 (almost a thousand years after the oldest records for the existence of a permanent city in Singapore). If you say that "modern Singapore" was only established less than 200 years ago (as though its history began with the arrival of the British), please note that "modern Gibraltar" dates back to 1713. Until then, it was just a little corner of Spain. If you want to compare Gibraltar and Singapore, let's insert some relevant metrics here: Amazon.com, as a bookseller specialising in English-language books, lists less than 2,500 books for Gibraltar vs. over 21,500 for Singapore. I truly hope you don't think Gibraltar is more important than Singapore, or indeed the other 99.999% of the Iberian peninsula (books on Spain and Portugal number in excess of 130,000 in Amazon, more than 50 times the total for Gibraltar). If we go purely by the number of book sources available, then the roughly 100 Gibraltar hooks we have had over the past year are equivalent to 15 DYKs a day for Spain and Portugal together, and 100 hooks a day on psychology or philosophy (including more than two a day on Plato). You can criticise the metric if you will, but at least it's a metric that has some relationship to what the world out there is actually, demonstrably, interested in. Andreas JN 466 01:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

All of this is moot until the basic problem is fixed, which I don't see happening, and that is, that FA, DYK, etc is limited by what is available and what is available is generated by people who naturally write about what they know and are interested in. It's fine to say "write more hard science", but who's going to do that? Not the average wikipedian.PumpkinSky talk 02:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The editors who write and self-nom are a relatively small population. Most people who write new articles don't participate in DYK (many newbies don't know their articles qualify). If we want more diversity, get more people to nominate new articles written by others (e.g. from AfC). Andreas JN 466 02:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If nothing else, this thread demonstrates how completely obsessed you are with Gibraltar. It isn't healthy. Frankly it also demonstrates your historical ignorance. Many sources say quite explicitly how it has played an outsized role in world history. To quote from one I've used, Edward P.F. Rose, Environmental Legacy of Military Operations: "Because of its geographical situation, Gibraltar has assumed a position of importance in world history out of all proportion to its small size." An argument based on land area and population is pretty stupid when you think about it – the City of London is famously only one square mile and has a population of under 7,500 people, a quarter that of Gibraltar, so would you claim that it is even less significant than Gibraltar?

Ach, give me a break. Gibraltar has been around since Beelzebub started the Great Flood (or at least since Hercules/Melqart ended the Messinian salinity crisis) Well, perhaps the history is hard to riddle, on account of lies, exaggerations, and the occasional playful embellishment, but sailors have apparently been navigating it since the time of Atlantis. Wnt (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It should be pretty obvious I don't give a toss about Gibraltar per se, and that it's the history of paid product placement on the main page, as part of a tourism promotion project, that I find fascinating, along with Wikipedia's absolute inability to put a stop it. Sure, Gibraltar has more sources about it than most other cities in the Iberian peninsula with a population of less than 30,000. But comparing it to the City of London? There's an order of magnitude more sources about the City of London than there are about Gibraltar. Yet Wikipedia has an order of magnitude more DYKs about Gibraltar than it does about the City of London. I am far less obsessed with Gibraltar than you, Prioryman. But I am really interested in the governance issues. DYK used to be about encouraging editor contributions. But it has become something completely different: a guaranteed and foolproof path for any moderately resourceful and determined editor (including paid editors) to bring a topic of their (or their client's) choosing to the repeated attention of millions of internet users. That, and the project priorities it reveals, is really interesting. Andreas JN 466 14:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

PumpkinSky, as for it being a problem, is it a problem? I don't see great swathes of readers complaining that they're getting a poor service. I don't think they are getting a poor service, in fact. I think everyone recognises that this is a volunteer project where people write about what they're interested in. We shouldn't mistake the complaints of a couple of long-standing Wikipedian critics of DYK for some kind of great groundswell of opinion. Could DYK/TFA be improved? Sure. But let's not pretend that this is about anything other than Jayen466's pet obsession, Gibraltar. Prioryman (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I do see a role for repeating FAs in TFA, but there would have to be strict rules about it, such as "not less than X years since the last appearance", and a requirement for "significant housecleaning/updating", and "no TFAs without a suitable image". It would be a good way of (1) giving the TFA delegate the scope s/he needs to minimise topic skew, and would be motivating factor for editors to keep our large stock of FAs up to the FA quality standards, which I suspect is not generally happening. And we have no automatic auditing procedure beyond the negatively framed FA review system.
But the whole rationale DYK people have set up for themselves appears to go firmly against the notion of re-runs. And DYK people scream like crazy every time there's pressure to give over just a little bit of their patch to GAs. Hello??? Tony (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you mean to post this somewhere else, Tony? It doesn't seem to have much relevance to the discussion above; were we discussing re-runs? Prioryman (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
You could fix the problem of subject imbalance at DYK yourself right now, with out forcing others to stop improving Wikipedia. Just create and/or expand articles of underrepresented subjects and nominate them for DYK. If you work as hard as anyone else does at improving Wikipedia articles, you can make a significant impact on the main page balance without demanding that other people stop working on article subjects that interest them. Win win! --Jayron32 02:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

There are loads of stubs that have never been expanded in topics not often seen here. I recently expanded two NSW National Parks which had been stubs since 2002. I was wondering whether introducing a quota per hook set of one stub older than three years of age as a starter? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Why this whiny, wacky language about "forcing others to stop improving Wikipedia"? Come again? If we tell someone that their 112th article about their sports team will not run on the main page, because we have had enough of that team on the main page, thank you, does that in any way stop them from writing that 112th article and improving Wikipedia's coverage of that team? How does a refusal to run a DYK on the main page equate in your mind to "forcing others to stop improving Wikipedia"? Andreas JN 466 14:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I remember, back in the day, some people used to complain that there was too much Norway-related stuff on the MP. Topics that are nominated vary from time to time, depending on the interests, time and energy of the volunteers. It's difficult, and probably counter-productive, to try to force the volunteers to work on specific topics, while discouraging other topics based on some unknown formula. Manxruler (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think a really important point that needs to be made here is that DYK is an inclusive process. Any article that meets the requirements will be run at the first possible opportunity. The number of articles submitted on a particular topic, or even the absolute number of articles run as a whole, aren't a consideration. There is no quota, as we can throttle the flow rate up or down as needed. Currently we're running three lots of 7 articles per day. If we had more or fewer articles we could increase or decrease those numbers as we see fit. No article is excluded because some other article has been run in its place. If someone runs an article about mushrooms, that doesn't have any bearing on whether an article about nuclear physics can run. There is no fixed number of "places" to be apportioned out. There is also no causal relationship between a higher representation of articles in one topic area and a lower number from another topic. If someone nominates a mushroom article, that doesn't prevent or discourage anyone nominating an article on a different topic. Nobody is being shut out.

Now, what Tony and Jayen466 seem to be advocating is turning DYK into an exclusive process, where some articles are explicitly being shut out on the basis of some arbitrary criteria about "overrepresentation" (defined how? by who?). It would impose an arbitrary quota with the clear intention of discouraging editors from submitting new articles about particular topics. That would be a fundamental change to DYK's ethos and frankly I think it would make it a much less welcoming place for editors, without delivering any benefit for end users. Prioryman (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I would advocate another thing: that any topic found to have made it to the Wikipedia main page as a result of a client paying a Wikipedian should be banned from the main page for a period of ten years, with an announcement identifying the client and contractor released to the press. It would be a really useful deterrent, and add some welcome transparency. Andreas JN 466 14:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Many good points here, one I really like is...how to get the word to non DYK regulars that their new/expanded articles qualify? Learning the total maze of wiki rules, procedures, and guide pages is very daunting. 199.112.128.5 (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

To which I would add that many people are contributing passable or good new articles without going within a million miles of the DYK process, either because they don't know about it, or because (like me) they think that the whole process is so deeply flawed that they have no desire to be embarrassed by any association with it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Lists of underrepresented stub cats to investigate?

Ummm.....Category:Cheese stubs? for starters (entrees....chuckle) ....or Category:Food stubs.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe revive Wikipedia:Most wanted stubs - run a bot and see what comes up as some interesting DYK possibilities? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The "Duh!! Factor"

PumpkinSky above has hit the nail on the head. Wikipedia articles are written by unpaid volunteers. Even if taking into account that there is some acknowledged paid editing in Wikipedia, and some suspected paid writing nobody can prove, most editors at Wikipedia are unpaid. Now...who in their right mind is going to spend a lot of time and effort to put together a passable quality article about something they don't give a flying flip about? If nobody is paying you to do it, why would you put out the effort for something you don't know about and don't care about? You can recruit until the end of time, but what is the incentive? Bottom line...nobody at DYK is paid by DYK, and nobody at DYK is the boss of anybody else at DYK. You can't crack a whip and force people to write articles that will please some complainer with a hair up their nose about the process. Most of the articles that repeat given subject matter are of good quality, often professional level. There are some gifted writers contributing their talent on a repeat basis. And there's some learning the ropes. It's a flippin' volunteer group here, not a forced labor gulag where somebody can make everybody else do what they want. Those who think otherwise have issues that will not be resolved here.— Maile (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Well said, well said indeed. Manxruler (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Hence why we don't have 90 million articles on Indonesian footballers or businesses. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

More DYK issues: Homer Lafian

How in the world was this approved without any discussion of the article's content? Just take one look at the talk page comments. It is currently in the most-visible spot in DYK, yet the hook fact is only in the lead (not the article itself), the whole article has problems with encyclopedicness, and it's being described at a "mess" on the talk page. I'm not saying that DYK should involved quasi-GAN reviews, but I question whether the reviewer, who is a very experienced editor and writer (and would be expected to pick up on these problems), even read the article before approving this hook. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy-pinging User:PumpkinSky, the reviewer. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A yet stronger case is building that DYK has neither the resources nor the willingness to properly run this number of hooks on the main page every day. Why on earth aren't we talking about letting GA have a few hooks each day? Tony (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Rather than insinuating, how about making a formal proposal? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe Gilderien is planning to do just that in due course. In the meantime, Tony, we know you don't like DYK; there's no need to keep banging on about it day after day. It's deeply irritating. When it comes to influencing people and making friends, I've rarely seen anyone being quite as bad at it as you. How about just holding fire until there is an actual proposal to discuss? Prioryman (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well hold on here, I'm the one who brought this one one up, and it is certainly an article that should not have been passed... have you read the talk page? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

(e.c.) Prioryman, I'm not trying to make friends: I'm trying to get unprofessional stuff off the main page. I'm sorry if it irritates you; but are you sure you're not joining in the group bullying of anyone who criticises DYK? Oh, and since you've pigeonholed me as a DYK-hater, I need to say: I quite like the concept of DYK; but the hooks do need to be appropriate, and are so often not; the articles need to adhere to our guidelines and policies and to uphold higher standards of article writing, even if they're short and recent; QPQ and ×5 are hopeless parts of this process that invite gaming of the system and totally inadequate reviewing; there are too many hooks flowing through for quality standards to be upheld; there is insufficient control of topic-skew; and a better watch needs to be kept for paid-editing easy-street (even though I don't think paid editing can effectively be banned, given the practicalities). Tony (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not denying there's an issue here. I'm just objecting to Tony exploiting it in the course of his anti-DYK campaign and to the disproportionate attention being paid to it. Personally I'm relatively sanguine about it. We're running around 650 DYK a week. It's inevitable that some duds will get through, but look at it in proportion – this is one article out of 650, representing 0.15% of the total. Aiming for 100% success is good and laudable but the reality of human error means that we have to accept that mistakes will be made occasionally. That shouldn't be a cause for recriminations. Prioryman (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Tony, had you perhaps missed the fact that we are all amateurs around here? (If we were editing this professionally that would imply we were being paid, which you don't like, right?) I absolutely agree that we should be aiming high but you must recognise the fact that our contributors have varying levels of ability. I can guarantee that the articles that I write will be well-written, well-referenced and have interesting hooks, since I know what I'm doing, but I recognise that not everyone has that level of ability – and even those who do will occasionally make mistakes (God knows, I do). That's not a reason for condemnation. We should be looking to help people to improve and coming up with more interesting hooks where necessary, which is something I've done on quite a few occasions. Solving this has nothing to do with the volume of DYKs – that's a red herring, as the same issues would apply if we had half the number of DYKs as at present. Your pet scheme to supplant DYKs with GAs would be completely irrelevant to the issue at hand; it has much more to do with your long-standing desire to get rid of DYK altogether. I also don't think we have any particular problem with paid editing here. Offhand I can only think of one self-admitted example of a promotional article (Daphne Oseña-Paez, two years ago, though there were apparently others by the same editor that haven't been named yet). I don't think the evidence is there to suggest that there is a problem on any significant scale. I'm open to persuasion but not on the basis of one article two years ago. Prioryman (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Poor quality GA nominations and reviews are also unfortunately a fact of life, and so howlers would also occasionally appear on the main page through this route if it replaced/joined the DYK process. In my experience DYK works pretty well, though I have had to step in with my Special Admin Powers to correct a few hooks which were appearing on the main page over recent months. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that these war stories require more confirmation. It was common practise to require confirmation of exploits before awarding medals or kills as it is obviously easy to make grandiose claims of what occurred during the chaos of battle and fog of war. But this should not be used as a stick to beat DYK. For example, the current FA, Lynn Hill, seems to base much of its content upon her autobiography. The general problem here is the use of autobiography and interview as the sole source for a fact. Often this will be reasonable but we must be wary of self-serving claims. It's like my namesake is supposed to have said, "history will be kind to me, for I intend to write it." He didn't actually quite say this but that's another story... Warden (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I see from Prioryman that by implication DYK wants to foster amateurism; please explain. Nick-D, unfortunately howlers appear too often, and there's a generally low standard (punctuated by excellent, appropriate hooks and articles). Tony (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. I said that we are all amateurs here and that our contributors have varying levels of ability. Those are undisputable facts - at least, I certainly don't see you disputing them. That by itself means that there will occasionally be dud DYKs. It's just a fact of life. Prioryman (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As issues with this article are ongoing, I suggest that someone well-versed in European military matters (Nick-D or The ed17?) take a look at Vazgen Sargsyan, currently lede hook in Prep 3, ~~by the same editor.~~ If there are issues let's not have a repeat of this mess. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- The hook is cited to primary sources (initial reports on the results of opinion polls), and his lead in most of those polls isn't large (and there's no clear single national hero). While the statement seems credible, a strong secondary source is needed to support such a claim (in particular, do these particular surveys accurately reflect the overall body of opinion?). I'd suggest pulling this hook pending a stronger reference, or a new hook. I don't know much about Armenian military history, but the article seems much better developed and the content on his military service didn't raise any red flags for me. The online references are in Armenian so I couldn't check them. Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  - Alright, I'll pull it for now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  - Just realised it's a different editor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hall of Lame updates

It keeps coming thick and fast. Today's winner is in queue 4, which offers some really good and really bad hooks, mangled together:

"Did you know that Transdev Melbourne will take over operation of 30% of Melbourne, Australia's bus network in August 2013?"
Gee whizz, no I didn't know that. I'm excited. You can't just bang out a hook expecting that visitors to the main page will "get" it. What exactly is the surprise, or even the slight interest, here? The 30% bit pushes this down even further, by the way.
Technical niggles too: "Melbourne comma Australia" stuck in the middle is so clunky, and "Melbourne" appears twice in half a second. Who thought this one up? (I suppose a minor improvement would be "of much of the city's public bus network" ... but we're still left decidely underwhelmed.)
A justification here for worthiness of main-page exposure would be welcome.

The runner up is in the same queue:

"Did you know that Singaporean entertainer and singer Anna Belle Francis produced Dick Lee's Euranasia?"
What the hell? Who, and who, are these people? Readers should not have to click on these secondary links to make some kind of sense of why it's a hook (for those who don't know, a hook is supposed to "hook" you into the DYK article).

"that Eva Perón established the Salon Rosado in the Palace of the Buenos Aires City Legislature (pictured) as an exclusive space for women politicians, where they could discuss issues without men being present?" is 209 characters (has the limit been increased???). After the comma simply repeats the obvious. I see this rule: "The hook itself should be concise: fewer than about 200 characters, including spaces. While 200 is an outside limit, hooks slightly under 200 characters may still be rejected at the discretion of the selecting reviewers and administrators." The picture is ridiculously small ... actually, it's an insult to readers of the main page who lack a magnifying glass.

Tony (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Finally my article has entered the Hall of Lame. It is really an honour, Tony. :) Rest assured, I will be producing more of such quality articles! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The Transdev Melbourne hook will certainly be of interest to Melburnians, and to those who take an interest in public transport, so I don't see much wrong with the hook, given that it's probably the most interesting fact about this company. I agree though, that "Melbourne, Australia's" is clunky phraseology that could have used some copyediting.

You are correct that the Salon Rosado hook is too long and could have used a trim. I don't see much wrong with the Anna Belle Francis hook given that the subject is described in the hook, however I agree that many hooks have insufficient information about the subject - but then, it's not always easy to get the balance right between brevity and obscurity. Gatoclass (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Truth be told, I see a lot of Wikipedia:Systemic bias in Tony's "lameness" criticisms. While other points, such a brevity and awkward wording, are certainly valid, I think it is unwise to apply an anglo-centric worldview towards judging what is going to be interesting vs lame for our readers. While, yes, this is the English Wikipedia, our Main Page audience is global and there will be people with an interest in Melbourne transit, Singaporean entertainers or Argentine politics and women's issues. What is one man's "Hall of Lame" is another person's reason to click on a link they would have otherwise skipped. We should always be cautious about using our own biases and worldviews as gauges on "interesting-ness". Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 18:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no! You don't get it. We can't have hooks interesting to Melburnians or other limited groups. They must be interesting to Tony, or he's going to whine and bitch about it on this talk page. Reso lute 18:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Tony, for years you've essentially done nothing but complain about the work of others. STOP IT. Since you're so unhappy with them, stop looking at the work of others and go RIGHT your own stuff so you'll be reading something you like. After such a long time, I can only think you're not happy unless you're bitching about the others' work (that was on purpose too). PumpkinSky talk 13:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

These are attitudes we've all become used to from DYK regulars, who scream at anyone who looks like questioning their easy serotonin hit from main-page exposure with not much effort. I'm sorry, you're not going to push out the door others who want professional standards. A more functional reaction would be to take it on board and improve the process, which sucks at the moment. Tony (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You want professionals? Go hire some and pay them. I don't volunteer my time to put up with pompous asses like you. PumpkinSky talk 15:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Kindly cool it, PumpkinSky. Tony has a right to express his views here like any other Wikipedian, providing of course that he doesn't do so ad nauseum. Gatoclass (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

So do I. And his ad nauseum has been going on for years. Time to stop. And thanks for admitting I'm in a lower wiki class than Tony.PumpkinSky talk 15:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, wait, I said you are "in a lower wiki class than Tony"? How did I do that, exactly? Gatoclass (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess I read it wrong, but the way I wrote that sounded like "Tony can say his views but PSKY can't". Granted I was snarky, but Tony started a Hall of Lame thread directed at multiple editors wasn't exactly unsnarky. That being said, I think enough has been said on this topic today so let's all sleep on it and come back with a fresh and brighter look later. PumpkinSky talk 22:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was going to delete that last, most uncivil, post by Pumpkin, but Gato beat me with a reply. I can see that the criticism hurts. It's close to the bone, but there really is no need to be nasty. PS doesn't seem to take kindly to the criticism of the process from Tony, and has responded with a WP:SOFIXIT-type retort. I hope that he realises that Tony is one such professional who dedicates many hours a week to the project. The WP world is vast, and there's not many Tonies around. Are you suggesting that you, or the project, should start paying him? -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As the reviewer who approved the "209-character" hook above, I would just like to say that I approved it because it is actually 198 characters long, and thus within the limits, and it was up to whoever promoted it to decide whether to add (pictured) and make it the lead hook.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been my experience that (pictured) isn't counted by most of us. So that part of this thread is making a mountain out of a mole hill.PumpkinSky talk 15:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I pointed out above how that hook could have been shorter and punchier (by removing everything after the comma). Tony (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not the hook was within the rules for length, Tony is correct that removing everything after the comma would have made for a better hook. I have proposed alternative hooks several times when reviewing, and I think it should be part of every review to consider not only whether the hook is supported but also whether it could be made punchier. Tony is also correct that the reviewing standards are uneven and the DYK project needs to try to improve them. EdChem (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Gilderien: just because a hook is under 200 characters doesn't mean it can't be trimmed. 200 character has always been just an upper limit (with some exceptions), not an entitlement. If a hook can be improved by trimming, it should be trimmed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

EdChem said "I have proposed alternative hooks several times when reviewing, and I think it should be part of every review to consider not only whether the hook is supported but also whether it could be made punchier."—You know, so have I. The issue is, somehow the community up and decided that proposing a new hook renders one unable to complete a review (and thus unable to claim QPQ), so a lot of people aren't doing it... even for simple grammar fixes. That one isn't in DYKSG yet, but I've seen it enforced on some noms. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Crisco, I admit that I have not done a QPQ review since January, but in my last two reviews (for my double article hook), I got QPQ credit despite proposing ALTs that were used in each case. I think refusing to give QPQ credit in either of my cases would have been ridiculous, and I would have requested further input here at WT:DYK had that happened. EdChem (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

None of that means it's ok for Tony to come here and other places attacking whole groups of editors--and certainly not with an insulting thread title. Yes, DYK is uneven, but so is everyhing on wiki. PumpkinSky talk 02:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

PumpkinSky, I will not spend as much as one nanosecond defending Tony's titling of this thread, it was obviously both deliberatively provocative and unfair. However, I am choosing to ignore the provocation because he has some valid points which will be lost in a fight over matters that cannot lead to improvements in DYK. I know that you took offense and responded and I think the block you received for it was over the top and unreasonable in both a practical and policy sense, and I am glad it has been undone - I would have supported the unblock at WP:AN had I noticed the thread in time. I believe in the DYK project and am aware of your contributions and leadership over many years and am glad you are still contributing. However, I also believe that improvements can be made to DYK and I would like to see that happen. If that means my taking in reasonable points while ignoring provocation from Tony and others, I am willing to make the effort, and I hope that the project can be improved. I understand that (like may editors), you have been on the receiving end of much unfair treatment and so I also believe that understanding and accommodating everyone's sensitivities is desirable for a collaborative activity, and I invite Tony to retitle this thread and to adopt a more collaborative and less confrontational approach. EdChem (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

EdChem, Here "obviously both deliberatively provocative and unfair. However, I am choosing to ignore the provocation because he has some valid points which will be lost in a fight over matters that cannot lead to improvements in DYK." you're essentially saying that Joe and Jane Editor can be a complete jerk, even "deliberately provocative" as you put it, as long as they make valid points. That, sir, I cannot condone. There are far better ways to make one's points and the community condoning such behavior just makes the community worse. Thank you for realizing the "much unfair treatment" thing. PumpkinSky talk 02:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't find the title irritating enough to act over by taking it up with him. I am not saying that I would ignore all provocation, there certainly are comments I would take action about. Unfortunately, Tony's comments reflect a view held by a section of the community and I don't see screaming about them as productive - though I understand others will disagree. Some DYK critics reduce the persuasiveness of their critiques by couching them in provocative terms, and Tony is not alone in this regard. Sometimes a parent responds to a child's tantrum by ignoring it, sometimes by recognising the underlying issue, and sometimes with a reprimand. Tony's tantrum is unedifying but is motivated by real issues, so I am choosing approach 2 - you are, of course, free to adopt approach 3 but I hope you will also engage with the issues over reviewing, for example. I do not condone Tony's provocation, I just am choosing to ignore it, but I am disappointed that an editor of his abilities has chosen a provocative approach which is beneath him. EdChem (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that simply screaming is not productive. Of course, all Tony ever does is scream. He loves to snipe at things he doesn't like, but when was the last time he actually reviewed a DYK nom? Trashing the efforts of other volunteers takes very little effort compared to stepping in and reviewing noms and suggesting alternate hooks himself. Reso lute 17:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Improper move of user's own hook into lead position

In this edit to Prep 1, a user moves their own hook from the number five position into the lead spot. Their edit summary, "Vazgen Sargsyan's picture was initially up there, why take it down?" is misleading, as that image was never in the Prep; I guess they're just referring to the fact that the image was "up there" on its nomination page. Anyways, normally I would just revert this myself, but the other hook involved is one that I nominated. The original lead hook image is of an abstract painting, something which very rarely appears on DYK (just ~~three~~ four in the last ~~three~~ four years). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I undid. Moving one's own hook around should not be a shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later situation.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I left a note on the user's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Vazgen was the lead hook in a different prep at on 17 June 2013, but was pulled (temporarily, apparently) for further discussion (see the "More DYK issues: Homer Lafian" discussion above). Still improper to move one's own hook, though. Manxruler (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that wasn't made clear in the edit summary. I noticed that Gilderien pointed out, on the user's talk page, the proper way to request such a change. Think of the chaos if everyone whose image wasn't selected decided to just swap it in themselves. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep. That would've been a mess. Manxruler (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2013 (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:

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.
Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
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, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

What is enough for QPQ?

I have been commenting on reviewing so I thought I should do some. I have commented at Template:Did you know nominations/Spectral line shape and wonder if my suggestions are followed whether it would count for QPQ? Or, if I made the changes would it count for DYKmake credit? I think we could do with a page that better outlines what is sufficient for QPQ credit or additions to share make credit. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If you were to help rewrite the more technical aspects for the lay reader (or at least help with a lay summary) that may be worth a DYKmake credit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hall of Lame updates

It keeps coming thick and fast. Today's winner is in queue 4, which offers some really good and really bad hooks, mangled together:

"Did you know that Transdev Melbourne will take over operation of 30% of Melbourne, Australia's bus network in August 2013?"
Gee whizz, no I didn't know that. I'm excited. You can't just bang out a hook expecting that visitors to the main page will "get" it. What exactly is the surprise, or even the slight interest, here? The 30% bit pushes this down even further, by the way.
Technical niggles too: "Melbourne comma Australia" stuck in the middle is so clunky, and "Melbourne" appears twice in half a second. Who thought this one up? (I suppose a minor improvement would be "of much of the city's public bus network" ... but we're still left decidely underwhelmed.)
A justification here for worthiness of main-page exposure would be welcome.

The runner up is in the same queue:

"Did you know that Singaporean entertainer and singer Anna Belle Francis produced Dick Lee's Euranasia?"
What the hell? Who, and who, are these people? Readers should not have to click on these secondary links to make some kind of sense of why it's a hook (for those who don't know, a hook is supposed to "hook" you into the DYK article).

"that Eva Perón established the Salon Rosado in the Palace of the Buenos Aires City Legislature (pictured) as an exclusive space for women politicians, where they could discuss issues without men being present?" is 209 characters (has the limit been increased???). After the comma simply repeats the obvious. I see this rule: "The hook itself should be concise: fewer than about 200 characters, including spaces. While 200 is an outside limit, hooks slightly under 200 characters may still be rejected at the discretion of the selecting reviewers and administrators." The picture is ridiculously small ... actually, it's an insult to readers of the main page who lack a magnifying glass.