Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:DYK)
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.

Scrapping the 7 day rule[edit]

As we are looking at proposals today, how about scrapping the seven day rule?

As far as I can see, in the olden days (when dragons roamed Wikipedia and fair maidens had to be on the look out for uncivil knights; no, not last week, a few years ago) DYK was a breeze to to get through: chuck up a few words (1000 characters back in those times before inflation) with a reference to your mate's blog at the bottom and that was about it. To control the flow of nominations of qualifying articles, somebody thought it might be a good idea to limit it to new articles, say those that were 5 days old or less. That was seen as a pretty good idea back in those lax pre-industrial days.

Fast-forward to today: (...robots rule the Earth...sorry...too far...back a bit...) to qualify for DYK an article has to meet a vast swathe of criteria, some of which make it harder than getting GA. The 7 day rule has become toothless for established editors and actually a hindrance to new editors. Editors in the know develop their articles in userspace where they are exempt from the countdown, then move them to mainspace at the last minute or alternatively rush to get the nomination in before the deadline and then work on the article afterwards. Meanwhile the poor new editor creates an article and then stumbles across DYK a month later by which time they've missed the boat.

If we removed the 7 day rule it wouldn't lead to a flood of nominations as if anybody nominated an older article, they'd have to be responsible for:

  • checking it was thoroughly cited with inline citations
  • checking the sources were reliable
  • checking there was no close-paraphrasing, copyvio or plagiarism
  • checking the tone
  • checking it was long enough
  • checking it conformed to policies

(basically like getting it ready for GA)

We might see improvement of existing articles rather than the thousandth DYK article on [insert your pet hate marginal-interest DYK topic here, come on, we know you have one].

Linus Torvalds wasn't allowed a DYK because he's a bastard.[1]

We could "quick reject" any that didn't meet the criteria (for example, if an editor submitted an older article that clearly hadn't done any work on it recently and had no inline citations or had citation needed tags or said the subject was a bastard) and slap the nominator around if they complained (the last bit is optional). Thoughts? (other than what a delight I am, because you should know that already) Belle (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, and agree that first and foremost we've got to put article improvement as the top priority. I think where we've ended up today is that DYK nominations have to meet some of the GA criteria. It should definitely meet 1 ("well written") though I might cut some slack for the lack of a lead in short articles, 2 ("verifiable with no original research"), 4 (NPOV) and 5 (stable). It doesn't need to be broad in coverage necessarily, or with images. I think we should move towards crediting people who do substantial work, and just getting core articles like piano, oak, house and Poland to B class is a major effort which ought to be rewarded here if we can find an easy and quantifiable way to recognise the work done.
One issue I have with the "5x expanded" criteria is it means I can't take a badly written and unsourced article and rewrite it to a higher quality, because invariably I'll struggle to end up with more prose than I actually started with, let alone 5 times as much. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Then I suppose you could make the case for the 2x expansion to apply to all unsourced articles or all articles under C class status. (minor comment: We have allowed a bastard on DYK before.) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
There are plenty of bastards here, some of which would make fine DYK nominations once improved. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Linus' "I'm A Bastard" speech". Linux Mailing List. 6 September 2000. Retrieved 14 August 2014. 

You can't get rid of a time limit altogether because then you would effectively scrap the "new" requirement along with it. However, I agree that 7 days now seems redundant given that noms can spend months on the nom page. One could probably comfortably expand the limit to a month with little if any change to the process, and the end result might be better quality articles as those who don't use sandboxes would have longer to work. Gatoclass (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

But the "new" requirement is effectively scrapped already. An article can spend months (years? is there any limit?) in userspace and months on the nominations page. This wouldn't prevent new articles being posted, but would allow improved (not just arbitrarily expanded) articles to be featured too. Belle (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
There's already a route for "improved" articles - GA. Gatoclass (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't really answer the "how new is new?" question, though I suppose I drifted off topic first; my point is that the 7 day rule (or any time limit) favours the experienced DYK editor who knows not to write an article in mainspace, and hinders any new contributors in getting their contributions in the spotlight. Now I know we are all about the content and not the contributor, but this rule makes DYK a bit cliquey. Belle (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
It's self-correcting: a new editor should only run afoul of the seven-day deadline once, after which they know about it and can plan with it in mind. If they aren't too far beyond the seven days when they nominate, reviewers frequently make an exception for first-timers just because they hadn't known. For a "clique", it's awfully easy to join... BlueMoonset (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
That's an argument for not having the 7 day rule, as with it the progression for a new editor would be: create an article, find out too late about DYK and the 7 day rule, create all further articles in userspace and avoid the 7 day rule; the only function of the 7 day rule there is to disqualify the editor's first article(s).Belle (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose scrapping the newness rule but open to the idea of extending it a bit further. Cbl62 (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: two months ago today the change from five days to seven was implemented. There was clear opposition to scrapping the five-day rule entirely, so I don't understand why the matter is being revisited so soon after consensus for seven was seen. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think there was clear consensus not to scrap the time limit, as that wasn't presented as one of the options. Belle (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry Belle, I think this is too soon. I think the rule, although there is a long tail, still promotes "newness" or "newlyexpandedness" and that is a good thing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    But it doesn't; it encourages DYK regulars to spend as long as they like creating an article in userspace. Over the past few weeks I've seen articles created in userspace in January qualifying as "new" DYKs. Belle (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: There's no point in constantly moving the goal post until someone has figured out a way to eliminate the goal post altogether. I keep seeing comments that it's getting around the rules to develop an article in user space and then moving it to main space when completed. Isn't that why user space exists? Shouldn't WP as a whole be encouraging this method of article creation diligence? Is the suggestion that the clock should start ticking the date and time the first word of a new article is saved on user space? Maybe there's something I'm missing. Who really creates an article in main space in one sitting on one day, completely cited and error free? Most articles are a work in progress. It takes time. — Maile (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    It's quite surprising to see an "Oppose" followed by an argument that seems to be saying that the time limit is pointless. Belle (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Please do not misinterpret what I just said here. WP:MAINSPACE defines an article as being in main space. Period. User pages in and of themselves are not articles. — Maile (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I could potentially, just about, conceive (enough caveats?) an argument for extending the rule beyond the current limit but if the point of DYK is to encourage new/improved content I don't believe there are many editors who start writing/expanding an article and can't reach 1500 characters within 7 days, whether they know the rules and cliques of DYK or not; nowhere in the rules does it say a DYK article has to be thoroughly complete (I think?). Therefore the possible advantage I see for an extended limit - and this is where I think I disagree with the opion of Maile above - is that useful, part written articles may not spend extensive time hidden hoarded in userspace until they can be made ready for DYK. Personally I believe that if you can write even part of a properly referenced article it should be in the main space and available for others to read/add to etc. Getting back in my box now. - Basement12 (T.C) 23:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I really like Belle's thinking on this matter, and I would encourage people to be a little bit more open minded about whether they would consider accepting it with caveats. Unfortunately, I suspect that opposition to Belle's proposal has more to do with maintaining the status quo rather than moving DYK forward. If there's a DYK regular (not me) who is sympathetic to Belle's idea, please consider working with the user to iron the bugs out and polish the proposal. I think it has merit and could possibly improve DYK by opening it up to more editors. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you, but I fear this proposal is doomed as it isn't easy for people to change from a bolded oppose even if they do reconsider. The DYK weltanschauung seems to be that "new to mainspace" is "new" regardless of how old the article really is. That's just weird. Belle (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. One of the big benefits of DYK's newness criteria is that it quickly, efficiently, and objectively filters the millions of articles currently residing on the English Wikipedia down to a semi-manageable quantity. Can you image a situation where everyone with the ability and interest to submit a nomination was lobbying for their pet subject of the day and it required a prolonged debate to make a decision? A fast and simple means to weed out a majority of the frivolous nominations that does not generate lots of WP:DRAMA is important. While not perfect, the newness requirement eliminates 99+% of the articles on the site from consideration, can be calculated in seconds (there are even automated tools to do most of the work), and does not generate the level of debate a subjective criteria would produce. This proposal if enacted would have the consequence of turning DYK into a general trivia section and greatly increasing the workload needed to keep it running. --Allen3 talk 10:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Having a random number generator arbitrarily designate 1/100th of all articles created as eligible for DYK (should someone choose to nominate) would also "quickly, efficiently, and objectively" limit nominations as well, although the 7-day rule isn't all that objective -- what it does is reward a minority who happen to know the move-to-namespace and other silly tricks.
  • Yes I can imagine a situation in which all articles (or, at least, a much larger group) are eligible. No drama and no lobbying needed to select among many nominations. Straight voting (voting, not consensus -- every editor of 6-month's standing and 500-plus edits gets one vote per day). Period. Simple.
  • I don't see how "if enacted would have the consequence of turning DYK into a general trivia section" -- it's a general trivia section already, just one which allows undeveloped, often-really-bad articles to suddenly be in the spotlight, often with the more desperately dull hooks. Dump the newness requirement, let people vote on what's interesting, and it would be no more "trivia" than it is now, but at least it would be what a majority who case see as interesting trivia, and we wouldn't be rewarding editors with a knack for developing slapdash articles in a rush.
EEng (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Allen. Much more eloquent than what I had written and am now letting fade into oblivion because of the edit conflict. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the existence of the time limit maintains the premise that DYK showcases new content and encourages some users to aim for quality in their new content, as well as the reasons given by Allen3. Also, the rule does not unduly restrict contributors because (1) DYK is traditionally lenient to newbies who didn't understand the rule and (2) the ability to bring articles here after achieving GA provides an opportunity for DYK to show the work of users who improve articles without achieving a 5x expansion in a required time frame. --Orlady (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think this is needed quite yet. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I thought sometimes nominations were allowed through as long as they aren't older than the oldest nomination on the nominations page. Is that correct?--¿3family6 contribs 18:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Before the rule change to allow GAs the deadline was frequently extended. Now, to encourage people to improve the article to GA, the deadline is not often extended. This compels an editor to improve an article to GA to apply for DYK.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose You just have to get it on the nom page soon enough, and not everything languishes for months, it is the marginal stuff that needs responses that hangs around. If we were extending I would suggest 5→7→14 (not )Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support because the idea that DYK encourages new editors is a charade -- I'd be surprised if more than 20% of creators/expanders/GA-ers of nominated articles are "new" editors by any sensible definition. It's mostly a small group that's learned how to turn out often-boring just-barely-more-than-stubs. Plus see my points just above. EEng (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I suppose a support should also come with an alternative solution to keep the in floods under control. If we allow all articles, new or old to be eligible, something else has also got to be changed in the criteria. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Some of that's given in my comments a few posts up -- limit nominations per editor to X per day/week/month; straight voting on which hooks are worth putting on main page (i.e. actually interesting) -- no discussion, just a straight popularity contest. Those that "win" then move on to the stage of checking that the article is up to snuff. EEng (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per Maile and Allen. I don't see any problem in refining and perfecting new articles in the userspace. And scrapping the 7 day rule could lead to phony "expansions" completed over several months (or an entire year), defeating the purpose of having new content featured. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
What does it matter how long an expansion took? And who's ever said, "That article's much more interesting because it's new -- not like all those stale articles that have been around a while." WP's so big that almost everything's new to any given reader, since any given reader almost certainly hasn't seen it. This "showcasing new content" idea seems to be entirely self-justifying: "The mission of DYK is to showcase new content because the mission of DYK is to showcase new content." But why? Why is that useful or good or fun? Certainly not because it encourages new editors -- the bulk of DYK submission are hoary old hands cranking out one submission after another. EEng (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
EEng, I'm not against reform but whilst what you suggest above may get rid of the "hoary old hands" it will quickly generate a new set; they'll trawl through old articles on their pet topic, those which already meet whatever quality criteria are set, nominate them on a drip-feed system (dependant on how many nominations they're allowed) and get like minded users to vote them in (lobbying a guarantee). DYK would remain a selection of random, sometimes dull, trivia but now no one has to generate any new material (whatever your definition of new is) to fill it. The main argument I'm seeing in favour of change is that only a small group of editors contribute (let's ignore for a second the fact that they are the ones creating most of the content anyway) so surely we need is to attract new blood by raising awareness of how to nominate/submit an article for DYK and some effort to make the whole thing less intimidating for new users. - Basement12 (T.C) 17:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Eliminate lobbying by having a random sample of 1000 editors each day get a popup that says, "Which of these two hooks would you be more likely to click on" -- simple, and based on those statistics tomorrow's hooks are selected.
  • I don't think the way to get new editors is to try to get them to create a new article -- too steep a learning curve. IMO the best way to get new editors is to get them attracted to making a small change to an existing article, such as one featured at DYK that they're interested in. Then get them to further expand/improve the article. That's why I've also said we should worry less about article quality at DYK -- we should be frank that they're still works in progress -- "If this fact interested you, click here to help improve the article" -- now you've got a new editor!
  • Here's an idea I just thought of -- each DYK article could have a Things to Do which is displayed at its top, so when someone clicks through from main page, he sees "Glad to see you're interested in this topic. If after looking at this article you want to help improve it, here are some things it needs: blah blah blah; click here." Sometin' like that.
EEng (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – newness is important, use usespace (or do as I do, work off-line) if that's a problem. Manxruler (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Tell me again why newness is important? EEng (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure, it's keeps the number of noms at a manageable level, instead of a deluge. Now tell me why people interested in the DYK project can't simply work off-line or in userspace? I never use userspace myself, and only some of the time work off-line, yet I have never missed a deadline for DYK. If one is really interested in contributing, then the 7-day limit is absolutely no problem at all. It only creates a quite small hurdle, which prevents willy-nilly noms from flooding the project. Manxruler (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The "deluge" problem has been well-answered at several points above. And working offline is really not a good thing, in my opinion -- as an article develops others should be able to jump in if they want. Very few good articles (even early versions) are developed in one go by one person -- even just two bouncing thoughts off each other, without an arbitrary rush deadline is more likely to result in an DYK-acceptable article ready for nom without a lot of reworking. EEng (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't feel it has been well-answered, so we'll have to agree to disagree there. You're of course also free to feel whatever you like about off-line writing, but I disagree with you there too. I wrote most of a GA off-line a while back, which worked out just fine. When writing on-line, in mainspace, seven days is plenty enough to write a Start, C or B class article. And, if one is not able to do that for some reason or other, there's userspace. There really is no problem with the current system, and loads of serious potential issues with the change you support. Manxruler (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose (somewhat reluctantly) As the editor who proposed extending the 5-day rule (which led to the 7-day rule), I'm in sympathy with Belle's broad intentions. I would certainly support a 14-day rule. And EEng is right, DYK does not particularly encourage new editors. Nonetheless, our recent Feminist Film Editathon at ICA London has generated several DYK noms, most at least started by new editors. However, DYK does encourage the creation of new content, and to my mind anyway, that is its most important role - our readers don't care who created it. Having said all that, we do need more varied and clickable hooks, and some competition there might be no bad thing. Edwardx (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I think there's material in this thread for a more carefully considered proposal for change. I propose we regroup in a few months. EEng (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It was pretty good to have this rule. 5 days were somewhat less, 14 day rule seems pretty good though. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 13:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - DYK worked fine for quite some time with a five day rule. There's no reason that seven should therefor be problematic. If the deadline is missed after the article is created, there is still the option of a 5K expansion.—John Cline (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Marian Lutosławski[edit]

@User:Antidiskriminator, do not paste your own crap using my preformatted signature in blatant disregard for Wikipedia policy/guidelines as you did at Template:Did you know nominations/Marian Lutosławski, and also, refrain from deleting other users' assessments from your own submissions as you did at Template:Did you know nominations/Jovan Albanez. Thank you, Poeticbent talk 18:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, everybody! Please help because I don't know what to do. User:Antidiskriminator just radicalized his attack into a whole bloody WP:SOAPBOX of absurdist ideas. While keeping my forged signature intact from his earlier posting, he now expanded his rant into a whole bunch of nonsensical commentaries on the history of Poland under partitions. This is a blatant abuse of our DYK rules of conduct. Antidiskriminator claims partitions did not last for as long as they did... Bolsheviks did not execute prisoners (they only “arrested” them with no proof who executed them), sentences administered days before trials were not connected to show trials, charges were not drummed up before mass killings – they therefore have been real... and so on. Please tell if in your opinion this qualifies for the Adminstrators noticeboard/incidents or perhaps we can resolve it here by ourselves somehow. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 18:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

There's indeed something weird going on there, though I can't tell if it's as innocent as mistakenly copy-pasting wikisource. I'm summoning our biggest gun Bluemoonset to kick asses and take names. Don't worry, nothing will be decided about the nom until this is sorted out. EEng (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
p.s. at least one confusing this is that a comment got moved from one nom to another. [1] EEng (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I moved comment of User:Poeticbent in which he used Template:DYK?again to point to their comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Marian Lutosławski. Since this template is used " indicate that a DYK nomination is ready for re-review after earlier concerns were addressed" I thought that it belongs to the Marian Lutosławski nomination so I moved it there. If I was wrong I sincerely apologize.--Marian Lutosławski (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Expressions of remorse are empty if one does not follow up on them. You have forged my signature, faked my edit, and so far, you have not removed even one word from your revisionist rant with no relation (whatsoever) to our QPQ requirements and no reasonable grounds in Polish history. Poeticbent talk 15:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Lo and behold, a new account was created today called Ustallaretevjeter (talk · contribs) and approved Template:Did you know nominations/Jovan Albanez submitted by User:Antidiskriminator using Template:DYKtick as: "Good to go" with a short note: "all fine". That's it. — User:Ustallaretevjeter also reverted me at Marian Lutosławski with the summary "tough luck..." etc, claiming that Lutosławski was born in the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria. However, the so-called Kingdom existed from 1872. Lutosławski was born in 1871. Go figure. Poeticbent talk 17:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Poeticbent, I have done a turn-around tick on that nomination. It would appear from this new user's contributions that this redlink user is approving Antidiskriminator's nomination on the one hand, and then backing you on the Marian Lutosławski template . Please be advised that you have Wikipedia:CheckUser and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations available to you if you feel this might be the case. There does appear to be something odd, but it could be neither of the two of you.— Maile (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Maile66 for trying to help, although the brown stuff will not come off on its own until Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs) gets the drift. The good-faith attempt by Ustallaretevjeter (talk · contribs) simply backfired. Poeticbent talk 16:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg QPQ review still needed. Poeticbent talk 12:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers[edit]

With the last set of unreviewed nominations recently archived, I've compiled a new set of 35 older nominations that need reviewing. Many of these may look familiar. Thanks 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) 21:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for these continuing updates! Would it be possible to automate this? It would be helpful to have a "dashboard" that has just the titles and the most recent bullet for all open nominations, like an expanded version of Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 07:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Antony-22, I suppose it might be possible to automate something, where those entries that have either no icons or the last icon as the "review again" are listed. The problem is that this often doesn't tell the whole story, that people seem not to want to get involved with the no-icon nominations that have a lot of exchanges, and that I frequently have to add those red arrow icons to reviews that already have other icons but have now progressed to the point that they need a new reviewer. If someone wants to try they're certainly welcome to, but it's not something I'm interested in doing myself. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

To link, or not to link[edit]

There has been an increased tendency at DYK recently to wikilink articles other than the featured article in DYK hooks. At some point in the distant past, there was a discussion about this. It was suggested then, and I think rightly so, that it was best to minimize wikilinks to other articles, especially where such wiklinks are likely to siphon attention away from the featured article. The theory was that our goal is to drive viewers to the new article who will in turn refine and improve it. By throwing up a multitude of wikilinks to other articles, we divert clickthroughs to articles other than the one we chose to feature. Recent examples include:

  • One of today's lead hooks reads ...that on its 2012 centenary, the Rio de Janeiro cableway (pictured) was honored with a Google Doodle in Brazil? The stats aren't in, but I bet "Google Doodle" gets more clickthroughs than the featured article.
  • A recent hook on "Sea of Trees (film)" drew 3,700 clickthroughs here while a wikilink to the non-featured Suicide Tree siphoned off almost 10,000 clikthroughs here.
  • A couple days ago, our featured hook on the Bryn Mawr Deanery drew only 1500 clickthroughs here, as a non-featured but wikilinked article here siphoned off the attention and grabbed over 10,000 clickthroughs.
  • Yesterday's Dan Casey hook included a wikilink to Casey at the Bat. The other Casey got more clickthroughs than the featured Casey. Compare featured Casey to other Casey.
  • A recent hook for Lionel Fraser drew 3,100 hits here, but a wiklink to a non-featured article on his son, "Groovy Bob," drew almost 7,000 hits here.
  • A recent hook for Winston Watts drew 3,400 clicks here, while a wikilink to Dogecoin grabbed 5,400 clicks.
  • A recent hook for Walt Disney Animation Studios drew 3,100 hits here, but a wikilink to a non-featured list drew 5,400 hits here.

This may not be a big deal on any one hook, but at a project level, we should try to minimize wikilinks in DYK hooks that are likely to divert the focus away from the article we are featuring. 14:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC) [signed... The Mystery DYK Commenter]

BTW, you misspelled "beanery". EEng (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • ("who will in turn refine and improve it" Awwwwww, it's like what a baby bird or a newborn kitten would think might happen to a DYK; who's a cute little Cbl62? Who is? Is it you? Is it? Yeeesss, it isss; yess, it is) Anyway, apart from my condescending aside (meant playfully, Cbl62, I'm sure you are an ugly streetwise bruiser in real life), I broadly agree with this. Things like Dogecoin which is baffling to normal humans might warrant a link in an article, but it is linked and explained (?!?) in the DYK article, so there's not really any need to to link it separately, as if the reader clicks on the DYK article they will have everything at their fingertips anyway. Belle (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As the nominator responsible for the wikilink to Groovy Bob (damn, did it again), I can see your point. However, I doubt that many of those 7,000 would have clicked on Lionel Fraser instead. And Groovy Bob is the more important article and the one more in need of expansion/improvement. So, from the perspective of creating new content, one could argue that it was right to link Bob. On the subject of links, what really annoys me is links to World War I or Australia - how does that help? Edwardx (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree that links serve a different purpose in hooks than they do in articles: as a reader reads an article, he's already "in" the subject and might want to branch off to something else; in a hook, the bold link is the subject, and additional links compete with it, which is undesirable (all other things being equal). I'd like to hear what others think, but my inclination is to propose a practice something like "Links should be added to hooks sparingly, primarily only where needed to avoid misleading the reader."

    And I would interpret this very narrowly. We would just about never link World War II, certainly. I'm not even sure we should link an "unusual" term. We're trying to "hook" the reader's curiosity to draw him into the (bolded) article. If the hook says ... that John Wilkins is considered a founder of latitudinarianism, and the reader wants to know what latitudinarianism is, he can click on the bold link to find out -- in the context of John Wilkins. EEng (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Unfortunately the John Wilkins article doesn't talk about latitudinarianism right now, but you get the idea.

  • In almost all of the examples here, the non-target articles were topics that needed to be linked, IMO. The exception was the Walt Disney studios hook -- the hook probably didn't need to link to the list. There's an art to crafting hooks to draw as much attention as possible to the target article rather than non-target articles in the hook. Most of these hooks were worded so as to draw attention to the target articles; if there's a problem here, it's in the choice of hook facts that rely on a secondary topic to grab the reader's attention.
I wouldn't see the Sea of Trees example as a failure -- the target hook did garner more than 5000 hits. --Orlady (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, show us how it's done. How would you re-"craft" these three of the OP's examples --
... that on its 2012 centenary, the Rio de Janeiro cableway was honored with a Google Doodle in Brazil?
... that the film Sea of Trees, now in production, is about the Japanese "Suicide Forest"?
... that in later life, baseball player Dan Casey claimed he was "Casey at the Bat"?
-- to avoid a "choice of hook facts that rely on a secondary topic to grab the reader's attention"? EEng (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I said the hooks were worded appropriately (Most of these hooks were worded so as to draw attention to the target articles). I said that if there was a problem with these hooks (note that I didn't say there was a problem), it was that the chosen hook facts relied on other article topics to draw attention to the target articles. --Orlady (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Fine. How would you recommend re-crafting these hooks to draw attention to the target articles, without "relying on other article topics" to do so? EEng (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • We've been doing this a long time and I don't see the problem. Driving eyes to the article... huh? Who said we're trying to do that?? We feature the article on the main page and that's all you get; if readers want to see the article they can (and many will) and if they want to click on other links, fine. The point beyond that is to drive readers into the Wikipedia generally, I guess. And adding limks makes for a better hook that's more useful/fun/interesting to the reader and gives them more stuff to do. And if you just have the link to the article itself, well some of these articles are pretty dull or of highly specialized interest. I look to put links into other articles in the hook on purpose to give some happy time to more, and a wider range of, readers. As to driving more readers to the article because it's new and here's a good chance to get people to improve it, dunno. Maybe. But I never heard that one, although it makes some sense. Herostratus (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The point of DYK is to highlight the new content, not to link to topics in a general and/or random way. Also, as a technical point, note that superfluous blue links are a nuisance when using a touch-screen device such as a tablet because they tend to cause misclicks. Here's some more examples of overlinking from the current batch:
  • ... that Cicero's lost Consolatio (45 BC) is widely accepted as the distinct work that transmitted the earlier consolatio literary tradition to the Romans of the late Republic? — Here we have consolatio linked twice when one is a specific example of the general style. Details of the author and period will obviously be found in the target article too and so, if anyone wants to know more, they should be going to the target article to get the context.
  • ... that Charles de Visscher, a Belgian judge of the International Court of Justice, was orphaned at age twelve? — linking orphan here seems ridiculous.
Andrew (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Amen. EEng (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Trout me (said with a smile); I'm the nominator of the Rio de Janeiro cableway/Google Doodle hook. I just didn't think it was appropriate to avoid linking it. In fact, I figured the cableway article might get clicked second, after the Google Doodle, but it would perhaps not get as many clicks if Google Doodle wasn't mentioned. IMO, on balance, it can be helpful to link to catchy terms within a hook, in addition, of course, to the target article. Have we looked closely enough at that phenomenon? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing for you to be embarrassed about -- you were just following the usual practice of linking hooks pretty much the same way article text is linked. I think you're wrong the cableway article would get clicked second -- my guess is that very few readers return after clicking off to whatever link catches their interest first e.g. Goggle Doodle. When reading your statement that "it can be helpful to link catchy terms", it occurred to me that in a way the linking acts as a kind of highlighting which perhaps attracts interest to the hook overall, even as those same links tend to "siphon" some of that interest away from the primary article. EEng (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I want to mention another reason for linking sparingly. There's a lot of effort put into ensuring that DYK articles meet at least minimum standards, but absolutely all of that effort is directed at the primary "bolded" article. There's no attention at all given to the quality of the other articles linked from the hook, and they're often absolutely awful. And if we're worried about being embarrassed by an article being linked from the main page, I don't think readers will recognize that secondary links "don't count" and give us a pass -- a serious BLP or other violation, linked from a hook, will come down hard on DYK regardless of what flavor the link was. EEng (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


Since "Andrew" was kind enough to express Support, I thought it might be a good idea to have a proposal on the table. Andrew, would I be right in guessing you're supporting something like this? EEng (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Links should be added to hooks sparingly, primarily only where needed to avoid misleading the reader.
Support Don't everyone rush to weigh in at once. EEng (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Cbl62 (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is sort of thing that should ultimately be left to the nominator's discretion. There's nothing inherently wrong with articles other than the bolded one getting extra hits, and if the nominator wants to include those links, there's no reason to go against their wishes. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 01:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Antony. Really now? This is rule creep in the extreme. If nobody knows who Roekiah was (and, let's face it, few do), we're doing readers a disservice by not linking to her. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. More links make for a more interesting hook with more entries into the articles to draw in more readers. If anything they should be encouraged, but leave it up to the person writing the hook. Herostratus (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Well, this proposal is a clear-cut example of rule creep. Useful links should be encouraged in hooks, in the same way they are encouraged in articles and elsewhere on the Main page. I doubt the "lost" (?) hits would really go to the bolded article, in such a system. Probably would simply lead to fewer clicks to DYK hooks overall. And I really fail to see what's so very wrong with the non-bolded articles getting some attention too. We should use links here, in the same way as everywhere else on the Main page. It should be up to the nominator, if anything. Manxruler (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Full preps and empty queues - Admin needed[edit]

Can an admin move some of the full preps into the empty queues. There are no queues filled and all the preps are filled.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

1 done Victuallers (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Victuallers, you probably should have done 2 because those two queues were built at about the same time. Also, when the queues are overdue in the wee hours in the U.S. there are a lot less admins to promote a set.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Some are still awake :-) Victuallers (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Victuallers, I don't understand why you keep moving just one set. Also, what went wrong with the update? The prep areas did not rotate.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful comments and advice. It takes time Tony, but its always a pleasure :p I don't understand why you are trying to puzzle out my motives, but I'm pleased that you contribute, and thats enough for me. I'm not sure why the prep areas didnt rotate. Is that my fault as well? Victuallers (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Rotation is not automatic. But anybody can make it happen. Right above the top prep area is this line "NOTE: The next prep set to move into the queue is prep [number] "update count" So clicking on "update count" and then changing the Prep number manually rotates it. — Maile (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Telegraph (sternwheeler 1914)[edit]

This nomination appears under both August 17 and August 22. Yoninah (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Any chance of a quick review to meet a centenary[edit]

Hi, I have just posted Template:Did you know nominations/Achille Pierre Deffontaines to the noms page. It is the 100th anniversary of this man's death on 26 August and would be great to get this on the main page for then. Would anybody fancy doing me a favour and reviewing this quickly? Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Might be helpful if the reviewer knows some French. EEng (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Jakec kindly reviewed this article, I don't suppose someone could place it in the relevant queue? - Dumelow (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Review done. Needs a promo. 7&6=thirteen () 12:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems that you need to get this swapped into Prep Area 4 before it gets promoted to the queue 1. I'd do it, but I haven't really paid attention to the hook promotion policy since we have gone to the individual hook discussion format with Template:Did you know nominations/subject x pages.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
If Prep Area 4 gets moved to Queue 1 without swapping your article in I would Add a SUPERBOLD comment on the DYK discussion. USE superlarge font. Maybe two or three times normal size and bold or something crazy like that. Again, sorry too lazy to learn how to promote in the new environment.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I swapped it in there myself. I was hesitant to do so as, like you, I am not familiar with the new process but with 4 hours left before it was due to go up I didn't want to miss the chance. Hopefully someone can check I haven't broken anything - Dumelow (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

baby buttcrack[edit]

gee, I dunno, this or a baby's asshole.... they're both so very tasteful...

So, in a few hours DYK is seriously going to put a picture of a minor child's ass crack on the front page of Wikipedia? Really, DYK, really? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably helpful to have the template: Open-crotch pants. — Maile (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that the queue be updated and that Gerber Reservoir become the top item, using the much more pleasant image you see to the left. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Strongly support this. The main page should make at least some attempt to not have pictures like that on the front page. (then again, the reservoir could offend a lot of people...) --Jakob (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I also support the beautiful image of the Gerber Reservoir. — Maile (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I feel somewhat ashamed about this because I copyedited the hook [2] and didn't even register what the image showed. We only have an hour, so I'm pinging every DYK admin I can think of. Crisco 1492 Victuallers Casliber The Rambling Man Fram Orlady Graeme_Bartlett Beeblebrox EEng (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh for the love of... changed. Not censored is fine, but when something pushes the boundaries like this one would expect a bit more discussion beforehand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank God. I was just about to post to AN and MP Errors. My fingers were overheating. EEng (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Only now do I realize that a quick fix would have been to push the stop button at User:DYKUpdateBot -- good to keep in mind, guys and gals! EEng (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You have to be an admin to do that and if you're an admin, why wouldn't you just fix the queue? --Jakob (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Christ, you're right -- you have to be an admin. So much for that idea. EEng (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre and unintentional comic relief[edit]

As a final indignity, we have the following text in the article [3]:

The partially exposed buttocks of [open-crotch]-clad children in public places frequently strikes foreign visitors, who often photograph them.

I think what's meant is that the sight of partially exposed buttocks strikes foreigners (as strange, or something), not that foreigners are literally struck by, well... Some articles are just cursed.

I guess at this point we're leaving the image in the article itself? EEng (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • It has encyclopedic value there. I'd leave the image in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I guess I meant while the article was linked from main page, but I figured the answer is what you're saying. What a close call, however. EEng (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know what you all were going to do[edit]

As the editor and longtime DYK contributor who not only expanded the article but took the picture, I am so pleased that no one thought to consult me about this beforehand. I can only conclude that this was a deliberate attempt to go behind my back.

Beeblebrox just had to go further, however. On the main page he assumes, without even bothering to look further, that the child was about to defecate. If you look at it closely you'll see that he wasn't in any way beginning to do so (believe me, if that had happened it would have been the lead image in the article). The clear insinuation is that I was somehow violating the child's privacy by taking the photo, which I was not—it was a public park in Beijing. This is hardly the first time I've seen that in China. Or anyone who's actually been there.

To assume not only makes (ahem) an ass out of you and me. It makes me wonder what's really going through the minds of people like Beeblebrox when they read things like this into pictures they didn't take. To indirectly attribute some lecherous intent to me this way is a personal attack. The sooner he retracts that post and apologizes, the better. The "asscrack" wasn't just in the picture here.

And really ... we could have used this. Not much of his rear was visible, and even less in the thumbnail. If you didn't look at DYK (not everyone without an account does, contrary to what we often think here), you probably wouldn't have known. And elsewhere online, there are similar pictures, some far more revealing than this. In that context, is it really so scandalous?

If we had had a discussion about this, I might have been persuaded, but since action was taken unilaterally any hypothetical consensus we could have reached is moot. Shame on you. Shame on all of you. I'm not sure I'll be submitting any new DYK hooks for a while. In fact, if this is what DYK has been reduced to, perhaps it has indeed run its course, and it's high time we replaced it with Articles for Improvement, Good Articles, or something like that. Daniel Case (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: And really, this picture was a problem? In a set of hooks that end with "Dog Fart Rollercoaster" in unmissable text? Really? Really? What bodily orifice is that decision coming out of? Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "I can only conclude that this was a deliberate attempt to go behind my back." - Or... you know, that the time zones were working against you? Or that you missed the discussion in the hour and a half between it being raised and the set being posted? As anyone who's been around DYK for several years should know, there are cases where images are pulled shortly before running. The Nadar Hermaphrodite image was pulled, and I seem to recall a case where a horse clitoris or something was pulled as well. Short of a lengthier discussion for a firmer consensus, there's not much that can be done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


  • Crisco, in hindsight it probably would have been better to simply pull the whole thing for tonight and reopen the nom page, so a considered decision could be made about whether to use the hook with the img, or just the hook alone, but since you were the only admin to step up at all, and it's easy to see from your Contribs history that you first received the ping with just 15 minutes "to go", no one can possibly criticize you for not thinking of that (i.e. what you actually did was to move to hook down in the set to a no-image slot).
  • Daniel Case, when you drop the nonsense about how there's a conspiracy against you, we'll try to help you see where you judgment failed you. I am not saying -- and I doubt many or most others are saying -- that, on careful consideration, we wouldn't use the image. I am saying that something like this touches on an area of potentially great sensitivity, and caution should be exercised in the form of the issue being thoroughly ventilated well in advance. You' should have had the brains/common sense/whatever to realize that and open the discussion yourself, right when you made the nom, instead of letting others accidentally notice at the last minute.

EEng (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you know what I'm going to do? Get that article to featured status, and then submit it for the main page. Maybe there and then, at TFA, where no one's worried about getting pulled off the Main Page due to bad publicity, we can have a proper discussion about whether the image is a problem before we run it. (There, how's that for productively channeling your energies?) Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • EEng, in hindsight that may have been better for all parties, but as you said, it was done with a mere 15 minutes to go... not enough time to fill in an empty slot, or three. We've run late too much recently. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
You're forgiven. What do you think of my proposal below? EEng (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Open-crotch pants - for 3 to 6-month-old - 01.jpg
"... instead of letting others accidentally notice at the last minute." Sounds like an excuse for dereliction of duty. As someone notes in the discussion below, the image was deliberately left there for someone to notice and remark upon ... as the saying goes, run it up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes it.

As I have also pointed out to Crisco elsewhere, and as people here seem to agree, other options were available besides brusquely taking the picture out because of another editor's flippantly-worded concern on the main page. The hook could have been replaced with another already-approved one from either the other queues or the preps, and held for discussion of the picture. Or someone could have used a good alternate (right) that was already in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A renewed proposal on the handling of "sensitive" (whatever that means) material[edit]

A month or two ago there was a somewhat similar kerfuffle (though of a much more potentially "sexual" image than is at issue today). At that time I proposed the following (now slightly modified, and see especially the last point, in bold):

  • Wikipedia does not suppress knowledge merely because some may find that knowledge offensive, but neither should the manner of presentation knowingly or thoughtlessly give offense when the same information can be communicated in a manner more broadly acceptable.
  • While DYK hooks are often playful, this should not be confused with vulgarity, shock, or tastelessness.
  • Omission of a particular hook does not remove that hook's content from the body of Wikipedia's knowledge (as would omission of an image or piece of information from an article), merely from the prominence of the main page. The purpose of a DYK listing is to interest readers in a given article, not give exposure to a particular hook or image per se, so where there is significant concern about given hook, consider rewording the hook or substituting a different point drawn from the article, or a different image (or using no image).
  • When proposing a hook touching on issues, or employing language, or accompanied by an image, that is arguably sensitive, raise the issue explicitly in the nomination instead of waiting for someone else to do so, to get feedback early.

Thoughts? EEng (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • "That is arguably sensitive" is too broad. Anything is arguably sensitive in a certain context. (The standard response: A picture of a woman not wearing a headscarf can be sensitive in some Muslim countries). I'd want something more concrete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, how about:
When proposing a hook touching on issues, or employing language, or accompanied by an image, that you feel may be of concern to a significant proportion of editors, raise the issue explicitly in the nomination instead of waiting for someone else to do so, to get feedback early.
I've intentionally put in lots of loopholes. Editors will be expected to let their consciences be their guides. If someone, as in a recent situation, really tries to argue that he didn't realize a lot of people might be concerned, when obviously they would, then they'll have to suffer the humiliation of everyone thinking they're ridiculous. EEng (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Images can certainly be a problem, remember that Jailbait issue a few weeks ago. Rude words are not so much of an issue but risqué images do sort of stand out a bit and a bit of pragmatism is exactly what is needed when dodgy images arise. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Chinese boy with open rear pants closeup.jpg
  • Oppose DYK already has too many rules and so WP:CREEP indicates that we should be rolling them back, not adding to them. This proposal seems especially vague and verbose. The place where these four bullet points would be added is not specified and so the context is not clear. The most that seems needed here is some amendment of one of the existing bullet points in WP:Did you know/Reviewing guide#If there is an image. "Sensitive" seems too vague and it might be better to focus on the BLP aspect, which is clearer and commands a more general consensus. For example, the picture in question (right) might have been cropped to remove the upper third which shows the head of the individual, on the grounds that this might identity them. Andrew (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Jesus ... this is after I cropped the kid's parents out of the image (the full version of which I have never uploaded for privacy reasons) and he's already facing away from the camera (indeed, were he not, I couldn't have taken that picture). And you think he could still be identifiable by his haircut? Go to Beijing, or any large city in China, walk around for a couple of days, and tell me that haircut would be distinctive enough to identify someone. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • For heaven's sake, it's some thoughts for discussion. Edit it, condense it, suggest where it could be combined with existing rules, whatever. Anyway, I JUST SAID that it's not really a rule, but a consideration for people to keep in mind.
  • Certainly there have been times that hook wording (esp. the use of certain words), not just images, has been of concern.
  • If you think the concern about the image was that the kid's head was visible you've got the, er, wrong end of the stick. EEng (talk) 09:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The toddler's buttock cleavage doesn't bother me. The corresponding article was a good DYK because I, for one, was quite ignorant of this cultural difference and the picture does a reasonable job of illustrating it. Andrew (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
+1 Someone understands. Thank you! Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • We've got an article on buttock cleavage? Wow. The image works great for the article. However, I'm not too sure we should put it on the MP without actual discussion. Such discussion has shot down images (the Merkin FP, for instance) and affirmed images, but in both cases it gives an actual discussion that we can point to when people start screaming "think of the children!". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
See? You do understand the point of having a discussion to link to. This is also just as necessary when the decision is to not use a particular image. People do object to that, too, you understand. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Unworkable This image was in the preps for a long time. I know because I left it there on purpose so that the community could consider it. I don't see anything (very) wromg with it and I think that if the majority of editors here were Chinese then they would see this as normal. That is what the article is about. Beedlebrox has identified a problem and editors are agreeing with that view, but some of these editors had already seen the image. We leave articles in the nomination list and in the preps to gather consensus. The admin who moves it to the queue assumes that the community is happy with the image. Having a rule that editors should anticipate hindsight is unworkable. Its OK that we have demoted the image, but lets not pretend we never saw the image.
  • No doubt if this were the Chinese Wikipedia we wouldn't be having this discussion. But this isn't the Chinese WP so what's that got to do with anything?
  • I saw the image but didn't realize what it was -- it's too small and I'm too old. It shouldn't have been left for someone sharp-eyed to notice -- with 1 hour to go. It doesn't matter whether we would have eventually run it, what matters is that since it's obviously something many editors would want to discuss, the nominator should have had the sense to start that conversation way back at the beginning.
  • Your statement that "we leave articles in the nom list and preps to gain consensus" is manifestly false. DYK is not a consensus process but a 2-or-3-editor review process. That's way different. It's very easy for a hook to get to Q with only 3 sets of eyes on it. All I'm saying is that in a case like this nominators should raise his hand and say, "Guys! Over here! For something like this it might be best if more-than-usual scrutiny is brought to bear." EEng (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I've got my own take on "We leave articles in the nomination list and in the preps to gather consensus." - Aside from the issue brought up by EEng, why exactly stop at preps? We don't say all hooks in a queue are instantly invulnerable to being pulled for copyright concerns or similar. Why would a "consensus building exercise", for lack of a better term, be any different? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems the problem is one of the right people paying attention rather than needing more specific rules. Maybe a better alternative would be a provision saying something like "the reviewer and promoting admins should be mindful of an image/hook's propensity to cause controversy while on the Main Page." Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 01:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that's something. Don't know if you could get that into the rules but you never know. It'd also be good if DYK would recognize RfC; if there's a entry that a reasonable person would conclude might be problematic to the community (which is not the same thing as being problematic to oneself), and somebody wants to initiate an RfC to get broader community input, and it's a reasonable question, the DYK folks ought to respect that and belay the promotion (assuming its not time-sensitive anyway) until the RfC is completed and not promote if the RfC says not to. However, my experience is that DYK folks won't stop for an RfC to complete, so... Herostratus (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
"Propensity to cause controversy" is crappy wording. How much controversy, and do we care where that "controversy" is coming from? There will always be conservatives who find controversy in bare flesh that's not normally on display in their little corner of the world, while I find it controversial to hide a kid's harmless butt in a context where such exposure is normal. And that context is in a much bigger culture than the one from which the complaints are coming. This really is beginning to look like an example of systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
No, you're not understanding what I'm saying. The question is not what you, your personal own self, like but what you, using your human imagination, are able to guess that a reasonable number of reasonable people might not like. Then you go find out. An RfC is a good way to do that. If you are unable to guess what a reasonable number of reasonable people might find problematical, you're excused from the conversation and you can go do something else. If you are able to figure out what a reasonable number of reasonable people might find problematical but just don't care, you're excused from the conversation and you can go do something else. If you want to be helpful, you can support the idea that RfC ought be a reasonable tool for finding out if a potentially problematical DYK is wanted or not by the community. Herostratus (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose, the nominator may not be aware of the issue, so the burden shouldn't be on them. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Plenty of rules and regulations already. Plus, this suggestion leaves room for wide interpretation, both with regards to what is considered "vulgarity, shock, or tastelessness" (which varies from person to person). Smacks of censorship, and makes me think of slippery slopes. Manxruler (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

USA Women’s 3x3 Teams timeliness review[edit]

USA Women’s 3x3 Teams - This was nominated today, with a note that the 2014 event is already in progress. I don't feel knowledgeable enough to do this one myself. — Maile (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Question on the 200 character hook limit[edit]

Does it include - in wikilinks - the length of the name of the article linked to, and the brackets, as well? For example does Cross-border Terminal count as 78 or just the 21 characters that actually appear in the DYK text? Keizers (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Only displayed characters count against the 200 character hook limit. The restriction is designed to limit the amount of screen space consumed by the hook when it is displayed on the Main page. Parts of a hook that are not displayed (e.g. wiki markup) do not affect the amount of screen space used and are not counted. Your example thus counts as 21 characters. --Allen3 talk 08:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Special occasion hooks: too many "emergencies", and now a self-promotion[edit]

Lately, there seems to be an increasing number of last-minute special occasion hooks being requested. According to the note at the beginning of the section, they should be nominated at least five days in advance to give time for the normal review processes to work. Also, this is a request: DYK people are usually willing to do their best, but it is never a guarantee, and certainly not a right to be asserted.

One extreme example is currently on the main page. Template:Did you know nominations/Achille Pierre Deffontaines was nominated on August 24, less than 48 hours before its 100-year anniversary. It did pass the following day, but the nominator, Dumelow, then took the highly irregular step of inserting his or her own hook into a queue. The nomination wasn't closed properly, and I'm not about to close it myself, as this would put my name on it as the promoter and I didn't promote it. Dumelow, the instructions on how to close promoted nominations is at T:TDYK#How to promote an accepted hook; you'll need to do the actions in the third bullet. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I, who have been semi-uninvolved these days, am taken aback by the progress of the above hook to the main page. What BlueMoonset terms "...the highly irregular step..."
  • Nominated by a sysop on August 24
  • Reviewed by an editor on August 25
  • On Aug 25, another editor requested an Admin to move it directly into a Queue.
  • On Aug 25, an Admin moved it into the special holding area for August 26, where it still is since the template was not closed.
  • On Aug 26, the nominator moved his own nomination directly into a Queue himself, bypassing any Prep area, and moving what had been in the Queue slot back into a Prep area.
Uh...those with special privileges...
  • Aside from that, given the spirited debates that have happened on this talk page over the last few months, going by the "...five days in advance..." rule is not a bad idea. There have always been exceptions to that, but maybe there should now be a moratorium on exceptions. Where do you draw the line? Enough approved nominations have been questioned and some yanked from both Queues and Prep areas, that a little extra time is good for extra eyes to catch things. — Maile (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • What is the purpose of DYK? Is it to provide links to articles readers might find interesting (something topical, say, like a centenary)? Or is it to provide a tasks to keep procedure wonks happy and woe betide anyone with a special reuse that doesn't fit with the policy wonkery? Too much these days, I fell it's the latter, and DYK has lost what used to make it beautiful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, this instance could be equated with if someone with admin privileges promoted their own FLC, FAC or GAC nominations. Is it allowable in those processes for a nominator to promote their own nomination for any reason? — Maile (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
"...and DYK has lost what used to make it beautiful". I just had a few days off; I'm back now. Belle (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, Belle, and I'm starting to remember the reason I've stayed away. — Maile (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Is it my perfume? It's "Repulse" by Channel 5. The tag line says it will attract men like flies [peels back price label] round sh...what?! Belle (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
It isn't you at all. Something else. — Maile (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I have half a dozen FAs and multiple GAs to my name, and neither have the convoluted process or long lists of arbitrary rules that DYK does because both are about the quality of the article rather than the process itself. And neither promotion mechanism requires admin tools, so the comparison doesn't hold water. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
There are complaints if anything that isn't just so gets through to the main page from DYK and complaints from the nominators if their nomination isn't treated just how they want it treated; suggest which rules to cut if you think they are unhelpful ([Belle steps into time machine. Bzt. Steps out in two weeks time] "Wow, it's exactly the same!") Belle (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Now a self promotion? I thought it was still permitted, but advised against... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This all started here
This seemed like a well done article (I improved the references, citations and content myself), well referenced,and with a really good hook that was tied to the centenary of the general's death.
En passant, I would note that the articles' creator has been working on this articlce since March in his sandbox. So the "emergency" was seemingly self created.
I only asked for an Admmin to look at the article because of a concern that the tick wouldn't be noticed, and those in a position to do something might not be aware of the time 'necessity' involved.
Just so we are clear, I did not tell anyone what to do next. It was a mere request. 7&6=thirteen () 17:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There was no intention to infer you did anything incorrect or improper. — Maile (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Glad to hear that. I don't even want an implication to stand. Nor am I taking any position on the propriety of anyone's actions, other than to say that the emergency might have been avoided with better planning, but it is a good article with a good hook. In that sense, all is well that ends well. 7&6=thirteen () 18:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Good thing you mentioned here, so I could clarify. — Maile (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Come on guys this is ridiculous. I wrote an article (note I started this on 24 August, per the edit history of the article page and not in March as stated above) that I feel is well referenced, informative and improves the project. I then thought it would be nice, in the light of the upcoming centenary of the man's death, to have it on the main page on that day (which I think is probably appreciated by our readers). I asked for a review of the hook in order to meet this date, this was then kindly done by a third party (User:Jakec). I then asked on this page for an admin to transfer it to the appropriate queue. Unfortunately it appeared all the admins were busy (which is understandable), though User:TonyTheTiger was sympathetic but, like myself, had not promoted any hooks in the new style. With the time running out I placed the hook into the queue myself, the hook having been previously approved this appeared an uncontroversial step. Note that your rules as listed just state "finalized hook sets are moved here from "prep" by an administrator, where they wait for their Main Page appearance ... The admin moving the hooks to the live template may edit or reject any hook at their discretion." with nothing about promoting your own hook. Though I would, of course, usually leave this to someone uninvolved in this case time was of the essence. I have now closed the nomination thread in accordance with your link, User:BlueMoonset (thankyou, I struggled to find it earlier for some reason, though it was in an obvious place).
You have to ask yourself what harm came to the project because of my actions here? An informative and (I hope) interesting article was placed onto the main page at a significant anniversary for the subject. At the end of the day what do you think is more important, adhering to some unwritten rules that no-one outside this corner of the wiki knows about or actually improving the encyclopaedia for our reader? If it is the former then I am very sad for the direction this project has taken in the eight years since I started editing, the bureaucrats and policy wonks truly have wom. No wonder we are losing productive, long standing editors and not attracting any new blood.
If you'll excuse me I have wasted enough time here already - I'll be getting back to, you know, writing and improving this encyclopaedia. Please feel free to carry on with arguing over procedures, I don't know if I will bother nominating any more articles here in the future - Dumelow (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I was wrong about the article being in Dumelow's sand box. I confabulated the memory, having confused it with User:Dumelow/List of French generals who died during the First World War I apologize for my misstatement of fact. I am with him as to the worth of the article and the DYK, and only tried to work in concert with him and expedite its processing in DYK. 7&6=thirteen () 20:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts on Great Britain at the 2016 Summer Olympics[edit]

Evening Ladies and Gents; as a long time (albeit intermittent) contributor to DYK I'd like to get a few opinions from fellow veterans before nominating an article I've recently created as I imagine there could be those who won't like it. The article in question is Great Britain at the 2016 Summer Olympics. In theory it meets (or soon will) all the length, date, and citation (assuming I've not screwed up) rules but is clearly a work in progress and will not have a chance of being "complete" for at least 2 years (see Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics for what I hope it would eventually become). To my mind it is exactly the kind of article that would encourage new editors, it will need a lot of work after all, which is nominally one of our aims; it would also have a half decent hook along the lines of "...that Great Britain were one of the first three nations to qualify athletes for the 2016 Summer Olympics?"; but how would people feel about having such an unfinished article featured on the main page? Honest comments please, I promise insist hope I won't be upset. Cheers - Basement12 (T.C) 23:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The whole Wikipedia is a work in progress. If it helps encourage new editors, then that would be great. Siomeone has already created its Australian counterpart I see. Oh wait, that was you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Again 4 full prep areas and 0 filled queues.[edit]

I am about to go to bed, but there are about 5 hours until the next would-be update. All the prep areas are full and all the queues are empty. Someone needs to get to updating this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Could an admin please fix the easter egg link in the lead hook for queue 3 (Church of All Saints (Sutton Courtenay)) or pull it? I had no idea what article the hook or the picture were directing me towards. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Easter egg links are becoming more de rigeur these days, I think there's a push to get the reader interested, easter egg hook irregardless. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree. At least it's an attempt to make some very dull plain English hooks enticing. The answer to "I had no idea what article the hook or the picture were directing me towards" is kind of the point, click on it to discover! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You assume that the user is on a device that makes clicking off the main page simple and convenient. From my experience, this is unlikely to be the case for smartphone or tablet users. Throw in the lack of a good wireless or 3G connection and it's easy to see how a user could get annoyed if they didn't get what they were expecting. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence of that at all besides your complaint because you are aware we tend to shy away from Easter egg links. The DYK section of the main page should be allowed a little latitude in this regard as one of its intentions is to hook readers, and giving them bland blurbs will not do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
There was an ALT1 hook proposed for the nomination that used the church name and was as interesting; the reason given for the easter egg was brevity, but the difference was only 13 characters—113 vs. 100, ignoring the "(pictured)". BlueMoonset (talk) 00:26, 28 August 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 #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Two nomination toolbox tools blocked by WMF[edit]

The "dab links" and "external links" check tools in the nomination template have been shut down. As, apparently, has anything else that is part of Dispenser's tools. Please see Village Pump "Letter Petitioning WMF" section for discussion details. — Maile (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Special request for Sept 7[edit]

I noticed Template:Did you know nominations/Fanning Raid was posted on August 27, both under Aug 26 and under the special holding area for September 7. It is unreviewed, with no note about the request. I took it out of the Sept 7 listing. However, in pulling up the article, this event happened exactly 100 years ago on September 7 1914, so it would seem appropriate to run it that date if it gets reviewed in time. — Maile (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Pull from queue needed, copyvio[edit]

Sarah Pucill, now in Queue 6, needs to be pulled: it contains material copied verbatim from the subject's website, a copyrighted source, with no evidence of permission or even citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Request involving TAFI articles[edit]

The point of the Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement Wikiproject is to collaboratively edit Wikipedia articles (often stubby and often vital), and bring them up to an impressive standard. The project has only really gotten off the ground in the past couple of weeks so it is likely many of these articles will be nominated at DYK. It is for this reason we wanted to make the request now.

Essentially we want a small bracket after any TAFI article that lets users know where the article's improvement came from, and hopefully be inspired to come join our project. The current nominee is Solar activity, so if the request was granted the result would look like this: @NickPenguin: @Evad37: --Coin945 (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)