Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 501: Line 501:
:::(ec, re Casliber) It's quite difficult to measure objectively "how much text is referenced", since it's not always clear how much of the preceding text is "covered" by an inline reference. I don't think this sort of thing would be feasible. For what it's worth, I'm not sure how much the 2x expansion for BLP thing is even done here, I have never paid much attention to it and as far as I can remember it was adopted hastily like some of the stuff going on now. Personally I'm not a fan of it, because I think it makes the scope of DYK more ill-defined (as Gato suggests above). <b class="IPA">[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]) 03:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::(ec, re Casliber) It's quite difficult to measure objectively "how much text is referenced", since it's not always clear how much of the preceding text is "covered" by an inline reference. I don't think this sort of thing would be feasible. For what it's worth, I'm not sure how much the 2x expansion for BLP thing is even done here, I have never paid much attention to it and as far as I can remember it was adopted hastily like some of the stuff going on now. Personally I'm not a fan of it, because I think it makes the scope of DYK more ill-defined (as Gato suggests above). <b class="IPA">[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]) 03:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::All I ever hear is "no we can't do that" or "no we don't want to do that", or comments along the lines of "go away", we don't like you and your ideas. Calling Malleus stupid was not nice - he brings up a very valid point that really should be addressed. Accusing me of wanting to collect shiny trinkets is also not nice. Listen to Cas - he has a good idea. Lots of good ideas get shot down here, and it's really really discouraging to content editors who don't just churn out new pages but instead work to expand badly written unsourced pages. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 03:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:08, 4 September 2011

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut


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

2011 DYK reform proposals

Numerous threads moved to the Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals subpage:

N.B. This list and the subpage are currently incomplete and other threads have been archived by the bot to the main archives.

Lontar Project and DYK

As noted on my talk page, I have been chosen by Wikimedia Indonesia to help with collaboration between Wikimedia and the Lontar Foundation (which focuses on Indonesian culture and literature). One of the things this entitles is helping the Lontar Foundation staff learn to write for the English-language Wikipedia, including but not limited to copyright issues, English-Wiki MOS, language, and referencing standards (all of which are stricter here than on the Indonesian Wikipedia). If I were to give an assignment for them to get an article promoted in DYK, are there any things I should do beforehand? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Crisco, and congrats to the foundation for getting such a helpful, competent person to help them. Maybe some of Wikipedia's help-pages for teachers with classes editing Wikipedia would be relevant to what you want? It would be helpful if you would look over new articles to exert some quality control before they get nominated. You could catch basic errors before DYK reviewers tackle them and likely prevent some cranky reviews hurting feelings among the novices. Sharktopus talk 18:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sharktopus, I'll take a look at the help pages. I will also discuss this with my go-between at WMF Indonesia. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I was wondering if DYK would have any specific terms / conditions, considering how 90% of the psychology projects didn't pass last month. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AMBASSADOR will have some very helpful basic-editing materials for you. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

I have just removed Tadeusz Szeligowski from queue, can someone work out how to re-add it to T:TDYK? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
T:TDYK#How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worrying about Americanism and colloquialism

This recent addition gives me pause: DYK "... that "Little Luke"'s Ponzi scheme may lead to the "death penalty" for Miami?"

  1. Little Luke is a nickname for Nevin Shapiro, and not a widely known nickname at that
  2. "Death penalty" is a colloquialism and not the formal name of the NCAA sanctions
  3. "Miami" should be University of Miami, and not the city.
  4. The combination of all these together makes for a really puzzling headline for not just those outside the US, but for folks who don't follow American college sports.

As someone who has edited the Univ of Miami scandal page a lot, and had to help normalize that article to make it readable, I fear this DYK item is just too insider. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I follow CFB and I have to say that even I didn't know what this hook was talking about at first read. That is not necessarily a bad thing but this has the feel more of an April Fool's Day hook which I doubt anyone would want to save this for. I would recommend axing the nickname and writing out the University of Miami. It would be good to leave in the "death penalty" line, provided it is linked to an appropriate article that explains the term, as a catchy angle. AgneCheese/Wine 16:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My feelings are that I am a little uneasy with this hook being on the mainpage. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an American, and I don't follow college sports at all (except to know when I need to avoid certain parts of town because of the traffic). I would have no clue what that hook is talking about. LadyofShalott 22:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated that. I mentioned in my nomination that I though the hook was a little rough, but could be polished into something pretty interesting, but the reviewer liked the hook as it was, so that's the way it went. FYI, all the terms were linked appropriately: "Little Luke" to Nevin Shapiro, Ponzi scheme to Ponzi scheme, "death penalty" to death penalty (NCAA) (not the official name, but the most-widely used term for it), and Miami to 2011 University of Miami athletics scandal. cmadler (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I messed up a DYK nomination

I created the nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Bomb Pop, but it says 5x expanded by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]]). I tried fixing it, but I am unable to. I will add it to the DYK nominations page when this issue is fixed. Joe Chill (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on the nomination's talk page explaining what went wrong. For future reference, when these sort of errors happen the easiest way to fix them is just to click "Back" on your browser, fill out the template again (most of these errors happen because something was left blank in the template) and save again. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so no-one uploads...

I have asked the next four images in the four prep areas be protected there. They are pretty prompt so should be done pretty quickly. If someone can do preps to queue. I feel a bit COI uploading a prep area with my own hook in it..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update - all on commons are protected there now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3

Would it be possible for someone to promote prep 3 first? It doesn't seem to have shuffled to the front, and it has a hook meant for the 30th. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, which hook is meant for August 30? --Orlady (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Ballad of Salah hook. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Hägglund

Interesting article, but I thought DYK was trying to raise the bar and makes its articles better. So, I have to ask, how did this one make DYK, much less the lead? The refs aren't remotely formatted properly. What's up? PumpkinSky talk 11:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reference formatting styles, and this one is acceptable. Yes, the article is too short for a lead, IMO, but the hook is well above average, +young female image ..  :). Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The format is not acceptable, no retrieve dates, no publisher, no language parameter, etc. PumpkinSky talk 12:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them have the work; MS filled in another, online ref. Some reviewers don't consider access dates a valid reason to hold a nomination back. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[EC] DYK does not require perfect references, and most definitely does not insist on one particular style. The only firm requirement related to citation format is "no bare URLs." --Orlady (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
General question: I thought accessdate is needed only if there is no real date/year available? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For Gbooks they aren't, but for a web-based reference they are preferable. They allow us to use something like this to recover the source in question. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the page goes down, I mean. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I see, they do "go down". Two websites I frequently use changed design, Deutscher Musikrat and mica (music information center austria), I keep repairing broken links there. - And yes, I add publisher and language (below). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not just the dates, it should have publisher and language if not English too.PumpkinSky talk 12:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The work in many cases would qualify. If, for example, I were to quote Kompas, I wouldn't want to have to write {{cite news|url=http://www.kompas.com/foo|title=Foo|trans_title=English foo|language=Indonesian|work=Kompas|publisher=Kompas Gramedia Group|date=1 January 2001|accessdate=29 August 2011}} Having Kompas Gramedia group in this case would seem overdone. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, but certain minimal info should be present and this article's refs don't meet that, so if DYK wants to continue to be known in this manner, you guys have at it.PumpkinSky talk 14:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see a problem. Even before this complaint was raised, it looks like the references all at least had "work" and a date listed. Sure, it's not the full bibliographic citation (also having the author would be preferable), but it's enough to find the reference. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a slight problem with the hook, as other sources contradict the claim that Hagglund was first in the world. We do not have an article for her yet, but Barbara Mandell was a news reader on ITN from 1955 to early 1956: [1]. Cmprince (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least presently, the article doesn't say anything about "first in the world", just about "first in Sweden." Either the info should be added back into the article (if it can be verified) or the hook should be removed. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image protection requested at Commons

FYI to admins: I've asked for protection for the 4 images currently in the prep area. --Orlady (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queues 5,6

A contemporary setting is a setting, not a genre: suggest that despite the fact that the majority of submitted films are set in contemporary times, the Academy Award for Best Costume Design has only been awarded to films with such a setting twice since 1967? Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Socha (Queue 6). Is there any reason for recording the county of birth of this actor? It is not usual practice in UK reporting outside of regional papers from the county in question. There is no suggestion in the article that he ever performed in the county other than in school. If we are reporting the filming of his scenes, it is probably superfluous to define him as an actor as well. If he was not responsible for all seven injuries, is it true to say that he injured himself, rather than that he was injured? Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erementia (Q6). There is no suggestion at MOS:DATE that the word century should be capitalised in such contexts. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected all. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grateful thanks to Kevin McE for changes and suggestions that improved many hooks in our current preps and queues. I am especially grateful because Hurricane Irene, despite having disappointed so many predictions, knocked out power and quite a bit more to the small summer town where I was visiting. Home again at last, so glad to be clean and warm and dry and looking at a big computer in a lit room. Sharktopus talk 02:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queries

if ive reviewed 2 noms can i save one credit for my next nom? or at least per a pre-set deadline?Lihaas (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, whenever you nominate an article you should review an article at that time. It's not very difficult, it shouldn't be a big deal. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be a big deal to do a review, but I think the question was, is there a rule at DYK about when to do a review. I often do reviews when I have time and then "use" them when I finally get enough time to make a DYK. I have done more reviews "on spec" than I ever cashed in, so DYK is the better for letting people do that. Sharktopus talk 01:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I just keep reviewing and use my most recent review for my nomination. By my count there must be 50 reviews that I've never used, and probably won't. I know some people keep reviews for months, and they have never had people complain. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thx.
I suppose for the regulars know one is going to query a review. Im currently a semi-reg here but i think ill be upping the ante soon.Lihaas (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading prep areas to queues

Hi all, I'd do this myself but have a hook in prep area 3 - can another admin please upload? I'll drop a note at WP:AN too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admins: 5 empty queues, 4 full preps ...

... and a partridge in a pear tree to the kind admin who mops preps into queues! Sharktopus talk 01:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Now where's my partridge? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loading preps and checking some older hook/articles

I've loaded up prep 3 and a bit of prep 4 - there are some older hooks which I guess should either be re-reviewed, improved or discarded. Anyone else is free to get stuck in as I am going to do some article work for a bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship in DYK article

I was reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of James Craig Anderson and I noticed that the article has the words nigger and fuck written as n***** and f*** respectively. The words are in direct quotes. Should we apply WP:NOTCENSORED and write the full word, or leave the words censored? Thanks. (I'm asking here as more people watch this page, and I couldn't find the proper noticeboard) Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source spells it with ****, so it should remain that way. The censorship originates elsewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but with different logic. Since its a quote it should say as is. (at most write a "sic" beside it if you want). Outisde quotes i dont see why not to write it out unless someone challenges its meaning and can prove altenratives.Lihaas (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Community consensus brazenly disregarded

I see no checklists in use, which is a blatant breach of the "checklist" RfC consensus. It is reasonable to conclude that DYK promotions are not legitimate without the implementation of a checklist. I'm afraid that WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't hold any water—people had the chance to declare that, and did, but the !vote was some three-quarters in favour.

If DYK participants don't want to use a review checklist, they will need to launch another RfC to countermand the decision of the first one. Tony (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not being "brazenly disregarded" Tony, the reason no checklist is currently being used is because I suggested we delay its implementation for a week or two, in this thread. Personally I think we could probably leave it for another week or so before trying one out because I have neither the time nor the energy to participate much ATM, but if others want to push ahead with it I won't stand in the way. Gatoclass (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that I don't have much confidence in the delaying tactics? Tony (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps for the same reason I don't; there's no will to put DYK on a proper footing that might go some way towards justifying its main page presence. Malleus Fatuorum 03:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of the problem with DYK. If nothing's done (which will probably happen), then we'll see the problems we've always seen. If everything is implemented the detractors want, it' will be impossible to use and bureaucratized to death. Only one solution for all this. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either the present DYK slot is relabelled something like "Here's a few new articles that need some help", or to match what it says on the tin it truly becomes reader-oriented. But we all know that DYK will change nothing until it's forced to, on pain of death. Malleus Fatuorum 03:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not it's a good sign would depend on why they've stopped commenting. Discussions elsewhere would lead me to believe it's not because they feel DYK is now well on the right track. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(out) I asked people at this page over and over again for feedback concerning various aspects of how the template should be designed; I did this because, for some silly reason, I actually cared about making a template that would be useful to people. I usually got very little response. It seems everyone wants change to happen but few people want to lift a finger to help make it happen, or to even state clearly the details of how it should be done. Since people have taken their time giving me the feedback I asked for regarding various aspects of the template, I ended up taking my time making the template. Once you guys actually decide what you want the template to look like, I can make sure it's added to nominations. The options are all clearly spelled out for you (see [2], [3]). Or, if you guys can't make a decision about what the format of the template should be, you can always go ahead and open a new discussion or RfC regarding whether a review checklist template is needed in the nomination page at all (as opposed to a review checklist stored in the reviewing guidelines elsewhere, like what's done with WP:WIAFA; see proposal here). To be honest, I'm tired of the crap I've been getting from some people when I volunteer my free time to work on these issues, so I'm not going to go off and make some decision like this by myself just to let people give me more crap. I'm not putting any of this stuff into the nomination process until the community has made a decision on it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most people here are grateful for your work and sorry for the complaints aimed at you as a result of your work. Some people will not reply to your requests for feedback no matter how long you wait. How about a deadline, just a few days more, during which anybody who wants to advise you should do so? Sharktopus talk 04:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. Rjanag, you have done fantastic work (pretty much all on your own) and it is working like a charm. Don't worry about the criticism, it is impossible to please everyone. Regarding the checklist, I think one of your horizontal ones would work best. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate - I suggested we delay implementation of the checklist because (a) there were a bunch of other changes made to the DYK nom process that had created a lot of confusion, which I felt needed some time to sort out, and (b) because I felt we could all use a break from the often acrimonious discussion that had gone on for a month or two prior. Things are going more smoothly at T:TDYK right now, so (a) has diminished as an issue. With regards to (b) I am still personally committed to the notion of at least trying out Rjanag's checklist(s), it's just a matter of the DYK community deciding when is the best time to do so. Gatoclass (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please copy-edit Haugtussa (song cycle)

I reviewed the article Haugtussa (song cycle) and think you still feel a lot that it is translated. I am not the right one, English-wise, to change that and hope for a volunteer or two ... for a good subject. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a whack. Have a look. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! You should be a co-author, imo, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting quid pro quo

My article Nail Men was reviewed and promoted to prep before I did my quid pro quo review (I wasn't going to do it last night, I had been up for 26 hours and it would not have been responsible). I have now reviewed Barry Locke and am reporting it here in lieu of breaking into the closed template to add it there. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Yngvadottir. I continue to be delighted and impressed by the articles you bring to DYK – Nail Men, Architecture of the Night, and so many more that really improved the encyclopedia. I need to get back to writing more, arguing less. Sharktopus talk 21:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can report a review the same way you'd make any normal comment during the nomination process (just by saying "Hey, I reviewed X"). It's not necessary to do it using the template; that template is just there to make it more convenient to add a review at the same time you nominate, if it happens that you've already done the review by then. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, Rjanag, but the nomination was closed already. I think Yngvadottir could have put it on the nomination's talk page, which is why we made it its own template page anyways. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake; I didn't read the OP carefully. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I cause problems by reviewing after I nominate; in most cases the 5-day deadline means I don't have time to review an article first, I'm too busy fitting building my own article or expansion around the chaos of my off-wiki life '-) (And as I said, it would not have been responsible for me to review someone's article before getting some sleep.) I actually thought of using the nom. template's talkpage, but I wanted to be up-front and above-board about it, since it is a requirement. My fault, sorry, carry on :-) (And @ Sharktopus, thanks, eek. But Architecture of the Night took too damned long to write, so it was Jan Buijs actually featured in that DYK '-) ) Yngvadottir (talk) 06:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, imo. Thanks to this discussion I now know where to put things that happen after the nom discussion was closed: on the nom's talk page! I was not aware of that, thanks for pointing it out, Rjanag. It's really great to see the complete process documented, thanks to you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nail Man hook

As said before, Nail Men was promoted fast, now in q5. I saw the hook only now and think it's good but could be better.

  • ... that people in Berlin raised over a million gold marks for charity in World War I by hammering nails into a wooden statue of Hindenburg 12 metres (42 feet) high?
"Nail Men" seems too precious a term to be hidden as "wooden statue", even if the text describes it to certain extent. Also World War I without a link or separator made me see "I" as in "I see". This is invitation to the hook specialists. My humble approach:

Template:Did you know nominations/Vigneshwara Temple, Ozar

This article is requested for tomorrow. Can someone please take a look? There are 2 references. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss...

… to come up with a hook for Numbers (software). Any suggestions? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dolores Alexander (Q1)

I would contend that the verb "co-open" is not well established in the language. I don't think anyone imagines every role in a restaurant to be undertaken by one person, so simply saying that she opened a restaurant would be sufficient. If not, "opened with Jill Ward" should avoid the neologism. Kevin McE (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. neologism avoided. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John E Carroll (P4)

The claim that this man was the first to carry the nickname is based on one paragraph in a 35 paragraph story about Dustin Pedroia in a regional magazine. The sports journalist, one Tommy Craggs, is, I don't doubt, well qualified in his field, but is not a lexicographer, and the claim is one of many subjective comments in the article that are scarcely authoritative. Would we be willing to describe the politics of California as wackadoodle, or to attribute "an endless capacity for cultivating a sense of victimhood" as a characteristic of athletes, on the basis of such content in this article? Kevin McE (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's light-hearted and qualified with a "probably"...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably = more likely than not, more than 50% likelihood of being true; is this really sufficient evidence for a "probably"? Light hearted is no excuse for inaccuracy. Kevin McE (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "may have been". Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turn to queue 3 for the full story.

"... that Katy Perry's song "Circle the Drain" is reportedly about her former relationship with Travie McCoy?". Are we doing gossip in DYK now? Yomanganitalk 12:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that when singing "Circle the Drain" in a 2011 concert, Katy Perry was dressed in a catsuit and the stage was decorated with meat?
Better? Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but unfortunately the tabloid rumour version has made it onto the main page. Yomanganitalk 09:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An admin could still change it there, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Materialscientist (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bacon (Prep 4)

HMS Richard Bacon in prep 4 has a hook and an alt. I'm not sure from looking at its DYK page what was supposed to be promoted. Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Richard Bacon. SL93 (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no preference indicated, so I chose the hookier of the two. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are TWO hooks for Richard Bacon on prep4 now. Pick one, please. --174.89.158.199 (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A big ask

I've just nominated an article that would be good to run on 4 September, the first anniversary of the first Christchurch earthquake. I know, I'm cutting it really fine. But it's four months of solid work, so it would be nice if somebody could swiftly review it. There isn't much work in reviewing it, as the prose size of this list article is quite short (under 3000 bytes). A big ask - I know... Schwede66 05:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Support the running on 4 September. An anniversary is significant, a lot of work has been put into this list. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

prep 4

See above. I think it is OK as it says "may have been" and that's all that is claimed. Yomanganitalk 14:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology Class

Ok. First let me say I'm sorry for any headaches my students caused anyone this summer. I am planning to have my students contribute to psych-stubs again this semester. They mainly pick awful stubs and make them slightly less awful. Some students manage to elevate stubs significantly. I use the DYK guidelines as a goal for my students because they are achievable (even fro freshmen). As such I imagine some will want to submit their articles for DYK at some point. It'll still be a couple of months before they get to the point where they might be submitting, and I have made it a requirement that articles are copy-edited by other class members before any sort of nomination. Also, I will try to police them and when they nominate an article that clearly fails to meet DYK criteria I'll go ahead and review it with a fail (although I think it'd be problematic for me to pass articles). You can view details of the actual assignment on WP:SUP (or directly). I think DYK is a great program and a clever way to both encourage new editors and develop new content so please feel free to advise me on ways that I can help. Thanks! --MTHarden (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the notice, and DYK is glad to have people who are interested in psychology. I think it would be a good idea for students to be required to keep an eye on the nomination and address any concerns raised, as it would give them experience with a peer review process, which they would have to deal with before being published in a reputable journal. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liza Dalby

Can someone please delete this nomination. There's a dispute on the talkpage, that honestly I don't understand, about the hook and in deference to others I wrote the hook in such a way that it's vague. In rewriting per the reviewer's request, I'm afraid we're opening it up to edit warring, and frankly I'm not interested in dealing with that. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations aren't deleted. If you don't want to continue the nomination, you can leave a comment there stating that you withdraw the nomination, and someone will archive it afterwards. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks, I'll do that. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed it (it says I rejected it, but I wouldn't be so harsh, that's the template talking). Yomanganitalk 00:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed this; I thought it meant you'd rejected the request. Thanks for rejecting the submission. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QRpedia

The Wikimedia UK event to which the nomination for QRpedia ({{Did you know nominations/QRpedia}} takes place at 10am BST (just under 9.5 hours from when I type). As I'm just off to bed, can anyone help make sure it gets actioned for then, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on main page talk

Talk:Main Page#DYK: community consensus disregarded. Nobody seems to have mentioned it here, probably because they didn't think anybody here would be interested. Yomanganitalk 00:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb Pops

Is it normal that an admin changed the hook for Bomb Pop without discussing it? SL93 (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed as a dumb marketing promo. Bull. SL93 (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a bit unusual for an item which has already been vetted as DYK to be suddenly changed to something which had not been vetted or mentioned by the process, especially in live mainspace. BusterD (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The admin also said that it was only celebrated once although the 5 event books above prove otherwise. SL93 (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It just so happens that whoever vetted the thing vetted it badly. Wells Enterprises issues a press release on one year, and one year only. The masses of websites and books picked up on the press release. One of the books lists June holidays like: Yell Fudge at the Cobras in North America Day, Hug Your Cat Day, Cheer Coach Day, National Gardening Exercise Day, Ball Point Pen Day, Name Your Poison Day, Crowded Nest Awareness Day, The Wicket World of Croquet Day, and even Leon Day. Leon Day is six months to Noel, Christmas. It's called "lets use Google to fill up our book." There is no evidence that it happened any more than once. None of these books provide squat for insight or references into the topic. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. You should have posted that before pissing me off. SL93 (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should have read the books that you claim to cite. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the books. I just didn't know about the yearly press release. You should not make accusations without proof. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without proof that the holiday existed in some sort of substantial way, even as just a giveaway to residents of LeMars, Indiana, you shouldn't have implied that it did exist in any greater way, let alone taken that assertion to DYK's nominations page. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the books were proof. You shouldn't change any DYK hooks without discussing it first. LeMars is in Iowa. SL93 (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admins have the right to change hooks without prior discussion or notification. However, in some cases another admin will disagree and revert the change (see below section). In those cases, there should be a discussion; if the first admin reverts it again, that would be wheelwarring, which is not allowed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with an administrator making any change intended to protect the pedia, but this seems like a weakness in the review process, doesn't it? If a hook is so inappropriate it could be pulled off the live mainpage by any admin, how did such a hook pass the vetting process? It sat in the queue for half a day before going live, without any comment, so why wasn't it caught there? BusterD (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is considered advertising is different for everyone. The admin who changed the hook is not a DYK regular, and as such would not have checked the queues. The reviewer did not see any problems nor did I (who brought it to prep). The admin who moved it from prep to queue probably did not either. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Richard Bacon

The DYK hook for HMS Richard Bacon is apparently deliberately misleading, making it sound like a man, as opposed to the boat named for him. Why? Is today the equivalent of April Fool's Day in some other country? -- Zanimum (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously designed to be misleading - otherwise there would be no objection to the adding of HMS. The purpose is to hook the reader and I guess that might be a successful ploy, but even if not, it isn't really going to do any harm, is it? It is italicised after all, so it does make a concession to the correct formatting (we don't italicise men's names). I think "World Wars" should be capitalised though as it refers to WWI and WW2 which are proper nouns rather than the concept of world wars in general. Yomanganitalk 02:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's good to see the capitalization changed. But not everyone is familiar with the conventions of italicizing boat names. Titanic is as famous as anything in this world, so something like that, the Lusitania, no prob. Or the Disney Dream, no prob, it's obvious the name of something. But when it's a human name, the first instinct is to go with the article being a human. Especially when there's no context. If I had never heard about the Titanic, but I read a hook saying it sank, it had 50 decks, it was featured in a movie, that would hint "gee, it must be a boat". Nothing here does. -- Zanimum (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A great hook that would be ruined by the inclusion of HMS. violet/riga [talk] 02:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be ruined? Because it would make sense? -- Zanimum (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes sense as is due to the italics. HMS would be redundant and ruin the hookiness of it; pretty much anything else that is usually italicized (book, album, film) would not make sense in that sentence, so a boat is implied. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be ruined because the whole point of the hook is the deliberate ambiguity. Far more people will have looked at the article because of the way it which it was written. violet/riga [talk] 15:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Preps

I think that the instructions for the promotion of preps should be clarified, as I have seen administrators sometimes promoting prep 1 when it is second or third in line. When we have articles set for a specific date or time, that can mess things up a bit. I have two suggestions:

  1. Clearer instructions for promoting preps, or better socialization of the exiting rules.
  2. Different names for the preps, which do not have an alpha-numeric order. For example, Wind Air, Earth, Fire, Water or something of the same ilk.

Any thoughts? Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's Air, Earth, Fire and Water. The suggestion is a good one. Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any harm in clearing up the instructions. I can see why changing the names of the preps might alleviate this concern, too, although I wonder if it might cause confusion? Given the small number of admins who are dealing with queues anyway, maybe an easier solution would be to just let them know. (Are we having similar problems at the queue level--i.e. admins populating queue 1 when the next queue up is queue 4 or something?) rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how changing the names would alleviate the problem and it would probably just create more confusion. There isn't actually any obligation for admins to take the first available prep. If there's a date-sensitive hook, it would probably make more sense to leave a note about it in the prep itself or at this page. Gatoclass (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gatoclass: renaming them would be unlikely to result in less confusion. Clearer rules is the answer. Yomanganitalk 02:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GrubHub Food Delivery & Pickup in prep 1

... that GrubHub Food Delivery & Pickup advertises its food delivery services as free, but has been sued for alledgedly charging a customer an extra dollar?
Perhaps? Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Good hook. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alt hook is also inappropriate. It gives undue emphasis to an unproven claim that the company is engaged in fraud. The referenced lawsuit was filed a couple weeks ago and has not yet been answered in court. It was filed by a single customer who, according to the source, "claims he was charged a dollar more for fettucini alfredo from Pompei Pizza." It would be grossly unfair to feature such an unproven allegation of fraud on the Main Page where it is based on one customer alleging he was overcharged by one dollar. Cbl62 (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummm ... "... that Grub Hub was named by Inc Magazine as one of the fastest growing private companies in America in 2010?";

"... that Grub Hub lets users search for the closest source of pad thai using GPS? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So famous software can never lead?

Reading over the rules, it appears that commercial software could never get the lead position in DYK. Screen shots of commercial software are always fair use, so that's that. Seems wrong. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is not a DYK rule. Fair use images aren't allowed anywhere on the main page.
Secondly, there is no rule saying that hooks about commercial software can't be in the DYK lead spot if they're illustrated with a picture that's freely available. (That is to say, not necessarily a picture of the software itself, but some other relevant picture if such a thing exists.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or notable open-source software... Although a screenshot would probably not be interesting. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Lavarnway (queue 3)

What on Earth are "tools of ignorance"? Kevin McE (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we actually having odd phrases introduced into articles simply so that they can be cited in a DYK hook now? This seems to be a strange journalistic reference to the simple fact that he is a catcher. Kevin McE (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checklists added into nomination template

I added the checklists to the nomination template so they are automatically placed into new nominations, starting now. They don't actually appear until a review starts (i.e., after someone "checks off" at least one item), which I figured would help make it easier to notice unreviewed noms.

For those of you following the discussion at home, I went with the signatures only version of the template (although if you're sharp, it's still actually possible to use the signatures + doodads version by simply signing off with {{subst:DYKY}} instead of ~~~).

To be honest, the recent discussion at Talk:Main Page#DYK: community consensus disregarded leaves me with the impression that "demand" for checklists is not as strong as some people think it is and it would be worthwhile to reconsider whether they're even needed. But since at least a vocal minority is insisting on them, here they are for now. I hope everyone's ready for another big pile of people complaining about how complicated DYK is. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first nom posted after that is Template:Did you know nominations/Coventry Cross (monument). I took the liberty of starting the review so you guys can have an example of how it should work. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm sure it will come in handy for some people, presumably the intention is not to make the use of the checklist template mandatory for reviewers? That is to say, presumably there will be no objections to reviewers removing the template from nominations if they wish approach the review in a different way? Whatever your opinion on the outcome and validity of the RFC vote (and the subsequent accusations of breaches of community consensus) with regard to the checklist the matter of any checklist template was clearly and explicitly excluded from the RFC proposals: The RfC does not cover issues that might need to be resolved if one or both of the current proposals gains consensus. These include whether: ... a template should be created to provide for the explicit checking off of the explicit requirements listed in the first proposal, below. Yomanganitalk 23:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I have never thought a single template should be mandatory (see e.g. User talk:Gatoclass#Back to the review checklist, where my suggestion was basically not to have a review template at all but just to put this in the editnotice) but I think I'm in the minority, and I have a bunch of people breathing down my neck wanting something to be automatically included, so that's what I did. It's up to everyone else to decide whether it should be mandatory. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Add one to your minority. Yomanganitalk 00:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, good luck getting any more feedback on this now that there's a new big, juicy, completely unconstructive fight going on at this page. I'm pretty much getting resigned to the fact that most people involved with this projectmany people seem more interested in playing with trolls than actually getting real changes made. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forget the grumpy troll; nobody at the Main Page wants to play today. The checklist looks fine, and should hopefully keep others off our collective backs. Good idea to keep it hidden until filled out. (BTW, a little bit of advertising, I have another discussion regarding improvement above) Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is article expansion considered an improvement as far as DYK is concerned?

My question is prompted by having watched for the umpteenth time the 1946 film version of Great Expectations, for which the plot section in the Wikipedia article had been tagged since December 2009 as being too long and/or detailed. I edited it to fit the 3–4 paragraph guideline for that type of article, so the disfiguring tag could reasonably be removed. But it raised the question in my mind; for older articles especially it may well be the case that they are best improved by reducing their size, not by increasing it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is because DYK is not about improvement, it's about new content. None of the DYK rules specify that articles have to be improved to be eligible. Articles that are improved without necessarily having been expanded are more relevant for WP:GAN. Likewise, DYK is mainly geared towards new and short articles; if someone wants to improve an older article, they're better off setting their sights on GAN or FAC (and yet the "Wikipedia-needs-improved-not-expanded" crowd is still not satisfied with having two article quality projects, and wants to turn DYK into one too). rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer is indeed simple, but it's inconsistent with the very clear statement on the DYK main page: "This serves as a way to thank editors who create new content, encourages editors to contribute to and improve articles". Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence right before that says "The DYK section gives publicity to newly created or expanded Wikipedia articles." Nothing about improvement. Expansion often involves improvement, and vice versa, but not necessarily; and the DYK main page doesn't ever say that the project aims to encourage every kind of article improvement there is. (For comparison: FA doesn't exist to encourage people to scripts to add, say, persondata to the bottom of biographies, but that's still article improvement; and I don't see anyone going to FA complaining that "I added persondata and improved the article, why can't I get an FA"). Essentially, it seems that you're saying that because DYK doesn't encourage the kind of improvement you just did (cleaning up a plot summary), it must not be encouraging any improvement at all. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may waffle as much as you like, but it's very clear that you're in denial. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To make it clearer for you, my point is that DYK is not about article improvement at all, and to claim that it is is at best disingenuous. Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that was what you were trying to claim, you could have said so ("Hey guys, the first paragraph of WP:DYK says DYK wants to encourage improvement, but I don't think it does"). That is not what you said in your first message here. Why don't you make up your mind what you actually are trying to say here before you come waste people's time. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you're clearly in denial, and are continuing to be abusive. Shame on you. Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Denial of what? rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That there are many unresolved problems with DYK, of which this is but one. Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please find one diff of me ever saying that I don't think there are unresolved problems on DYK. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saying expanding articles never improves them is just silly though. Yes, some articles are improved the opposite way, by cutting out a bunch of crap. DYK isn't applicable to every article on the site just like FA isn't. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly would be, but I didn't say that. I said that expansion =/= improvement, and Rjanag responded by saying that DYK wasn't about improvement anyway, despite what it clearly says on the main page. Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All this is hardly relevant to DYK 5x expansions. As any fule kno, the number of WP articles that would benefit from expansion massively exceeds the number that would benefit from trimming. Or do you think our work here is drawing to a close? Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Oy I very much take an exception to the claim that As any fule kno, the number of WP articles that would benefit from expansion massively exceeds the number that would benefit from trimming. Sure there is a buttload of articles ... most of them on very minor topics ... which could use expansion. But the number of "large" articles on very broad and significant topics which would benefit from the chainsaw approach is very large. So if you weight the relevant articles by their importance/relevance then Malleus is right. If you consider stubs on some minor celebrity or tv show character as equal in weight to an article on some fundamental concept in, say, economics, or history, or geography, then, yeah, sure, any fule kno, what every fule kno.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We must work on completely different wikiplanets. On my one we have thousands of significant topics that have stubs, starts, or no article at all. Take a look at Chinese art or Indian art, or Italian Renaissance sculpture (and no, there's nothing you can redirect it to). Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that I can agree with. It is slightly perverse, that in theory, you could go for a DYK for spinning off articles on subtopics but not for rendering the subtopic into a tasteful paragraph on the original article. But that sort of activity is also a bit hard to capture in a snappy hook, which, after all, is the feature that gives DYK its name. Choess (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So are you arguing that expansion = improvement? Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He is clearly not saying that, and no one in this discussion has said that. His message says "some articles can benefit from expansion"—that is a far cry from saying that expansion is always improvement and improvement is always expansion. You know this, and you don't need me to explain it to you; I know you're not as stupid as you're pretending to be, so I can only assume you're being deliberately dense to waste everyone's time. I suggest you stop putting words in people's mouths and stop insisting on misinterpreting simple statements. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does DYK consider a five times expansion to be an improvement worthy of main page exposure? Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. It considers five times expansion to be new content, not an improvement. Once again (how many times do I need to say the same thing before it gets through your skull?), "improvement" is not a requirement in any of the DYK criteria. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's clearly absurd. What's the logic of considering a five times expansion worthy of main page exposure but not a four times exposure, if that expansion had included a reduction in some parts of the article to improve its quality, as in the example I started with? A simple question for you: is DYK about article improvement or not? Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Five times is an arbitrary amount that was chosen years ago (long before I was here) and has become status quo by now. Lots of Wikipedia projects have arbitrary amounts like this (for instance, ITN has a [somewhat flexible] five-sentence, three-reference criterion).
In response to your second question: no, DYK is not about article improvement. This is the third time you've asked me to repeat myself; I hope it's enough. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The philosophical question is interesting, but is it particularly germane? My experience leads me to believe, first, that the number of articles in Wikipedia that are too long are vastly outnumbered by those that are too short, and second, that it's much more likely that a given editor will complete a 5x expansion of one that is too short than complete a 5x expansion that makes an article too long. Now, the related question of whether rewarding 5x expansion encourages plagiarism might be worth taking up, but I find it hard to believe that DYK is encouraging articles to become too long per se. Choess (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That might depend on whether you think that the purpose of DYK ought to be clarified. Is it, or is it not, about article improvement? If it is, is a 5 times expansion a proper measure of improvement? Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK is not and has never been about article improvement; it's about new content. You're picking one throwaway sentence (which is, FWIW, the only place on WP:DYK that even mentions "improvement" of articles) from a page that, to be honest, almost nobody even reads, and twisting its meaning (it doesn't even say "DYK is about article improvement", it says that showing new and expanded articles--what DYK is about--might encourage improvement, and it doesn't even word it in a way to make it sound like that's the main purpose of DYK). I doubt anyone else sees a problem here. If there is a big problem, a simple edit to that sentence will solve it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think Malleus brings up a good point. Why isn't DYK about improvement? I must have read the same page Malleus read, because stupidly I thought it was about improvement. If an editor improves an article, but it's too long for a fivefold expansion, or for whatever reason, it doesn't qualify for DYK, and it isn't worth working up to GA status, where's the incentive? If DYK is an incentive for new articles, and churns out a lot of new pages, shouldn't the project, at this point, start looking at giving incentives to articles that have been improved? Truthkeeper (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that expansion ≈ improvement, although the approximation has gotten worse than it was in the earlier days of Wikipedia. A 5x expansion will probably but not certainly represent an improvement. I think DYK should be a place to recognize improvement, rather than to create improvement through extensive reviewing as at FA/GA, but a corollary to that is I think it needs speedier mechanisms to recognize when DYK noms are not improved and simply remove them, rather than going through a long back-and-forth trying to fix everything that reaches the page. For myself, at least, I'd like to preserve the relatively speedy aspect of DYK (nominate and get a yes or no rather than see-sawing through a review for weeks) even at the expense of throwing out some relatively good but still subpar articles. Choess (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(some serious edit conflict here) DYK is not and has never been about article improvement; it's about new content. - yeah but perhaps that's the very essence of the problem. Think of it in terms of "the encyclopedia" as a whole. Does new content benefit the encyclopedia? Yes, if it's done well. Does it benefit more than the improvement of existing content of the encyclopedia? Mmmm, maybe, maybe not. Certainly the existence of big-topic articles which are of frankly embarrassing quality is not going to be counter balanced by having a series of "quality" articles on sub-sub-sub-sub topics. But the way we have it right now, is that the creation of "new content" (of quality which we can argue about) is very heavily subsidizes and incentivized, while there are no comparable inducements for article improvements (except from some hippy shit about how that problem will take care of itself because this is a "collaborative" problems, hence there really is no problems to begin with).

Why exactly is "new content" being privileged over "article improvement"? Cuz the first is easy (particularly if you can just copy/paste somebody's website into Wikipedia) and makes it look like "work is being done", while the latter is a pain in the ass (i.e. real work)?Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems like some people want DYK to do everything. I don't see why you think that just because DYK awards new content somehow Wikipedia is privileging new content over improvement. Don't forget that we have a slue of other projects (especially WP:FA and WP:FA) to reward and encourage improvement. Why exactly does DYK need to also focus on these things? And what makes you think DYK is in a better position than, e.g., TFA, to encourage improvement of "big articles". (To take one example: French Revolution and Science are two articles I've often seen used as examples of articles that are too "big" and complicated to attract much serious improvement. If the allure of a possible TFA has never gotten someone to take these articles under their wing and improve them, what makes you think the allure of a DYK bauble will do so?)rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So if DYK is not about article improvement then why is it explicitly mentioned as one of DYK's goals on this main page? Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I already responded to this point above (1:12, 4 September 2011). rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there must come a time when even you realise that you're talking bollocks? Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to your question again (02:00, 4 September 2011). Second time's the charm? (Probably not, given your unwillingness to even try to understand simple concepts.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm bailing out of this conversation after this - but I have news for you. Bringing a page to FA is hard work. It takes me months. Sometimes I don't want to spend months on the same page. I spend a lot of time improving pages, but I rarely create new pages, so I guess it's not really considered an improvement to the encyclopedia. And only new content gets recognized. Okay. Fine. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that, like I said above, it's not true that "only new content gets recognized". DYK is not the only project in the encyclopedia that gives out shiny awards, and not the only project in the encyclopedia that gives out main page exposure (I assume by "recognition" you mean one or both of those things). rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not talking about shiny awards, I'm talking about when editors wonder why the fuck they're spending so much for nothing when others are cheerfully copy/pasting their way through life. But as Yomangani wrote below, if it's not about improvement, which I have always thought it was since I started editing here, then DYK has lost its way. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) [The reason new content is privileged is] Cultural inertia, and the fact that "new content" is an easy metric to measure, while "article improvement" in the broadest sense is highly subjective and difficult to measure. Choess (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This - "As I said, you're clearly in denial, and are continuing to be abusive. Shame on you." is not a constructive statement or part of a serious question. Bollocks too. I consider it trolling and possible a violation of WP:NPA, which is not the first time Malleus has done so on this talk page. As for the issue, it is fairly useless to discuss since those new articles or expanded articles which do not improve the encyclopedia are often thrown out quickly, and DYKs mission statement clearly notes that it is for new content. If some expansions or improvements don't reach 5x, there are other venues for recognition. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have simply displayed your own dishonesty, but no surprise. Even if it your allegation were true that does not give your friends carte blanche to abuse me. The "he started it" argument surely even you can see is childish. Malleus Fatuorum 02:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For god's sake, could you quite frankly leave all of your collective vanity behind before you sit down and type this stuff and just focus on the point?! (shrinks back into the shadows) 94.8.98.105 (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If DYK isn't chiefly about article improvement then it has lost its way. Now, if anybody can come up with a non-subjective alternative to the fivefold expansion rule, I'm sure we are all ears.Yomanganitalk 01:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious suggestion is to abandon the fivefold expansion, as it makes no sense at all. Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. We are looking for some measure that the article has been improved in some way (despite what Rjanag says). A fivefold expansion is an arbitrary way of deciding on that but, as a starting point, it is better than nothing. Yomanganitalk 02:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You and Rjanag can't both be right. Malleus Fatuorum 02:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5x expansion is not a measure of deciding whether an article has been improved. It's just an arbitrary measure for deciding whether the article is mostly "new content". In its strictest sense, the 5x expansion criteria doesn't care about the quality of the new article (as long as it's not copyvio, plagiarism, or some other violation of core policies). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yomangani: I don't see how this is "losing its way", since as far as I can remember (since about October 2008, which is when I started here) DYK has been about new content and at that time WP:DYK even included wording specifically saying we wouldn't do quality assessments to gauge how much an article had "improved". As several other editors and I have pointed out above, there are plenty of other projects that focus entirely on article improvement; I don't see why some editors seem to think that every project should do so, and that any article that doesn't focus on article improvement like GA and FA do is somehow a waste of space. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A quality assessment isn't an improvement to the article, but that aside: what is the purpose of DYK if it isn't to improve the articles that pass through the process? When we ask the nominators to comply with the rules we are asking them to improve the article, as it passes through the review process surely we are hoping it will improve, when it hits the main page surely we want it to be edited and improved. If the purpose of DYK is to pass an article untouched to the main page where it will bask in the glory of its perfection for 8 hours while the nominator gets a shiny template and warm feeling then DYK is a worthless process. Yomanganitalk 02:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean a quality assessment is an improvement to an article. What I meant was, DYK didn't do quality assessments because DYK wasn't going to accept nominations of the form "This article is the same length as before but I made it a lot better". My point is, even back then, DYK didn't recognize quality improvements; it recognized content additions that happened to also meet some basic policies (no copyvio, etc.).
Regarding the expectation that noms comply with certain rules, that is more about making sure we don't feature copyvio, violations of core policies, etc., rather than out of a principled desire to make people improve their articles during the process. Sure, if an article is improved d uring the DYK process that's great; but it's not in of itself the main purpose of DYK. (If people think it should be, you're welcome to discuss that; but it isn't presently). The whole process is just a way of making sure the article complies with DYK rules. If an article already meets all the rules before it's nominated, it's possible to pass through DYK without any improvements being made.
This is not all to say that I don't think article improvement is a good thing. Of course it is. But it's not the be-all and end-all goal of DYK. There are plenty of other projects that focus mainly on article improvement. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is DYK for? If it is just a reward programme for editors then we are wasting a lot of effort. Yomanganitalk 02:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have in past discussions here linked (several times) archived threads arguing over this very issue. My short answer is: why can't DYK be for encouraging addition of new content, just as GA/FA are more about encouraging improvement of content? Maybe you and some other people think that's not as worthy a goal as GA/FA, but that's your own choice. (Personally I myself am not sure what DYK's main goal is--for instance, there are other things it does, such as showing readers new content, demonstrating that Wikipedia is still growing, and once upon a time wowing readers with interesting content--but this is at least one possibility.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Well, it seems like some people want DYK to do everything. , DYK is not the only project in the encyclopedia that gives out shiny awards, and not the only project in the encyclopedia that gives out main page exposure, and DYK showcases new/expanded articles, and doing so might encourage editors to improve articles (along with a bunch of other things listed in this same sentence). Nowhere on WP:DYK does it say the purpose of DYK is solely to promote article improvement. - yeah ok, but the problem is that the incentives to improve existing articles are slim or nonexistent while the incentives to "create new content" (sometimes of dubious quality) are very strong.

So what does give "main page exposure" (which, let's be honest here, for most editors is a much stronger incentive than some barnstar or FA check mark trinket that only a few other people will see). We have the "Today's featured article" (and picture) which is like the creme-de-la-creme and completely unattainable for most editors/articles. And then... we take a jump off a cliff to DYK, OTD and ITN. Not a single one of these rewards article improvement. The first one - as has been discussed - rewards "new content". The other two reward accidents of history/time. So I can perfectly understand why people who improve articles are pissed that their contributions are going unappreciated. I also do think - and I've said this elsewhere - that DYK is a bit of the wrong thing to focus the criticisms on (the criticism have been provoked by previous problems like plagiarisms etc.) OTD and ITN are much worse and serve no purpose other than just being "topical". So if I had my say I'd split the DYK institution into a "new content" and "most improved" sections and replace either ITN or OTD by one of these.

I am actually seriously wondering why ITN and OTD are not catching as much flak, as from at least the little bit I've looked at them, they seem to be much more worse culprits in terms of badly written/plagiarized/unsourced etc. Maybe it's because they don't end up getting as many views as DYKs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Two points. First of all, I have been hearing for a long time that main page exposure is the biggest motivator and everyone cares about that (or, alternatively, passing an RFA) than any other possible reward, and that's why the DYK slot should be given to better articles. A lot of people seem to just take that as a given. But do we know that the vast majority of editors really cares more about a 6-hour slot in a corner of the main page than about any other incentives? I know, speaking for myself only, that I rarely cared very much about the DYK main page slot when I used to submit articles; I did it mainly just because when I thought of a new topic that deserved an article (or a more in-depth article), DYK gave me a good personal goal. Anyway, all I'm saying is, I don't know if it's reasonable to always assume that the main page exposure is the only good motivator or that DYK offers stronger incentives for content creation than GA does for content improvement.
Secondly, I don't think it's true that FA is unattainable for most editors. Tons of editors have FAs, and I believe if someone is truly interested in improvement then s/he can get an FA, perhaps with the help of collaborators if there are things that make it difficult (for example, if the person is not a native speaker of English). (Granted, some topics are more difficult than others due to their breadth or complexity.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's reasonable to always assume that the main page exposure is the only good motivator or that DYK offers stronger incentives for content creation than GA does for content improvement - I'm not saying it's the only good motivator, though I do think that main page exposure is a stronger motivator than the standard slew of Wikipedia trinkets. If you get your article on DYK a thousand people or more will see it. If you improve an article up to GA or above, a dozen or so may see it, though you might get some accolades within the community. For editors who don't really care that much about within-Wiki recognition (which is probably the main pool here) the first one matters a lot more than the second.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about we just all agree that some people are motivated by some things and some people are motivated by others? Clearly you care more about main page exposure than, say, pats on the back from other Wikipedians; some editors are like you and some aren't. I seriously doubt we are ever going to have a reliable measure of what proportion of editors cares how much about what things, so I think discussing it any more than this is moot, and I think drastically restructuring a longstanding part of the main page based on our personal hunches about what a few thousand strangers might care about is not a good idea. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you to Malleus for raising the serious question "Is DYK a panacea for every single problem at Wikipedia?" I am shocked, SHOCKED, to realize that DYK's mission to encourage the creation of good new content does absolutely nothing to reward people for removing excess bad content. My impression is that GA does recognize content's being improved, which would surely include shrinking articles that need to be shrunk. But not every good contribution to Wikipedia gets recognized, except by people justifiably proud of the work they have done. My own most useful work at Wikipedia was not suitable for DYK, GA, or anything else. This did not make me want to eradicate any of the many different warm-heartedly collaborative communities working on projects that did not stop work to remark, "Oh wow, Sharktopus really improved the BLP Mehriban Aliyeva" or "Holy Toledo, Paederus dermatitis and Blister beetle dermatitis were a confused slumgullion until good ol' Sharktopus stepped in and put them in better shape." Sharktopus talk 02:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I hope DYK isn't completely decoupled from improvement of the encyclopedia. I think what's happening here is the old assumption from the early days of the encyclopedia that writing any new content about a subject that wasn't total nonsense was an improvement is proving less true. I don't think that DYK is necessarily encouraging over-expansion of particular articles, but I think there is a case to be made that generating new content is less important, as a form of article improvement, than it once was and we should re-think our incentive structure. But what criteria shall we use? And if we can't figure out any, is it really better for the encyclopedia to shut down DYK and leave GA/FA as our only avenues of recognition? Choess (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - it would be a good experiment to make DYK only for expansions for a test period. I think the plagiarism problems are less frequent with expansions too. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
VM: To start with, ITN and OTD don't pump through a tsunami of hooks (still about 20 a day), which virtually forbids proper checking and improvement to main-page standards. And they typically don't start with raw stubs or post-stubs, which in view of the next statement, really puts you up against a mountain. They may have their problems, but these are an order of magnitude less than those for DYK.
ITN and OTD don't pump through a tsunami of hooks (still about 20 a day), which virtually forbids proper checking and improvement to main-page standards - so? This is an empirical matter. And based on my own experience ITN and OTD are far worse than DYKs in that regard, whatever the process that generates each one of these actually is (and actually DYK has *some* review process, however imperfect it may be, ITN and OTD, really has none). The fact that they don't start with raw stubs - in light of the fact that there's so many crappy *long* articles on Wikipedia - is a minus, not a plus. ITN and OTD have far worse problems than DYK. It's just that nobody has paid that much attention to them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rjanag: "DYK is not about improvement"—that statement above is reason enough to close down DYK in its present form immediately.
Wizardman: "Saying expanding articles never improves them is just silly ...". Not "never", but "often": there's a tendency to pump up the word length of some DYKs by doing to the opposite of what writers are trained to do (be economical). This has been a problem ever since the × 5 rule. Tony (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, funny. ITN and OTD aren't about article improvement, either; for that matter, neither are WP:RFA, WP:ANI, and most other pages outside the main namespace. Guess it's time to shut them all down.
In all serious, though: how selfish do you people have to be to keep on insisting that every project on Wikipedia that doesn't focus on the one aspect of the encyclopedia you care most about, needs to be shut down or changed immediately? rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there may need to be another part of the main page to recognize certain content. I just created an article that was a redirect since September 21, 2007. There is most likely enough content out there to get it to DYK, but there is no interesting DYK hooks. I probably won't get any thanks for creating an article that has repeatedly been redirected to different articles since 2007. I would also like it if certain major WikiProjects rotated on the main page with content only related to those WikiProjects with different criteria. More contributions will be rewarded that way. Maybe DYK should have two groups - expansion and new articles. SL93 (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me this debate has largely been about semantics. DYK is about a certain kind of improvement, namely, adding new content to the encyclopedia. There is an assumption that the new content will be of an acceptable standard of course.

The reason DYK does not accept other kinds of improvement (for example, pruning) is because judging whether such edits represent an improvement or not is much more subjective and time-consuming. We don't have the manpower for making such assessments. Improvements of that sort go to GAN or FAC for assessment. Gatoclass (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's a radical suggestion. Appoint a directorate, as Sandy suggested when this round started. Any article that has never been at DYK and is not in FAC/FA or GAC/GA can be nominated. Nominations remain in the pool for one week. Every day, the directorate picks, say, 6 (perhaps 12) articles that they feel have the most engaging hooks and are neither plagiarized, copyright violations, based on unreliable sources, or negative/controversial BLPs and puts them on the main page. Articles which age out of the pool are ineligible for 1 month. Articles which are passed over for cause (plagiarism, etc.), as identified by the directorate or outside reviewers are ineligible for 3 months. (Times are arbitrary.) In essence, it's sort of a "content lottery"—if you write something that is catchy, appeals to the directorate, and doesn't contain any major sins against the encyclopedia, go directly to the front page for half a day. The clause about FA and GA is so articles that are being recognized by those processes don't crowd out the rest, but reserving some of the slots for them instead would also be in keeping with the spirit of the proposal. Discuss. 02:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC) typoed my signature Choess (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I don't think the point of these big dramafest threads is ever to actually bring about change...a lot of people will just vomit all their opinions onto here for a few hours and then things will go back to business as usual.
Regarding the specifics of your proposal.... How does this address "improvement" in particular? With no criteria (other than regular WP policies), what's to say there wouldn't be like a thousand noms--and what's to stop people from fussing when their article doesn't get picked when everything's entirely subjective? And most importantly (and related to my first question), why is this even necessary? It doesn't address "improvement" in a principled way and, unfortunately, looks to me like a solution in search of a problem. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a step back for a sec, we do 2x expansions for unreferenced BLPs, so what about some formula for inline referencing slabs of text? Say an article that goes from under 25% unreferenced to over 75%? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because DYK is about Wikipedia's newest content, not about Wikipedia's most recently improved articles. And we can't keep adding caveats to the existing rules regarding eligibility, it would make the process too complicated. Gatoclass (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So why is "improvement" one of the goals on the article page? Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not. I already explained this to you twice (02:00, 4 September 2011, 1:12, 4 September 2011). Try to wrap your brain around it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, re Casliber) It's quite difficult to measure objectively "how much text is referenced", since it's not always clear how much of the preceding text is "covered" by an inline reference. I don't think this sort of thing would be feasible. For what it's worth, I'm not sure how much the 2x expansion for BLP thing is even done here, I have never paid much attention to it and as far as I can remember it was adopted hastily like some of the stuff going on now. Personally I'm not a fan of it, because I think it makes the scope of DYK more ill-defined (as Gato suggests above). rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I ever hear is "no we can't do that" or "no we don't want to do that", or comments along the lines of "go away", we don't like you and your ideas. Calling Malleus stupid was not nice - he brings up a very valid point that really should be addressed. Accusing me of wanting to collect shiny trinkets is also not nice. Listen to Cas - he has a good idea. Lots of good ideas get shot down here, and it's really really discouraging to content editors who don't just churn out new pages but instead work to expand badly written unsourced pages. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=448326055"