Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Did you know/Queue)
Jump to: navigation, search

"Did you know...?" template
Queue T:DYK/Q
Nominations T:TDYK
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. Proposals for changing how Did You Know works were being discussed at Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.

Increase to 3 sets a day?[edit]

The backlog is now over 300 noms with 54 hook approved, and there is no backlog in the queue. I say it's time to increase the number of sets per day to 3, as 300+ noms has typically been the point when an increase would be made. Thoughts? —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth posted something similar here a couple of days ago in Hook accumulation. It probably is about time, especially with the final push for the Wikicup underway, and the normal post–Labor day increase in nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I was asked to look into this, and although there hasn't been much discussion I agree with Blue and Bloom. Just don't recall where the bot's adjustment page is... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The critical figure is the number approved, not the number of noms. I agree that 300+ is excessive, but experience has shown that 54 hooks is only enough to fill two prep areas! There is no way that we can sustain three per days with that approval rate! Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
      • 54 approved = 2 prep areas? Do you mean 2 sets? 54/6 = 9, so assuming some duds there should still be at least 7 or 8. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Haven't we been putting 7 hooks in a set? 54/7<8. I think we should wait a little while before going to 3 sets per day. We will likely end up going to 3 sets for a while and soon find ourselves unable to fill prep sets far enough in advance to put them into the queue before the bot is telling us the queues are empty. It is annoying seeing the page run sporadically. Let's wait until the backlog is larger so we can keep on our schedule.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's been 7 hooks per set, but that can easily be reduced to 6. And with a backlog of over 300 (now 335 to be specific), I don't see why anyone should be advocating waiting longer to increase to 3 sets a day, especially when there are 71 approved hooks already. That's enough to build 10 sets of 7 hooks each. At the rate we're going at, it'll take 5 days for that to be used up (not to mention the additional approvals that would take place within those 5 days). Rule of thumb has always been – reduce to 2 sets when under 200 noms; increase to 3 sets when over 300. The time for an increase is now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The number of noms should not determine the throughrate, as Hawkeye explains, so if that ever was a rule of thumb it shouldn't be. I too think that 2 sets a day remains an appropriate rate. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • with 72 approved and some stuff in queue. i reckon we go to 3 sets/day. there'll be more for a few weeks from the stub contest. Probably die down in November. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Casliber (or another admin): could one of you adjust the bot's update times to three? I was going to ping Gatoclass, but he hasn't been active for 2 weeks. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • If you have a link, I can handle it... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • We have me, Crisco, Bloom and BlueMoonset for increase to 3, and Tony, Hawkeye and Nikkimaria preferring to stay at 2 for the time being. Much as I'd love to tweak, I think it might be prudent until a couple more opinions have weighed in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't forget Cwmhiraeth for increase to 3 – she was the one who initially proposed this in an earlier thread above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • That still only makes 5 ayes and 4 nays (with TRM below). This looks like no consensus right now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • P.S. the current count is 322 noms with 3 empty queues. Factoring in the 21 hooks needed in those positions we are barely at 300 nominations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, your vote counting is irrelevant to the current situation. Hawkeye didn't actually specify whether there should be 2 or 3 sets a day, and stated his concern when there were only 54 approved hooks. There are now 62 of them, not to mention the fact that all four prep areas have now been filled. That, along with the 3 queues, covers at least the next 3.5 days, if not more. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it is pretty clear that Hawkeye7 said 3 per day was too much. I don't think WP:NOTDEMOCRACY is relevant here. We are trying to determine a collective consensus on what to do and there is certainly not a consensus to move to 2. It really would be no more helpful for me to bluelink CONSENSUS that it is for you to bluelink NOTDEMOCRACY. There is just not a consensus to go to 3 right now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Per Hawkeye: The critical figure is the number approved, not the number of noms. I agree that 300+ is excessive, but experience has shown that 54 hooks is only enough to fill two prep areas! There is no way that we can sustain three per days with that approval rate! Unless I'm blind, nowhere in that statement does Hawkeye say he's in favour of staying at 2 sets a day or that he's opposed to three sets a day. Taking his quote within the context it was given, he says we can't sustain 3 sets a day "with that approval rate". Since then, the number of approved hooks has increased to 64 (and would've now been over 80 approved had not all 4 prep areas been filled today). That's an increase of more than an entire set. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • And your claim that NOTDEMOCRACY is not relevant is simply inaccurate, since the way you derived "consensus" is by counting votes. You previously stated, That still only makes 5 ayes and 4 nays (with TRM below).) If that's not vote counting, then what is? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You are really grasping at straws. There is no reason to pretend not to understand what Hawk is saying. Even Casliber, who is on the aye side counts Hawk on the nay side.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm grasping at straws? Of course, because there are more people supporting an increase to three sets. Grow up! —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Why the rush? The slow pace has really helped people to look at hooks for quality control, essential for the survival of this process. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Why the delay? I still see hooks being pulled here and there at the same pace they were back when there were 3 sets a day. Hence, the claim correlating slow pace with quality control is iffy at best… —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't agree. I see far fewer pulls from the main page. Can you substantiate your claim? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I wasn't talking about solely the main page. If you haven't noticed, there's been threads like "Queue1 problems" and "Pulled Perce Wilson from Queue5". The end result is exactly the same – inferior noms by inexperienced users. Slowing down the entire DYK process with slogans like "No need to rush" repeated ad nauseum is like putting a band aid on a bullet wound. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually no, not at all. Keeping crap off the main page is key. If hooks get pulled prior to main page, because they're in queues and prep areas for a little longer, that's a great thing! No need to rush! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "If hooks get pulled prior to main page …" – they shouldn't have to pulled at all. The fact that they are even promoted to the prep areas and then to the queues in the first place is the real problem. Insisting on 12 hour cycles is merely a temporary solution to a much bigger problem (another band aid on a bullet wound). We all know you want to completely overhaul the DYK system. That's fine. But repeating your opinion ad nauseum each time doesn't make it an iota more correct. Create an RFC instead and we can start some meaningful, constructive reforms from there. And BlueMoonset confirmed what I had been suspecting all along – 3 sets a day is indeed the norm. So why don't we go back to 3 sets and see how it pans out? We can always change back to two when we run low on hooks or when there's an increase in the number of pulled hooks. For someone who staunchly advocates necessary change, it's hard to comprehend how you can simultaneously be so resistant to it, especially when this change here to 3 sets has become very much necessary. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I think two a day is appropriate too. No need to rush, and the quality is increasing slowly but surely as more people have time to visit the queues before they get to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Our purpose here is to choose a rate of consumption (hooks per day moved to main page) and a nominal number of noms approved-but-not-yet-run-on-MP (including those in prep or Q -- let's call this the approved reserve) -- matched such that, while the approved reserve will always fluctuate, the probability of its reaching zero on any given day is very small.
  • Right now we've got 340 noms on the board, 80 in "approved reserve". For this discussion only the 80 has any significance. (If anything the 260 "excess" tells us large numbers of noms are stalled for unknown lengths of time.)
  • A sample of 28 hooks promoted in the last week suggests that the average time from nomination to approval is (believe it or not) about 19 days, with a standard deviation ("give or take") of about the same amount. (Those who can remember their elementary statistics without painful PTSD relapses should take a moment to think about what that last bit implies.)
  • Here's the complete data (days from nomination to final tick) -- it's a highly variable process: 0,0,1,2,2,3,3,3,5,5,6,4,7,10,11,20,22,23,26,31,33,32,35,38,44,41,56,62
  • How to translate this data into the right rate of consumption, approved reserve, etc. (not to mention what we consider an acceptable probability of running dry on any given day) is complex. However, if we move to consumption of 3*7=21 hooks per day, then the current reserve of 80 is only 4 days' worth. From the data, only about 25% of hooks are approved in 4 days or less. Combining this with the recent nomination rate of about 9 per day means that....
  • Wait a minute.... The rate of nominations (9 per day) over the last month has been insufficient to sustain even 2*7=14 promotions per day, much less 3*7=21 promotions per day. That alone tells us that we shouldn't go to 3 sets per day, and that even 2 sets per day may be risky.
  • I'll complete the above lecture when 30 days of nominations rises to the 21 needed to sustain 3 sets per day. Until then 2 sets per day is the absolute max unless we want to find ourselves running out sometime in the next few weeks. Then that stupid DYKbot starts bugging us, and then my violent fantasies of bot-o-cide begin to return, and...

[My own idiotic comments struck -- see below. Lecture to resume presently...]

EEng (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • EEng, your figure of 9 nominations per day is about half what it should be. Since the beginning of August, there have only been 7 days where the nominations have gone below 14 per day, and 6 have exceeded 21 per day. (Note that I'm not counting the days that are still filling under Current nominations, but even there only the two most recent days are below 9.) If you're basing your count on the List of DYK Hooks by date, that table doesn't count already promoted or rejected nominations, so it's useless for determining the rate of nominations.
  • In fact, the average rate of nominations in August was 17 per day. At a promotion rate of 14 per day, the number of waiting nominations will increase, as indeed it has been doing. For the first seven days of September (and the September 7 total of 18 nominations can still increase over the next six hours), the average is currently 18.85 nominations per day. If we stay at 14 promotions per day, our backlog will continue to increase, and it's enormously high already. If we increase to 18 or 21 per day (in three sets), then our unprecedented backlog will start to decrease. We can always back down to 14 per day later if we start running out of approved hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to grab this trout by the tail and give EEng a quick whack!
Arggh! I'm an idiot! I did exactly the stupid thing BMS guesses above that I did. Please, I beg everyone, help me expiate my sin! Whack me with the trout provided at right.
BMS, where did you get the full noms-per-day figures? Are they hidden somewhere? Also, can you give separate figures for (still in review vs. approved vs. rejected)?
I'll resume the above lecture after my ego has recovered somewhat (though the conclusion remains that 2 sets/day is the maximum prudent rate of consumption -- I'll just have to use some ∑s and δs and ∫s and stuff). EEng (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
EEng, I used the brute-force method for nominations: took T:TDYK into the editor and counted the number of templates per day. A bit of a pain, but it long as someone hasn't decided to clean out the promoted/rejected ones in order to reduce the loading time of the page. (This was last done on July 27, so it wasn't an issue for August or September.) I did have to go back into the page history to check August 2, which had been deleted entirely since all its hooks had been promoted/rejected, but that was an easy diff. Unfortunately, I can't give separate figures for the still in review vs. approved vs. rejected, and the one problem with the brute force method is that it doesn't know about special occasion hooks that were removed from their original date. There aren't a lot of them, so they wouldn't have significantly changed my numbers. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Just to clear up one point BMS makes: the number 300 has absolutely nothing to do with this. That large number means only that there are a lot of noms stuck awaiting approval, but the only thing to do about that is crack the whip on reviews. Unless and until those noms end up in the "approved reserve" (as I call it), this has zero to do with the appropriate "consumption rate" (as, again, I have called it). [Lecture resumes]

  • BMS' nomination figures clarify things marvelously. His number of 17 noms/day includes a few that will end up rejected/withdrawn, but on the other hand it looks like nomination rates have been going up recently, in desperation let's just call it 17 noms arriving per day. That's somewhat more than what's needed to sustain 2 sets of 7 = 14/day, but not enough to sustain 3 sets of 7 = 21/day. So an alternation between 2 sets/day and 3 sets/day is the right strategy. But of course we knew that already.
  • The question, then, is when to trigger the switches back and forth. If we switch to 3/day right now, the approved reserve will start at 4 days, and rapidly become 3, then 2, then 1 -- then suddenly we'll be having an emergency debate on going back to 2/day again. That's no way to run a railroad.
  • Let me suggest two really nice, round numbers which are easy to remember, and safe against the approved reserve running dry -- but not excessively so: 100 and 150. That is:
  • Keep running 2 sets/day until the approved reserve hits 150 or above.
  • At that point switch to 3 sets/day, until the approved reserve hits 100 or below, at which point we go back to 2 sets/day.
  • Notice the trigger points are such that drift from 7 days' reserve up to 11 days' reserve during the 2/day period ("on the way up"), then from 7 days' reserved down to 4 days' reserve during the 3/day period ("on the way down").
  • I know these numbers will seem excessive to the "rushers", but the key number in the above is the minimum 4 days' reserve. I submit that 4 days' reserve is really the least we should want to plan to have ever.
  • This yields a very stable process with changes to the # sets/day only every few months, and we would never, ever run out of hooks. If we can agree on the 100/150 trigger points now (at least provisionally) then we don't have to have a debate every time -- when the approved reserve hits a trigger point, whoever notices that can just change the bot parameter, no questions asked.

Informal tracking of the stats[edit]

  • At this moment we've got 88 approved-but-not-promoted, and 27 in prep or Q, for an approved reserve of 115. The moment that hits 150 I'll join those calling for 3 sets/day, with the proviso that when the reserve drops 100 we return to 2 sets/day. EEng (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Just now 278 noms under review, 109 in reserve. EEng (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Just now 287 noms under review, 98 in reserve. If the reserve drops to 50 I'm gonna suggest we switch to 1 set/day. EEng (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Not to worry, there will be plenty of opposition to a suggestion of 1 set/day with 300+ active nominations. For me, I'd want to see total nominations at fewer than 150 and a single-figure nomination rate before entertaining the extreme suggestion of a single daily set. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
MBS, you're a smart guy (or gal -- never did know which). But you keep missing the point. It doesn't matter how many noms are awaiting approval -- all that matters is the size of the approved reserve, because we can't put noms-awaiting-approval on the MP. EEng (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
EEng, I'm not missing the point. I'm just aware of more variables. We can vary the size of the sets up or down, which allows for fine tuning; if we had (say) 45 approved hooks in the reserve, we could still easily fill two sets a day, since approvals will continue to occur. At the moment, you're one guy (or gal?) with a new theory that's suddenly the be-all and end-all, while there's years of DYK experience that you're apparently unaware of. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Just now 287 noms under review, 95 in reserve. EEng (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • After the next update (in order to be comparable to the numbers above) we'll have 290 under review, 92 in reserve. EEng (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Just now 96 in reserve, 297 in review. EEng (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 98, 308 EEng (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 107, 297 EEng (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 96, 299 EEng (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 92, 298 EEng (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 92, 304 EEng (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 91, 307 (04:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC))
  • 78, 313 (02:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC))
  • 76, 317 (05:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 59, 328 (00:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)) (not sure how we got from 76 to 59 in 24 hours)
  • 63, 328 (12:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)) (9 hrs later)

Resuming normal, non–lecture-format debate[edit]

  • No need to rush. A backlog is a good thing actually, and keeping hooks on for twelve hours means that most of the world can see them, I've had several DYKs that have been posted while I slept. No rush. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No need to delay. The whole purpose of a backlog is to build up enough noms so that we don't run out. Unless this wasn't the case before August 2012, having three sets a day has always been the norm since I've been nominating DYKs. Reducing to two sets is only utilized as an emergency measure when we get below 150–200 noms. Now that we're at over 300 noms (and 81 approved), the backlog has clearly served its purpose already. Time to return back to normalcy. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, if "normalcy" is posting garbage to the main page and getting dozens of error reports and allowing hooks to be re-written on the fly while contributors sleep. Slow it down. Current is good. Your version of "normal" is simply not good. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As I replied earlier above, I still see hooks being pulled here and there at the same pace they were back when there were 3 sets a day. It makes no difference whether it's 2 or 3 sets. The end result is exactly the same – inferior noms by inexperienced users. Hence, your claim correlating slow pace with quality control is iffy at best… —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The numbers do not agree with your observations. Compare the one-month periods between 11 June and 11 July (3 sets/day), versus 19 July and 19 August (2 sets/day), at Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Removed: 44 pulls for a month of 3 sets/day, 5 pulls for a month of 2 sets/day. Granted there are likely other factors contributing to this, but it would seem there is in fact a very strong correlation in recent months between higher run rate and higher pull rate. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • There's no point in comparing stats when you skew them to your favour. You conveniently left out April 2014 (which was 3 sets a day and only 13 pulls) and February 2014 (also 3 sets/day with just 14 pulls). And there would be no pulls for a month of 0 sets/day. So the stats you provided are basically meaningless, because it's obvious the more sets run, the more pulls there will be. Correlation does not imply causation. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Which is of course why I said only that there was a correlation. I chose the stats period from looking at the history of rate changes - selecting a period of one month starting the day after the most recent change to each rate - before looking at the removals list, so your accusations of deliberate skewing are out of line. Please dial it back a bit. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "[Y]our accusations of deliberate skewing are out of line" – let's see. You claim that the "numbers do not agree with [my] observations". Then, you choose a one-month period with 3 sets that is a complete anomaly (there's no other way to describe it) to all the other DYK months in 2014. But you don't disclose the two months with 3 sets that do agree with my observations (and rebut the anomalous month example you gave). When I (correctly) call this out as skewing the stats in your favour, you call my accusations "out of line". Reality check – the only thing "out of line" here is your picking and choosing stats that suit your (and TRM's) argument but don't give the full perspective of the actual situation. It presents an incomplete and inaccurate one-sided picture which, if I hadn't probed deeper into these stats, would have misled others to believe that your argument was correct. Clearly that's not the case. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "I still see hooks being pulled here and there at the same pace they were back when there were 3 sets a day. It makes no difference whether it's 2 or 3 sets" as a claim is not compatible with "it's obvious the more sets run, the more pulls there will be", nor is it compatible with recent data. If you want to look at larger trends to get the "full perspective of the actual situation", it is indeed obvious that more sets per day equals more pulls, not to mention more late-update warnings. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually Bloom6132, I make my observations based on the number of ERRORS and pulls I'm seeing. Subjectively it seems that the quality has increased substantially and that I rarely have to attend to major DYK errors on the main page. This is because there's more time for some of us to wander past the queues because the mad rush to cycle DYKs round has slowed a little. There is absolutely not one single advantage to rushing these to the main page. So you would claim "backlog!", I would suggest this is a good investment in the future of DYK. Keep allowing us time to make sure the quality is on the increase, and continue the education of those reviewers who clearly have something to learn about quality control in Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Speaking as only a sometime contributor to DYK (I have maybe about 50 or 100 — we temporarily had the record for most hooks in one article at one time — I thought a whole day was good. Running them through just to get them out of the line doesn't do the articles justice in terms of visibility. Who (and how many) is looking at these articles on the midnight shift {{yes, I know we are global)? I daresay that most people don't constantly monitor the main page. I understand the need to move the queue, but that can't be the only consideration. 7&6=thirteen () 19:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
If this were some sort of perfect world, every article would get its own little feature on the main page. It isn't. DYK is set up to give a brief, hopefully memorable mention for a variable number of hours on the main page. It isn't ideal that it can't be a whole day, or even necessarily half a day—I've had some hooks that were up for six hours, when we had to go to four sets a day—but the hook is there and can be seen by anyone who stops at the front page for that period. If we don't "run them through" at the rate they're coming in, then eventually we have 400, 500, or more hooks backed up—300 was a rare event in my experience until very recently. Something has to give if we aren't to have an ever-inflating backlog: either we have to bar the door to newcomers, or increase the flow of hooks going to the main page. Three times a day was the standard when I first started coming here, occasionally varying to two or four times when necessary. We write articles, nominate them for DYK, and take our chances as to when and how long the nomination will be seen. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
There's no rush. 12 hours for a hook is a fine amount of time as it allows most of the world an opportunity to see it and those who contributed to enjoy the fact they can see it on the main page. The reserved turnover rate also allows queues and prep areas to be patrolled more thoroughly and reduce the errors (and major embarrassments that DYK has provided Wikipedia in the past). Slow and steady, remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
My comment was not meant as an implicit criticism of the administration of DYK. I simply wanted to suggest that there are countervailing considerations, and y'all have to do the best you can to weigh them in the balance. But assuredly there is a balance and a trade off no matter what you do. That's all. 7&6=thirteen () 22:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the nomination increase is caused in part by the Stub Contest that is running in September, as the rules for stub expansion make every entry eligible for DYK as a 5x expansion (unless they've appeared before), and if the competitors are new or reviewing each other's entries as QPQ the number of unreviewed hooks would go up (I've done extensive research into this by imagining it as a cause; it's a poissin distribution with a standard deviation of a T-test; there, statistic that!). I don't see any reason not to go to three sets a day if the queues and prep areas are kept full, but since it seems that swapping between 2 and 3 sets a day requires days of debate rather than a flick of a switch, it is probably best to stay with two. Belle (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Jumping into the DYK process -- advice?[edit]

DYK is an area of Wikipedia I'd like to learn more about and perhaps get more involved. I've looked around and feel like I have a decent understanding of the process at this point but am yet to actually nominate anything. I'm hoping someone could help me navigate the procedures/standards for this first time. I've just in the past couple hours created a new article that I believe meets DYK requirements: The Analytical Language of John Wilkins. I'm having trouble determining what still needs to be improved before nomination and, perhaps more importantly, would really appreciate advice on what kind of hook might work. Thanks, and apologies if this is not the right venue to ask for this kind of help. --— Rhododendrites talk |  02:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome. The process of getting through DYK is complex (to understand) but Im pleased to see that you have a new, notable, well written article of a fair length ready to go and you have asked for guidance. I'm going to nominate your article and place a link on your talk page so that you can watch its progress and assist any constructive criticism. You are a newbie, here, so do claim a bit of leeway but realise that we do have some rules and its best to bend with the wind to get through the first few times. Hope you enjoy this. Do complain here (or on my talk page) if you someone starts snapping at you, and they refuse to acknowledge the need to "be nice" :-) Victuallers (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Victuallers and thanks for your response and your help. What I was most interested in is guidance for me to create my own DYK nomination, though I see now I wasn't explicit in my request. As a DYK newbie but experienced Wikipedian I feel comfortable with the idea of watching the process unfold with other articles/nominations, so while watching my own article go through it would be even more instructive, creating the nomination (and preparing for it) is what I feel least comfortable with. I thought about using one of the resources to find recently created/improved articles that might work, but decided to start a new article myself so as not to muck up someone else's chance at some recognition by my own poorly formed nomination, if that makes sense.
To add a little context, my motivation for exploring DYK, in addition to being curious about all sorts of Wikipedia processes, is to see if it's something I feel comfortable incorporating it into Wikipedia-based classwork I assign (or as a way to recognize student work). ...But a discussion of how best to do that is for another time :)
I see that you added a line to the article's lead which also acts as the hook you used. Is this because there was nothing usable in the article as it existed? I'm not so sure about the hook's language (i.e. the classification system is bizarre and Foucault did quote it/was inspired by it, but I don't think it's the bizareness that he was necessarily drawn to). Splitting hairs, maybe. I don't have a good sense of how generalized/simplified/sensationalized it has to be. Thanks again. --— Rhododendrites talk |  19:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
(watching) To add an alternate hook, simply replace "have a go" in nomination. For a new article, insert the name of your article in the form to nominate and see what happens. You can fill the template to your liking, also incompletely, - you can always change. Save, talk, improve, - when you are ready take the next step: the actual nomination. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Good advice from Gerda. You can always add or change my words. I added stuff because I dont have your offline sources and I wanted to find something "hooky" and the word "bizarre" will attract clicks. I got the word "bizarre" from the ref - the idea of someone laughing out loud is also "hooky" and that quote makes me smile too. Hope this goes well for you. Don't hesitate to interfere if have an improvement. Victuallers (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Increase to 3 sets a day? (revisited)[edit]

On 10th September User:Bloom6132 wrote:

"The backlog is now over 300 noms with 54 hook approved, and there is no backlog in the queue. I say it's time to increase the number of sets per day to 3, as 300+ noms has typically been the point when an increase would be made. Thoughts?"

Two weeks later we are now up to over 400 nominations, with over a 100 approved, including those in the queues and prep area. That's about 4 weeks-worth at the current rate of throughput, and more piling in all the time. (I must admit to a WikiCup-related vested interest here :-) ) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree it should be now. I think if they move through more qucikly we'l be reviewing noms more quickly too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
In the past two weeks our reserve has been generally dropping (from 115 to just under 100, though in the last few days it's risen to 107). Had we increased to 3 sets/day as proposed two weeks ago, we'd now be at zero reserve and missing updates. The proposal seems to be that we should now increase to 3 sets/day, so that two weeks from now we can be at zero reserve and missing updates.
And I'm sorry, but to bring in the number of under-review noms as an argument for increasing the consumption rate is utter nonsense -- only the approved reserve counts. And "if they move through more qucikly we'll be reviewing noms more quickly too" is the most dangerous thinking I can imagine on the subject -- translation: "If we run out of hooks we can just start rushing the reviews like we used to" -- fun times, yeah!
I repeat that when the reserve gets to 150, then we go to 3 sets/day. When it drops to 100, back to 2 sets/day. And if it ever gets to 50, then 1 set/day until the reserve recovers. If there's a big backlog of noms in review, do something about that, but planning to update at an unsustainable rate is suicide (metaphorically speaking, of course).
EEng (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Do not increase. Currently hooks stay in the prep areas and queues long enough for some quality reviewing to take place. Quality is increasing. Rushing them to the main page will compromise that. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The question of increasing or decreasing is not getting resolved because (I think) it is linked to more fundamental questions - as TRM notes above. Is DYK a way of slowly curating a smaller number of articles onto the main page so that we show that Wikipedia has no/few errors or is it to encourage a larger number of (new) editors to be encouraged by wider exposure at the cost of showing a less perfect/more honest view of new articles? If we want to have great hooks with high quality articles then in the limit we need to increase the backlog so that everythig has to wait and very few articles are published every day. The alternative view means that we publish very quickly with a minimum wait time so that editors see their work more rapidly. Surely the question is, how many articles should be in the queue and how long should they wait? If the answer is just "lots" and "as long as possible" then I'm not sure that this allows any room for compromise. Is there a consensus of what an average wait should be? Is the purpose to allow reviewers time or to deter new articles? If it is just to allow time then how many weeks do we want/want to invest? Balanced views requested. Victuallers (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I think a fortnight would be a good target for straightforward nominations to be reviewed, pass through the system and get to the front page. That there is such a large number on unreviewed nominations is a result of a QPQ only being required when the article is a self-nomination. There is a need for willing reviewers to voluntarily work on the backlog to bring it down to reasonable proportions. I used to do this, and aimed to review two articles for every one I nominated. But in the present atmosphere of fear and recrimination, not many wish to review articles voluntarily only to be criticised as I was here, where Fram wonders whether I should review any hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Because of QPQ and contests like WikiCup, it's important that these hooks are held before being posted to the main page so that independent reviews can be conducted. Therefore two sets a day allows for a few diligent uninvolved editors to have a look at the hooks proposed for the main page. An eight-hourly turnaround is too quick, as proven in the past with the vast number of pulled hooks and the odd visit to ANI to discuss why DYK allowed such distasteful rot through to the home page of one of the most visited websites in the universe. Think quality, not quantity guys. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Right. We want to encourage double- and triple-checking of hooks, and discourage rushed promotions. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it's about quality rather than quantity. DYK has very little to do with newbies—those who even know it exists would be totally baffled by the rules, the extra rules, the rules that aren't quite rules, rules that are more stringent than FAC requirements, and daft demands somebody just made up. And that's assuming they can navigate the mass of templates and transclusions in the first place, and that they're not put of when somebody is incredibly rude about an honest mistake (cf. Cwmhiraeth, who is far from the first person I've heard say that). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
A bit of history: I wrote my first article, it was deleted, someone helped and nominated it for DYK without telling me a thing, I got this message about a problem with the nom ... - learning by doing ;) - 2 sets a day is fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
An increase to 3 sets a day is long overdue. It's disgraceful how the no-increase side can continue to claim that an "eight-hourly turnaround is too quick, as proven in the past with the vast number of pulled hooks." Unfortunately, you haven't been able to provide any solid proof – either here or in the previous thread – and that line of argument was already long disproven when I called you out on your stat skewing and deceit. The only response you guys could muster up is "Subjectively it seems that the quality has increased substantially". Sorry, but providing wishy-washy subjective points of view here doesn't cut it at all. You guys would have eaten me alive if I had rebutted your skewed biased stats with a mere "Subjectively it makes no difference whether we're using 2 or 3 sets," but it seems you don't believe in holding yourselves to the same objective standard. Back up your unsubstantiated claims with objective facts, or don't bother making them at all. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to increase number of prep areas[edit]

  • On a tangent, what would folks think about increasing the number of prep areas? That would allow more sets to be assembled while also allowing sets to mature and get plenty of eyes. I try to leave sets in the prep area 12-24 hours before moving them to the queue, and I think other admins work to similar timeframes, which can create a bit of a bottleneck when there are four full preps. Perhaps having a fifth or sixth prep (to match the number of queues) might add a little more flexibility and reduce the backlog of approved hooks at T:TDYK? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that would be a more positive step. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I think that would be a good idea. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
This one's a no-brainer. Prep and Q sets are f-r-e-e, and there should never be a time someone feels like putting a set together, or promoting one from prep to Q, and there's no place to do it -- and remember, if you find a few hooks-with-image in a row that you want to promote, each needs its own prep set. Let's double the number of prep sets from 4 to 8. No kidding. EEng (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't see a major issue here. More queues populated for longer means a continuing adherence to good quality, providing opportunities for the hooks to be reviewed by those without vested interest in churning over DYK for competition points or badges of honour. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think this is a positive. Just go for it HJCas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Also agree, but an admin will need to enact the proposed change as Template:Did you know/Queue is fully protected. C679 16:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Paging Shubinator. EEng (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It was on this template. all good now (I think.....) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
It's a great idea, and I'm glad it's been implemented. We'll all keep our eyes out for any other glitches. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Cas! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to increase number of hooks per set from 7 to 8[edit]

Since there's been resistance to increasing the number of sets, how about the number of hooks? That's traditionally been a way to make smaller increases or decreases in the run rate of hooks. This would increase our burn rate from 14 to 16 hooks a day, an extra 14 hooks a week, as opposed to the extra 49 hooks a week that a third set would bring. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, Oppose. Once again, it doesn't matter how many unapproved noms are pending, only the number approved, and as seen in my tragically overlooked #Informal_tracking_of_the_stats, for the last few weeks our approved reserve is just barely holding in the low 90s, and actually sagging a bit, at the current burn rate. EEng (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support – Once again, the "No increase" side tries to scaremonger, this time using the "approved hooks" sidestep. "[O]ur approved reserve is just barely holding in the low 90s" – that's way over what it should be (it shouldn't even be getting close to triple digits). Adding merely two more hooks a day will certainly not adversely affect the number of approved hooks we presently have. Time for a long-overdue increase of some form. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, what is with you? All your posts carry this hysterical theme of some kind of political conspiracy against increasing the burn rate. Scaremongering??? A bit overwrought, don't you think? Your intense interest in this wouldn't have anything to do with your desire to come from behind in the WP:WikiCup, would it? If so, why don't you get the judges there to base the scores on when DYKs are nominated -- assuming they eventually are approved and actually do appear -- but without worrying about when they appear. That way you can stop nagging us to help you rack up your silly points. (BTW, The approved reserve is now down to 76 from 92 two days ago.) EEng (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
If I'm so concerned about racking up points in the WikiCup as you claim I am, why is it that I have not a single DYK nomination in the pipeline? And why is it I have only one other piece of content in the form of a GAN? Clearly, it is you who's baking up a silly conspiracy that ultimately turns out to be a pack of lies. I knew you'd act like this, but I didn't think you'd be this ignorant beyond belief. Thanks for proving me wrong. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
That word overwrought comes to mind again. I didn't "claim" you were racking up DYK points for Wikicup, merely asked if that's what was going on -- which would have, if true, at least given a rational explanation for your explosive behavior on this issue. Unfortunately, you've proved me wrong on that, so I'm out of rational explanations for you behavior. So why is it this is such a hot button for you? EEng (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
If you're "merely ask[ing] if that's what was going on", then why do you order me to "stop nagging us to help you rack up your silly points"? Obviously you're making a dishonest claim about me, and now you're lying to cover up that earlier lie. Why am I so passionate? Well, three sets has always been the norm at DYK. As BlueMoonset succinctly put it, "there's years of DYK experience that you're apparently unaware of." Unfortunately, you're under the false impression that your new theory is "suddenly the be-all and end-all" at DYK. What a "perfect" combination you have – arrogance & ignorance. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
No amount of DYK experience can change the facts that we can't post hooks that haven't been approved and that at 3 sets/day we'd be out of hooks in 10 days. Neither is a "new theory", but common sense and arithmetic.
Still hoping to hear why you care so much. You're arguing this like it's a debate on abortion or same-sex marriage. EEng (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
"[A]t 3 sets/day we'd be out of hooks in 10 days" – do you seriously not know what this debate is about? We're not arguing over 3 sets a day; what BlueMoonset proposes is adding one hook to each set (i.e. running more 2 hooks a day, increasing from 14 to 16 hooks a day). Obviously you didn't bother paying attention to what he had to say – what a surprise. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You quoted BMS' reference to my so-called "new theory" and that reference [1] was, indeed, in the context of going from 2 to 3 sets/day. Therefore, to reinforce that it's arithmetic, not some "new theory", that's behind my concerns about increasing burn rate (whether a little or a lot) I applied the givens of that discussion. Do you honestly not see how much you're embarrassing yourself with this desperate flailing? You seem to be coming unhinged.

In the last 10 days our approved reserve has dropped from 96 to 59. If things keep going like that, we'll be out of hooks in about 10 days even at the current burn rate. When it drops to 50 (which is only 3.5 days' reserve at 2*7/day) I'm going to recommend that we go to 1 set/day until the reserve recovers to 100. We should never intentionally allow the reserve to get below 4 days.

EEng (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

i don't think you should be lecturing me on arithmetic, especially after you embarrassingly acknowledged how you're "not sure how we got from 76 to 59 in 24 hours". Do you care to explain that? Or have you just been making up numbers from the get-go? Because the one common denominator I've noticed from the "No increase" side is their proclivity to fudge stats and make shit up. And your delusional "recommendation" of reducing to one set a day is another shining example of that. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I only record the stats as they exist at the moment I snapshot them. I'm not responsible for why the data is what it is, though it's possible I mistranscribed one day's figure. It's the sign of a good statistician (I have degree in statistics, BTW) to honestly acknowledge apparent anomalies in the data. In any event, it has no effect at all on the 10-day delta, which is certainly there.
  • If we get down to 50, then we are going to go to one set per day. The only question will be whether we'll do it in an orderly fashion, by planning to do so, or haphazardly, by heedlessly tapping the well completely dry and then sporadically updating every 14-30 hours as we desperately scrape sets together.
  • I ask again: why do you care so much? (And before you ask, I'll answer that question as it pertains to me: I care because I don't want WP embarrassed by the irregular updates, and errors resulting from desperate hook-scraping, that obtain when the reserve runs dry.)
  • "Or have you just been making up numbers from the get-go?" I wish I could believe you're kidding, but apparently you're not. You really do seem unhinged.
  • I'll let you have the last word now. Make it your best performance ever!
EEng (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose no need to rush things through, DYK has stablised nicely with an improved quality of late. Also, adding additional hooks will unbalance the main page layout unnecessarily. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
You've clearly lost the plot if you think adding just two more hooks a day is in any way "rush[ing] things through"? And your argument of unbalancing the main page layout is a weak straw man argument. We've decreased to six hooks a day in the past; we can just as easily increase to 8 without a problem. No need to make a mountain out of a molehill. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks to me like you're the one losing the plot. Try to remain calm and discuss things rationally. You've been asked to do so several times now. Your hyperbole is unnecessary and doesn't do you any favours at all. Look forward to your hysterical responses to the other editors who oppose your position, not just mine and EEng, or is that something else we need to talk about? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. If we've on average got three score and ten years on this planet, a few days delay to get your hook onto the main page won't kill you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Quality over Quantity. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Making personal attacks on editors who make proposals here illustrates the poor manners of some contributors. I will resist making personal attacks on those who feel that their view can only be achieved with italics, Emphasis and slogans. Can we increase the quality and not the quantity of these "contributions" that follow a well mannered proposal? Victuallers (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

My DYK was approved 6 Sept but wasn't ever added to a queue or prep area[edit]

Any assistance would be appreciated. Here's the link to the approved DYK, Template:Did you know nominations/Raymond A. Thomas. Thanks much, —  dainomite   18:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Without looking: that's not so long ago. Any rush? Coincidentally, I have a hook on the German Main page saying "Ich eile nicht" (I do not rush) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, no rush, just different from my limited DYK experience (this is my 3rd DYK nom) of it being approved and going to a queue the same day and a few days later being on the main page. Thanks for the hasty reply Gerda. —  dainomite   19:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I looked and saw it was approved 10 Sep, and it comes with a picture. Only every 7th chosen one can have a picture, - that's actually why my German one appeared sooner than expected, - the great image was considered too remotely related to the hook, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, it says 10 sept because hawkeye forgot to sign it on the 6th when he approved it and went back the 10th and signed (over someone who had put {{unsigned}}) But I gotcha, thanks Gerda! —  dainomite   20:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Prep 1[edit]

Paraphrasing : "that asparagus can enhance the flavour of asparagus soup?" REALLY? Our hooks are so weak we need this kind of thing? Seriously, with the stack of hooks ready to go, is this the best we can offer? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I dunno. If the interesting bit is supposed to be the thickness of the pieces, the hook could perhaps be rephrased to make that clear, but as it is, it does sound an awful lot like your interpretation! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Yep, it's my interpretation that "asparagus" makes "asparagus soup" taste more like "asparagus". That's what it says. It's not interesting at all. In fact, it's up there with the worst hooks of all time. Technically it meets the criteria I suppose, but this is a Dullest Ever DYK Hall of Famer. We must be able to do better than this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man, HJ Mitchell: How does ... that cream of asparagus soup can also be made with broccoli? (I just added that). Also a courtesy ping to @Northamerica1000:, the creator of the article. --Jakob (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not wild about that either, but it's better. Even "flavour can be improved using thicker cuts" would be an improvement, if that's the point the hook is trying to make. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

New nominator needs a bit of help[edit]

DYK nomination Belonogaster petiolata - you can read the template for yourself to see what happened. It's actually not a bad article, but could probably use a little formatting help, and a review from someone who understands the subject matter. — Maile (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers[edit]

I've compiled a new set of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing; at the moment, 308 of 361 nominations are unapproved. Thanks as always to everyone who reviews.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Florence Pernel hook[edit]

Something, is wrong with this hook. She was born on 30 June 1966 and the film for which she received the nomination was released on 3 November 1982. At the time of film's release she was 16 years old. But the sources used in the article mention that she received the award in 1981 at the age of 15. I have checked the translation of sources, the film's page on French WP and IMDb. There is something wrong with this hook. The sources used in the article are contradicting the info. since I am the nominator of this particular nomination I am sorry for all the trouble I have caused.--Skr15081997 (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Skr15081997, thanks for bringing this to our attention. As the hook is currently the lead hook in Queue 2, it will require an admin to remove it and also to replace it with a new lead hook. The nomination template is at Template:Did you know nominations/Florence Pernel, and its promotion will need to be reversed so a new hook can be found and the factual confusion straightened out. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

" ... that did you know is not available on Wikipedia mobile?"[edit]

Does anyone know if there is a really good reason for this, and if not, how we can get DYK on the mobile edition? It's one of the best parts of the main page. Way more interesting than the stale articles from In the News that seem to never change... Gaff ταλκ 23:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I am not seeing WP:FP, WP:DYK, or WP:SA/WP:OTD. Also the sections below FP are missing (Other areas of Wikipedia, Wikipedia's sister projects, and Wikipedia languages) are missing. It is just WP:TFA and WP:ITN. I am curious what the larger issue is here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hear, hear. I often look at the main page on my mobile and always have to switch to the desktop view to get the good stuff. All you seem to get by default is the FA and ITN. The FA is often quite obscure or boring like the monthly typhoon/hurricane while ITN is just repeating recent news headlines which are already familiar. The display has to scroll already so there doesn't seem to be a good technical reason why it shouldn't scroll through the other main page sections like DYK, On this day, Featured picture, &c. How is this controlled and where can we go to get it expanded? Andrew (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Given the number of problems with DYK, are we sure we want to expand the number of pages this section appears in? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Pulled one hook from Queue 6[edit]

@Skr15081997, EtienneDolet, 97198, HJ Mitchell: I pulled the following hook from Queue 6:

There was no "province of Treviso" during the Roman Empire; there was a province of Gallia Cisalpina, and a region of Venetia, in which the city of Tarvisium (now Treviso) could be found. Nothing resembling the current "province of Treviso" existed at the time, and hence they didn't have a name for it either. The source used, [2] indicates the Roman name for the city, but the article and hook make it sound as if the province dates back to that time as well. "The Celts established Treviso, and it prospered under the Romans as Tarvisium until the barbarian invasions. The devastation, however, was not as bad as that of other towns" (emphasis mine). Other towns, not other provinces, as the town or city of Treviso was founded by the Celts, but the province is a much later creation. I have searched hard, but couldn't find any source discussing a Roman province of Treviso. Fram (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Fram: I am proposing this new hook here.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Hook proposals should go at the template page (and please use a better translation of the Italian description, there are many translations for that name, but the second "of" certainly has to go). This page is more concerned with the quality of the process, what went wrong, how we can assure that when things hit the mainpage, the errors have been removed, and so on. Fram (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Admin needed to replace pulled hook[edit]

At the moment, there is a stub in Queue 6 which needs to be taken care of before the set is promoted to the main page in about four hours. May I suggest moving in a hook from one of the current preps to bring the number of hooks back up to seven, preferably not one from Prep 5 which will itself need to be promoted shortly. A couple of suggestions are Balu Mahendra from Prep 1, or Susann Müller from Prep 2. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I've moved Balu Mahendra into q6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Promo joke by CEO of hook subject company about a competitor acceptable as hook?[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/BlackBerry Passport, @ViperSnake151, Rsrikanth05, Yoninah:

Is it really a good idea to repeat the "joke" the CEO of a company made about his new product compared to a competitor as a hook here? How is that neutral and factual information? A hook should contain real information about the subject, not what the CEO of the company has to say about it... I haven't pulled it yet, want to get some more opinions first. Fram (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I just realised that my entire comment didn't get posted when I had reviewed, including my signature getting clipped. My point was to say that I'd actually go for the first one, but the second one is more appropriate. The latter half, for some reason got clipped. Apologies for the mix up caused. the second one is what I'm supporting. I'll wait for Vipersnake151 to also provide an opinion. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The joke would be a POV violation if we ran it on DYK in my opinion. Maybe for April Fools Day it might be acceptable. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
There was a 2nd hook that was more neutrally worded, "... that BlackBerry CEO John Chen joked about the iPhone 6 "bendgate" incident while introducing the Passport?". Why not just use the alt? ViperSnake151  Talk  15:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue[edit]

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Question on lead hook in Prep 4[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Acquacotta was promoted by another editor to the quirky slot in Prep 3. I felt that the accompanying picture was much more interesting for the lead slot in Prep 4, so I moved it. But now that I look at it, the hook doesn't seem so hooky. I discussed this with the page creator on his talk page, and he came up with this ALT:

ALT2: ... that acquacotta (pictured), an Italian peasant food dating to ancient history, was originally invented to make stale bread palatable?

The second part of the ALT was my suggestion, based on the article and sources. I would prefer not to pull the hook in order to tweak it. Could I go ahead and change the hook while it's in the prep set? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion please: Template:Did you know nominations/Manhattan Vigil[edit]

If anyone has time to weigh in at Template:Did you know nominations/Manhattan Vigil, I'd be very grateful. There's been quite a bit of back-and-forth between the nom and the first reviewer that seems to have reached a deadlock. The nom is a friend of mine and she asked me to have a look. I don't doubt the reviewer's good faith, but I think they're being a little harsh. They've dismissed three or four proposed hooks as "uninteresting" and "TV trivia" that I thought were quite reasonable. I'd appreciate it if somebody with a bit more distance would intervene. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)