Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 107

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 100←Archive 105Archive 106Archive 107Archive 108Archive 109Archive 110

Prep building and the issue of responsibility - suggestion

I am very concerned that a couple of our regular prep builders have expressed an intention to "back off" from building sets due to the number of promoted noms getting challenged recently. Prep building is a vitally important part of this process, we need our regulars to stay engaged.

This is actually not a new concern of mine, it's been bothering me for a long time that the burden of responsibility has, IMO, been placed too heavily on the shoulders of prep builders rather than being more evenly distributed. Prep building is a difficult- and time-consuming-enough task as it is, without the expectation that builders also be made responsible for checking a host of standard article and hook criteria. I was already mulling the notion of proposing, in a few weeks' time, a tighter definition of respective responsibilities of DYK participants, but given recent events, perhaps this is an opportune moment to bring that discussion forward.

In brief then, I'm thinking it should be clarified that prep builders are not primarily responsible for set verification. Beyond simple checks for hook grammar and interest, and a basic level of presentation for the article, prep builders should be allowed to concentrate on what they do best - selecting an appropriately varied set and posting it to prep. It doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage them to do more, but I think neither should we be blaming them when, for example, hook statements turn out to be erroneous. Instead, I think the responsibility for hook fact-checking should shift to the administrators moving the sets from prep to the Queue. Technically, that's a very simple job - far easier job than set-building - so I think it makes sense for the promoting admins to take on that particular responsibility. Ultimately, of course, primary responsibility still lays with the reviewer/s, and we might eventually need to look at making that part of the process more accountable, but that's probably a discussion best left for another day.

Regardless, with regard to the present situation, I would like to assure set-builders that I personally will not be holding them accountable for errors identified in their sets (unless of course they are egregious) - I am already taking responsibility for the accuracy and quality of sets I promote to the queue and I therefore expect any criticism of such sets to be directed to me. Since I currently have some spare time, I also expect to be promoting the lion's share of sets to the queue over the next few days. The important point is, I currently have time to verify and promote sets but I don't have time to also build them - for that I need assistance. So once again, I request that our regular set-builders stay engaged, and indeed encourage everyone to continue their participation. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If the number of sets required per day was reduced, the problem of finding a set builder would be less frequent. What's the rush? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
"The rush" is that there are approximately 250 eligible articles waiting for promotion at T:TDYK. If we slow down the process, either there will soon be 500 noms on that page or large numbers of them will never get promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 08:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Just like all the other processes on the main page then? The promotion rate of FLs means we currently will have an increasing backlog, the throughput of ITN means some items aren't good enough so they fail. It's commonplace. Perhaps part of the problem is offering some form of guarantee that DYKs, once "checked off" by the various reviewers, will feature on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, if you want to propose some radical restructure of DYK, you are free to do so, but you should start a new thread for that. This thread is about something else, and I'd like to keep it on topic, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I haven't given up on building prep sets, but had to suspend doing so for a while because I'm in Canada with the Paralympians at the moment. I will resume when I get back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Gatoclass' premise that the administrators who promote queues are the folks primarily responsible for ensuring the quality of what gets approved for the main page, but the prep-builders should not be let off the hook completely. The prep builder is the one who closes the nomination discussion (let's get away from saying they "promoted" the hook). Closure of any discussion is an action that normally involves some accountability. For DYK noms, the person who closes a discussion should be expected to try to make sure that the nomination was reviewed properly, that the relevant issues raised during the discussion have been resolved (for example, that there are no unresolved issues with the hook they are promoting), and that there are no apparent issues that appear to require continuation of the discussion. (Ideally, they would also check to ensure that nobody wrote below the line that says <!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->, but that's probably asking too much!) --Orlady (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with most of your comments Orlady. Obviously if we go ahead with tighter definitions, they will have to be negotiated, and I think you raise some good points here. Gatoclass (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
No, prep builders are (should be) responsible for checking the accuracy of the hook (but not the rest of the criteria). Admins who do the final promotion are also responsible to fact check. Having multiple eyes on something is the best way to make sure it is accurate. It only takes a couple minutes to find the fact in the article and check the online source (or AGF on an offline source). I wouldn't expect independent research to verify the fact, but checking to make sure it is in the article, properly cited, and that the citation is valid isn't too much to ask. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Yep, prep builders are the penultimate line of defence, they shouldn't be building sets if the blocks they're using are corrupt. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Another solution: Reviewer accountability

Thank you, Gatoclass, for your calm and reasoned approach to finding a solution to what has been dubbed "The DYK Problem". I don't think we've reached a solution yet, but your ratcheting down the tone many notches from the strident negativity that appears in almost all the threads on this talk page is much appreciated.

I'd like to suggest another solution for discussion. I don't think the problem is with the "rush" to get things onto the main page, or with the need for a "48-hour holding area" (it could just as well be 24-hours, for all the eyes that are supposedly going to look at it), or with the prep builders or administrators who "fail" to spot errors in sourcing or whole articles while they're putting together those 7 hooks. Bottom line, it's the reviewers. Some of them are novice reviewers who are bound by the QPQ system to review something; others are more regular reviewers who nevertheless are skipping over fact-checking, reference-checking, and other DYK criteria, letting errors creep through. I believe that the solution is to impose accountability at the review stage. I really like Maile's checklist; I think something along those lines should be programmed into every template so that the reviewer is "forced" to tick off what s/he checks, one by one. Then, it is perfectly appropriate to put the approved hook into a holding area where it will wait as long as necessary until a second reviewer double-checks it to make sure all the criteria have been met. Since the criteria are clearly spelled out on the template, you can include any criteria you want in order to make sure that it will hit the main page "error-free". After that, it would seem that prep-building and queue-promotion would go much smoother. Yoninah (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. This is one problem among many, but hopefully this is one issue where we might all be able to find a common ground. Gamaliel (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm kind of partial to the format of the GA review Table, but some program guru (such as Guru Shubinator) would have to incorporate that with the current nomination template, so it would be relatively seamless in execution. At the very least, every new reviewer would have a visual of what they need to check in the review. And as you say, if the review couldn't pass without filling out the template...then it just wouldn't pass.— Maile (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Another example might be the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist. We need to improve accountability and traceability. And we need to make the review process more structured and methodical. It's better to get things right first time, rather than having to duplicate effort with multiple reviews. Edwardx (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support no issues with mandating a checklist, sounds like it'd have the side-effect of slowing things down in any case which is ideal. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I don't want to detract from Maile66's glory at all, but I recall that I suggested something like this as well. I fully support this idea, and cannot see any downside to it. I do have a question: Would QPQ credit extend to the second reviewer, or only for the initial reviewer?--¿3family6 contribs 19:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
3family6, recently I ran across a template where someone else had actually tried to work up a review checklist template. Seems to me it was 2011, so perhaps someone here will remember it. I do know this idea was floated before. It was before my time. FYI - you're not detracting from me. What I've been doing is just covering my behind. And trying to keep track of what I did on any review. Things come back to bite a reviewer, so I've been logging the details on the review template. Also, it's just simple courtesy to leave this for promoters to see. But I do believe we need a better structure in place for reviewers both new and veterans of the process.— Maile (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Probably thinking of {{DYK review checklist}} or {{DYKrev}} (guess we have at least 2 attempts). Both are a good start but will need expanded/adjusted to meet this proposal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes. This is what I recently saw. — Maile (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I implemented something for FLC a while ago, "things to check", it's a good ready reckoner, and while most of it applies to article content, the fact I could point people to common errors, common flaws in nominations without having to continually repeat myself in reviews, was very helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Another thing, we have way too many rules and ins and outs for even the old-timers. New reviewers can't possibly know everything they're supposed to check. This is a collapsible cheatsheet I've run up for myself just to remember the basics I need. It's a work in progress: DYKCheatsheet. — Maile (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm not too much into DYK but I have been lurking; as an outsider, having a standard checklist like that would definitely be good. As long as it's built-in as a template and easy to use, I can't see a downside. Would make reviewing more appealing and streamlined in my eyes. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - This appears to be two proposals in one: a checklist and a mandatory second review, but all the comments on on the checklist only. The two don't in any way seem to require one another, so I suggest this be a discussion only on the checklist. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I am a bit hesitant to "mandate" use of a checklist template. I think prepopulating it into the nomination template would accomplish the goal of making sure new users are checking everything and new most people new or otherwise would use it. However, the lack of mandate would allow experienced users to continue using their current style of review if they so chose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. We did try a checklist some time ago, but although I thought it needed more time, it got dumped pretty quickly by consensus. I guess we could try it again, but first, an acceptable checklist would have to be developed. However, checklists do not ensure accountability, because lazy users can still tick off a checklist without actually making the checks. Accountability to me means some sort of penalty for not doing the job properly. Regarding the proposal for double reviews, I would have to oppose that because if we are going to double reviews we might as well just declare QPQ a failure and go back to voluntary reviews - but that would mean a critical shortage of reviewers, so it's not an option IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment: If I remember correctly (but note that my memory may have distorted the facts!), that earlier checklist got dumped for a variety of reasons -- after it had been tried out on the noms page for a little while. One thing that I recall as problematic was that it took up a huge amount of real estate in the nomination template (the proposal called for it to be built into every template, so the entire checklist would be displayed as soon as a new nom was created) -- when viewing a relatively simple brand-new nom on my computer screen, I couldn't see the top and the bottom of the nomination at the same time. And because it used icons for each of the items on the checklist, it added greatly to the visual information that a prep-builder would need to process when scanning the noms page for prep-area candidates. For a nom that passes on all but one or two criteria (as many noms do) and then is discussed on the noms page, the presence of template within the nom template made it harder for a prospective prep-area builder to follow the discussion and find the approved hooks in the wiki-code version of the noms page. IMO, checklists for reviewers are a great idea as guidance to reviewers, but mandating that every nomination include an extensive template was an idea that didn't work out. --Orlady (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
If a compact checklist, perhaps something like that Maile is using for himself, can be developed, I don't think it could do much harm. However, I think it should be made clear that it will be mandated only for QPQ reviewers and only for the initial review - we don't want the same checklist stamped on a nom over and over for subsequent reviews. Gatoclass (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Before we pursue a new checklist, let's consider the guidance that currently is provided to reviewers. The edit notice that displays when a nomination is opened in edit mode provides a rather comprehensive list of the review criteria. Apparently reviewers aren't paying enough attention to that list (possibly they aren't noticing it). Maybe there would be more compliance if the appearance of the list were changed frequently to attract people's attention (for example, keep changing the text colors), so reviewers will be less inclined to ignore it.
As for QPQ, I don't believe it's reasonable to expect high-quality work from every reveiwer. QPQ inevitably means that some reviews will be done by users who don't really understand what they are being asked to do. IMO, neither the existing edit notice nor a formal checklist is likely to completely resolve that problem. I submit, however, that we should treat deficient reviews by inexperienced DYK reviewers as an opportunity -- this is an opportunity for engagement with an inexperienced user to help them become more effective contributors. It's a mistake to assume that somebody (particularly a newbie, but similar issues occur with WikiCup competitors and some other veterans) who did a DYK review solely for QPQ credit did that review properly (BTW, this is one reason why I think prep builders need to take a critical eye to the discussions they are closing), but it's also shortsighted of us when we don't use a deficient QPQ review as an opportunity for positive interaction with a contributor who might want a bit of a nudge to help them become both more proficient and highly productive in the future. --Orlady (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
We have two issues here. One is that if we want to have the QPQ review as a means for new editors to become proficient contributors, we should actually design it to do that. And two is that if we are to not expect that the QPQ review will be a high-quality one, then we should not be using them to feature items on the front page. Gamaliel (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose If a reviewer skimps on the review I see no reason that they wouldn't tick off items on the checklist with the same careless attitude (somebody might have already said this but I'm the type of lazy reviewer that doesn't read previous comments). I'm pretty sure that the hassle of filling in a templated checklist would put an end to at least my reviewing [and cue noise of editors rushing to add support for the proposal]. Belle (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Why would filling out a simple template be such an arduous task when you're already doing a solid review? I would think the work of doing a decent review would be much more offputting than a couple of checkmarks or whatever will be on the template. Gamaliel (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    Unfortunately it isn't either review or fill the template. Why would I want another step to make reviewing yet more complicated? Belle (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment As noted we did try this and it just means more for people to cut and paste before writing "good to go". My own pet solution to improving quality is that reviewers should make a referenced addition to the article of at least one sentence. That means that they look at the article and we get real eyes on real text and one real source. My own enthusiasm is low and I don't want Gato's suggestion (nice to see the help!) to wander off topic so feel free to propose this idea if you think it might work. Victuallers (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Template ready for testing

I have designed a new review checklist template: Template:DYK checklist. It is very much a work in progress, so comments of any kind are welcome. If we decide to preload it into new nominations, it could be loaded with comments to explain what each field is - we do something like this at ITN and it works pretty well. If we don't go that route, the checklist is at least available for people who want to use it.

The new template has a number of features built it. It will collapse itself when there are no problems (by type, undecided about complete collapse), provide a notice if the review is incomplete, and hide the image section if there isn't one. Take a look at the testcases to get an idea of what it looks like in action. Try it out on a live review, if you like, by copying and pasting from the documentation page. And provide feedback so I can make it work/look better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I did a review with the template on Tim Frick. Overall, a good template. Two issues: (1) Template does not provide for ALT hooks; (2) When I copied and pasted to the nom template, the line breaks did not copy over. I had to go in and hand insert each one. — Maile (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Late tweak to Prep Area 3 with 10.5 hours left before it runs

I just noticed that in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3, Diane Guerrero, which was promoted by Bobamnertiopsis and had extensive discussions at Template:Did you know nominations/Diane Guerrero has the hook "... that Colombian-American Orange Is the New Black actress Diane Guerrero's parents and older brother were deported to Colombia?" I want to add "when she was 14 years old". to the end of the hook so that it is clear this happened when she was a teenager. Can I do this without further delaying the hook?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thanks--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

How to withdraw?

Here is my nomination:

{{Did you know nominations/Anna (Disney)}}

Now that I found it was promoted to GA for quite a long time. How should I withdraw? Or I just post it to get rejected?Forbidden User (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. This fact was added very recently, but no fivefold expansion occurs.

I've withdrawn it for you. Just as a side note, make sure the pictures you nominate with articles are free to use, the one with that nom wasn't. Thanks, Matty.007 13:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Prep 1

The lead hook in Prep 1 is over 200 characters (not including "pictured"). Yoninah (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a double hook. --PFHLai (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead in prep3

Resolved
  • ... that the rood screen (pictured) in St John the Evangelist's Church, Kirkham, designed by Augustus Pugin in the 1840s, was moved and altered by the parish priest in 1906?

I can't see that the source says "altered" - any chance this can be properly verified before pulling the hook? Gatoclass (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It certainly was altered as it did not fit. Will try and add with a source later, unless User:Peter I. Vardy can get there first. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

As it stands, it should be pulled. The source for it says "He moved the rood screen to the back of the church, and altered, extended and refurnished the sacristy. "[1], where the "altered" clearly is about the sacristy, not the rood screen. Unless some other source is found for the altered rood screen, it should be pulled. Fram (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Have made an adjustment and added a new source, but it's not available on the web, so it may be tricky for you to check it. But hey, those bells got pulled, so why not the screen too! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
So, it's in Prep3? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC) is it?
You will find that the hook has now been positively confirmed by Martinevans123 from a reliable source not available online. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Hassocks5489 has even found an on-line source now to suppport the original bells hook! Haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean bell hooks?--¿3family6 contribs 13:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
or "our Gloria" as she's known to her pals down at the snooker club...? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this nomination being ignored now that sources have been found for both the first "pulled" hook, and for the second current hook? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

ALT5 has now been checked and the article re-approved. Gatoclass (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Is it in a queue somewhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Revisiting accountability - new suggestion

On the issue of accountability for QPQ reviewers, which I raised earlier: I really think it's time we did something about this, because substandard QPQ reviewing has been a perennial source of concern on this page. So here's another suggestion: QPQ reviewers who approve articles which turn out to have copyvio/close paraphrasing issues, or incorrect hooks or hooks which turn out to have unsourced statements, will be required to do an additional two reviews, plus an additional two reviews for every review they get wrong; will be required to do an additional review for every such invalid review, and will not have any of their own articles promoted until they have done a review correctly. This requirement will be imposed at the discretion of the reviewer identifying the fault, or by a regular reviewer or administrator. Comments welcome. Gatoclass (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Support. This will help, and I can't see any serious problems it would cause either. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I would say, the user who finds the error, or anyone else who is motivated to follow it up. I certainly know, speaking for myself, that when I find a blatant and obvious error, I would be only too happy to ensure that the offender make amends, and I don't think I'd be alone in that. I do think though, that imposing the requirement should probably be left to the discretion of the person finding the error, because there are probably some cases where the error was understandable. Gatoclass (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Except, as we've seen recently (and has caused some ill will) editors who pull hooks are not always willing to reopen the nomination page and/or do any additional work after the "threat" has been neutralized. I wonder how many people would actually pay attention to issues such as this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If through incompetence, someone lets a bad DYK through, you want them to do a total of THREE reviews instead of one? Any I the only one that see the logical fallacy here? Now reviewing is a punishment? Perhaps part of the problem is that it always has been. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
If someone is incompetent, they probably shouldn't be submitting articles for the main page anyway. But if they are not incompetent, just inexperienced, or inattentive, this should provide them an opportunity to improve their skills, under supervision. Gatoclass (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
If they are only reviewing because it is QPQ, it is unlikely they will view it as an "opportunity". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It's an opportunity to continue participating here; if it's too much bother for them, that means less work and a better standard for everyone else. Gatoclass (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
And if they are a solid article creator who is simply uncomfortable or not skilled reviewing outside of their specialty, it is OK if we never get any more DYK submissions from them? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Why can't they review an article within their specialty? And in any case, I said imposing the requirement doesn't have to be mandatory, it can be left to the discretion of the user finding the error or a regular reviewer. Gatoclass (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
My point being that this would be more likely to cause drama than solve problems, in my opinion. Unquestionably suggested with good intentions, but it doesn't address the underlying problems inherent in the entire system and may serve to further alienate editors. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
"Why can't they review an article within their specialty?" - I've always disliked this type of question, as someone's "specialty" may be very, very obscure. I doubt there is a single other editor in this project who'd be able to fact check the average article I submit (i.e. articles regarding Indonesian films and actors from before 1950s). Sure, some general points, but not the more specific, unique things that usually form the basis of hooks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
This is headed in the right direction, but there's some serious problems with this. Numerous editors are dead set against any changes in the rules, to the point where even a reviewing template is seen as an arduous layer of addition bureaucracy. So, as Crisco 1492 said, who is going to keep track of this? QPQ is basically on the honor system as it is. If someone does a shitty review, I support invalidating that QPQ, but there's really no system in place to make sure they don't get away with using it anyway, and there's no way you could get the support for instituting a system for keeping track of it when we can't even get support for a simple template. Also, Dennis Brown raises a good point. We shouldn't make reviewing a punishment, it's counterproductive. (It reminds me of elementary school, where we were assigned essays about 'what we did wrong' as punishment. We learned nothing except to view writing as punishment, not exactly the outcome you want.) You don't want the kind of people who rush through reviews to rush through more reviews, and since they already think of reviews as incidental to getting their article on the front page, adding more reviewing as punishment will only reinforce that view. We need a system that will engage these editors and help them improve their reviewing skills, not punish them by making them do more of what they already don't want to do. Gamaliel (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, when you have devised a "system that will engage these editors and help them improve their reviewing skills", let me know. In the meantime, we clearly have some problems at DYK, and I for one am tired of having to deal with the fallout from poor reviewing, so until someone comes up with a better idea, I'm standing behind this proposal. Gatoclass (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why we can't tweak your proposal to head towards accomplishing both goals. Gamaliel (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll take that as a qualified support, thanks. I'm really only proposing a general principle at this point, I'm more than happy to discuss details later. Gatoclass (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds great! Can't wait to hear some specifics. Gatoclass (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The sarcasm in your response is deafening, which may be part of the problem. Specifically, it requires leadership from someone wanting to find ways to increase the desirability of reviewing, be it pips for reviewers or some similar type of recognition. Primarily, it requires starting discussion in that direction, rather than a discussion on how to further punish those that have little interest in reviewing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not "punishment", it's accountability. Getting your article on the front page is a privilege, not a right. If you want to enjoy that privilege, you must fulfill your obligations to the other project members who work to make it available to you. If you don't want to fulfill your obligations, but just take advantage of others' work, then you lose your privileges until you start fulfilling your obligations again. What's so terribly unfair about that? Gatoclass (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps because I'm not part of the culture here, but everything is wrong with that. I don't see a DYK as a privilege, and again, from an outsider's perspective that is bordering on offensive. I see it as people volunteering to write or expand articles to a specific standard, and Wikipedia using that information as a front page tidbit, to tempt the reader into exploring something that they might not had viewed otherwise. It should be a win/win situation, as the encyclopedia gets interesting tidbits, and the writer gets a little pip to put on their page. That is a partnership, or at least it should be. And partnerships are inherently accountable. You make it sound like an onerous dictatorship, and we little peasants should simply shut the fuck up and do what you say. I sincerely hope that is not the tone you take with every user here, else this place is even more broken than I thought. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
DYK isn't a privilege? So what do you think it is - an entitlement? I'm sorry, but getting your article on the mainpage through the DYK process most certainly is a privilege in my view - a privilege extended by the community as a whole and one which the community may choose to withdraw at any time if we fail to maintain appropriate standards. Gatoclass (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't see it as privilege. Again, perhaps because I'm not part of the DYK crowd, the idea that volunteering anywhere is "privilege" is offensive. Perhaps that perspective is part of the problem. Everything we do at Wikipedia is about cooperation, collaboration: There are no rights or privileges. Once we start calling things "privilege", then those that grant that "privilege" become the "ruling class"; more equal than others. That is antithetical to what Wikipedia stands for and has nothing to do with having high standards. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I hardly think one can fairly describe "the community as a whole" as a "ruling class". But in any case, as this discussion doesn't appear to be going anywhere useful, I think I will bow out at this point. Thanks for the comments. Gatoclass (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Strongly oppose About half of all the reviews I've seen are reopened because a) either the reviewer forgot something, b) the reviewer forgot to MENTION some of the criteria for which they reviewed, c) there was an error that they didn't spot. The problem with this proposal is that it would make no distinction between an imperfect review and an incompetent review.--¿3family6 contribs 14:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Vote struck per amendment to proposal.--¿3family6 contribs 16:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
That is not correct - I said users could use their discretion as to whether or not to impose the requirement. Gatoclass (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I failed to notice that. I still think that this proposal is too punitive, and will discourage rather than encourage editors.--¿3family6 contribs 15:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't something like this already done? I've had at least once where I had to do a new review because I did not stipulate in my previous review all of the criteria I had evaluated the nomination against.--¿3family6 contribs 16:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I think this proposal misses the point. The goal of the DYK venture should be seen as an abstract game for gathering of point, but as an effort to create incentives for creation of new wiki articles with certain quality standards and improving existing articles. The real problem in the DYK process at the moment isn't sloppy reviews (which do happen), but that the entire process again and again gets bogged down in endless bureaucratic arguments. The QPQ is good, but making it more complex wont help anyone nor will it engage a wider audience of editors to participate in the DYK process. --Soman (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Alright, make it one review then. You only have to do one additional review for every review you get wrong. Surely that's not going to be too onerous? [Update: proposal so amended.] Gatoclass (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose As long as you make QPQ a requirement for nominating DYKs, you are going to get some half-assed reviews. Somebody who is simply doing their "assignment" in order to qualify their own nomination is not going to spend half an hour on the QPQ review, period. The problem is the QPQ requirement itself; the solution is not trying to make the QPQ reviewers do a better job by harassing or threatening them, or piling on additional requirements. I remember at one point you had a whole page-long checklist of things that had to be checked off while reviewing; it was so complicated I stopped nominating DYKs until the template was withdrawn. Basically you regulars here have a couple of choices: accept the fact that some QPQ reviews will be half-hearted; or recruit enough people to this task so that we no longer need QPQ. The WORST thing you could do is to require additional reviews as some kind of punishment for not doing a thorough enough review to begin with. --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Drive-by comment - First, please do not expect any replies from me on this thread, at least for a while (I temporarily have internet access in the middle of a two-week wikibreak, but will not until next Sunday afternoon, so please be patient). Here are my thoughts: I wrote half-decent articles for a year or so, and was sort of part of the community for a while, and I never really heard about, nor learned what it entailed, to nominate an article to be in the DYK section on the front page, despite the fact that I would have been interested. Granted, I did not make a huge effort to figure it out, and seem to recall getting a case of TL;DR at least once, but it was not until I dedicated close to an hour reading and wrapping my head around exactly what one had to do that I was able to determine whether the article I worked on was eligible, and the process to nominate it. Some may read this to say, well GP! is lazy, and we don't give a crap whether he participates in DYK. Fine. But hear me out:
  • I would have been interested in learning, but the directions were ambiguous at worst, and TL;DR at best - advertise it more ... have a "DYK for dummies" section on the directions page with explicit directions on how one goes about nominating or, perhaps more relevant to this discussion, reviewing DYKs. Am I the only one who thinks reviewing DYKs is a terrific way to introduce new editors into the peer review process? Give 'em a checklist, and hey, read the article, offer some suggestions based on the checklist, and sign off on it. DYK reviewing isn't hard, and in most cases, it doesn't take too long. To me, it is an obvious way to introduce new editors into the peer review process ... make it part of TWA and those sorts of introductory aspects of editing. Yes, this would raise the issue of "newbies and hat collectors" reviewing articles, but let me tell you, if I was a new editor, having read about some of the frankly "witchhunt-like" tendentious discussions that go on here, I would be incredibly careful about reviewing. Would we still need fact checkers? Absolutely, but this brings me to my next point.
  • Eliminate the QPQ review. We have a need for more reviewers, so my suggestion is to eliminate the requirement that one does a QPQ. This may sound strange, but what we need is more reviewers interested in quality, not simply "ooh, there's an editor whose name I've heard of; let's glance at the article and sign off on it so I can finish filling out the nomination form and get my hook up for review" (Disclosure: I will admit that I have done something similar to this, but I will say that the accuracy of the hook is something that I have always checked, and to the best of my knowledge, something with which I have never had problems.) If we have new editors doing the initial scan, and more experienced editors who care going through behind them to double and even triple check, we will weed out a large majority of the crappy hooks. Frankly, we could even have a two-tiered review system - the article in question needs an article review (i.e. the normal DYK review - what we have now) and a hook review (i.e. an experienced editor comes in behind the initial editor and looks solely at the hook, and makes sure that it is cited). After both those reviews occur, then an administrator or whomever promotes or declines the article, also having looked at the hook. Checks and balances are important; I don't think I have seen any deliberate bad faith reviews, but we all go too quickly through things at times, and when we do, it is helpful to know there are others who will check something out too. None of us are infallible, so to maintain the integrity of the DYK section, we need to help each other out in reviewing. I wanted to also note that I wholeheartedly agree with Melanie's comment above, which says, As long as you make QPQ a requirement for nominating DYKs, you are going to get some half-assed reviews. This could not be more true. The solution is not to require someone who screws up a review to rush through another one and hopefully have better luck with it. Rather we should have new editors getting their feet wet in the process, experienced editors looking predominantly at hooks, and administrators promoting based on a cursory review on their part all collaboratively working to ensure that when a hook gets to the main page, it reflects accuracy, good taste, and a sound example of what the DYK process is all about.
  • I would like to close by thanking all of those who spend hours upon hours working already to ensure the integrity of the DYK section. Those are the individuals whom we ought to strive to help and consider as we discuss changes to the DYK process. If you read this whole thing, I am sure you find it ironic that earlier I blasted the TL;DR nature of DYK, but to quote Blaise Pascal, "I have only made this letter longer because I have not had the time to make it shorter." Sincerest regards, Go talkPhightins]]! 18:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Utterly brilliant. This is the kind of discussion that needs to take place, everything on the table, throw out some ideas, find ways to make it more fun instead of more obligation. The "instructions" issue is exceptionally on target. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you about the DYK instructions - unfortunately, the presentation is shambolic, with a bewildering array of additional "help" pages which have been added over the years which have probably only created more confusion, the whole thing needs a total overhaul, it's something that's been on my "to-do" list for years but I haven't found time to do it yet. Gatoclass (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Amen. And there are "unwritten rules" too, I'm told. EEng (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Reading down all the posts I missed in the last 24 hours, I was about to suggest something when I read it in Go Phightins! post at the very end. I agree that the QPQ requirement is not ideal, but if we scrap it, we will be hard-pressed to keep up with the number of new nominations with just our regular reviewers. And it is a good way to get new editors involved in creating new articles, and allowing them to be more involved in DYK if they so wish. What do you think about having a little box on the editing page, similar to the "Live Chat" box on retailer websites, where a newbie could ask for reviewing help from a more experienced reviewer? Then the more experienced reviewer could walk the newbie through the process (or the checklist, if we implement one), and be able to catch errors in the review. Then QPQ would not be viewed as a punishment (as it is now), and we'd foster more friendly relations with new editors. Yoninah (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not going to act a judge or enforcer if I discover an error in a review; I'd like to see the article or hook in which I found the error get fixed. I'm not going to be chasing up reviewers and going through their editing history to make a guess at whether they are incompetent, lazy or just inexperienced. I'm not going to maintain a list of reviewers that have had previous substandard reviews and check through the nomination list every day to see whether they have now done a valid review or whether are trying to get an article promoted without doing so. If anybody else is going to do that or somebody is planning on maintaining a centralized list of offenders and their eligibility status then good luck. Belle (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
As I said - it's discretionary, you would be under no obligation whatever to be "chasing up reviewers" if you weren't interested in doing so, and nobody has suggested you should be going through editing histories, maintaining "lists" and so on. Gatoclass (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see, unless you are only going to pick on one reviewer at a time you'll need some sort of list to track who owes a good QPQ review or else you'll have to tag every nomination that substandard reviewers submit and hope the reviewer you are tracking doesn't wait until you are engaged elsewhere to nominate. And as it is discretionary they'll just be hoping to get somebody like me who uses their discretion not to adopt this approach. I'm not criticising you for making a suggestion aimed at improving DYK, but this doesn't seem practical or fair. Belle (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

New proposal - review credits

I was challenged by a couple of users on my previous proposal to come up with a way of encouraging, rather than requiring, better quality reviews. I still think more stringent requirements have a place in the system, but I agree that encouragement is usually a better approach where possible. In that light, here's another suggestion as to how we might improve reviewing quality.

My suggestion is that we encourage secondary reviews of existing approved nominations, by awarding review credits to users who find substantial errors in an approved nomination's hook or article. Review credits will only be awarded for secondary reviews which identify legitimate and substantial errors, as confirmed by a DYK administrator or regular reviewer; they will never be awarded for original reviewers. A double review credit will be applied for any secondary review which identifies legitimate copyvio, plagiarism or close paraphrasing issues. Additionally, a review credit will be awarded for identifying substantiated copyvio, plagiarism or close paraphrasing issues in any nomination which is yet to be approved. A new table will be added to the "List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs" page for review credits. Comments welcome. Gatoclass (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I do like this idea of rewarding those who find errors during a secondary review.--¿3family6 contribs 23:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea of multiple reviewers. Credits wouldn't appeal to me personally, but I can see that they would encourage some people. I'd give them out for all reviews other than QPQ though, as you don't want to discourage primary reviewers (People who would like credits may wait until they could be the secondary reviewers). Belle (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
This needs a bit of tweaking and fleshing out, but I think this is may be the best new idea currently proposed on this page. It's disappointing that there's been so little discussion so far here. Gamaliel (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Prep 4

... that Jim Bartels resigned as curator of Honolulu's ʻIolani Palace after criticizing Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa for sitting on one of the palace thrones?

The source says he "had a dispute" with her, the article says he "had a dispute" with her, so why does the hook say he "criticized her"? Yoninah (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

IMO they amount to the same thing. "Criticize" is briefer though so keeps the hook succinct. Gatoclass (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Prep 1

The Russell Wilson (mayor) article features very close paraphrasing to the source which is being used in the hook. I suggest it is fixed or the hook pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks to all users who contributed to the set. Gatoclass (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

3rd opinion requested re North Fork Tangascootack Creek

subject trimmed from: 3rd opinion requested at Template:Did you know nominations/North Fork Tangascootack Creek

Would someone mind providing a 3rd opinion on whether the use of maps to support the hook for North Fork Tangascootack Creek is OR or not? Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man's disruptive and unacceptable behavior

Heat > light (some time ago, in fact). Nothing useful is coming out of this, so collapsing this. BencherliteTalk 18:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man says: The "consensus that the cure is too disruptive" is where? Amongst the whinging [sic] veterans who don't like their pet project being criticised?

TRM repeatedly defends criticism aimed at him by attacking users as whining DYK cronies who staunchly defend DYK against intruders and who claim that nothing is wrong with DYK and nothing should be changed. This is absolutely false.

No cool-headed, sensible, rational person could possibly honestly think DYK users are complaining and leaving because they think everything's fine and they resent someone helpfully coming in and trying to fix it. I'm sure everybody realizes that DYK is not perfect, and I'm also sure that constructive criticism, suggestions, and solutions to any and all problems are welcome. I haven't seen anybody ever suggest otherwise. But TRM's disruptive and disrespectful input is far, far, far from constructive. His heavy-handed, mean-spirited, hostile invectives are not conducive to the collaborative environment which is so important to Wikipedia.

TRM says "We lose some of these stubborn editors who believe that everything is just fine. So what?" He dismisses the problem of putting "a few DYK regulars' noses out of joint" by saying "Omelettes and eggs". He again repeats "So what?", indicative of his total disregard for the damage he leaves behind him. It's not enough that he drives users away -- he then has to insult them and spit on their graves. Maybe he's unfamiliar with WP:WikiProject Editor Retention. I wonder if its founder thinks that such an attitude is befitting a high-profile administrator.

Problems could easily be reported on and get corrected or discussed in a constructive manner and such input would be welcome. There have been other harsh DYK critics, but they still managed to remain civil. TRM insists on being as nasty, mean, pointy, sarcastic, condescending, and snarky as possible.

His singleminded goal of badmouthing DYK and its users extends to WP:ERRORS -- his frequent indictments there of everything about DYK are inappropriate. That is not the correct venue for such commentary.

Among the users who have announced their intention to curtail their contributions or leave DYK altogether in response to the extremely unpleasant environment -- the "eggs" who have been broken for TRM's "omelette" -- are Yoninah, Matty.007, and Yngvadottir. There appear to be many, many more who have simply silently cut back or disappeared entirely from DYK and/or Wikipedia as a whole. The bully TRM has chased so many users away that it seems as though Gatoclass is left to singlehandedly take care of everything.

TRM wants to know where the consensus is. I think most users are afraid to comment on TRM's behavior, since every one who dares to, ends up eviscerated by TRM. Here are a few selected comments from the brave ones:

Yoninah: "Rambling Man's vehemence and EEng's sarcastic humor are going to derail this project faster than Wikipedia burnout ever did."
Bellemora: "I think it is the tone of the arguments rather than the substance; I would say you and The Rambling Man are blunt and forceful and nobody likes to be on the receiving end of blunt force."
3family6: "I agree that the level of debate, complaining, and now nom pulling is now absurd. I'm not planning to leave DYK, but I can see why other people are getting turned off and leaving."
Prioryman: "I think we're getting close to the point where Rambling Man's tactics are more disruptive than constructive."
Crisco 1492: The DYK "talk page has gotten too toxic recently to support constructive collaboration" and "So you are saying that it's better to have an errorless encyclopedia with no editors, than a growing encyclopedia with some editors? While using a reference to a quote widely attributed to a genocidal dictator?"
Victuallers: "I would say there was a consensus that the cure is too disruptive."
Even EEng: "You're being POINTY, TRM, and it doesn't help."

Fram says that the regulars are employing a "WP:SHOOTTHEMESSENGER" tactic. But this has absolutely nothing to do with a "message" of constructive, civil criticism. This is entirely about the outrageous and unacceptable behavior of the "messenger". Urarary (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I imagine the only way you'd get resolution here is to take this to ANI, after all this chatroom has no teeth at all. Good luck with it, I'll happily leave DYK to its own destiny, my gladdest leaving thought being how much better the process has been in the past two weeks. I'm also very amused to read that you consider my behaviour to be "outrageous". We certainly have different definitions of outrage! Cheers now, see you in court. P.S. "whinging" doesn't need a [sic], use a dictionary. P.P.S. good work finding the quotes and attempting to asset they are all direct criticisms of me, you really are good, all this on your 31st ever edit!!! Diffs are better though, because they allow people to read these quotes in context rather than via your own spin. HANG ON, I recognise you... I didn't realise you had this account too!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Without addressing the merits presented, I'm a bit confused as to why I was pinged here and what exactly this is referring to. This sounds more like RFC/U type complaints. I haven't examined all of TRM's contribs here to have an opinion, I've kind of avoided DYK for my own reasons, which is a shame really since I like to create stuff like Glore Psychiatric Museum which is still now eligible for DYK as I just created it, is interesting and all, but I just haven't wanted to go through the hoops needed to get the pip. Honestly, I've found the problems that I perceive to simply be many times greater than I can help with. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Isn't this what you've been saying all along, EEng?--¿3family6 contribs 00:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Let me add one note: With all honesty, I'm not a great writer, but if DYK was actually fun and easy, it would give reason for me to write a half dozen short articles a week on unusual and quirky subjects that would look great on the front page, would pass WP:GNG and would add a little cultural spice to Wikipedia. Without laying blame, DYK is currently not an incentive at this time. DYK has the potential to be an effective editor retention tool, but it is my singular opinion that it falls short at this time, and is not particularly "user friendly" for novice editors. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I want to be clear about something: DYK does need change. I don't think there's anyone here who denies it. The problem is twofold: one, DYK still needs to be friendly enough to new and/or less experienced editors, to promote the influx that Wikipedia has needed (meaning, of course, that we can't have an FAC lite review process); two, a transition which drives experienced DYK contributors/admins to go elsewhere is going to leave nobody behind who actually knows why we need changes, and thus essentially return everything to square one. Hence the comment about broken eggs: if all of your eggs are broken before you've got your omelette (say, they fall on the floor) you're left with nothing. I've got some topics I want to cover over the next few weeks (Umbul Temple, Java Supermall, etc.), but I'm not sure I want the headache of having an article pulled for a typo. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
If you are afraid of "breaking eggs" and upsetting people, nothing will change in a meaningful way. The real question is "How many people came to DYK once and swore they would never come back?". Sometimes, solutions require boldness, bravery and a willingness to ride out the storm. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm Really, people? A number of you steadfastly deny that there is any problem with DYK despite the steady stream of errors that end up on the front pagem and this is the problem that you are going rally around? There's no denying that the Rambling Man has been quite blunt in vocalizing his complaints about DYK, but is a few people calling out obvious problems going to cause an exodus of good contributors or are good contributors going to flee a broken process that remains unfixed because of intractable editors? Gamaliel (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
A lot of the recently reported "errors" are nitpicks at best. IMO, DYK gets a lot of negative attention because some people want to see higher quality articles and/or higher quality hooks on the mainpage in the DYK space; trawling DYK for "errors" is just a means to this end. The real problem the critics face, though, is in persuading the host of DYK nominators to accept a regime under which their currently eligible startup articles become ineligible due to tougher criteria. Gatoclass (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, that's partially true, however DYK has made a couple of high-profile ANI visits over the past fortnight or so. I think the problem comes less from a demand for "high quality articles" but more for "high quality hooks which are correctly and appropriately referenced. Which tougher criteria are you referring to? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering about this as well. We should do a better job of enforcing the existing criteria, but his comments give the impression that he thinks some people want to turn this into GA. Gamaliel (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
One of the best proposal's I've heard from EEng, which surprisingly he DIDN'T turn into a formal proposal (at least that I recall), is to put a message on the DYK MP template that the articles are works in progress, and invite editors to improve them. But make the hooks iron-clad.--¿3family6 contribs 14:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
See new section a bit down this page -- look for the evil EEng image. EEng (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Nicely put, neutral description there. "No cool-headed, sensible, rational person could possibly honestly think DYK users are complaining and leaving because they think everything's fine and they resent someone helpfully coming in and trying to fix it. I'm sure everybody realizes that DYK is not perfect, and I'm also sure that constructive criticism, suggestions, and solutions to any and all problems are welcome." I was going to disagree with you, but then I would not be a "coolheaded, sensible, rational person". What a dilemma... Oh well, so be it. You are wrong: some (not all) of the DYK users dislike every form of criticism of DYK, and do everything they can to drive off people who find errors and make sure that what appears on the main page is as error-free and neutral as possible, be it by directly attacking those critical editors, by making more and more demands of what one needs to do to get the right to pull or alter a hook, or by any other means they can think off. This protectiveness, the blinders some regulars here have, and the sometimes very serious errors that have been ignored or swept under the rug, have done much more to make DYK an unpleasant environment than the fact that some editors have tried (for years) and are trying to improve the standards or results of DYK. And of course, a number of editors are now caught in the middle and some leave DYK because they don't like the situation; but that isn't caused by the people trying to solve the problem, but by the people who think DYK and hook promotion is the be-all and end-all, and that accuracy and neutrality are secondary concerns only. Fram (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Urarary expressed the current feeling very well. I have never been one to complain on this talk page or get involved in "politics", but I have voiced my opinion a few times in the past few weeks because I am turned off by TRM's rants and impolite responses. I have not withdrawn from DYK, though, just from building prep sets, and am giving my energy to reviewing nominations – which, as I said earlier, is our first line of defense against errors. Yoninah (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
To the editor known as The Rambling Man, I think you are sorely mistaken by your gross assumptions that the articles get promoted on DYK or even ITN are to be top-class articles either FA or GA status, which is not the case in the least bit. See, he even tried saying the 2014 U.S. Open (golf) event should not be posted unless it was greatly expanded because it was not "the kind of update for the final round we're expecting", when Kaymer won by eight shots and the margin was never closer than four. So, I take it that he is trying to bullwhip his way over here on DYK as well. This is highly unacceptable! Why doesn't The Rambling Man go around trying to create new content and expand this encyclopedia rather than make it a cumbersome, burdensome, laborious and tedious effort to get nominations through whether at ITN or DYK. He wants to sit back in his easy chair and put other editors through the ringer in trying to do things on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man is perfect to deal with FA, FL, and some GA nominations, but when it comes to ITN and DYK, I think he wants the whole world in his pocket before they get posted. However, the tags need to be referenced, but articles don't and should not have to be FA or GA to be nominated, and they could even be start class articles in quality and scope, which this means everything except mere stubs are acceptable. I don't care about puffing-up my own work on Wikipedia, which is why I have not ever nominated anything for FA, FL and GA on this encyclopedia. If you want to take a look at an article that I did, which could have been nominated for this Welcome to the New is what you all should look at for the epitome of my work. Stuff like DYK, ITN, FL, GA, FA trophies is not what Wikipedia is all about in the first place, it is about being the largest compendium of knowledge "summed-up" for the ages to see and utilize, as they say "information is power". I am an article creator not a trophy seeker, which I don't even have a user page because I think that means you are self-righteously glorifying yourself over the encyclopedia.HotHat (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I try to live by RAUL, where it says "Please feel free to tell me everything you don't like about things [I do or others]. Do, however, be prepared for the fact that doing so will make it your job [The Rambling Man updating articles to post to ITN or DYK]; if you don't like the way I do it, you can do it. Now, what was it that was the problem [articles are not of a worthy status to post to ITN or DYK]?" Significantly updated or article quality are in the eye-of-the-beholder, which if we take DYK for instance it is definitely not FAC or let alone GAC.HotHat (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't going to dignify this tirade with a response, but as a result of the litany of errors within it, I feel duty-bound to at least put some of the record straight.

  • gross assumptions that the articles get promoted on DYK or even ITN are to be top-class articles either FA or GA status please direct me to the diffs which clearly state that I assume articles at DYK or ITN need to be FA or GA status. I do not recall ever stating or even suggesting this.
  • You've got it arse-about-face, perhaps you need to refamiliarise yourself with the rules. One of the acceptance criteria is that an article is a newly promoted GA.... Try harder. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Then, you or someone else need to take it up on GAR not in a DYK Review. So, you or someone else need to go about showing and ascertaining why it should be demoted from GA status, and putting the DYK on hold status until that occurs. DYK should not have to be GA's or GAR's clean-up room. I think newly promoted GA's should not be on DYK in the first place only new articles or recent expanded because this will happen again and again if that is one of the criterion to nominate an article. GA is not DYK and DYK is not GA.HotHat (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Not at all. We are, all of us, entitled to our opinion. Mine was that perhaps the quality was not as it should be for a GA. I was fully entitled to say that. Unless you are happy to censor and silence things you don't like to hear. Which I hear is commonplace around these parts. Oh, and where was any claim made relating to FAs? Or was that just another piece of your baseless quest to slate me? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Not really, I just want to be able to not have GA's get on here because the process to approve them is rudimentary at best, which one editor nominates and one approves after only a very terse review process, unlike FAC or FAN process, where the entire community gets engaged.
  • Having said that, please read WP:ITN where it clearly states that one of the goals of that project is To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events.
  • The 2014 U.S. Open (golf) article had a "nominal" update. Please familiarise yourself with the update guidelines. While you have some spare time, also have a look at DYK's additional guidelines, very informative!
  • You said I claimed the golf article should not be posted unless it was greatly expanded, could you point me to the diff where I said "greatly expanded", or would you rather point me to the diff where I suggested that the 2013 article could be used as a similar model to base an adequate update upon?

"Your exact comment "But you believe the quality of the update to be sufficient? Did you look at last year's article as I suggested?" So, I take it you meant greatly expanded", which it already had a paragraph of prose by that point and you wanted it like 2013, which was a ridiculous argument. One was won by two shots in a come from behind victory the other was won by eight shots in a tournament that the lead was never in doubt and we were to write a major write-up to explain the final round.HotHat (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

    • It was not a ridiculous argument, no more ridiculous than your attempts here to use propaganda and deceit to fool people. Please read the ITN instructions before digging yourself deeper. The Rambling Man (talk)
      • "providing a substantial quantity of directly relevant information" is done on a case-by-case basis not something that is black-and-white, which it got supported and posted by not being updated to the 2013 article, which was won differently than 2014. By the way, "sufficiently updated" is in the eye-of-the-beholder.HotHat (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I take it that he is trying to bullwhip his way over here on DYK as well I've been involved in DYK longer that you've had this particular account you're using. I'm not bullwhipping anyone, not yet at least.
    • I don't give a care about DYK, ITN, FLC, GAC, and FAC in the least because most Christian music will never get on them or attain those statuses. I was only brought to this project by other editors who nominated my Christmas/Holiday music albums last year One, Two and three, which I did not care about having them nominated. I had already toiled around for two years by that point and not one editor ever nominated one of my articles for DYK, which meant that they did not care, so I just kept toiling around in the dark backdrop of this encyclopedia. I will go back their again because I love it. If it were not for 3family6 liking some of the articles that I have worked on then I would not be here on DYK because I would not ever nominate one of them. So, 3family6 can nominate the article that I create, and I will get notified on my talk page if they get posted because I am out.HotHat (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Why doesn't The Rambling Man go around trying to create new content and expand this encyclopedia... let's see, 410 articles created, and in the past couple of weeks, just half a dozen or so good articles from those I've either created or expanded. You'd like more of my classy work? Of course, who would't?!
  • He wants to sit back in his easy chair and put other editors through the ringer in trying to do things on Wikipedia. Actually, I've worked on dozens of ITN items that needed work before being of sufficient quality to be posted. I've also modified a number of DYK hooks lately. And I've been active at WP:ERRORS to pick up the various pieces that weren't caught. And you?
    • Focusing on Christian music, which this project or encyclopedia hates because just look at Charmaine for evidence of that. The way other editors treat the only one thing I care about on here by calling it not "mainstream" or lacks "mainstream sources" in a dismissive attitude.HotHat (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
      • But the point is that what you accused me of was plainly incorrect and delusional. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I said "gross assumptions" that means you have been "exaggerating an incorrect theory" about what DYK is an is not, which is the fact that DYK's don't have to be GA to be nominated and considered. It is one criterion amongst many to be considered. You should have said because the GAN process for those articles were flawed and not verifiable the DYK needs to be halted and taken to GAR for reassessment. The comment and the U.S. Open one is what got me going. Sorry, you took it as delusional, and if I want to call someone flat out delusional then I would, which I did not use that word.HotHat (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Your claims are delusional and incorrect and insulting and you need to realise that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
            • Good, I love being called delusional, which I will take it as a high complement from you, so you just made my day!HotHat (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
              • Great, you also like lying about and misrepresenting other editors too? Great attitude. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
                • No, I pretty much quoted policy and your words, so misrepresenting?HotHat (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
                  • You lied, you made false claims about me requiring articles to be FA, amount me being an "armchair" editor, about me not contributing content. You're one class act. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
                    • I see that now I have been called a liar, which is rather fun! FA/GA is the alphabetical soup of Wikipedia, you said GA not FA, letters? As for the "armchair", nope I said "sitting back in his easy chair", so I guess that I have been taken out of context. We all at one point or another sit in an "easy chair" on this encyclopedia and pontificate about what others' have to do in order to satisfy us in order to get things accepted, kept or supported. You took that as a slight man, this is one of the most sanitary and sanitized places on the internet let alone the world. I have been called much worse, so stuff that people write on here is not going to hurt me because "Sticks and stones will break my bones/ But words will never harm me." I don't care what others' think of me, the only one who has a modicum of say that might hurt a little is God.HotHat (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
                      • I am going back to creating Christian music pages (biographies, albums, songs and discographies) on Wikipedia, and I am done with DYK and ITN, which 3family6 can do whatever he so chooses with my pages that I will create to the best of my ability and expertise.15:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't even have a user page because I think that means you are self-righteously glorifying yourself over the encyclopedia. well of course you're entitled to that opinion, but I think you'll find more people have a user page than don't. If you don't like a particular user page, don't visit it, you have a choice.

In conclusion, the fact that you follow WP:RAUL sums up your position perfectly and you need say nothing further!! Thanks for taking the time to write so much, it was interesting but ultimately completely flawed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

  • To you maybe, but to me I call it like I see it. By the way, I have created 366 articles in 2.5 years time and over 14,000 edits, which might be a record on this encyclopedia, but who knows?HotHat (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
    • For "the record", no it isn't a record by any means, there are many editors who have racked up hundreds of thousands of edits in that time and created thousands of articles in that time, but I thought this wasn't about self-glorification? In any case thanks for your contributions! Anyway, I'm getting back to something constructive, suggest you do the same. (Oh, and having a red-linked user page just looks like you're new here, nothing more than that...) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I just brought it up because you act like I am new, when I am not. If you cannot click to see my edit history nor my talk page to see the two things I posted just to prove myself to be no novice then I have no patience for that person. Back to my toiling now, ahh!HotHat (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • We could have worked well together, but I guess we will never see each other eye-to-eye anymore, editor The Rambling Man. I have had disagreements with other editors like Walter Gorlitz, 3family6, to a lesser extent STATicVapor, and have grown into a tremendous working relationship on Wikipedia with them by my side with respect to Christian music articles. I could have been your greatest asset when it comes to music articles for ITN/DYK. I hope no one else nominates one of my articles that I create because then they will want to badger me about fixing them, but 3family6 fixes them himself, which I greatly appreciate.HotHat (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you probably didn't bad-mouth them and lie about them and accuse them of things that simply aren't true. I'll be truly glad to never, ever see your name on my watch list ever again, I hope your Christian music edits go well, a great shame you clearly don't follow the principles of the music you write about in any way at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Sure. HotHat made up a bunch of incorrect assumptions and incorrect assertions about me and my beliefs and my contributions to Wikipedia. I refuted them. HotHat refused to acknowledge any of it. HotHat went on to criticise Wikipedia for "hating" "Christian music" for some unknown reason. And the whole thing was a waste of bytes, proving to be nothing other than a display of overt ignorance. Feel free to ping me if you need any further information on "HotHat"'s or contributions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I try to avoid maligning any contributor here and assume good faith from all parties. I do think that HotHat over-reacted here, and I personally cannot follow the logic of their accusations. To be frank, though, The Rambling Man, you can come across as rather aggressive and pushy, so I think what happened here is HotHat was annoyed by your conduct in some previous encounters with you. HotHat, I think you really understood this point by Rambling Man. TRM was arguing that if the initial hook was inaccurate, the article should not have been GA. I can't follow how you applied that to this discussion.--¿3family6 contribs 20:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Not only did he "misunderstand" the point, he then went on to falsely accuse me of all kinds of things, the worst of which "Why doesn't The Rambling Man go around trying to create new content and expand this encyclopedia rather than make it a cumbersome, burdensome, laborious and tedious effort to get nominations through whether at ITN or DYK". Plainly the editor has done nothing to look into my contributions, or if he has done, he's not quite getting it. Hence my good "faith" with this faithless editor came to an abrupt end. Fallacious claims made to support fallacious arguments to prove a non-point, and qualified with baseless accusations all the way. And then he went on to glorify himself with his claims of edits and articles, like some kind of Wiki-god, despite arguing that having a user page was a self-gloryifing pursuit. Whatever next. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • My comment "what just happened here?" was more about the logical flow of the arguments and was mostly directed at HotHat. I understood that he accused you of essentially just being a nit-picker who doesn't make viable contributions, and you considered his arguments to be baseless.--¿3family6 contribs 21:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Random break

  • No. 1: An articles status should not be at issue or of relevance, whether it gets put on DYK, so if it is a GA that is sloppy, DYK should do its own review and post even if the GA status may or may not be in jeopardy.HotHat (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No. 2: Editors who just make comments on nomination pages and don't go in and fix the article instead make me angry. I am a big believer in don't comment about stuff you can readily fix without burdening other editors with having to read comments and do the tedious fixing. I see how nominations go on Wikipedia, which is why I don't ever nominate any of my work even Welcome to the New for GA status.HotHat (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No. 3: You all can read this article from a bureaucrat The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Wikipedia.HotHat (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No. 4: Sorry, I said "gross assumptions" that was taken out of context to mean "delusional", but you can get my drift by No. 1.HotHat (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

3family6 made me do it

EEng relishing his plan to corrupt and destroy DYK from within
One of the best proposal's I've heard from EEng, which surprisingly he DIDN'T turn into a formal proposal (at least that I recall), is to put a message on the DYK MP template that the articles are works in progress, and invite editors to improve them. But make the hooks iron-clad.--¿3family6 contribs 14:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
-- Kind words from 3family6 in an earlier thread. Your wish is my command...

I actually think we shouldn't worry as much as we do about article quality, but rather let DYK articles be frankly works-in-progress.

  • We should check for BLP and copyvio, and maybe a coupla other things I'm not thinking of
  • Many current requirements, such as "no [citation needed] tags", should be dropped
  • Possibly we should just adopt "B-class" or "C-class" (or something in between -- see quality scale) as our standard, instead of (as we do now) having a set of standards outside the Start-C-B-GA-FA trajectory.
  • This should make reviews easier and faster
  • Then add a template to top of the article saying, "Like most Wikipedia articles, this one is a work in progress. It may be incomplete, inaccurate, or unbalanced. If the topic interests you and you want to help, click here yada yada yada ". This template remains until maybe a week after the article's main-page appearance.
  • The hook however, is directly displayed on the main page, and should be ironclad. It needs to be carefully checked straight back to the sources, grammatically unimpeachable, and stylistically unblemished.

In summary, we should drop many of the standards for the articles (but make sure those that remain are consistently enforced, which they aren't now), and raise our vigilance for hooks.

  • If it seems wrong that nominated articles are allowed to have obvious flaws, notice one thing: we fuss and fuss about the article linked from the hook in bold, but care nothing (apparently) about the other articles incidentally linked from the hook. To my recollection I've never seen anyone make any mention at all about the quality of these other articles, and yet many of them are truly awful and we don't seem to care that links to them appear on the main page -- so why do we care so much more about the "bold" link? And again, the "work-in-progress" template means we don't have to be embarrassed.

I think this would focus energy on what's by far the most visible -- the hook -- without putting editors through all kinds of hoops to eliminate [clarification needed] and [citation needed] in the article -- nonsense not even required by GA. Furthermore, to the extent we want DYK to attract new editors, we should see it doing that by drawing in people who see the article on the main page and want to improve or fix some little bit of it (such as by addressing [clarification needed] or [citation needed] tags, which would now be allowed) -- not by rewarding the article creators/ nominators with DYK templates on their talkpages. Those aren't really "new" editors anyway.

In fact, maybe the MP DYK section should say, Did you know...

  • ... [fact]
  • ... [fact]

If did know any of these things, then maybe you have the interest and knowledge to help us improve these frankly in progress articles.

Not exactly what to say, but the idea we want to project. EEng (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Have to say I'm not a fan. Might as well put a stamp that says "this is shit" as well. What about GAs, or articles that aren't works in progress? I've written several DYK articles which have been nominated for GA simultaneously. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Many DYK articles are pretty shitty, even after removing all the [clarification needed] or other templates recognizing that. And that's never going to change as long as we insist on pushing week-old articles onto MP. The only question is whether we're going to be up-front about that, or look like fools pretending they'll all shiny and perfect. Anyway, the shittier they are the easier it is for a reader coming from MP to see an opportunity to become a new editor.

Articles that are GA could carry no template, or a different one. EEng (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm not going vote on this proposal, rather, I want to see things develop through discussion and consensus. Not to beat a dead horse, but I think most of us agree that DYK as it stands needs work (is there part of Wikipedia that doesn't?) And I personally think that the nomination and review process is too difficult and/or complex for many editors to want to deal with - see Dennis Brown's comments in an above thread. I don't agree with EEng that we should get rid of "citation needed" or other dispute tags, but things like "clarification needed" aren't that big a deal unless they appear frequently in the article. But as things stand now, I never know if an article I nominate will pass review without some significant work. I'm not talking about neutrality issues or basic sourcing problems - I often nominate an article that has problems in those areas (because I did not notice them, and happily patch them up. But I think EEng has a point where often the problems found in reviews are not backed up by any guidelines, at least explicitly.
To answer Taylor Trescott's point, I wouldn't so much support a template saying "this article is a work in progress" but rather "can you improve this article? Feel free" or something of that nature (much better worded of course, I'm writing off the top of my head here - hmm, interesting image THAT is!). As for GAs - they can still use improvement. Or maybe they can get on their own section on the main page - though THAT is a MAJOR restructuring that would have to go through miles of red tape.--¿3family6 contribs 19:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, I will say that I am neutral on the idea of a template on the article. I was thinking a short boilerplate on main page would be good.--¿3family6 contribs 19:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, where's the shame in making sure that readers attracted from the main page -- who may not understand the nature of article development -- don't think that we think these are well-developed articles? That fact is that, even with the substantial amount of effort put into reviewing now, most DYK articles are roughly C to B class. Why not admit it, and at that same time save the huge amount of time spent dressing them up to look like they're more developed than they are? EEng (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Look, I appreciate any suggestions on how to improve DYK, but I really think this is a non-starter. To begin with, why just DYK - why not a special tag for all the blue linked articles on the main page with the exception of the FA? And what is the special tag supposed to convey that is not already in the Disclaimer? I don't think we need to be cluttering up mainpage links with unsightly tags that only state the obvious. Gatoclass (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Huh? What "cluttering up mainpage links"? I said a template at the top of the linked article itself, not on the link as it appears on the main page.
  • I'm not talking about the blue-linked articles. I'm talking about the bold-linked article from each hook. The purpose of the template is allay any fears like, "Won't it be embarrassing for WP to 'highlight' (bold-link) articles that obviously are works-in progress?"
  • But if none of that's a worry, then no template is fine with me.
  • The key idea is to drop some of the requirements for DYK articles and raise them for hooks. What do you think of that?
EEng (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Wording like "frankly in progress articles" is pointy (And "if you know these things" is unnecessary; anyone can fix typos or, say, add images), but

Please help to develop and improve these articles

would be OK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Floating posts

On the noms page, there are unrelated postings under the nom for Template:Did you know nominations/Oley Creek. Yoninah (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I moved Oley Creek to prep. Now the posts are floating around under Center of Alcohol Studies. They're signed by User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Nathan121212. Yoninah (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I just found the correct template: Template:Did you know nominations/26th South African Parliament. The floating posts are under the "Please do not write below this line" line. Yoninah (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. --Allen3 talk 00:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK and GA articles

The GA articles on here get approved via a terse and rudimentary process of nomination and approval, and really should not be a criteria for DYK's to come from. This is because we are unable to determine the wherewithal (breath of scope/brevity and completeness) with which the review process was done in the first place. I have always thought of DYK's as being new content or content that has been expanded not GA's.HotHat (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

well here we check them again for size, copyright violations, neutrality and referencing. So the checking is almost as much as for GA, even if GA is cut. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
GA articles shouldn't get a "rudimentary" check, if they do something is wrong. They should be checked just the same as any other nom. Judging by some of the GAs I've seen recently, one can make few assumptions about quality based on the GA rating. Gatoclass (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
HotHat, it seems by this edit that you don't want GAs to be eligible for nomination on DYK. This is the July-Sept 2013 Good Article RfC that made GA a part of DYK. — Maile (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I guess that I am just in the ever growing minority on this one, but it is not the only time, which I have found myself in that precarious and perilous predicament. I guess you don't need to discuss my proposal any further, unless you all want to amongst yourselves.HotHat (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with HotHat that GA status does seem surprisingly sparse, considering even DYK nominations sometimes (often?) get better oversight than GAs. But I don't see what that has to do with DYK at all. I could see where you would oppose GAs because they are not new or newly expanded content (well, often they are, but I digress). But right now there is no other way to feature GAs, so I think that this is a good compromise. And I think nominating them for DYK is better, because it means that they get reviewed again.--¿3family6 contribs 20:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
If I think of the whole start-DYK-GA-FA process as a production line, my thinking was that DYK at least offered more scrutiny and (hopefully) source of improvement of some already-GA articles. Scrutiny is a good thing I feel...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

U.S. hooks

There's a note at the top of the queue page that says:

"Since on average about 50% of hooks on the suggestions page are U.S. related, it is usually appropriate to have roughly half the hooks in any given update on U.S. topics. Thanks."

Having been examining dozens of queues over the past couple of weeks, I don't believe this to be true at all. Is this note actually required? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: It is probably a guess. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd just be interested if it's really needed, and indeed if it's actually followed in practice. It certainly shows a clear systemic bias to encourage this kind of behaviour. Would be interested in statistics on this, perhaps if I have a spare half hour, I'll take a sample of the last couple of hundred hooks and see... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
This is the English-language Wikipedia. Of course there is a strong systemic bias toward topics related to the English-speaking world, which is inevitably reflected in DYK nominations. Having said that, we probably get substantially fewer articles about the US than we did once, so that note probably needs updating. I'd say that the proportion of US-based topics at DYK is currently running at around 30%, based on the last 100 hooks featured. Gatoclass (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't mention systemic bias towards the English-speaking world, the majority of which is not US-based of course. I don't see the purpose of the note at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
As I recall, the note was originally placed there to prevent people filling up sets with non-US hooks, which would often mean a slew of US hooks in the following update, which looked pretty bad. A safer option might be to just change the figure from 50% to 30%, although plainly the issue isn't as critical as it once was. Maybe I'll take a longer look at the archive; in the meantime someone else may want to comment. Gatoclass (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I've also noticed that the US-centric hooks are way fewer in recent months. But before that, they were all over the place and it really was a challenge to limit them in the prep sets. It sounds like it's time for all the rules pages to be updated. Yoninah (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
That note has been there nigh-on forever. My understanding of that statement is that the U.S. is an exception to the general rule (Wikipedia:DYK#Selecting nominated hooks) that says "No DYK installment should have more than two entries relating to one country, topic, or issue, and no more than one is even better." IMO, the note should be removed (because it is so commonly misunderstood as a mandate to find more U.S. hooks, even when there are few such hooks available) and the general rule should be revised to say that "U.S.-related hooks are an exception to this general rule because a large fraction of the hooks on the nominations page typically are U.S. related; to accommodate the volume of U.S. nominations, it is usually acceptable to have roughly half the hooks in any given update on U.S. topics." --Orlady (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Having thought about this for a bit, I'm of the view the note should remain, albeit somewhat modified, because it really looks very bad when we end up with a bunch of US-related hooks on the mainpage because someone used up all the non-US hooks. Also, Yoninah's testimony that the current spate of non-US hooks is a recent phenomenon is concerning. Gatoclass (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a serious concern that one portion of the main page advocating a dedication to a single country in its output. No other part of Wikipedia does this, why should DYK? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think "up to" is missing there. --PFHLai (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
It clearly doesn't "advocate" anything of the sort. It's a caution against allowing DYK sets to be overly US-centric. In other words, its meaning is exactly the reverse of what you apparently think it is. (And you wonder why people don't take you seriously?) Prioryman (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
You again? Every time you post, you make me smile, please continue! Are you the same "Prioryman" who threatened me with "user conduct" reviews? Please, go ahead... We can go toe-to-toe and rattle our sabres at one another! And while we're here, why should it be 50%? Why not 20%? Why have a note at all? No other processes that hit the main page have such a caveat? I don't see a caveat at ITN that says anything of the sort, and God knows we have a fight on our hands sometimes to keep the systemic bias out of ITN. And people don't take me seriously? Pot, kettle, here's a mirror for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The point Prioryman is making is essentially correct - the note is there to prevent the overuse of US hooks that occurs when prep builders use up all the available non-US hooks instead of using a mix of both. I thought I had explained that already. Gatoclass (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it think... Prioryman (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Not at all fair, most horses I know have more intelligence and thought capacity than the average Wikipedian. Even the many below-average Wikipedians who seem to lurk here. When is that user RFC happening Prioryman? Or is it just another of your idle blusters? As we say in cricket, I think you've bowled your fair share of no balls. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Dark days for DYK

In the name of all that's holy, Rambling Man, do you have to be against everything? I'm probably your best friend here -- I think this place really needs some shaking up -- and even I'm getting a bit annoyed.

The discussion so far is enough for the small number of prep builders to be aware that this is a possible issue. Let's reconvene in a coupla days when people have had a chance to get a sense of what's really going on. In the meantime, just try to stay within 1/3 to 2/3 US.

Now if people will please get back to letting me recruit them for the destruction of DYK from within... EEng (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not against everything, just against notices like this which are nonsense. Oh, and there are no prep builders left, remember? I chased them away with a burning torch and an inverted crucifix. They're all hiding somewhere, probably in Texas. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it's the garlic, actually. EEng (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not French. Merci. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • My position is the same as Yoninah's. I will normally try to limit the US hooks. I also won't hog the non-US hooks, which will only make his life more difficult. But if there are not enough US hooks I will happily build a non-US prep. I have also noted that there are less US hooks lately. I have no idea whether it is a temporary or permanent situation, or what the cause is. Possibly the US contribution to the project is declining faster than that elsewhere. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Something like:

If more than 10% of hooks on the suggestions page are related to a single country or subject, please ensure that at least three hooks in any given update are about that country or subject, in order not to build up a backlog

would seem equitable and workable. And please, everyone, dial down the snark. It's very off-putting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, right now we could have a caveat on Indian election DYKs. Why we need a caveat is beyond me, add it to the instructions somewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'd support Andy's proposal to replace the US segment at the top of this section with this new segment. Much more practical. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm... "at least three hooks" feels like a bit too many. Two would be plenty, as it would still be sustainable (at least if we're still at three sets a day). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, can't support wording like that, it doesn't get the message across at all, and who has time to parse the entire nominations page to figure out what the percentages are? Besides, the problem is with US hooks no other country. Gatoclass (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Why not just say "Please try and ensure the hooks cover as wide a range of topics and cultures as possible". Straightforward common sense, and can be used to avoid bias against the US, the UK, India, Pokemon, Nigel Farage, obscure state roads in West Virginia and former contestants on The Apprentice. Everybody wins. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Because that won't address the problem, which is that too many non-US hooks sometimes get added to a single update, leaving too many US hooks for the next updater. I think for the time being I will just change the "50%" as that is clearly not the case right now. Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I've changed it for now to: Since a preponderance of hooks on the suggestions page are U.S. related, it is usually appropriate to have several hooks on U.S. topics in any given update, though never more than half, rounding up. Hopefully that deals with the main issues, if there are additional concerns feel free to discuss. Gatoclass (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate detector

I was unable to access "Duplicate detector" and got a toolserver error message stating that the user account had expired. Is this a known problem? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Queue 4

@Gatoclass: The Yank Robinson hook states that he was "among his league's offensive WAR leaders for three consecutive years". I have a problem in that I can't see clearly in the single reference given where he finished each season in that ranking (but that could be because I find baseballreference.com inpenetrable). Any advice on where to find this information in that ref would be great. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand baseball either, so I decided to AGF it. Cbl62 is one of our most experienced and competent contributors and I doubt he would make an error of this type. Gatoclass (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It would be wiser to stick with the facts are referenced clearly by that reference. The hook has plenty in it without the "offensive WAR" claim anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I trimmed it, but then I decided to replace it with another hook so I have pulled the set until I can find one. Cbl might not be happy to have one of his hooks unnecessarily trimmed so it's probabaly best to give him a chance to respond. Gatoclass (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
[2] Second column, first row under "Appearances on Leader Boards, Awards, and Honors" (I don't understand baseball either but I think you can safely put the hook back) Belle (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks, works for me. I'm sure somewhere someone finds a retrospectively calculated metric of "offensive wins above replacement (everything but fielding)" informative and interesting! I would have thought coming 2nd in the whole league with strikeouts would be much more accessible and notable, but hey, like I said, what do I know about baseball? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You should have pinged me Belle, I completely missed this post and have already replaced the hook. Never mind, it can be promoted to the next set if everyone is happy with it. Gatoclass (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, got distracted by a man working outside (not in the Etta James Coke advert way, believe me). Belle (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Belle, when they made you they broke the mold. Jury's still out on whether that was before or after, however. EEng (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I did a manual update as the bot appears to be asleep. Hope I did it right because it's a very long time since I had to do that. Gatoclass (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the manual update made us lose a set of hooks at Wikipedia:Recent additions. A bit exploration revealed what happened: The bot was not asleep, but reported an error (11:15) as the image file in Q4 was not protected. This was done by an admin 11:21, the manual update was done 11:22, and the bot did the "same" update 11:25, thus archiving the wrong hook set at "Recent additions" (which will even be duplicated after next update). The bot then updated article talk pages correctly, gave correct credits to user talk pages, and reset the queue. Oceanh (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, thank you for that bit of sleuthing OceanH! You have refreshed and updated my knowledge of the process very handily. I will go and fix the archive, thanks for the alert. Gatoclass (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification, please

I (and other prep builders) are under the distinct impression that we cannot promote our own hooks (not our own articles, but our own ALT hooks which have been approved by other editors). The only place I can find a written rule to this effect is in Rule N1: When possible, it is also best to avoid promoting the same article that you reviewed, nominated, or created. Am I interpreting this rule correctly? Yoninah (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Yoninah, I see by the history of that page that the rule has undergone some prose changes, but essentially was set down in 2009 by Art LaPella. Pinging him here, as he might be the best person to clarify this. — Maile (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't see a problem with promoting your own ALT so long as it's been approved by somebody else. It's promoting an ALT of your own without somebody else's approval that is potentially problematic, because it means the hook hasn't been independently checked. Gatoclass (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I wrote rules like that because they were being used, but unknown to anyone but insiders. Although I gave up years ago, I still believe Wikipedia would run more smoothly if rules were updated to match the current consensus. How else do we know consensus has really changed, and how else are newcomers expected to know about that change? Art LaPella (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

QPQ For non self-nom

It seems a bit unfair when I peruse the nomination page and see that loads of nominations seem to be exempt from QPQ because they are "not self noms". This is totally ridiculous! The purpose of QPQ is to eliminate BACKLOG. But since now we have nominators who basically on do non-self-noms, this should be changed to make non self noms require QPQs. wirenote (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Queue 5 ("pictured" issue)

First hook claims "Stephen II of Hungary (pictured)" but the image is an historical artist's impression of what Stevo may have looked like. It's a depiction of him. Perhaps it's conventional to just claim that ancient drawings of people can be referred to as such, I'm not sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"Picture: A representation of anything (as a person, a landscape, a building) upon canvas, paper, or other surface, by drawing, painting, printing, photography, etc." [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, all good. Thanks for the dictionary link Andy, very much appreciated. Having said that, I'd hardly consider Wiktionary to be a reliable source, but no issue here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Having said that, I see "screenshot pictured" in one nomination, why not "depicted" here? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
TRM, with the usual caveats to soften the blow (I'm your best friend at DYK, etc etc) you're beginning to sound completely crazy. Everything short of a photograph (and often those as well) is some kind of artistic interpretation. Having said that, it wouldn't hurt to just always say (in this hook and most others) (image) to indicate to the reader that this hook is the one related to the image, without really saying anything more than that (assuming there's no potential for the reader to be seriously misled). But really, TRM, pick your battles. EEng (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Knock it off, EEng. TRM asked a perfectly sensible question. TFAs frequently use something other than the bare word "pictured" e.g. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 9, 2014 ("1770 depiction shown"), and it's particularly appropriate to change the normal wording when the picture is not a contemporaneous one, as here. BencherliteTalk 18:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Quite, we're hardly brothers in arms, your continual reference to you being my best friend at DYK is wearing thin. The point I'm making is that we need to be consistent on the way we present images on our main page, taking into account the way in which TFA, TFP, TFL, OTD etc refer to anything that illustrates their chosen article. I don't need you to advise me on how to "pick [my] battles", in fact you could learn from your own advice having recently sanctioned a DYK with clear copyvio all over it, you really should do better. EEng, learn your lesson. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I didn't say it would be inappropriate to change the normal wording when [etc etc], but I maintain it's inappropriate to fuss that it wasn't so changed. (Pictured) is fine, if for no other reason than, as ATG points out, it really does comprehendq the meaning needed here -- though I repeat that (image) is even vaguer.
  • Pending clarification of the very confusing mishmash of unclear responsibilities, I'm not aware that in moving approved hooks to prep I'm supposed to repeat the copyvio check, though I wouldn't be surprised if it says I am, somewhere amid the rules, additional rules, supplementary rules, edit notices, unwritten rules, consensus lost in the mists of time, regulations set down in undeciphered Mayan script, and so on. EEng (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a shame that my expressions of sympathy for your exasperation with DYK are growing thin, because you really aren't going to get them from many others, and even that small number is dropping. You're just way too acerbic, and that says a lot coming from me.

EEng (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

    • More to the shame is that you have spectacularly undermined your own rants with negligence in agreeing to promote a hook which was utterly and obviously a copyvio. I think we both want the same thing, to drag DYK from the mire, but you're happy to compromise those values and play along with the poor quality approach. I am not. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Um, no, I was just unclear as to what my job as prep builder was, I guess. And I'm still unclear -- can anyone point me to something explaining what doublechecks the prep builder is responsible for? As to you, my friend, I quote from a biography of library pioneer, metrification zealot, and spelling reformer Melvil Dewey:
Although he did not lack friends, they were weary of coming to his defense, so endless a process it had become.
EEng (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK QPQ Checker in development - please comment

A developer has a link to Village Pump- Scottywong tools for the replacement on the DYK (QPQ) Checker. Please post any comments on the Village Pump thread. — Maile (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and put this in the DYK Tools template, so you can try this out there. But you can also give your comments about it over at the Village Pump link above. — Maile (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Special occasion date request – July 10

Sorry for the late notice, but could someone please review Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of the Bahamas by July 10? I don't normally ask for this, but having it hit the MP on that date will coincide with the Independence Day of the Bahamas. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/St John the Evangelist's Church, Kirkham

I promoted this hook to Prep 3, but cannot close the nomination for some reason. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

This is due to missing brackets "}}" at the end, which somehow have been replaced by the template "{{-}}". Compare with other nominations. Oceanh (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC) (Striking incomplete (thus unhelpful) description of the problem. Oceanh (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC) )
Sorry, I can't fix it. Could an administrator help, please? Yoninah (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done - but we could use some more updates please. Gatoclass (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Errors

So, WP:DYKE. We agreed to hold off using this until some other proposals got passed through, which seem to have stalled, so what should we do with it? We could either move all error related threads there, guide people onto using it but keep existing threads where they are (my preference), or get rid of it. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see much point in retaining it ATM. We've seen some discussions recently that should have been posted on nominations pages rather than here, but that doesn't seem like a good reason to open a whole new discussion page. Gatoclass (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Get rid of it is my vote. There were objections to it in the earlier discussion (certainly no consensus for it), and I still think it's a bad idea. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
You prefer to see the errors all listed here? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
That's what I said earlier, yes. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be useful: in times of high debate like we've had recently it is easy for the queries on the queues to either get lost among the posts or break up the discussion. It might be less intimidating for editors to report errors there too (I remember going backwards and forwards a few times before making an error report here for the first time) Belle (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems like there's no consensus on putting errors on a separate page, or at best a 50:50 split. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Georg Poplutz

Transformations of a hook:

  • Georg Poplutz performing in the complete works by Schütz
  • also (!) mentioning Schubert, approved in the nom

I slept through the next steps:

Did you know that we now have a hook with the subject's name in a genitive (which I dislike even if you can pronounce it) and which doesn't mention what he is known for: ensemble singing. - I will watch more closely next time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop being so Latinate. Can't you just say possessive like normal people? Anyway, this is just another example of why hooks shouldn't be tinkered with in prep -- a disease with which I am now infected. But there are so many clearly wrong, or nonsense, hooks coming through -- I'm not saying this was one of those -- that something has to be done -- yet people get pissed off if you push it back to the nom page. EEng (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know "possessive", nor "Latinate"", sorry, - I am here with my limited English and my VERY limited knowledge of grammar terms which I learned in German. Don't push back to nom page, just ping me saying that all I wanted to say is gone and what I was talked into appears in a strange way. I would still say that he created the emotions, not his performance (can a performance create?), perhaps by his performance, - anyway, I keep learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
If it makes you feel any better, I've been running into you for almost two years and it never occurred to me that your English was limited, so maybe you're doing better than you thought. Yes, a performance can create something, such as emotions (just as it can inspire or disappoint). EEng (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 4

Hook was pulled here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The old "Beef Stew" hook claims the magazine said it "was one of the most unusual nicknames", but the article says it was just featured in a piece about unusual nicknames, no claims of it being "one of the most unusual". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

ooo, you can't trust that beef stew, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that is too much of a leap for the hook purposes (unless it was only included as an example of a "normal" nickname; which it wasn't). Belle (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
It potentially misrepresents the article in the magazine. It was just about "unusual nicknames". It appears no claim was made, either by the magazine or the writer of the article within the magazine, that it was "one of the most unusual"... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The potential misrepresentation is quite trivial though (I can't see anybody running to ERRORS to complain that they are outraged about the hook because the nickname was only thought to be unusual and might not be thought of as one of the most unusual). Your correction to the hook was good (I was just going to do that) but you have more important things to do than worry about this (come and join me in the sun in the garden; we can have cocktails) Belle (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it seems an endemic failure of the system that people struggle to find an interesting hook, so that just make one up. If it just said "blah blah Beef Stew blah was an unusual nickname" which is what the source says, it wouldn't make a hook and wouldn't be DYK-able. People are scratching around, making things up to get a main page appearance. All wrong. As for cocktails in the sun, I'd be delighted. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I've always seen DYK as more of a quaint regional dish. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
[4] What an ego, TRM! Maybe Hawkeye7 meant me. (It's probably cocktail invite envy; you can come too Hawkeye7) Belle (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure that's it, you're the one harassing and edit warring....! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes I agree @Bellemora, that is quite an unusual edit and then to close the discussion as if there was some kind of consensus is also quite ... unusual. I have never seen this behaviour here before - is this normal elsewhere? The reasons for rejecting the hook were not persuasive (to anyone I could see) and I cannot see evidence that anyone was persuaded by the argument. How do we put the consensus back in charge? I have reserved a space for any ranting below, but your thoughts would also be welcomed. Victuallers (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Orlady pulled the hook and returned it to the nominations page while TRM and I were discussing it, so I think TRM was just trying to ensure that the discussion didn't happen in two places. Hawkeye7 was just fishing for a free martini. Belle (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
And VIctuallers was looking for a stirrer. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone is as lost as I am, the article in question is Template:Did you know nominations/Lou Marconi. 17:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Per Village pump discussion, any tool that was Dispenser's was not migrated to Labs. What this means for DYK is that on the nomination template, the Dab links and External links tools are no more. Also, if you've been using Reflinks to clear up bare URLs, that's gone also.. — Maile (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

For those trying to keep track of the disappearing and migrated tools from Toolserver to Labs, there has been a lengthy discussion over at the Village pump (technical). Anna Frodesiak posted this table to help users find where their favorite tool went: Wikimedia Labs/Toolserver replacements — Maile (talk)

Close paraphrasing in translation

The article now in prep 4 on the composer Mansoor Hosseini is based on a translation from the Swedish article mostly by Hafspajen with me filling in a few bits where he got stuck. Gerda Arendt requested the translation and did a lot of work on it subsequently to get it to a DYK worthy state, so it is only right that she should get the credit. The problem with the article is that a lot of the Swedish article is almost a straight lift from the cited reference[5], and this closeness in structure and wording has been carried over in the translation (of course it has, because Hafspajen and I are excellent translators. No sniggering at the back!). I think the hook should be pulled until the close paraphrasing can be sorted out (but if consensus says it isn't a problem, I will swap sides and try to pretend that I never wrote this.) Belle (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I think I've fixed it up enough. Belle (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 3

Saint

Apparently "... the final version of The Saint on radio ran for 16 months ... " but I'm seeing nothing specific in the target article to substantiate that, moreover I'm seeing a crappy "for this version, which ended. October 14, 1951.[3]" I'm sure the people that reviewed the article and the hook knew what they were doing, but this needs to be tweaked before it hits the main page. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You just need to add up the months between these two sentences:
The program's final run began June 11, 1950, as a summer replacement for The Phil Harris-Alice Faye Show.[1] The Saint was back on its original network, NBC, for this version, which ended October 14, 1951.[2] (Deleted the errant period.) Yoninah (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
a Sorry, I thought hooks should be explicitly referenced, not rely on readers to find stuff like this and work it out for themselves. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Often we extrapolate (sourced) information from different places to make a good hook. Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Which would be a good answer if this was a good hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Vincent Price is inherently interesting, why not mention him in the hook? Or do the kids not know who he is anymore? How about "...that Billboard called Vincent Price's performance as The Saint "frightfully dull"? Or call him "horror actor Vincent Price" to pun off "frightfully". Never mind, I should read the damn hook first instead of assuming that the bit quoted here was the whole thing. Gamaliel (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
OT, Gamaliel, I was about to say that at the time of that radio program, Vincent Price was more known for his dramatic roles in film. But your comment about "do the kids know who he is"...oh, my, we may have gotten to a place in time where the so-called kids don't know he was the voice on Michael Jackson's "Thriller". — Maile (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Frick

Tim Frick's hook is referenced by a YouTube video, since when did that become reliable? More importantly, why is it interesting that a bunch of six-year-olds have a twelve-year-old "coach"? It happens all the time. I thought dyk hooks were supposed to be interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome, folks to the crystal waters of DYK. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I just thought, as most of readers perhaps do, that hooks should be reliably sourced and interesting. I used to coach six- and seven-year-olds when I was eleven/twelve. It's completely commonplace. And just because I don't have my own Wikipedia article, it doesn't make this hook any less DULLLLLL. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Haha. Yep, you have a natural ability in "coaching", boss. Martinevans123 (Aged 6-and-a-half) 20:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It was all about not just running towards the ball. You can call me "the Gaffer" from now on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen you make quite a few gaffes before now, Incey. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC) ... or maybe "Ron Manager" would be better, ooh, wasn't it? you know, jumpers for hooks? all in a queue for the front page, wasn't it

I asked when YouTube became a reliable source, not who claimed to produce this video. As for "cute", read dull and not at all interesting and entirely commonplace. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Video links: "There are channels on YouTube for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations that are generally considered reliable sources". It appears to be the official channel of the Canadian Paralympic Committee. You're right about the hook, it's terrible. Why not a reference to the three consecutive gold medals? That seems more interesting. Gamaliel (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Yoninah (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wheelchair basketball Canada had the video professionally produced and put it up on their website. It was showed many times on the big screen at the event venue, and during ad breaks in the webcast. The YouTube channel is an official one. I thought and they thought that this was an interesting hook. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to Rambling Man

For the past two days I've been watching and waiting for those prep sets to be filled by all the people you drove away from DYK. I took the plunge, spent between 30 minutes and 90 minutes to assemble each set, held my breath and posted it. Bingo! In rushes Rambling Man to pick apart and dissect anything he can find. May I point out that you will find much more fodder for your red pen on the nominations page? There are plenty of hooks that have been approved that you can criticize, nitpick, and fault while the nomination is still open – which is obviously the most appropriate and accepted time to make changes. Think a hook is dull? X it out on the nomination page, rather than arguing with the prep builder who thinks it is interesting. You might also consider rolling up your sleeves and making the necessary tweaks to a hook or article (really now, spouting off over a misplaced period?) rather than criticizing the prep builder in front of everyone else on the talk page. I really miss the days when civility was upheld as one of the 5 pillars on DYK, too. Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that two editors - the nominator and the prep builder - have already disagreed about the dullness of a hook puts a complaint of dullness under a WP:SNOW cloud from the word go. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No thanks, I'll continue to keep the queues and prep areas on my watchlist and do my best to stop errors and dull hooks from getting to the main page. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If I may use the AfD analogy (since DYK seems to be kind of AfD in reverse), what TRM is doing is basically roughly equivalent to sitting an AfD out, finding it closed as "Keep", and then starting a second nomination. I think if that happened over more than 5 iterations, somebody would get upset and want to complain. If we want to sort out errors before ERRORS, they really do need to be spotted and logged as soon as possible in the process. Now, there's an argument to be made that it's easier to comment on hooks once they're assembled in prep or queue, but that's a fault with the setup of DYK, not with anyone person. In any case, if we don't change it, I fear that pulling hooks in prep because it's "easier" than failing it at nomination time is going to gradually upset more and more people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, if I'm still able to find issues by the time these hooks go to prep/queues, you should be thanking me, not berating me, for trying to prevent DYK humiliating itself again and again all over the main page. Fix your process, don't complain about the people fixing the mess it outputs. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
An excellent question - how would you fix the process? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I've gone round this buoy too many times and been shot down too many times. Variously: remove QPQ, instigate consensus-based reviews (this is a great example of why we shouldn't allow one individual to decide whether a hook is correct or not), don't offer guaranteed posts, slow down rate of main page switches. All straightforward stuff but the project is being run to the ground by people suggesting there's nothing wrong. In the meantime, I feel justified in monitoring the prep/queue areas as errors are all too frequently passed through, all the way to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Almost every suggestion offered to change the DYK process is immediately shot down. Gamaliel (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to people making "suggestions" to me

While the DYK process remains as it is, review each hook as if it has never been reviewed. That's what I'm doing. If you do that, and do it properly, then last minute corrections, pulls, ERROR reports, trips to ANI can be avoided, or at least reduced. Until you do this, or fix the system that produces erroneous hooks, don't blame me for finding issues in most queues. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to everyone else

Ignore him. People who are in it for the attention tend to go away when they don't get any. Prioryman (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, let's just keep putting errors on the front page and everything will be fine. Gamaliel (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going anywhere Prioryman. Unlike you, I'm trying to fix the garbage that sometimes leaks out onto the main page despite the DYK system being just fine according to some people. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 1

One hook suggests (arguable) that a sailor's corpse was scattered in a dinghy and a few lifebuoys ... though I don't believe that is what is meant. 15:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 2

Lady Gaga's G.U.Y. video duration claim is not inline referenced in the target article. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a new GA. The reviewer on the nom page states that Wikipedia film plot guidelines apply to music video synopsis, therefore a source isn't required. I wasn't aware of this, but it might be correct. Can someone point to a policy or guideline that confirms this? Gatoclass (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Here's the youtube link - looks like it is 11:47 long. Gatoclass (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
No doubt, just applying the DYK rules that state "The "Did you know?" fact must be mentioned in the article and cited with an inline citation since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I've usually interpreted that rule to mean that the inline cite should be to the work of art itself, but IIRC there's been some disagreement about this, some people think that isn't necessary. Gatoclass (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you're saying, the rule seems very clear – "the fact must be cited with an inline citation since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article" (my emphasis). If there are suddenly exceptions to this, the rule should be re-written to take that into account. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
As noted in another section above - the ruleset needs clarifying and updating. This may be one of the rules that needs some attention. Gatoclass (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
So in the meantime, the hooked statement does not have an inline citation to support the specific statement within the article, so it should be fixed or pulled. The rule is clear, claiming it not to be is mystifying. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I've pulled the hook. Not because it doesn't have a cite, but because, having watched the video, while technically it is nearly 12 minutes long, four of those minutes are taken up by credits, so arguably the hook is a bit misleading. Regarding the other issue, a discussion may be required on this page as to whether we make an exception to the cite rule for plots, film and videos, or whether we follow MOS and don't require it, as I think this has been a bit of a grey area for a while. Gatoclass (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the pull. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I've supported the pull. I'm not really interested in the rules in this instance, but in this case I would simply say that if it was important or significant to say that a video was 12 minutes in length, it would be easy to dig out a reliable source that said so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
That point is not being disputed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A beautiful example, BTW, of why WP has rules re OR and PRIMARY, and why secondary sources are our primary sources (ha, ha, little joke there...). While a robotic look at the little MM:SS display on youtube may, technically, justify a statement of "almost twelve minutes", there's a least a good chance that a secondary source would distinguish the wheat from the chaff. EEng (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Icky comic relief

This conversation arose between two highly respected editors on the Talk page of a recent DYK article. We felt it would be selfish of us not to share it with our esteemed colleagues.

Hey, I thought you were going to tell us all about Dr Young and the FDA? It's obvious that Rectal dilator is in need of its own article? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Now there's a DYK to break all records:
Did you know... that Dr. Young's Rectal Dilators were withdrawn abruptly by the FDA etc etc and so on and so forth.
Note the phrasing rectal dilators withdrawn abruptly. I'll see what I can come up with source-wise. EEng (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Alternative phrasing: forced out of the stream of commerce
Who could possibly dispute the "interesting hook" factor there?! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
DO NOT MIX THE CONCEPTS OF RECTAL AND HOOK. NEVER. NOT EVER. Anyway... here ya go [6] EEng (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Goodness me, several articles worth of material there, in Notice of Judgement No.335. Edited highlights: ".. extracts of drugs including a mydriatic drug such as belladonna"; "It is advisable to use occasionally as a precautionary measure. You need have no fear of using them too much"; "On December 6, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgements of condemnation were entered and the products were ordered destroyed." How dramatic. So actually, rare and illegal artefacts, sorry artifacts. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh wait. How about clamped down on the sale? EEng (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Put the squeeze on..." EEng (talk)
Surely a musical angle is needed. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
You are truly the master of the "mouseover-to-make-'em-laugh-so-they-spit-their-coffee". EEng (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I can deal with rodents ... but let's steer clear of other dubious practices at this juncture, shall we? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
But this is the way ahead folks - agree on a hook first and write the article to match. Well, get EEng to write the hook, actually. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Listen, keep your hands off my junctures or you're gonna find out what's what. I can't believe there hasn't been any tsk-tsking about this. EEng (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 2 needs promoter

I have completed Prep 2 but need someone to load it into the Queue, is anyone available? Gatoclass (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Promoter still needed. Gatoclass (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done But now we need another update ... Gatoclass (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Shame on you, GC! Surely you know that Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. EEng (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Please rewrite and consolidate Prep guidelines

Lord Palmerston claimed only three people have ever really understood the DYK Prep guidelines - one who is dead, one who has gone mad, and himself, who forgot all about them. No wonder people can't see the wood for the trees.

EEng, per your request above. As important as this is now becoming, I would like to suggest that the Prep guidelines be consolidated and clarified so anybody and everybody can understand them with no gray areas. It's no wonder there is confusion on this. I found all these mentioning how to handle the preparations:

And I frequently see unlinked references to the "Suggestions page", and have no idea what that is. I'm still looking for the Klingon language supplement to the supplement to the regular rules as amended by that elusive Suggestions page, because it's probably out there somewhere. Really, the prep areas are a hot button issue. Please make these guidelines as concise and easy to understand as possible. All on one page, perhaps bullet points, with as few words as possible. We shouldn't be having personality spats over this. We should be getting this down to be understood. If someone could come up with a separate RFC on what the prep guidelines should be, it would probably go a long ways towards healing here at DYK. — Maile (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Definitely "let's" (i.e. not me) first pull together all the stuff M just listed above, to see what it all says currently, then we can talk about changes. I don't think an RfC project-wide is a good idea -- what the prep builder does vs. the admin promoting to Q vs. nom vs. reviewer is, in a sense, a technical question. There are lingering questions about what DYK should be overall, its standards, its mission -- those are RfC questions -- but let's just try to rationalize what we're doing in-house on this prep-building thing. EEng (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. I'm beginning to ramble again.
By RFC, I mean a separate subpage of this talk page, where we can list what this should be. It will have to be voted on. So, in effect, that is an RFC. We don't have to make it a Wikipedia-wide RFC. Just make it a subpage of this, so we don't clog down the already clogged talk page here. It's time for everybody to stop butting heads and finger pointing, and get this done. Everybody needs to park their egos at the door. — Maile (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
ALT1: Everyone needs to park his or her ego at the door.
ALT2: It's time everyone stopped butting heads and pointing fingers.
EEng (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Good luck. Note that "preparation areas" above is part of Wikipedia:Did you know/Learning DYK, which was intended to unify all that (for all our rules, not just preparation); it replaces the first and fourth items above, and it links to the second. Instead it became just another system. Art LaPella (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
"Suggestions" means nominations. Art LaPella (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
"it replaces the first and fourth items above, and it links to the second". Um, let's see... first and four... carry the one... um... Seventeen? EEng (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There's a lot of history behind the confusingness. What we now call "nominations" used to be called "suggestions". There also was a time when there was only one set of hooks -- assembled by an administrator -- queued to move to the main page; some references in the instructions date from that time. There has been a long-recognized need to consolidate and reorganize all of the instructions so they describe the current rules as they are understood by the active participants in DYK. Pieces of the job have been done at various times, but it seems like every time someone gets started on a comprehensive rewrite, they give up on it after someone suggests (or demands) a complete reexamination of the process. (Don't assume that those demands always come from people who have the same motives. Sometimes it's been people complaining that DYK should have less stringent rules, other times it's been people who want more stringent rules, other times it's a desire for new technical tools, and there have also been people asking to have designated delegates put in charge.) Many of these reexaminations have led to changes in the rules, which often results in additional internal inconsistencies when new "rules" are created but some of the old "rules" aren't edited to conform to the changes. --Orlady (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
To that I might add - the notion of an RFC on this, quite frankly, fills me with horror. Much better IMO to simply have one of the more experienced and competent regulars just go through it WP:BOLDly weeding out all the redundant crap and inconsistencies and we can all argue about how well or badly they did it later. Gatoclass (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
...in an RFC. Belle (talk)
(I agree with Gatoclass, if some brave soul wants to try that; it seems like we are all discussed out for the moment, as the lack of input on some of the later proposals demonstrates) Belle (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad to see some humor above. OK, so let's not strike terror in the hearts of everyone by doing an RFC. Gatoclass has suggested a/the correct path forward. Start with just this part of the process, getting the Prep instructions down to something understandable on one page. Something everyone agrees on. After that is done, address the other parts of the process. We can't remedy the entire DYK process at once, but we can proactively do it one piece at a time. — Maile (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's the condensed version

These are the only two pages that really detail the Prep guidelines, and are somewhat duplicated but not exactly

I have condensed them below. EEng, what you were earlier looking for is N14, and I did not condense that one - it's as it was originally written. I found nothing that specified the Prep person has to check for copyvio or paraphrasing. I shuffled it up to the top, because I don't think it should have been at the bottom.

I don't believe N1 should even have a number, but should be an introductory stand-alone paragraph. N10/J8 specifically focused on the Preparer's right to trim a hook, and did not mention changing the hook's wording. N7/J5 seems strange to me to even have to mention it - it's worded as it was originally written. Fellow DYK travelers, please review and offer comments below the rules.— Maile (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  • N1: Users are encouraged to help out by preparing updates on the preparation area pages. You don't have to be an administrator. Note that promoting your own articles is generally discouraged, and promoting your own articles before they have been independently verified is disallowed. When possible, it is also best to avoid promoting the same article that you reviewed, nominated, or created.
  • N14: It is the promoter's responsibility to make sure all review issues have been resolved, that the hook is verified by sourcing within the article. The promoter acts as a secondary verification of the review.
  • N2: Choose approved hooks ( or ).
  • N3/J1: The number of hooks per Prep set varies according to the backlog and is determined on WT:DYK. The number is usually six, seven or eight hooks.
  • N4/N5/J2/J3: Choose a varied selection of topics and countries, not limiting the Prep set to one or two countries.
  • N6/J4: Shuffle the hooks so like topics and geographical areas are not next to each other.
  • N7/J5: Try to avoid putting inappropriate hooks next to one another. For example, don't put a sad hook next to a funny one; it looks incongruous and jerks the reader uncomfortably from one emotion to another.
  • N8/J6: Hooks on the nominations page that include images cannot all be a lead hook.
  • N9/J7: The last hook should be funny/quirky.
  • N10/J8: Preparers may trim hooks to make them more interesting.
  • N11: Please disambiguate linked words in the hook. Here is the Wikipedia guideline.
  • N12: Replace the * in each entry with the {{*mp}} that is already provided on the preparation area pages.
  • N13: Make sure to include the article name, date, nominator, and creator under the "Credits" section to allow others to return it if a dispute arises.

Comments

Great work! Some suggestions:

  • N7 should instead read something like "Try to avoid placing hooks together inappropriately" because each hook by itself should be appropriate or it shouldn't pass.
  • N11 should be done by the reviewer, it should already be fixed by the time we get to prep. Maybe fold it into another rule that covers verifying the hook, like N14.
  • N4 and N6 can be combined into something like "Choose a varied selection of topics and countries, not limiting the Prep set to one or two countries, and place them so that hooks on similar topics and geographical areas are not next to each other."
  • N8 is a little too condensed and is now unclear.
Original wording N8: Hooks on the Suggestions page that include images often get verified first. Users sometimes then just go and grab a bunch of the nearest verified hooks for the preparation areas, which can often include several of these verified picture hooks. Not every submitted picture can be featured in the picture slot of course, but since only one picture can be featured per update, try to leave the good picture hooks behind for another update if you possibly can. — Maile (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  • N12 is redundant, {{*mp}} isn't used anymore. N13 is clearly outdated with the existing nom templates. Other than that, I wasn't really anticipating this sort of condensation but it probably won't do much harm. Gatoclass (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Redux

The following is a rearrangement and copyedit of (I hope) everything above, incorporating (I hope) the comments so far, none of which I think needed discussion. I've removed redundancy and excess verbiage, and made some slight additions and rewordings which I hope will be non-controversial.

EEng has wondered for a long time what the difference is between the blue and the green -- you mean they're the same???
  • You are the secondary verification that the nomination was reviewed properly.
  • Check that all review issues have been resolved, and that the hook is verified by sourcing within the article. (N14)
  • If you created/expanded the article, made the nomination, or were heavily involved in the review (especially with regard to the hooks) let "fresh eyes" (i.e. not you) check the review and promote. (N1 -- partial)
  • Choose a variety of topics and countries. (N4/N5/J2/J3)
  • There aren't enough first-slot openings for all the nominations with images, so if an image seems "low-value" consider using the hook without its image. (N8/J6)
  • Arranging the set
  • Use the number of hooks-per-set you see currently on the main page. (If you think the number should be raised or lowered, open at discussion at WT:DYK.) (N3/J1)
  • Shuffle hooks so similar topics and geographical areas aren't clumped. (N6/J4)
  • Avoid inappropriate or awkward juxtapositions e.g. a disaster hook next to a funny one. (N7/J5)
  • The bottom slot is for the funny, quirky hooks. (N9/J7)
  • For each hook...:
  • Before you forget...
  • ... open the nom page for editing and set up the subst:, the passed=yes, and a note at the end about which hook you promoted, any changes you make to the hook, and other notes
  • ... copy the credits/article/nom info from the nom page to the "Credits" section of the prep set. Fill in details. (N13)
  • You may trim a hook to make it more interesting. (N10/J8)
Discussion is needed here, I think. EEng (talk)
  • Check that links point to the right target; disambiguate as necessary. (N11)
  • To include an image (first slot only) [insert instructions, including re temporary protection of image etc.]

Thoughts so far? EEng (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments on the redux

Comments should be droll and include inside jokes if possible.

  • I really think we should remove this provision
  • You are the secondary verification that the nomination was reviewed properly. - Check that all review issues have been resolved, and that the hook is verified by sourcing within the article. (N14)
There's a lot to do in trawling the noms, finding a good mix of green-ticked hooks, arranging them, checking the links don't need dab-ing, pulling in the credits, etc. -- plus maybe modifying the hook (which I think is a whole other discussion that's needed). I think it's very hard to do all that and then concentrate on doublechecking the review. I want to propose that the set prep's job be everything but the doublecheck. Then once the set is full in prep, an admin takes it over for checking.

This way the admin doesn't have to edit and subst the nom pages, tinker with the hooks, etc. His/her job is "read only" -- look over the nom page, check the hook through to the source, etc. If everything goes well he/she has nothing else to do but move the set to Q.

If there's a problem the admin pulls the hook from prep (leaving a hole, or filling the hole if he wants) and reopening the nom page. (I don't think we need to consider this as "/Removed", BTW. In fact I'm not sure what /Removed is really for anymore, as long as anything pulled gets its nom page reopened.)

To reinforce: I think it compromises the "checking" step to mix it with the "select/modify-hook/arrange/credit/etc" step. Separate them, giving the first to the prep builder (which can be several people each contributing one or two hooks) and the second to the admin promoting to Q.

EEng (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

[Striking suggestion for now so as not to derail the first step, which is to just organize the current rules. --EEng (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)]

  • I like the general idea of updating instructions. I won't say much about the details because I've never prepared my own batch for the queue (I pretty much copied existing instructions when I wrote mine.) Remember, we aren't done until we agree on putting the instructions someplace where they will actually be found. Art LaPella (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps once we get agreement on the instructions, an expanded prose version should remain under DYK/Preparation areas. The condensed version should replace what is at Supplementary guidelines. However, while much of the updating might be uncontested, the bone of contention that needs a consensus is the very provision EEng has mentioned right above this. I'm neutral. But if we are going to eliminate that the Preparer is the second verification that the nom was reviewed properly, we need a consensus. If we leave it, we need to be very specific what that means, leaving no assumptions for interpretation. As is, it does not state the Preparer is responsible for checking copyvio, but proponents of that have interpreted it as such. We need a clarification. — Maile (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
This is really something that should be addressed by a general overhaul of the procedures and I hope it doesn't stop us from condensing and clarifying these rules, because this baby step is the only thing we've managed to do so far in the face of the general footdragging and ostrich imitating here. Can we just leave it ambiguous for now? Something like "some editors feel it is the role of the preparer to be responsible for verifying that there are no copyright violations in the article"? Gamaliel (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I have a bad feeling about this... But first... is the redux OK as a reorganization of all the prior provisions? Anything need adjusting? EEng (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
EEng, Changes come in small increments. We fix what we can, and save the rest for another day. Your redux above is, IMO, a more effective visual guideline than how I had it. Easy and to the point. Visuals are everything if you want someone to read and comprehend. The comments above the redux by Gatoclass and Gamaliel should be incorporated. But I'd like more than my opinion on that.— Maile (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
My bad feeling was only about the eventual discussion re who's responsible for what. But we little group here can enjoy a little peace among ourselves, before throwing the doors open to the madding hordes. I actually thought I'd incorporated everyone's comments. But if I missed something, or to make other noncontroversial changes, go ahead and just edit directly -- for now it's just the 3 or 4 of us, so we can all just watch the diffs and we don't need to talk about such little changes here directly, unless someone sees a problem with one of them. EEng (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I guess maybe you did incorporate the comments into your redux. I'm not changing anything. — Maile (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the more checking that the prep set creator has to do, the longer the process will take and the greater the likelihood that there will be an edit conflict. When such a conflict happened to me I found it very difficult to sort out and now use an "inuse" tag to try to discourage others from editing the hook set that I am working on. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Admin guidelines

Given all the information above about promoting to a prep, this is almost funny. The only place I find where it mentions specifically what admins are supposed to do in the promoting process is Wikipedia:Did you know, way down at the bottom:

  • Administrators: when you add an image to DYK, it is automatically protected, so simply add an {{mprotected} notice to the image description page (or {{C-uploaded} plus a copy of the author attribution and the licence tag if you have uploaded a temporary copy from Commons).

and

  • 3. When an update is fully prepared in one of the prep areas, an administrator will copy the prep area into one of the queues. The admin moving the hooks to the live template may edit or reject any hook at their discretion. The queues are also copies of the main template, but are protected so they can only be added by administrators.

and

Admins
  • If a factual error is reported when the hooks are on the front page, try to replace the hook with another fact from the article, rather than just removing it.
  • In the case it has to be removed, try to replace it with another hook from the suggestions page.
  • If it is the first hook and hence has an associated picture, you must replace it with another hook with a picture.

So, the admins get simplified instructions. Hmmmm. — Maile (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 3

  • "Great British Meal" - firstly the hook doesn't use the same nomenclature as the article (where it refers to the concept as "Great British Meal Out"), secondly, if anyone bothered reading all the references, the claim is highly disputed, so the overall hook is not great either. Other sources state that curry was the most popular "meal out", and other sources claim the whole thing is bollocks. This is neither interesting nor appropriately written/sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I have tweaked the hook, but contrary to your claim, I read all the sources and they virtually all support the hook - even the one that mentions curry as the favourite meal states that it is arguably the favourite meal now but that it used to be prawn cocktail and etc. No "dispute", no claims that the whole thing is "bollocks". If you want to check nominations, fine - but please don't make false claims as you only waste the time of other reviewers by doing so. Gatoclass (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Of course, the sources in the article itself would naturally support the article itself, I wonder if anyone counter checks these "it is claimed" style hooks, it could be equally suggested "it is claimed that curry was the most popular meal out". And claiming that something was "dubbed Britain's favourite of the 1980s" with a hook that's referenced by something referring to an annual survey by a trade magazine which made no such claim, other than the "cooked dinner type meal prevailed, often in the form..." of this meal type. But hey, let's just make stuff up as we go along. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
You already made a bunch of transparently false claims about the sources for this article, so I don't intend to waste any more time on this. The hook states that this was "dubbed Britain's favourite dining out meal of the 1980s", which it clearly was by a number of sources. Your speculative claim that maybe some other source somewhere said different does not change the fact that the hook as stated is correct. Gatoclass (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
It is not dubbed as you claim at all. And the inline reference apparently supporting it doesn't claim that either. But let's not let veracity get in the way of a dull hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sarama: I'm sorry to notice this so late, and not to know where to report it. But the Sarama hook is wrong. As the article points out, in nearly all versions of the Ramayana Sarama is a heroine character. It is only in the one version, mentioned in the last line of the article, that she is seen in a negative light. At a minimum it should say "in post-Ramayana literature" rather than "in the Ramayana" but strictly it is only in the Sita Puranamu in Telegu.174.88.8.213 (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. That set is still under review so I'll take a close look at that hook when I resume. Gatoclass (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much, I appreciate it. It's essentially as wrong as something like "in the Bible, John the Baptist is criticized for betraying Jesus to Herod" when that is only one regional folk tradition. 174.88.8.213 (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I restored the original reference to the Sita Puranamu but it's a little inaccessible to non-experts as we don't have a link for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK Check

Shubinator, has there been a change in the coding of DYK Check recently? Maybe my memory is off on this. But I was just running a routine check and it read "Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days (2251 days) ". I remember that the time period was recently changed from 5 days to 7 days. Maybe I missed something in all the discussion on this page. I don't understand either the 10 days or 2251 days mentioned. — Maile (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in the past week I added Good Article detection to DYKcheck.
The Good Article detection code is related to, but independent from, the "10 days" logic. The 10 days code hasn't changed since DYKcheck was first rolled out five years ago. So why 10 days and not 7 (or previously, 5)? The 7-day "rule" applies to the time between when the article was created/expanded/Good Article'd to the time it was nominated for DYK. Noms often sit around for a few days though between nomination and "promotion" to a set, and during this time, someone might run DYKcheck. So the extra few days allows some wiggle room for the time it takes to review the nom. If there's consensus to change this logic, I can tweak it.
2251 days is how much time has elapsed since the article was created/expanded/Good Article'd according to DYKcheck. Shubinator (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. — Maile (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Um, if 10-7=3 days is what's being allowed for review of DYK noms, there's a serious communication problem somewhere. EEng (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
It used to be 10-5=5 days, which was a reasonable window when DYKcheck was first created. I agree that 3 days is too short, especially these days; feel free to suggest a more accurate number. Even before though, inevitably the oldest nominations would be more stale than DYKcheck's window, DYKcheck also displays the actual number of days so a human can make the call. Shubinator (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if that came across as critical of you -- wasn't meant to be. I don't know what would be right. I've always said this whole idea of rewarding work done in a rush is idiotic. EEng (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
No worries. In this case I don't think DYKcheck is affecting review times; I'm guessing that if I changed it to a 100-day window, the average review time per nom would stay the same. Shubinator (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK eligibility

An article I would like to write a DYK for was previously nominated and rejected in 2013 because the 5x expansion was over four weeks old. Since then, the article was promoted to Good Article status and is now eligible. Am I able to nominate a new DYK hook for the article? If so, where would I place the nomination as the original (rejected) nomination exists on the page where one would normally nominate it. MJ94 (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If it's within 7 days you can nominate. The name of the nomination doesn't matter, you could have it at Template:Did you know nominations/July 4 2014, but you just need to fill it in right. Something like 'Article (2nd nomination)' will probably be fine. Thanks, Matty.007 20:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
@Matty.007:  Done at Template:Did you know nominations/Olivia Pope (2nd nomination). Thanks! MJ94 (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, the explanation was poor, well done on understanding. Looks to be done correctly. Thanks, Matty.007 20:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Admin help needed

On the nominations page under July 1, if you click on Astronomical Society of New South Wales, it brings up Template:Did you know nominations/Did you know, which opens a blank page. To fnd out what was meant, I clicked on July 1 and found out the editor manually input the text for Astronomical Society of New South Wales directly under that date and inadvertently created a blank template as above. To correct that, I created Template:Did you know nominations/Astronomical Society of New South Wales and replaced the prose under July 1 with this template. However, something is not correct. If you click on that nomination under July 1, the old blank page template still pulls up. Can an admin please correct this? — Maile (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I took a shot at fixing it. I'm not too familiar with the structure of the nom pages, so it would be great if someone could double-check my work. Shubinator (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Whatever you did, it worked. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
No problem :) Shubinator (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 4

... "that Thea Austin has had five hits as a member of three groups?"

I checked the rules ("The hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation to a reliable source, since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article. The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it, since the fact is an extraordinary claim; citing the hook fact at the end of the paragraph is not acceptable. (Note, "extraordinary" is used here to mean "out of the ordinary", not "exceptional to a very marked extent.") Nominations are to be rejected if the claim made in the hook is not present in the source, or if the source is not a reliable source.") and I checked the article, but I couldn't see how the article and its hook met the rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

... "that's a remake"

Per WP:MOS, ("Uncontracted forms such as do not or it is are the default in encyclopedic style; don't and it's are too informal. But contractions should not be expanded mechanically. Sometimes rewriting the sentence as a whole is preferable; occasionally contractions provide the best solution anyway.") we avoid contractions. I made a minor correction yet it was reverted twice. If this isn't fixed now, it'll be picked up at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

What TRM's complaining about is
* ... that Mr. Burns, a Post-Electric Play retells an episode of The Simpsons that parodies a movie that's a remake of another movie which is based on a book?
DYK "violates" MOS in many ways, including addressing the reader with a rhetorical question (Did you know...?), and knowingly employing phrasing which is ambiguous or misleading in a harmless way. The informality of a contraction is entirely consistent and appropriate to DYK's "gestalt". To fuss about this when there are things actually wrong with DYK makes me want to cry out, "TRM, get off my side!" EEng (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, we follow MOS wherever possible, and here, it's possible. I don't care if you want to "cry out". Do it in your own time, in a room of your own with your own comfort aids. This is Wikipedia, not EEng's play tool. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
MOS itself says, Use common sense in applying ... will have occasional exceptions. So in using common sense to identify an appropriate exception we are following MOS.

Your recent post to my talk, "I'll just wait for main page and report ERRORS" typifies your blow-it-up, take-no-prisoners attitude. A more construct approach would be to say (as I will now)...

Let's see what other editors think. EEng (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really, my post was to mean that it'll be picked up at ERRORS as a MOS fail, whether it's me or someone else who does it. Just better to fix it beforehand to help DYK's improving error statistics. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, I think it would be better to see what other editors think. EEng (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, sure, but again, it'll be raised at ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Currently we have "that parodies a movie that's a remake of another movie which is based on a book", why not "that parodies a movie which is a remake of another movie that was based on a book"? Or are your grammar bells shaking and jangling about this? If you like, I can recommend places to have your bells waxed, just let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It's meant to have a bit of "This Is the House That Jack Built" flavor, and it's fine as is, IMO. But let's wait to hear what others think. EEng (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

... "but had a son who became"

Awkward and clumsy phrasing, should be "but whose son became". I made a minor correction yet it was reverted twice. If this isn't fixed now, it'll be picked up at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The hook now in prep is
... that Romanian linguist Alexandru Philippide championed science and disdained literature, especially poetry, but had a son who became a poet?
TRM wants it to read [7]
that Romanian linguist Alexandru Philippide championed science and disdained literature, especially poetry, but whose son who became a poet?
-- which is patent nonsense. EEng (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
So we delete the last "who" and we all chill out. (done) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
You most recently proposed [8]
that Romanian linguist Alexandru Philippide championed science and disdained literature, especially poetry, but whose son became a poet?
-- which is still nonsense. In all seriousness, TRM, you seem to be running off the rails. I mean it. There's something going on with you recently and it's not good. EEng (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
In what sense is that nonsense? Step me through the nonsense, one step at a time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Removing irrelevant phrases one at a time
that Romanian linguist Alexandru Philippide championed science and disdained literature, especially poetry, but whose son became a poet?
that Romanian linguist Alexandru Philippide championed science and disdained literature, but whose son became a poet?
that Romanian linguist Alexandru Philippide championed science, but whose son became a poet?
I wonder if what you mean is but his son became a poet ??? EEng (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, if you like, that's also a massive improvement on the hook you edit-warred on to keep. Thanks for thinking it through and coming up with your own and better solution! I suggest you implement it post-haste and give yourself some well-earned pats on the back. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I was only speculating on what you might have meant. In fact it's not better since "but his son" implies he only had one son, and we don't know that. I think it's best if we wait for others to give their opinions. EEng (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you need to "speculate", it was pretty clear. Your rewrite is better. And at the article corroborates the phrasing (e.g. "he was saddened to see his son adopt it as a profession", not "he was saddened to see one of his sons adopt it as a profession"). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

With that additional information, you're right and I've changed the hook to read

* ... that Romanian linguist Alexandru Philippide championed science and disdained literature, especially poetry, yet his son became a poet?

Nonetheless, you do see, don't you, that the text you kept trying to install made no sense? EEng (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

There's "making no sense" and "making not any sense not". I'm just really glad you took the time to read the article! It must have enriched your day, as it did mine, and thanks for finally seeing some sense. Now, just two more hooks in this particular queue of doom to worry about! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

... SITI: An Iconic Exhibition of Dato' Siti Nurhaliza ...

I'm struggling (mainly because its white text on a black background) to see where the hook's claim that the exhibition "is among the first of its kind in Malaysia where the main subject is solely based on a single celebrity". Any pointers from anyone who can read inverse colour text would be helpful here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Source is much simpler: "Gallery manager Farida Mazlan says Siti is its first pop icon to have her very own exhibition". There's an implied [in Malaysia] after first, one would think. Needs to be rephrased. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

More updates needed!

Yesterday, we went 20 hours without a new update because nobody built one. We need more updaters! Don't worry too much about loading a hook with an error, I check all the hooks before promoting to the Queue in any case. Just make sure that as a minimum you have read the nomination page discussion and have selected an approved hook or ALT, that the hook is interesting and that the article looks presentable, I can pretty much do the rest. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Gatoclass Ping, Prep 4 has all its buns in the oven for you. — Maile (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Maile66, sorry I didn't get back to it in time, but I have to sleep sometimes :) Gatoclass (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

More updates needed

Preps are empty again, we need more updates. Updaters - don't worry too much about loading a hook with an error, I check all the hooks before promoting to the Queue in any case. Just make sure that as a minimum you have read the nomination page discussion and have selected an approved hook or ALT, that the hook is interesting and that the article looks presentable, I can pretty much do the rest. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 03:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I can live with that! What do you think about #Comments_on_the_redux? EEng (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't paid much attention to that discussion, for a variety of reasons. I'm not sure what you're actually asking me to comment on, but with regard to the respective responsibilities of reviewers, updaters, and queue promoters, which I have raised elsewhere, I'm considering making a concrete proposal of my own about that sometime in the next few days. I just need a little more time to think about it. Gatoclass (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The struck-out text you see when following the link proposes a division of responsibility very much along the lines of what you outlined above. Sorry for the strikeout (I decided I was diverting the conversation too much) but I'd be interested to know what you think. EEng (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with most of it, in fact I already proposed much the same thing myself in this thread. Gatoclass (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Moving credit templates out of userspace

I'm going to start moving DYKmake and DYKnom's innards out of userspace and into the template namespace. While I'm doing this, the credit templates in the preps and queues might not work. Should be done in under an hour. Shubinator (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to note, I think there's an update in 55 minutes. Thanks, Matty.007 16:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep, there's one coming in a bit under two hours. I should be done, complete with a bot update, by then :) Thanks for the reminder. Shubinator (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Scott, I remind you that the Klingon vessel will be within disruptor range in less than 30 seconds. EEng (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
At this point everything except the bot code has been updated, headed off to tweak the code next. Let me know if you spot anything amiss. Shubinator (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Bot code updated, at this point everything should be back to normal. Shubinator (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations! Thanks, Matty.007 17:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong credits

For the current set I noticed missing dyk credit on the talk page of Frequent subtree mining, and similarly missing credits on the creator's talk page. This hook was moved from one prep set to another, without the accompanying credit template. Similarly, there is a wrong dyk note on the talk page of the pulled Thea Austin, and undue credits on the creators' talk pages.

I would recommend that those who move hooks between prep sets, also move the credit templates accordingly, because it is much more time consuming to clean up manually afterwards.

I normally do not check this, only checked now because I was the one who promoted the hook (frequent subset mining), so I don't know how frequently this happens. Oceanh (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened with regards to hooks here, but what can happen if a hook is pulled in a hurry is that the credits are forgotten, and not pulled, so when the prep goes to the main page the credits are activated the same as normal despite the hook being pulled. Thanks, Matty.007 18:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This will require some tedious changes to templates and bots, but if the format of the prep sets would allow the credit template(s) for a given hook to be immediately adjacent to that hook, that would help a lot, not to mention making setting up the sets a bit easier. IOW: *... that blah blah hook1
{{DYKmake for hook1}}
*... that blah blah hook2
{{DYKmake for hook2}}
*... that blah blah hook3
{{DYKmake for hook3}}

EEng (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 1 error

"Corfu Channel Case" should be italicized as a case name. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

On the Corfu hook (Prep 1)

Copied from my Talk EEng (talk)

As to the amount of gold, the print source (several actually) state it in kilograms. I have no objection to adding troy ounces except that it would probably push the hook over the limit.

I disagree with the term "using" insofar as the claim wasn't used to satisfy the ICJ judgment. The claim stemming from the judgment was settled at the same time that the claim to the gold was settled. Arguably, the judgment wasn't really satisfied, but that's another topic entirely. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary the final settlement had multiple shells being shuffled around. Without agreeing or disagreeing with what you say, if what you say is true, then "settled with" is just as wrong as "satisfied using". The fact is my first impulse was to pull this from prep because the article's discussion is so confusing, and I think I should have gone with the impulse. I have to run out for a bit so I'll post a pointer to this at WP:TDYK. EEng (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
As to the phrasing, my intended meaning of "with" was that the ICJ judgment was satisfied at the same time as the Albanian claim. So I suppose I meant "settled along with". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
And my meaning with the judgment not actually being satisfied was that arguably Albania's payment didn't even come close to compensating the time value of the money (as indicated in the article, the £843,947 judgement is equivalent to well over £20 million currently). As to the complexity of the situation... I agree, it is quite complex; it's a matter that lasted decades and involved another ICJ case with Italy. The relevant paragraph containing the hook is the third of the "Satisfaction of debt" section. It's not completely correct to say the claim satisfied the debt, because $2M also changed hands. Perhaps put more simply (though not precisely so in the sources): the UK gave some of the gold to Albania, Albania gave $2M to the UK, and both parties dropped their monetary claims. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
How about this [9]? My ride is here, might be back soon or way late. EEng (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Good with me. Safe travels! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite of the nomination instruction pages (plural) needed

Per Admin help needed above, I posted a notice on the talk page of creator/nominator Gronk Oz on how to create a nomination. I've always thought the instructions at T:TDYK are fairly simplified in setting up a template. The nominator's response to me makes me understand why we sometimes get newbies manually creating the nomination directly beneath the T:TDYK date rather than the template. It seems there are three other instruction pages: Nomination and NewDYKnom, which has a link to Template:NewDYKnomination. Too many instructions in too many places. Comments, suggestions? — Maile (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Similarly to the preparation instructions issue, which I hope isn't being forgotten before it gets fixed, the "three other instruction pages" are from the Wikipedia:Did you know/Learning DYK system, which was originally intended to unify our rules, not add another set. There are 3 pages because my philosophy was that newcomers would be overwhelmed, confused and lost by too much irrelevant information on a page. The first page above is an overview of nomination, with links to each subset including the second page above. Similarly, that page describes several sets including a link to the third page (not mine; it came with the software). Other editors, perhaps including Maile66 above, thought the Learning DYK system was "too many places", and hence we have Wikipedia:Did you know/Onepage – but even the uncontroversial improvements were never implemented, although some of them were independently adopted later, one at a time. Art LaPella (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
What we need is all the rules on one page, I frequently have to go looking for them, and then a simplified version for new DYKers. Thanks, Matty.007 16:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Which sounds like an endorsement of Wikipedia:Did you know/Onepage. Art LaPella (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Apart from the fact it hasn't been updated for 4 years. Perhaps keeping the basic format of it then updating it all, maybe shortening it a bit... Thanks, Matty.007 16:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Yngvadottir was going to revamp Onepage, but that was a long time ago. Onepage is fine, but it doesn't include instructions on filling out the nom template. I took a whack at rewriting Onepage, thinking (ha...ha...ha) it could be shrunk, and came up with DYKCheatsheet. I have no objections to Learning DYK staying in place. Just perhaps some good thinkers could come up with a way that all the pages, including "Onepage", have identical instructions. I guess it bears mention that "For simplified instructions, see Quick DYK 2" is also on the nominations page right below "To nominate an article". — Maile (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
What do you think about creating a new page with the aim of simplifying it all for new DYKers? If everyone at DYK had a look/helped, it would get done quickly and hopefully to everyone's liking? Thanks, Matty.007 17:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
In a perfect world. You've come up with enough good ideas here to know what getting a coordinated effort, and/or consensus, is like. I have a fondness for Tabbed page headings, such as in use at WP:GA or WP:MIL. And a for instance, where WPMIL has "Academy", we could have "Learning DYK". Also, what DYK has in the little upper right-hand infobox would be Tabs instead. Tabs would be so much easier on the newcomer, big and at immediate eye level, very simple to navigate. Even if we kept the rules we can figure out just the way they are, this project could stand a revamp on the visuals and ease of accessibility to information. — Maile (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that is, as you say, consensus. Nonetheless, I'll think about some kind of userspace thing as a prototype. Thanks again, Matty.007 19:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me know if you come up with something. It's going to take more than one person working on this. A suggested starting place on userspace would be a list of all the individual DYK information pages that exist, and then start figuring it out from there. Art LaPella might be a good help on what info pages are in existence. — Maile (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
What's in existence? My stuff is Category:Wikipedia Did you know rules, {{DYKbox}} has some well-known links, and the contents list shows all Did You Know subpages (ignore everything after about 1 1/2 screenfuls, where it no longer says Did You Know.)
Wow, these links are very helpful. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
"a way that all the pages, including "Onepage", have identical instructions." That's built in; Onepage includes all (well, almost all, and easily changed to include all) the other Learning DYK pages in one big page. Hence the Onepage edit page is under 10% as long as its text: include this, include that, include ... Any updated version could use the same idea. Art LaPella (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Queue 6

Sorry, this moved up so fast I didn't see this. Lead hook is only 13 words, and two of them are "Australian". Seems repetitive. Could we change one? Would it be offensive to say "Aboriginal" instead of "Indigenous Australian"? If not that, then how about changing "Australian ambassador" to "his country's ambassador"? Also, this may not be important, but am mentioning this to be sure - the image is copyrighted, but the licensing seems to say it's OK to use it with proper attribution. — Maile (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

While we're at it can we please have
annual jogging event in Stockholm where participants -->
annual jogging event in Stockholm in which participants
graduates including John Kalili as circuit judges -->
graduates, including John Kalili, as circuit judges

EEng (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If you think two Australians is repetitive, look at Prep 3 and count the "for/fours" in the Kylie hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what the four for/fours are for, but they should be removed forthwith. EEng (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Dirty rotten shame

Not blaming anyone involved in this specific case (Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Clarence_Elkins) but it's a shame that arbitrary criteria about byte counts and nomination dates keep us from DYKing a man who, imprisoned for murder, cleared himself and proved who the true killer was, from prison (!) -- while we happily pass the most boring crap imaginable 10 times a day, just because someone did a better job of padding the article with fluff. EEng (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps take to GA? Thanks, Matty.007 18:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The simple wikipedia uses an "interesting" scale - if you would like to see examples of a less prescribed approach. It would be possible to "ignore all rules" as we do occasionally, but I'm not sure its warranted in this case. I'm assuming you do not mean that 10 of the hooks every day are "crap" padded with "fluff" and that you are padding out your argument. We do need to show respect for the editors who contribute here. Victuallers (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Look at Prep3 right now (reordered):

... that although the Kampoeng Rawa tourist attraction (dock pictured) was meant to raise awareness of the ecology of Lake Rawa Pening, it has been criticised for potentially damaging the ecosystem?
... that Frederic Bonney took photographs of the Paarkantji People, whom he respected for their loyalty and integrity?
... that the MMPL Kanpur is a rare example of an aircraft designed and built by a national air force for its own use?
... that the Texas pocket gopher examines its own fecal pellets, selecting some to consume and rejecting the rest?
... that the music video for Kylie Minogue's 2004 single "Chocolate" features a 40-second ballet routine which took the singer four days to rehearse?
... that Simone Kues was a member of the silver medal-winning team at the 2014 Women's World Wheelchair Basketball Championship in Toronto?
... that Australian actress Zoe Tuckwell-Smith made her major television acting debut playing Bec Gilbert in Winners & Losers?

The first four pass at least a threshold requirement for "interesting" because they relate something out of the ordinary or unexpected. The last three are (I am sorry to say) utterly pedestrian. Rehearsal for a music video took four days -- not surprising (I guess the ballet aspect might be considered somewhat different). Person X won a medal in event Y -- well, someone was going to win it. Actress A's first big role was in Production P -- every performer had a first role.

So, yeah, I'd say about half of hooks are dull as dishwater. One of DYK's problems is a determination to be like the Special Olympics -- everyone gets a medal! EEng (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with this 100%. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This was your other time to be right today (see below). You've used your quota now so let's hear from you in 24 hours. EEng (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. Just kidding!

Prep 3

"...the MMPL Kanpur is a rare example..."

This hook is cited by an inline reference which dates 26 July 1962, i.e. the (actually caveated) claim of "rarity" was made almost 62 years ago. The hook needs to be changed to the more accurate "was" a rare example, or we should have some evidence that "is a rare example" is still a valid claim. In other words, pull until this can be adequately fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Like a stopped clock, TRM is right twice a day, and this is one of his for today. EEng (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Just kidding, TRM -- you're right more than twice a day.
Well, I have to make sure at least 1% of my edits are usable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: perhaps you'd like to sort this one out? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR in a single set of hooks

Is there anything anywhere suggesting we could/should/must use a consistent variety of English within a single set of hooks? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No. EEng (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
So you think it's a good thing to have two hooks next to one another written in different variations of English? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Rambling Man, have you ever heard the expression "like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic"? EEng (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
A historical vignette...
First mate: Captain, we've struck an iceberg!
Captain Smith: Have the radio room broadcast distress signals!
The Rambling Man: Captain, radio is an Americanism. This is a British ship. You should say
ALT1 Have the wireless room broadcast distress signals!
Captain Smith: <smacks Rambling Man with nightstick>
The Rambling Man: nightstick is an Americanism. What you should do is
ALT2 <smack Rambling Man with truncehon>
EEng (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Since the quality of the hooks going to main page has been improving steadily given more thorough "gate reviews", it doesn't harm anyone or anything to just check these things off as they happen. But thanks for your constructive input on this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, laughter is the best medicine. There's obviously never going to be a decision to make MP all American or all UK, so it's going to be a mixture no matter what we do (unless, I dunno, we go Brit on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, American on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, and Pidgin on Sundays). I can't think of a concern more trivial. EEng (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I think you missed the point, ITN for instance ensures that blurbs are consistent with one another, if common phrasing, terms etc are present at any one time. It's a simple task and one that is encouraged in the instructions. I'm glad you see it as trivial, hopefully you can stop commenting on it and allow someone else to get a word in edgeways now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Come to think of it, Did You Know has a rule (sort of) that promotes the opposite of consistency. Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1 for instance, in edit mode, says: "NOTE: Since a preponderance of hooks on the suggestions page are U.S. related, it is usually appropriate to have several hooks on U.S. topics in any given update, though never more than half, rounding up. Thanks." There is also an informal history of yielding to nationalist demands that the language variety of a hook should match its subject matter (U.S. English for a hook about George Washington). That should result in a mixture, not consistency. Art LaPella (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep, okay, no problem. It should and will result in a mixture. If that's what DYK wants and is happy with, that's fine. Seems very strange to me, but hey, let's be consistently inconsistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting question, this one. Personally I'd say that as long as hooks themselves are consistent, it's alright, although we should preferably aim for a more neutral variety of English where possible (which is why ITN uses constructs like "X competition ends with y team winning the gold medal" or whatever). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 4

"the first book in the US on the science, etiquette, and game rules of billiards" in the Michael Phelan (billiards) hook.

Any reason why the game rules are not simply "rules"? Also, the link to billiards redirects to the non-specific Cue sports article which doesn't adequately specify the "American billiards" described in the target article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

These look like fair catches to me. I'd recommend amending the hook. You can do that yourself, can't you? Prioryman (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know which variation of billiards is being mentioned, I don't have access to the refs. And I'm not aware if "game rules" is inherently USEng, so that's why I brought it here. If you checked, I have amended other hooks. Thanks for your ongoing commentary. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd suggest checking with the article's creator in that case. S/he would surely be best placed to advise. Prioryman (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The wrong hook was used for that nom - I forgot to strike when reviewing it. I have since replaced it with the alt. Gatoclass (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec) If you can read the ref, you can change the hook to not point at what is essentially a disambiguation page. It would be useful if you could do something to help rather than just offer more free "advice". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Bohl

Now in Prep 1: ... that the closeness of Friedrich Bohl, former head of the German chancellery, to then-chancellor Helmut Kohl spawned the phrase "No Kohl without Bohl"? - I read it a few times and still don't know what "closeness" should mean here. Also "former" and "then-chancellor" seems kind of doubling. Also the phrase was probably not used so much in English. Is it just me? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I had been trying to fix the hook text, since it hadn't worked well grammatically, but should probably have dug further. Would this work: ... that "No Kohl without Bohl" was used to describe the close working relationship of Friedrich Bohl, former head of the German chancellery, to chancellor Helmut Kohl? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC) (Note: "the phrase" can be added after the initial "that" if you think it necessary; I thought it could be dropped.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
That seems much more elegant, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Glad you liked it. I've just made the edit (and without including "the phrase"). Thanks for the quick reply, Gerda. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Tweaked it a bit myself, hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 July 2014‎
  1. ^ "The Saint". The Montreal Gazette. June 10, 1950. Retrieved 16 June 2014.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference dunningota was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_107&oldid=1251446057"