Wikipedia talk:Did you know

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

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.

New rule proposal

It seems that there should be some sort of rule regarding commercial subjects. I have nominated books on their release dates, tv shows for their premier dates, movies for their premier dates and albums on their release dates at DYK. Each time there has been all kinds of confusion on what is appropriate. In most cases after timeconsuming debate, I have been able to convince people that if the hook is not promotional of the subject it is appropriate. Most recently, the hook did not run on the desired date due to this concern. Can I or someone else write a rule so that we can refer to it in the future?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the special occasion holding area is one of three Nominations subsections, I added a special occasion subsection to Wikipedia:Did you know.[1] The top of that page notes: "The DYK section publicizes new or expanded articles after an informal review. This publicity rewards editors for their contributions." The factors I listed in the special occasion subsection generally are based on that. The one reading "bringing additional publicity to the new or expanded article is more important than the additional publicity brought to the article subject" is meant to address your concern above. Obviously, the text can be modified. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That rule does not really address the issue that has concerned reviewers and will not lessen the time wasted arguing about timely non-promotional hooks on commercial subjects. The guidance that is needed is something about how timeliness of the date request is an important element of the date request section and in cases where the subject is commercial in nature the reviewer is suppose to guide against hooks that are promotional, but not just commercial hooks that are timely. The confusion that I repeatedly have to expend energy explaining to reviewers is that reviewers think a timely commercial hook is prima facia promotional even if it does not present content that promotes the commercial content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger - It may be that reviewers in the past focused on the hook itself since there were rules for promotional hooks but no rules by which to additionally deal with the special occasion date request. Now that there is something on the Wikipedia:Did you know page that addresses special occasion date requests, nominators should be able focus more on whether an admin should list an approved hook on the date requested rather than mixing that with the separate hook review performed under Wikipedia:Did you know#The hook. I added to the section to address your concerns.[2] -- Jreferee (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Both items 2 and 3 in this section are now more a point of confusion than anything else. WTF does "whether the editor's contribution merits additional reward" (item 2) have to do with evaluating a hook. What is the additional reward that is being considered. Is having a DYK on the main page considered a reward and having it on a special day an extra reward. I have never even heard this logic in a DYK review and I have been involved in over 1000 of them. Reward? That word needs to be struck from the rule. We don't promote hooks as a reward as far as I know. Item 3 is stated in a way that is likely to lead to more time consuming debate rather than give timesaving guidance. The whole addition is written as if to preserve the right to have muddling timewasting debate on the same issues over and over. What we need is a statement that we evaluate whether the hook is promotional of the subject. That is always what the debate is about.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Evaluating whether the hook is promotional of the subject is covered by "The hook should be neutral" listed under Wikipedia:Did you know#The hook. Whether an admin should list the neutral/non-promotional hook on the date requested is what the special occasion section addresses. If a business etc. is running an advertising campaign to coincide with their special event, it is in Wikipedia's interest to not have its Main Page be made part of that external advertising campaign through a timed non-promotional hook posting on the Main Page. I revised old factor two to read "whether the editor's contribution merits listing the hook on the special occasion date" and then removed it. The present factor two is for editors like yourself so that your special date request should ordinarily be granted. That editor's 'contribution merits additional reward' information was there as of your 19:38, 15 November 2013 post above, so what's with the above WTF comment four days later?[3] -- Jreferee (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You speak as if you feel that being neutral and non-promotional are the same thing. The problem is that inexperienced reviewers feel that if a hook mentions a commercial item it is promotional. Let's take as an example a very simple statement about a commercial item. Let's suppose a fictional song is going to be released commercially and the commercial version of the song is twelve minutes long. This is an extremely long single and a hook could say something like. "...that "song X" has a listed running time of 12 minutes and 22 seconds, making it the longest single Famous Records (or Famous Band) has ever distributed for airplay." That is an NPOV hook. It is an objective statement of fact. It does not even mention the fact that there is an impending release date for the single or a current ad campaign for its release. However, since the subject is a commercial product many reviewers would say this is promotional. Since it is not publicizing the impending release or current ad campaign it is not promotional (or at least the majority of my DYK reviewers have agreed on this type of subject that it is merely an intriguing fact about a record). Your statement above "If a business etc. is running an advertising campaign to coincide with their special event, it is in Wikipedia's interest to not have its Main Page be made part of that external advertising campaign through a timed non-promotional hook posting on the Main Page." is true but the majority of DYK reviewers in my experience have felt a hook like the one above is not making the main page "part of that external advertising campaign", which is where the rub is here. It took you four days to respond to this discussion, what is wrong with me taking four days to correct you?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

T - I'm sorry it took me four days to respond to the discussion. (Feel free to ping me in the future.) Listing on the special occasion date is a way to get additional click throughs from the Main Page to the article so that more people read the article (and people reading what Wikipedia publishes is the point of writing an encyclopedia). Editors such as yourself should not be having the problems you mentioned getting your special occasion hook on the Main Page since your goal is to get more people to read the nominated article. I thought reviewing "whether the editor's contribution merits listing the hook on the special occasion date" would be able to help you out, but realized it does not address the promotional issue directly. Writing rule language to cover all situation is not easy and will improve over time as DYK reviewers address future special occasion request. I feel that a hook being neutral and non-promotional essentially are the same thing. Since new-reviewers are not treating it as the same, I added language in the special occasion section to address it.[4] If the special occasion section needs additional/different language, please let me know. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee, the phrase "mentioning the commercial item or business on the Main Page through the hook is not promotional of that item or business" is moving in the right direction. I would add the phrase "in and of itself", "prima facia", or "per se". Furthermore, I would encourage you to remove discussion about rewarding WP with date requests. Timely hooks are a service to WP and not the editors. They make WP look good not the editors.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger - Revised and trimmed some more. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee, I would change "in and of itself is not promotional of that item or business" to "is not promotional in and of itself", but that is really still going to be confusing. First this should be in a section called date requests rather than special occasion because not all date requests are for special occasions. Also, reviewers like to say, I am failing this for WP:DYK 3b or WP:DYKSG D4. Having this extra prose off in the corner somewhere is not really going to be helpful. What would be most help for us to have a set of itemized items of consideration for date requests formatted in a sort of bullet listed format like most of the other rules that are easy for reviewers to cite.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger - I made some changes. That phrase may read better as "is not, by itself, promotional of that item or business." The items can be cited as WP:DYK DR1, WP:DYK DR2, etc. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee I don't understand 2. 3 & 4 seem redundant.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger - I revised 2. 4. only covers commercial items or business subjects + promotional. 3. is a more general statement for all subjects + non-neutral. -- Jreferee (talk) 08:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee Since I don't understand rule 2 please provide a sample fictional hook that would violate 2. Also, provide an example that would violate 3 that is not already covered by the standard NPOV rule WP:DYK EC4.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger - Rule 3 and 4 are not so much for reviewers to cite, but a way to lessen confusion on what is and is not appropriate to help focus the discussion on whether an admin should list a hook on the date requested. Rule 3 is more of a catch all. Rule 2 is a measure by which reviewers can indicted whether an admin should list a hook on the date requested. Without rule 2, that would leave a situation where an admin should list a hook on the date requested if the hook is not promotional of the subject. That would not allow reviewers to take into account the effect of listing a hook on the Main Page on the date requested. If you have an alternate wording to Rule 2, please post. I think the Date requests section is a reasonable framework that reviewers can apply. In applying it, it will be improved like all the other sections. There has been no input to this change to Wikipedia:Did you know other than you and myself. It may be worth it to open a new thread at the bottom of this page to receive additional input. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee, I now see what 2 is saying. It is saying we hope to expose Subject X rather than promote Subject X. The tone of the listed items differs greatly from the rest of the page. Let's try this. 1. Change "The editor's contribution" to "article". Reconsider my fictional hook above "...that "song X" has a listed running time of 12 minutes and 22 seconds, making it the longest single Famous Records (or Famous Band) has ever distributed for airplay." Then reexamine rule 2. I don't see how rule 2 will help to avert lots of timewasting back and forth on hooks like this. The may even preserve the right to argue about hooks like this. You still have not explained item 3 in any way that helps me understand an example of how it would apply. Please show me an example of how it would apply. Rule 4 "For hooks that mention a commercial item or a business where the nominator requests that the hook be listed to coincide with a requested date, mentioning the commercial item or business on the Main Page through the hook is not promotional in and of itself of that item or business." is way to long. Try "For hooks that mention a commercial item or a business where the nominator requests that the hook be listed to coincide with a requested date, mentioning the commercial item or business on the Main Page through the hook is not promotional in and of itself of that item or business."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger I made more revisions. For Rule 2, is the hook reviewer aware of something outside of Wikipedia to promote the subject on the requested date? In addition to that, there may be a variety of other circumstances that the reviewer needs to consider when indicating whether an admin should list the hook on the date requested. Some people maintain the position that paid editing is OK. Most do not. What standard is the hook reviewer to apply in that situation? There likely is a variety of other situation. Even if the hook is neutral and non-promotional, does listing the hook on the date requested primarily bring attention to the article. Even if listing the hook on the date requested brings attention to the article subject, that is fine as long as listing the hook on the date requested primarily bring attention to the article and secondarily brings attention to the article subject. If listing the hook on the date requested primarily bring attention to the article subject and secondarily brings attention to the article itself, then it should not be listed on the requested date, but can be listed outside of that date if the hook meets the general hook requirements. WP:COI provides a similar balance consideration is "advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia." As for examples, please provide a link to the discussion where the hook did not run on the desired date due and other hook requested dates you know of and we can run through each of the rules to see how they apply to those past situations and revise accordingly. -- Jreferee (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee Why is this written as if only admins move hooks to the prep areas? You should probably remove admin references. example 1 is the last controversial date request. This one was passively denied. Do you need me to provide a bunch of other examples?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger I made the revision. Yes, the example helps a lot, please provide a bunch of other examples, particularly the ones with detailed discussion on a date request (whether approved or not approved). The concern in example 1 above was the giving the appearance that someone is using Wikipedia's MainPage for "frontpage advertising" to promote commercial products, esp. on the first day the product is available for purchase. There probably is no way to overcome that since the person reading the main page likely won't be aware of how DYK operates. However, if an editor not connected with DYK would read the front page and then come to DYK and make such a complaint, the reply to such a complaint is to link to the nomination discussion and let them see for themselves that the issue was already considered now that the rules list a date request consideration separate from the hook consideration. Also, the new requested date section should help with deciding to move such hooks to the main page on the date requested. It's obvious that the main purpose of saving the hook for the November 5 (album release date) was to bring attention to the new or expanded article rather than the article subject. Muboshgu agreed with you. There was a discussion (so no need for a discussion on WT:DYK as requested on the bottom of Template:Did you know nominations/The Marshall Mathers LP 2). The date requested discussion did not stand out on the nomination page because it was not separately considered. I revised Rule 2 some what. -- Jreferee (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure how easy it is going to be to dig these up. Here is one about a movie on its release date: Template:Did you know nominations/In a World.... More to come.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is one about a book on its release date: Template:Did you know nominations/The Litigators.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

IIRC, I tried to make a late date request for the debut of this documentary on the talk page and it got ignored. Template:Did you know nominations/Benji (2012 film).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee, I have dug from my 500th DYK about 2 years ago to present. Will it really benefit us if I keep digging?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I think in some cases the date request element of the discussion occurred on the article talk or at DYK talk (like the first example above). I don't think I will find them all looking through the DYK discussion pages. I think there was one regarding my Tony nominees last summer on the DYK talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That looks to be enough examples. From Template:Did you know nominations/In a World...: "timing articles to coincide with commercial releases of movies, recordings, books, etc.: it feels too much like advertising, I'd let this one run whenever it gets picked", see F10 (linking to WP:NOTADVERTISING, "run several days after the premiere or before then, otherwise it would be too easy to level claims of advertising at DYK," "consensus seems to be that having something on the main page when it is in the news (even when it is about a popular culture topic) is not advertising in and of itself." From Template:Did you know nominations/The Litigators: "will look like an advertisement if it gets featured on the front page" (Original hook read "that The Litigators is the upcoming John Grisham novel ...), "As long as there isn't much emphasis on the newness, it seems okay to me" (hook then was changed), "Getting there, but too much emphasis on the date" (All timing references were removed from hook and Alt5 approved). -- Jreferee (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger - I made more revisions.[5] From the above, it looks like the main concern is the appearance or giving perception of using the Main Page for advertising, especially on the first day the item is available for purchase, which we discussed above. There are 12,000,000[6] daily Main Page views, and you can't make everyone happy. However, consensus is that having something on the main page when it is in the news (even when it is about a popular culture topic) is not promotion of the item in and of itself. The hook probably should not include language that increases a likelihood of a Main Page reader's perception of the hook being promotional. For example, if the article is about a something new that is going to be introduced to people on a particular date, then having a timing reference in the hook (such as "upcoming", "released on October 25") relative to that introduction date may raise reviewer concern that Main Page readers might perceive the hook is on the Main Page to bring attention to the article subject and level claims of advertising at DYK. I changed rule DR2 to read "The hook should not put emphasis on a commercial release date of the article subject." -- Jreferee (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I am going to have to dig for the stuff about the Tony Awards from last summer. I wanted hooks about best play/musical and best actor/actress nominees to run at the time the Tony Awards was being broadcast nationally. I will dig through the DYK talk pages and find those threads. There were two or three, IIRC. I'll get back to you later.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Having reviewed Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_93, I see that I misremembered the issues on that date.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, going from memory, there was a discussion about whether the now-deleted former main image of Lucky Guy (play) (of Tom Hanks) should be used on the main page at the time the 67th Tony Awards were being broadcast. I can't find that discussion right now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Jreferee although I can't find the discussion, can you comment on whether using an image of Tom Hanks as the lead image would count as promoting a television show.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
      • TonyTheTiger - I was away out of town. I found Lucky Guy DYK nom, DYK 67th Tony Awards date request 5 May 2013 , DYK 67th Tony Awards date request 6 May 2013, DYK Notice and File:Tom Hanks 2012.jpg. I did not see anything in those discussions about concern over using the image on the Main page. From the other date requested discussions, the main DYK concern with a requested date seems to be a likelihood that an editor may level claims of advertising at DYK. Pieces of a hook by themselves may not increase that likelihood but the collective of the hook might. Whether an image of Tom Hanks as the lead image would count as promoting a television show over promoting the Wikipedia article would depend on context. However, the main issue seems to be the likelihood that an editor may level claims of advertising/promoting the television show at DYK for using an image of Tom Hanks as the lead image. That also depends on context. -- Jreferee (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Since you are an admin, can you temporarily undelete the Hanks file at issue and look for discussions referencing it?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
          • File:Tom Hanks 2012.jpg was a commons file that was deleted at commons per "Removal of files added by User:Tom Sorensen: Impersonator account operated by Category:Sockpuppets of Chace Watson."[7] and then F2 Wikipedia deleted three days later.[8] The Wikipedia What links here shows discussions referencing it. The deleted page only contained {{db-noimage}} {{DYKfile|10 June|2013|type=image}}. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Jreferee, At some point we need to call for other eyes on the changes that we have made.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• TonyTheTiger, see the below thread here. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't undestand the purpose of that discussion. Why did you present an example that actually is promotional?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Calling Jreferee.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• TonyTheTiger - In listing the below discussion to call for other eyes on the changes that we have made, I wanted to focus on the rule changes so I posted an example towards that. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• So far the only respondent is confused. Not a good sign.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Do you want to try a formal WP:RFC?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Jreferee, that was to you.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• TonyTheTiger Two threads on the topic would seem to be enough so as to not need an RfC. - -Jreferee (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Jreferee, the other thread has closed due to inactivity. If we opened an RFC, we would get attention in WP:POST.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

QPQ timing

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but it seemed the place most likely for the question to be seen. Is there a requirement for a QPQ to be recent? I have reviewed a nomination today where the QPQ review was done in June - is there any sort of time limit around this? --Bcp67 (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that, a QPQ is a QPQ as far as I'm concerned. Harrias ^talk 14:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I also don't see anything wrong, just look if the QPQ was used only this one time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Gerda Arendt here. Please look back at 2012 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive_82#QPQ where a number of DYK regulars spoke in the same vein about it. Poeticbent talk 19:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies, I'll bear that in mind. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The QPQ has to be done after the nomination is made, or at least on the same day, "retrospective" QPQs are not acceptable. Gatoclass (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh god, I wasn't aware of that. All my reviews have been retrospective and I have a little storage of older done reviews. So, now I have reviewed all those in vain? Iselilja (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you won't need to do retrospective QPQ's for those already accepted. In checking the current rules, it seems that older QPQs are not disallowed, but I'm sure there were discussions about this when QPQ was first implemented and the consensus was that reviews older than the nomination wouldn't count. The reason for that is that there are people who have done hundreds, even thousands, of reviews in the past and if they could rely on their old reviews, they would never have to do a new QPQ, which would defeat the whole purpose of the scheme. It also becomes very difficult to tell whether or not someone is using the same reviews they have used as QPQs previously if older reviews are allowed, so either way I think the rules need to be clarified to disallow the use of older reviews for QPQs. Gatoclass (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

@Gatoclass – Where does it say that in the DYK main or supplementary rules? Nothing in the supplementary rules state that QPQs must be retrospective. As long as the QPQ is utilized only once, it's fine. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I already acknowledged that there appears to be nothing in the rules prohibiting it, indeed on the main DYK page it seems to allow it; however, all policy pages are subject to a degree of content drift not necessarily in conformity with consensus, and I distinctly recall an earlier discussion about this matter when IIRC it was agreed that older reviews could not be used for QPQs. Even if my recollection is wrong (and I'm probably not going to have time to check it today) I still believe older reviews should be disallowed for the reasons given above. Gatoclass (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Referring to me having reviewed "in vain", I was thinking about 10 reviews that I have done, but not yet used as QPQ. These are 2 from October and 8 from November. If there are no clear rule that prohibits older QPQs, I would like to be allowed to use these 10 old QPQs for future nominations, as I have chosen these method of "QPQ storage" in good faith and I have not done these reviews for fun (I actually hate reviewing). After these 10 QPQs are finished, I will avoid "storage reviewing" and do "timely" QPQs. I can put up a list of these 10 reviews at a user-subpage and mark them as "used" when they have been used as QPQ. I will add that I have done QPQs for all of my own articles that I have nominated for DYK, also the 5 first where it was not required. Iselilja (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I think you are mis-understanding the concept. I don't think any of us are talking about using a QPQ for multiple nominations. We are talking about doing a QPQ in anticipation of using it for a nomination of our own (but only one of our own).--Kevmin § 17:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Well, in June 2012 I asked this same question and got the opposite answer. Personally, I have an un-used stockpile of 170 reviews, and until this week had not nominated a DYK since Sept 2012. Do you mean to tell me all my past contributions don't count? Seems a bit ungrateful to me. — Maile (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I remeber that discussion as well, and will often do a review before I am fully ready to nominate an article, as a way to make sure I have one for the nomination. I will also do reviews on multiple nomination hooks to be used for several of my single nomination hooks. There never seems to have been a problem with it before now, and Im not sure why it would be a problem at all.--Kevmin § 17:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Maile66: Okay, but going back to when QPQ was being organized, this issue was canvassed and I stated my view and while few commented, nobody objected to the approach then.[9] I have always worked from the assumption that this was the agreed-upon approach, if it's not then I think it should be because otherwise QPQ is wide open to abuse. Regarding your "unused stockpile" of 170 reviews Maile, with respect if we took that approach I would have an "unused stockpile" of literally thousands of reviews, meaning I would never have to do a QPQ at all and I wouldn't be the only one. That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the rule to me. Gatoclass (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

@Kevmin - As I said earlier, one of the problems with allowing older reviews is that there is no effective way of checking whether those reviews have been previously used for QPQs or not - it's a system open to abuse. If QPQs are only allowed for reviews after the nomination, their legitimacy is much easier to verify. Gatoclass (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

As noted by Harrias, one just need to check if there are more then one Noms linking to the QPQ in question, We are suppose to AGF, and I dont think that the possibility of abuse is that probable. Can you show that there has been abuse of this process?--Kevmin § 19:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Then put it in the rules. Either direction - make it a rule. Otherwise...it's just one person's opinion vs. another and leaves the issue open to unnecessary squabbles over a review. There's another way to look at it, also - incentive. Over this last Thanksgiving weekend, I helped clear about 10 reviews just because the need was there. I had not reviewed in months. And now we're told that a QPQ is not acceptable unless it's done the day of the nomination or after. Well, heck, why would anybody bother to help out with the backlog at all. Just do one on the day you need one, and let all that backlog pile up. Never mind the teamwork. Just follow self need. — Maile (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to not allow QPQ reviews from before QPQ was introduced, but I think anything since then is fair game. If you review a lot, then you have more than done your duty to nominate an article. I similarly will generally complete a review before a nomination. And Gatoclass, it's really not that hard to check: you just go the relevant QPQ, and click on "what links here": if more than one DYK nom links there, you can check if it has been used more than once. If only the DYK nom you came from appears, then it is legit. Harrias ^talk 18:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, when was QPQ added as a requirement?— Maile (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It was added to the rules in February 2011. Harrias ^talk 19:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been actively participating here at DYK for over a year and a half, and this is the first I've heard of same-day or subsequent QPQs being the only acceptable kind. This may have been Gatoclass's original understanding, but it hasn't been that way in practice, and I don't think it should start now. Before anything gets added to the rules on QPQ timing, we need to establish a consensus here as to what the rule should be. Just looking at the DYK nomination form, the conclusion that one draws is that there is a reasonable expectation that a QPQ has already been completed prior to the template being filled out. Indeed, it impedes the review process if it has not been done, since nominations cannot be approved until that QPQ is submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Like Gatoclass, I actively participated in the discussion that led to establishment of the QPQ rule. The stated rule is vague on timing, but the expectation when the rule was created was that QPQ reviews would be done at roughly the same time that the new DYK nom was created. I realize that some users think they can stockpile reviews for months and even years, but I see that as inconsistent with the spirit of the rule, if not its letter. I don't think that the QPQ has to be done after the nom is submitted -- I think any review done within the previous week or so is fully consistent with the spirit of the rule. --Orlady (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

New rule going forward?

• There seems to have been an understanding among some core contributors to DYK that reviews need to be recent to be valid as QPQ. However, this has not been codified and several contributors have not been aware of this principle; some like me have “stockpiled” reviews for later use.
• I think it would be an advantage to make explicit in the DYK rules how old reviews might be before they are moot. This rule would then apply to reviews made after the rule is codified.
• We might for instance say that all reviews made after 20 December 2013 needs to be used as QPQ within a week (or two weeks, one month or whatever timeframe) to be valid. If the consensus is that all reviews should be valid regardless of how old they are, this should be stated.
• Iselilja (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I would oppose this. As has been noted, its easy to verify if a QPQ has been used in a nomination already. The "possibility" of abuse is not a reason to change what has been accepted as a valid practice.--Kevmin § 19:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. But even with your position (no time-limit), I think we should codify the rule; so all nominators, reviewers and promoters know what the rule is (whether they agree with it or now). Right now, there seems to be a confusion. (I recently got an QPQ review invalidated as too old and had to put up a new). Iselilja (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well said, in the fact that if a QPQ has to be within a certain date - or no date at all - it should be in the rules, not some vague concept dependent on a given reviewer's judgement. RFC required on this, perhaps. For what it's worth, the original discussion to implement QPQ seems to be Nov 2010, and continued Dec 2010, and a discussion on the effectiveness of QPQ was discussed in an RFC July 2011 — Maile (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem. What is the problem exactly? Why is it relevant when reviews were completed, as long as they were done properly? Gamaliel (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Gamaliel. There's nothing wrong with stockpiling QPQs: the purpose is to make sure other articles get reviewed instead of languishing forever. As long as reviews are being carried out, the date of a QPQ is irrelevant. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is already here. The purpose would be to avoid what happened today to Iselilja on Shirley Erena Murray. She had already done a QPQ, but was required to do a second one on the basis her QPQ was too old. This should not be happening.— Maile (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anybody agrees with what Gatoclass is saying, and it doesn't appear to be official policy anyway. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah; and to be clear: I don't have a problem with putting that one behind me (and it was old, six months). But the fact that Gatoglass, who is an experienced and prolific contributor, interpretes the rule and consensus to be that older reviews are not accepted called for a clarification. So far in this section, the consensus rather seems to be that there shouldn't be a time limit. And I am fine with that of course (though I could also see a point of having some kind of limit going forward; though more in months than days or weeks). Iselilja (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with Gatoclass' proposal. By instituting such a rule requiring a QPQ to be new, you're basically de-incentivizing people who visit the DYK noms page to clear away the backlog (which, until recently, has been quite large at ~250 noms). Why would we even consider reviewing backlogged noms if they won't be allowed use that as QPQ in the future? Out of goodwill? Yeah, go figure. Instituting such a rule will only help increase the backlog of DYKs. Terrible idea! —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal because I don't see the point of this. As long as they get reviews being done, I don't think the timing is really that much of an issue. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I had always understood that they had to be done after the nom, though I'm not sure how strongly I feel this should be part of the rules. I also review at least as many noms that aren't used for QPQ as ones that are, & am unimpressed by comments like "Why would we even consider reviewing backlogged noms if they won't be allowed use that as QPQ in the future?" Given we are often still backlogged, why would DYK even consider a rule change (maybe) that would reduce the supply of reviews still further? Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm calling a spade a spade. I don't give a damn whether you're "unimpressed by [my] comments." You can choose to do whatever you want with your DYK reviews (none of my business), but I think I'm speaking for most here when I say that they have added incentive to clear the backlog if they could use their review as a future QPQ. And I don't see how allowing users to store QPQs from before will "reduce the supply of reviews still further?" One way or another, you're still assisting in clearing the backlog, either a previous one or a present one. Time should not make a difference when it comes to QPQs. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I don't believe Gatoclass made a proposal. It was Iselilja who made this proposal. I see another glitch if the QPQ requirement has to be the day of the nom or later. Most of us pick a nomination subject matter we feel comfortable reviewing. What if nothing we understand is available the day of a nom? — Maile (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Can we please have a new rule that people who use the words "going forward" are banned from the Wiki for at least a month? Ericoides (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• I don't like the idea of specifying a precise time period for a QPQ review, but it would be beneficial for the DYK process if the rules asked nominators to participate in the review process around the same time that they submit new self-noms. The wording could say "recent" -- that would encourage reviewers and nominators to discuss the suitability of an old review that is listed. IMO, people who insist that a 6-month-old review qualifies as a QPQ should be guilt-tripped into doing a new review. --Orlady (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Some suggestions for revamping QPQ

Someone has pointed out that it's possible to check whether a review has already been used for a QPQ by checking the "what links here" link. That's a good point, but I don't think it entirely avoids the possibility of gaming since a user could delink a previous nomination so it didn't show up at "what links here". I'm thinking maybe it's time we added mutual linking between the nom and the QPQ? - ie, not only would the nom include a link to the QPQ, but the QPQ would contain a link back to the nom. Then you would only have to check the history of the QPQ to ensure it hadn't been used for more than one nom. That way, "stockpiling" of QPQs could be retained, with an appropriate level of accountability.

I have also thought for a while that for the sake of increased accountability, QPQ reviews should be identified as such. As it happens, there has also been a debate for a long time about what exactly should qualify as a "review" for QPQ purposes. I think it's probably time we stipulated that more clearly, because we are all aware of the inadequate single-comment "reviews" that some users employ. I think I would be in favour of a requirement that QPQ reviewers complete a review to the approval or rejection stage, unless the review is completed by another reviewer or reviewers first. For greater accountability, which is sorely needed for QPQs anyway and which would become more important still under such a system, I think I could additionally support invalidation of a QPQ for an approval (or rejection) of an article or hook that is later found to have failed one of the basic DYK requirements, such as length, copyvio/paraphrase, hook sourcing and so on. In other words, a QPQ approval that turns out to have failed one of the basic DYK requirements would not be considered a legitimate QPQ so the user in question would have to do another. Thoughts? Gatoclass (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

There's something which I think is more common than the delinking scenario described above. Some users have linked to the article reviewed rather than the nomination page containing the review. (Current examples, which I fixed earlier today: Basil Valentine and Musikhjälpen.) Some users have also simply listed either the article or the nom page as text without a link. I don't think any of these were done with any nefarious intentions. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. The only problem that might arise is the fact that, if we do "stockpile" QPQs, they will probably have been promoted by the time we use them. That means the discussion would be closed and have the "Please do not modify this page" and "No further edits should be made to this page" notification sign at the top. Any suggestions as to how to solve this? —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow that, why would edits need to be made to a closed discussion? Gatoclass (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The DYK nom we review and "stockpile" would probably be promoted before we use it as a QPQ. Promotion would close the discussion, and (if I'm not mistaken) your proposal would mutually link our nom with the QPQ we reviewed. Doing so would probably require a "re-opening" of the discussion. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely support to make the rules about QPQs clearer. I also think it’s a good idea that only reviews that ends with a approval or rejection hook should be accepted for QPQ. The idea that reviews that are later overturned by those who promote may also be good, but I will point out that it probably will lead to older QPQs since a reviewer must then basically wait till the reviewed article has been on the main page to use it as QPQ and this might take several days and sometimes more than a week, which means it can take longer than the 5 days we have to nominate an article after it is started/expansion has started. This might actually encourage stockpiling since a stock of QPQs will be the only way to know you have one ready for the day you wish to nominate an article. Iselilja (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

If I've done a perfectly valid, in-depth review, I don't think I should have to wait a week or two for the nominator to fix the issues I've raised; I should be able to use that QPQ right away, not have to wait (and to have my own nomination delayed). The notion of having to stockpile reviews in order to avoid having my own nomination put on hold is frankly ludicrous. Quid pro quo here means review for review: I have done my review. We have never required that people stick around for weeks cleaning up after a problematic nomination in order to get QPQ credit, just that they fully review the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I support that a review started can be used as QPQ. I typically start a review when I want to nominate, and almost always have questions. In most cases, the reviewed article appears before the review of my nomination even started. - We can apply some AGF, and we check how a QPQ was done. Repeating: if it's a decent review I see no need to wait for responses from the other author and completion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, starting a review can count as a QPQ. The point is that QPQs which are not adequately completed will be invalidated, so that users who fail to complete a review appropriately will be required to do another. It wouldn't necessarily hold up the original nomination, but it would hold up the user's next nomination if he still hasn't done the extra review. For example, if a QPQed article gets pulled from the queue for copyvio, the QPQ reviewer would be required to do another review for failing to check the original article properly. Gatoclass (talk) 05:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Gatoclass's notion -- that the reviewer must carry the review to completion in order to claim QPQ credit -- is a sure-fire recipe for (1) ensuring that QPQ reviewers won't tackle reviews that look like they might be difficult and (2) encouraging substandard reviews (because the easiest way to get QPQ credit is to approve the nom without asking hard questions). Sorry, but that's the wrong way to go. --Orlady (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

My issue on the stockpiling is not that people are deliberately doing it to have a QPQ ready, but rather that people who help out with reviews should be able to use any of those for QPQ. They should not have them disqualified as a QPQ based on a date that is not defined in the QPQ rules, which is what happened to Iselilja yesterday.— Maile (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Seems to me in all the discussion that happened in Nov 2010, Dec 2010, and July 2011, I have seen the debate on what to do about a failed DYK review. Many times an editor does not take a review through the entire process, yet those who only contribute to part of the review currently get to claim it as a QPQ. If it fails, does that mean someone who spent time to contribute to part of that review has their efforts negated also? That also has come up in past threads on this talk page. What if a failed review happens AFTER someone has claimed it as a QPQ and had their own nomination on the front page? There's no chronological priority for nominations to be promoted. I think revamping QPQ necessitates a consensus via RFC, to clearly define it so that going forward it is not dependent upon individual interpretation. Possibly because this is the holiday season, some notable contributors to the original discussion are not weighing in on this. Let's not finalize this until post holidays in 2014. — Maile (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• This is all ridiculous. There is no valid reason people shouldn't be able to stockpile QPQs. To add a point that I don't think has been mentioned yet, this would seriously delay the already slow approval process of multi-article hooks. The only restriction on QPQs seems like they should involve a full review and not just some drive-by comments that only highlight one selected problem. A QPQ-valid review should touch on all the basic eligibility criteria. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we're missing the main point of the QPQ review. It was instituted because of a continual backlog of old nominations that needed to be cleared. Requiring new nominators to review an old nomination seemed to be the solution. IMO, it is not. Most newbies write a one-line "looks good to me" and happily submit their own nomination for review. This is not reducing the backlog at all, as in 99% of cases a more experienced editor must come along anyway and re-review the hook. Meanwhile, numerous editors have taken it upon themselves to review articles in batches to help reduce the backlog. If they are planning to submit their own nominations in the near future, they'll use some of these reviews as QPQs to satisfy the new rules. I think it's insulting to tell these editors that "we don't trust you" to use each QPQ only once. And Gatoclass's suggestion to limit QPQs to the day of the nomination or shortly thereafter penalizes these editors rather than rewards them for their good work of reducing the backlog. I agree that a QPQ submitted 6 months after the fact is a bit much. I also keep records of the reviews I do in batches, and I just erased the diffs for a dozen reviews from October. But I'm keeping the diffs for the reviews I did in the last 2 weeks in case I submit a nomination this week. If we keep the QPQ system in its present form, we should decide to give a time limit to the QPQ of 2 weeks, 3 weeks, or up to a month, but no more.

However, I think we should reevaluate the efficacy of the QPQ system based on the observation that newbies really aren't helping the system all that much. Instead, incentives should be put in place to encourage experienced editors to review. Perhaps an editor who reviews in batches could be "rewarded" for their clean-up work with a free hook for every 5 QPQ reviews? Perhaps a special userbox could be offered that would keep count of this editor's contributions as they review hooks and clear the DYK backlog? An editor who is only submitting one hook should still be required to do another review (with a time limit), but cleanup reviewers should be rewarded, not penalized. Yoninah (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I opened this section to propose greater accountability for QPQ reviewers, an idea which most users seem to support, however, it's quickly becoming apparent that greater accountability will not be achievable unless and until a working definition of what constitutes a QPQ review is arrived at, and that may not be as easy as it appears. So this whole notion may need a rethink, and I'm not sure I have the time to devote to it ATM. Gatoclass (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I just posted a DYK nom that the only thing holding it up was the QPQ review. I looked at a first DYK nom, but it was not ready to be approved. I would have had to engage in perhaps a several day discussion to bring the first DYK nom to a state of being ready. I wasn't sure whether beginning a QPQ review constituted the required QPQ for my DYK nom. WP:AGF would seem to say it does since there was no reason to believe that I would not complete my QPQ obligation. I spent a lot of time writing the article and did not want it's appearance on the Main Page held up due to having to way for a QPQ review to go to completion, so I found a second DYK nom that I could immediately approve. DYK did not always have a QPQ requirement. The QPQ process is a WikiProject compelling non-members into helping it out in exchange for the WikiProject helping the nom-member out. I'm not sure if other WikiProjects have a parallel system. Non-DYK members seem fine with the QPQ requirement and DYK does need help with the backlog. I agree that the first step is a working definition of what constitutes a QPQ review. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The notion that only a fully approved or fully rejected nomination can count as a QPQ review is a Wikipedia urban legend that has no basis in the rules or in the discussions that led to creation of the QPQ requirement. The purpose of QPQ is to get contributors to participate productively in the review process. Doing easy approvals is a contribution, but it's not nearly as important as contributing to difficult reviews. Your looking at a nomination, determining that it was not ready for approval, but not adding any review comments to the nom was not productive. If you had added some notes on your work, you would have saved someone else the trouble of re-doing your review and you possibly could have moved that other nom a little bit closer to approval. Not every drive-by comment on a nomination (e.g., "not long enough!") qualifies as a QPQ review, but any thorough evaluation of a nomination should qualify -- and will gain you more good will from other DYK regulars. --Orlady (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Having just stumbled across this discussion, I admit to being one of the users who "stockpile" QPQs in advance of using them. I see nothing wrong with this approach whatsoever. At times I'm not in an article writing state of mind, so I don't create new articles or expand old ones for a long time. However, I might be in a good reviewing mode, and take time to review several articles, thoroughly. Now, I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that there should for some reason be some sort of expiry date on said reviews. That's a preposterous notion. The reviews were done, and done well. They should be fine to use as QPQs, even though it may take a good while before I nominate an article for DYK. This is just adding another level of rules and bureaucracy, and for no good reason at all. If this ridiculousness is pushed through, the net result will be fewer and less thorough reviews. Nominators will be under stress to quickly write a review of an article from amongst those available at that time, rather than doing a proper job when they have the time and inclination to do so. Manxruler (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot generated user talk page notification for DYK is in error

Hi all! As advised by Harrias (see his talk page), I ask for a check on the bot, which generates notification on the user talk page for a DYK update at main page. The DYK notification in my talk page is in error, also in some others as I can see. --CeeGee 10:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It's also in error on my talk page. The DYKUpdateBot is malfunctioning. Looking at the DYK archives, the malfunction seems to have started with the hooks for December 18, the one where James Caudy is the lead hook.— Maile (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's to do with "User:Ameliorate!/DYKmake" being deleted? There was a retired banner put on Ameliorate!'s page yesterday. Maybe the ever so wonderful and skilful/proficient/adept my thesaurus is just to hand so if further compliments are required just shout! Mandarax can work some magic to create a replacement? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I just put a note on Shubinator's talk page, since he operates the bot. — Maile (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Mandarax always knows what he's doing... Matty.007 13:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

SagaciousPhil and Matty.007, thank you very much for the kind words. It was a nice greeting for my return after being away for a few days. Glad to see it's all working again. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Shubinator, is there some important reason that Ameliorate!'s DYKmake was being used over Template:DYKmake? (Are they different, but named the same?) The Template:DYKnom-based notifications seem to be going out just fine, so I'm guessing that one is using the one from Template space. It looks like the "give" link on the prep and queue pages in the DYKmake section is dependent on three of Ameliorate!'s (now-deleted) subdirectories: in addition to DYKmake it also calls out "User:Ameliorate!/DYKintro" for its "editintro" parameter and "User:Ameliorate!/DYKmake-insert" for its "preload" parameter, and neither of these are in Template space. An admin—possibly you, Shubinator?—is going to need to go looking, restore that deleted material to new locations where it's safe (perhaps somewhere in the DYK hierarchy?), and update the code that generates the "give" link on the prep/queue page so it looks to these new locations. Thanks to anyone who gets us back in the notification business. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm temporarily hosting DYKmake and DYKnom within my own user space, and I have been through the recent notices and manually fixed them to transclude from there until we can get it fixed properly. Harrias ^talk 21:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for averting the crisis. I've made a tally of the cleanup work here, if you see something I missed, let me know :) Shubinator (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and to answer BlueMoonset's question, DYKmake and User:Ameliorate!/DYKmake are different. DYKmake is the credit template in the preps and queues, User:Ameliorate!/DYKmake is the template placed on user talk pages. Since we're replumbing this anyways, we should tweak the naming here for clarity - suggestions? Shubinator (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

How about, DYKmakecredit and DYKnomcredit for the user page credits? Gatoclass (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Prep 3

The hook about Emil Rebreanu caught my eye and I looked at the article. Many of the refs are bald URLs. Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've pulled it out. You can pull it yourself next time if you like -- you just have revert the edit to the nomination and edit it out of the prep area.-Kieran (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of Todays' DYK Hook of Antonio Jesús Martín Gaitán

In today's (20 Dec. 2013) DYK section there is a "new" about a Paralympic athlete that "introduces" without any logic to the "Duchess of Lugo" ... in my opinion this is just getting absurd. Wikipedia is not Hello Magazine, and the way an article is introduced by another is being used in the most stupid way possible.

It is just an example but it can be detrimental for Wikipedia as a trusted source of info.

Thanks.

90.244.6.71 (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a valid criticism to me. Matty.007 11:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It's always helpful to have the hook name, Antonio Jesús Martín Gaitán, so editors can consider whether or not it needs to be addressed. — Maile (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I promoted that hook, but obviously wasn't the one to review it. However, looking at it again, it's explicitly referenced in the article, and the Duchess of Lugo seems like a pretty noteworthy person, being the eldest daughter of the King of Spain. Furthermore, this being the English Wikipedia, I suspect that many (probably most) readers weren't even aware that the Spanish aristocracy still exists, so that a link to a Spanish aristocrat could be both interesting and educational.

Sure, Wikipedia is not Hello Magazine, but neither is it a sports magazine, or a TV guide, and yet there is plenty of well referenced, high quality content on these topics that finds its way to DYK. I might accept this criticism as valid if all the DYK hooks were about current events, or sport, or television, but the range of articles both for that cycle and in general are quite varied. -Kieran (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It just seems like an unrelated fact to go in the article, a trivia fact; like saying that Michael of Kent watched Rebecca Addlington somewhere. Matty.007 17:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I dunno -- DYK is all about trivia, really, and it's quite common for articles to be linked in the hook that generate more interest than the actually DYK article. Also, she's more equivalent to Prince Charles, and the fact that she went out to Turkey to watch Spain play lends the game (and the main fact in the hook) more gravitas. At least, that seemed to be how it was written in the article (which really doesn't look like it had much other interestingly hook-worthy material). -Kieran (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not brilliant on the Spanish royal family I'm afraid; but I do know that there are many celebrities who watch the Olympics and Paralympics. Probably the best hook though, I was more questioning the inclusion in the article rather than the hook. Thanks, Matty.007 18:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Fast track request

I was wondering if someone could review Template:Did you know nominations/2013 FIFA Club World Cup Final and if an admin could promote it so it could appear tomorrow, the day of the final? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look. Thanks, Matty.007 16:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

With thanks to Matty.007 it has been reviewed, can an admin do the necessary for promoting it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I would promote it to a Prep, but I can't because I am involved (I'll do it in 2 hours if no-one else does though, as otherwise it will miss it. Thanks, Matty.007 17:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This might be one where an admin has to do the promoting. Tomorrow's queues are already filled, so an admin would have to swap one out to put this there. — Maile (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that was probably me filling lots of preps. Thanks, Matty.007 18:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Harrias ^talk 22:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Promoting hooks

Hi, when I have been promoting hooks, I put the date as December2013, as I thought that that was what I should do, as I midunderstood the instructions. Although I will not make the mistake again (I hope), will it cause problems elsewhere? Thanks, Matty.007 19:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You're not supposed to be putting December 2013? Oops. I've been doing the same thing. Then I have been confused by the instructions that tell you "for the |monthyear= fill in the month and year under which the nomination was posted (not the current date)—the format for the month and year should be, e.g., December 2013" And for instance, if it already said "November 2013", I changed it to December 2013. If we are not supposed to do that, why are we changing anything since a month and year is already there? — Maile (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I took "fill in the month and year under which the nomination was posted (not the current date)—the format for the month and year should be, e.g., December 2013" to mean when the nomination was actually nominated, goodness knows why we need to do that (doubtless a DYK regular will be able to tell me at some point), but that's what I read it as. Thanks, 20:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, dear, I see what you mean. Maybe a seasoned promoter can read this and tell us exactly what we are supposed to be doing. Kind of confusing, isn't it? — Maile (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the problem. At the minute, Preps are being built by Maile66, Kierano, me, with the watchful eye of Sagaciousphil looking for errors (apologies if you are also building them). However, we are all quite new at prep building, so any hidden mistakes we make aren't likely to be spotted for some time. Matty.007 20:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Matty.007, Maile, as far as I am aware, the date etc are all automatically generated, the only thing you need to do when promoting a hook is add subst: before the template name (which sets all the autogenerated fields and categories) and change the passed= parameter to yes/no.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Matty.007 21:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Ditto Gilderien, just add "subst:" and change to "yes" or "no", no date needed. Harrias ^talk 21:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Harrias, would you mind carrying out the queue edit in the above section please? Thanks, Matty.007 21:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Gilderien or Harrias, do you think you or some other long-time person here at DYK could change the How to promote an accepted hook instructions, because they currently tell us that we need to change the date when we promote. — Maile (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I have commented it out.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The instructions are much more clear now. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

QPQs for non-self-nominations

I appreciate QPQs don't need to be done unless it's a self nomination from an editor who has five or more DYK credits but recently there seems to have been a significant increase in the number of these submitted. Quite a lot of the articles have actually been created/expanded by fairly regular DYK participants who would be required to do a QPQ and I hasten to add in fact do normally undertake a review (so helping to keep a reasonable number of approved hooks). I know there is no rule against it but is it really in 'the spirit of QPQ' for such a high percentage of 'not a self nom, no QPQ required' nominations to be submitted? I think the creators/expanders may not even be aware of the nominations. Am I just creating a mountain out of a molehill or does this need to be addressed somehow? SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about the phenomenon that a goodly number of nominations by regular DYK contributors have been nominated by someone else? I've noticed that, also. What we don't know for sure, is if those regular DYK contributors know their article was nominated. — Maile (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I did ask an editor who had an article nominated in a recent batch as I know he usually does nominate his own articles and does undertake QPQs. He did not know it had been nominated and had chosen not to do so himself as he thought it was "too short and pretty dull". I don't think most do know of the nominations - it wouldn't cause watch list alerts as the articles/talk pages are not being altered. I appreciate there are a number of circumstances that a new editor can be encouraged with a DYK nomination (that's how I came to know about DYK in the first place!) and it's sometimes occasionally done for other reasons. It just struck me that there is an exceptionally high percentage of them just now and a very low number of approved hooks, putting undue pressure on those who do review to try and keep abreast of the backlog - it must also make building prep areas difficult as there are so few approved hooks to choose from. edit conflicts on an iPad are horrendous SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As I just found out when I built a prep set. It's very scarce on the approved nominations page. Part of that also might be the holiday season. Looking at a possible aspect from that nominator's point of view, these are editors whose work is more likely to be problem free than taking a shot on nominating new editors. It helps fill the nominations page. But it does create this glut of un-reviewed like you are mentioning. — Maile (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I must admit that the majority of my nominations are non self noms, and I don't often do QPQ. I would be willing to increase the amount I do if it would help. (I always ask the article creator before I nominate though.) Thanks, Matty.007 16:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominations of another editor's work

Hi, I have seen a few instances of where an editor nominates another editors work for DYK, but they do it without asking. This is completely within the rules at present, but I think that a rule change which meant that you had to ask an editor before nominating their work for DYK would be better; often the first editors hear about DYK is when they get a credit after the article has been on the main page. Thanks, Matty.007 19:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Related thread — Maile (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That seemed to be more about when editors not doing a self nomination don't do QPQ (which is within the rules), and can lead to a backlog. Thanks, Matty.007 19:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Within that thread, it's noted that editors are not being identified their article has been nominated, and perhaps if asked would have said the article was not ready for DYK. The issue of nominating someone else's work is two fold: (1) The creating editor doesn't necessarily get notified; (2) No requirement for a QPQ, even if there are ten or twenty like nominations in a row. If the rules are changed regarding the nominating of someone else's work, perhaps both issues should be changed. — Maile (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that the idea that you don't need to do QPQ for nominating others' work is that it encourages that practice. How about one QPQ per three noms of others' work? Thanks, Matty.007 20:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As a note I have never been a fan of the concept that a nomination of another persons article should exempt someone from doing a review.--Kevmin § 23:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I do that a fair bit, but am trying to pull my weight a bit more now. Thanks, Matty.007 08:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I will probably bring this up again after Christmas and the New Year, there are only ~10 people regularly using DYK talk at the minute. Thanks, Matty.007 11:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If someone nominates the work of a newcomer to DYK, and the nominator takes a couple of minutes to leave a note on their talk explaining what DYK is and encouraging them to nominate their own article next time they create one, then that should equate to a QPQ. But where someone nominates the work of a creator who already has 5+ DYKs, then the nominator should have to do a QPQ just like a self-nom would. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notification to editors whose work you nominate on DYK

In regards to two threads above, I did a rough count, and of the 200+ nominations currently outstanding, almost 50 of them have been nominated for multiple editors by the same editor. This relates to the QPQ thread above, in that I don't see the nominating editor doing extra reviews. And the second issue Notifying the editor whose work you are nominating. The latter can be quickly done by posting a duplicate of the nomination template on the editor's talk page, Example here. The QPQ aspect, while not required, is interesting given the count of the nominations. — Maile (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

What about if you're one of the majority editors too? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarify? Majority of self-noms, or majority a different direction? — Maile (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

As in one of the major contributors to another's article and named as such in the DYK nom. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

C of E, different than I just did a count on. I've seen mentioned in the past on the DYK talk page, where maybe another author does the majority of the basic work, others come along later and add some, and one of the lessor contributors makes the nomination and does the QPQ. I don't have an answer for that, but I know it's come up before as being a repeat occurrence. It could be said that either phenomenon might be considered gaming the system, but there's nothing to prevent it. — Maile (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looking at my nominations, quite a few are not self nominations; and I don't always do QPQ. However, I always ask, and have recently started doing more QPQ, and setting up Preps, so I feel that I am pulling my weight in a different way. What gets me though is that people can simply do drive by nominations by not asking page creators, and not do QPQs, thereby the entire process can take less than five minutes per nomination, so the nomination page can quickly become flooded. Matty.007 19:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible to merge the three threads on this onto one? As they are all addressing similar aspects of the same situation.--Kevmin § 20:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

QPQ for nominating other than self

Since things are going to be winding down, holidays wise, would be an appropriate time to re-evaluate the no-qpq needed exception for nomination of others work?--Kevmin § 00:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• QPQ required for more than 5 promoted DYKs nominated for others

• To get the discussion going. Verification is a question mark. I ran the QPQ Check on myself, and results all say "Giving DYK credit for (article name) on behalf of (Admin who sends the DYK notice)" . — Maile (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
• I would be for re removal of the exemption for anyone that has over 10 or so nominations. I will admit I missed the initial discussions in which the loophole was agreed upon but I don't see much logic in its existence.--Kevmin § 17:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
• I suspect that AGF would be needed, the tool for number of DYKs is broken. I would support QPQ requirements for editors with over a set number of noms. Matty.007 17:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't know the QPQ Check tool is broken. Some kind of verifiable tracking needs to be in place. I would support whatever requires serial nominators to help out with the reviews. — Maile (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• It was broken when I last checked, but seems to have it all again now. Best, Matty.007 08:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Queue up

How could this get back into a queue?

Template:Did you know nominations/Emil Rebreanu

I don't know the procedure, however I believe the problems are solved now and it should go back into a queue (accidently pulled).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It is currently in prep 2.--Gilderien Chat|What I've done 23:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Now on Prep 4. --PFHLai (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doug Coldwell, I replied when you asked on my talk page that I had re-added it to a prep. Thanks, Matty.007 13:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Great! We are back in business. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk)

Empty hook in Queue 6

The last hook is empty; should it be filled or removed? --George Ho (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Now Queue 4 has one empty hook space. --George Ho (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The incomplete set is now on Prep 2. --PFHLai (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/A Boy was Born

I re-nominated the article after original nominator withdrew it. I wonder if the damage is done already since it's no longer new as it was when it was nominated originally. --George Ho (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Assistance needed with oddity on transclusion

As per the instructions on DYK How to post a new nomination, "You may post (transclude) this same nomination to the article's talkpage....", I posted the nomination Chain Reaction (sculpture) to the talk page of the creating editor Viriditas. It's fine on the user's talk page. But on the nominations page, it has no "Edit" button and is all in reduced type. What happened? — Maile (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I did it, and it seemed to work OK. Thanks, Matty.007 14:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me. I meant to say that on the Nominations page, this one entry appears (on my browser) in reduced type, smaller than the other nominations. I can open it, but the type looks wee small. And it is not browser-specific, as I get the reduced type on both Firefox and Opera. — Maile (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Using Firefox and IE, looks fine. you sure that you have zoom at normal levels? Thanks, Matty.007 15:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Even if I change the Zoom, in or out, with either Firefox or Opera, the type on that one nomination looks smaller than the rest. Hmmm. I guess what's important is that it looks normal to everybody else. Have you done this with any other nomination that I could look at? — Maile (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by done this with any other nomination? If you mean post it to a talk page, I have just done it with 'The Taste' for you, here. Thanks, Matty.007 15:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fixed. The problem was actually in the nom template previous to it: someone started a "small" tag and forgot to close it. When that happens, the tag will keep running on the nominations page into the following transcluded noms until one of them has a small tag that is properly closed, which would normally occur after the line with the info about who created and nominated the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks BlueMoonset. I couldn't see any size difference, not sure why. Ah well, all's well that ends well. Matty.007 15:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, BlueMoonset. — Maile (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Final hook P3

Hi, I think that the final hook in Prep 3 is OK, but would someone mind checking it please? Thanks, Matty.007 17:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks ok as a hook, but the last slot is usually reserved for a "quirky" one - I'll have a look and see if I can swap it around.--Gilderien Talk to me|List of good deeds 18:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I know, that was why I was asking. There isn't much to pick from to be honest, given that I like the pictures for one or two. Thanks, Matty.007 19:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Admin needed to pull Hook from Queue 4

1920 Alabama Crimson Tide football team was not 5X expanded. Also, the editor who did the "review" seems to be doing drive-by QPQ reviews that are not valid. This is the second one of his I've caught today. If you see any others by this editor, please double check what they did before promoting. — Maile (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I have seen one, but it was a cross (for a relatively minor issue I may add). I'll have a look now for any more though. Good catch, sorry I missed it. Matty.007 17:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It went from 1908 to 8725, which caught me out a bit, sorry again. Matty.007 17:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Having had a look, I think that that's all of them. Matty.007 17:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It happens. No harm done if an admin can pull it. — Maile (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Pinging Harrias, who seems to be the only DYK admin around currently. Matty.007 18:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Aren't you and I having fun learning the ropes of promoting? I flubbed a couple myself. — Maile (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

We've sure picked a good time, when there are only a few DYK regulars around... Matty.007 18:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

If it is still there at ~8:30 PM GMT, I will ping an admin to remove it. Thanks, Matty.007 19:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I have made a request at the administrators noticeboard. Pinging Yngvadottir, Gatoclass, Casliber, PFHLai.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Doing it Victuallers (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, its pulled and I have replaced it with the oldest approved hook. Looks like the next set will load OK, but I'm not sure I have tidied up correctly as its some time since I did this. Can someone have a look and see if they can see the mistakes? (You may not need to be an admin to see and flag this) Victuallers (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

(Replied on my talk)--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed that the pulled article can be added to. In terms of the Q itself, looks fine to me. -- KTC (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all involved. — Maile (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of 38 nominations that need reviewing, since the last list is getting a bit long in the tooth. At the moment, we have 211 total nominations, of which only 10 are approved, and are badly in need of more. Thank you very much for your reviews.

• November 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Violence against doctors in China
• November 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Captodative effect
• November 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Physical organic chemistry
• November 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Macey (three articles)
• November 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Sin código
• November 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Pedro Cordero Martin
• November 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Providence Milwaukie Hospital
• December 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Guillermo Rodriguez Gonzalez
• December 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Dan Tan Seet Eng
• December 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Beaverton Health & Science School
• December 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Murdoch Smith
• December 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Jose Marin Rodriguez
• December 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Lola Ochoa Ribes
• December 3: Template:Did you know nominations/LS3/5A
• December 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Clark (American football)
• December 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Aeromobil
• December 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Selina Meyer
• December 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Noodles Hahn
• December 4: Template:Did you know nominations/David Mouriz Dopico
• December 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Bernabe Costas de Miranda
• December 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Vetiveria nigritana
• December 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Prié blanc
• December 5: Template:Did you know nominations/J. H. Hobbs, Brockunier and Company
• December 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Moten Swing
• December 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Mis amigos de siempre
• December 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Death of Nelson Mandela
• December 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Musikhjälpen
• December 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Golf in the Philippines
• December 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Venetian arsenal, Gouvia
• December 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Volleyball in the Philippines
• December 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo
• December 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Aurora Film Corporation
• December 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Boomerang effect (psychology)
• December 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Dharmender Singh
• December 9: Template:Did you know nominations/William Cooke (clergyman)
• December 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Supreme Court of Estonia
• December 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Anochetus dubius
• December 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Sex141.com
• December 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Horseracing in the Philippines
• December 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Crossover experiment (chemistry)

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) 01:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

We also have an article in limbo. On Dec 13, Fram removed Turtling from prep area. So, it got pulled from the prep area, but it does not appear on the nominations page. It's nowhere. Fram said he no longer has an objection to putting it back in the prep area. I can't do that, because I reviewed it. Nobody else seems to do it. So, we have an approved nomination that is just floating in limbo. — Maile (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's back from limbo. It was the last article unpromoted (and unrejected) under November 16, and the entire date was removed (by me, as it happens) after it was promoted. Normally, an article reappears once a promotion is reversed, but every once in a while, an article is pulled back from prep (or queue, or even the main page) and the date it had been transcluded under is gone; in that case, either the whole date needs to be restored, or at least the date and the one template (I did the latter). Maile, there's nothing in having reviewed it that should keep you from doing a mechanical step like restoring the transclusion to the nominations page along with the date it had been nominated under. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. I didn't realize it was in limbo because the date was gone from the nominations page. — Maile (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Christmas eve hook

What is a Christmas eve hook doing in Prep 2? IMO it should be held over for the appropriate date, if there are no objections, I will pull it. Gatoclass (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I had it in the right prep, but it may have been moved forwards. Thanks, Matty.007 08:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, the set probably just needs to be moved back one place in the queue, I will do that when it's closer to the correct date. Does this mean we only have one Christmas Eve hook this year? Also, it looks as if we only have a dozen Christmas hooks, unless there are others which haven't been moved to the special occasion holding area yet, that is rather disappointing. Gatoclass (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Christmas Story (Schütz) could be on Christmas Eve, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

A withdrew A Boy was Born, but it could be revived if the article is improved (it's better already) and the published title can appear in the hook, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay I have reinstated the latter, thanks Gerda. Gatoclass (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I have found another half dozen Christmas-related hooks on the nom page and moved them to the Christmas section, but most of them are as yet unverified so can we please get some attention on these ASAP? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Having a look. Thanks, Matty.007 12:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

In answer to the original question, the Christmas Peace hook was deliberately placed in Prep 2, and intended for Queue 2, because the hook is about an event that occurs at noon in Finland on December 24, and is currently set to run on the main page between 0200 and 1400 Finland time on the 24th. Putting it in a later set would mean that the hook wouldn't run until after the event was over, which seemed suboptimal. Please don't move it. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Homologous Chromosome

In Queue 5, I promoted Homologous Chromosome. I missed the Alt hook though, so if someone could amend the hook from " that when homologous chromosomes don't separate correctly it can lead to fertility problems?" to "that when homologous chromosomes don't separate correctly it can lead to fertility problems and cancer?", that would be great. Thanks, Matty.007 08:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Harrias ^talk 10:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Matty.007 10:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you know ... that the nominations templates are "patrolled"?

After I edit on a nom template and save it, I usually do a browser refresh on the nominations page to see it there. The change always showed instantaneously with a browser refresh. Yesterday, I did a review, and it took a very long time before the changes showed up on the nominations page after doing SEVERAL refreshes on the browser. I worked on something else and came back before I could see the change. I just noticed today a little link on the bottom right hand corner of the nomination templates that says "Mark this page as patrolled". Is there some reason our nomination templates are being patrolled? And are the changes being held up until someone has the time to patrol them? Can the changes be deleted by some anonymous patroler? I think nomination templates should be exempt from the slow-moving and anonymous (and unaccountable) patrolling process. This is rather insulting to seasoned editors who are "autoconfirmed" or "autopatrolled" everywhere on Wikipedia. We have enough eyes here looking at the templates. — Maile (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

This is automatic for every new page in every namespace - new pages are listed on a page somewhere until someone "patrols" it to verify it is acceptable. This is mainly used for articles, and barely ever for other namespaces.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have an occasional problem with edits not showing up immediately, it's been extant for years, and it can occur in any namespace. I happen to have had the same problem yesterday, but not on a new page. Gatoclass (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, what have I broken?

Hi, I was filling in hooks in Prep 1, and went to the general queue page, but the changes weren't shown there for some reason, I could only see two hooks. Thanks, Matty.007 18:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me? Harrias ^talk 18:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, looks better now thanks. Matty.007 19:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Images on Chain Reaction

Please see DYK Chain Reaction (sculpture). An image copyright expert has been requested. — Maile (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Sam Bailey

Hi, please can someone review the alt so that this can go up over the festive period? Thanks, Matty.007 15:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• A fact template has been added to the article, and needs to be resolved first. Also, this wasn't actually on the nominations page; I had to add it there under December 15. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Last minute Christmas nomination - review request for Luzula wahlenbergii

I've made a late but hopefully not too late nomination of Luzula wahlenbergii, and it's a festive/Christmas one! I'd really appreciate it if someone could quickly review this so it can go up over the Christmas period! Thank-you so much! :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 19:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Doing. Thanks, Matty.007 19:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you very much @Matty.007:, I appreciate it! Acather96 (click here to contact me) 19:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

That's OK, I've read it and checked it. What we need now is an uninvolved promoter to move it to a Prep. Thanks, Matty.007 20:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Matty.007, it looks like you're precluding that very possibility by filling the final Christmas prep (late afternoon and evening in the US) with Boxing Day and non-Christmas hooks. Right now, there aren't enough for the Christmas hooks there plus the ones mentioned on this talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I filled out the preps that are going up on Christmas day in the right preps, but there is space on boxing day, or an admin could re-jig the Christmas eve ones. I said about this before looking at the preps I'm afraid. Sorry, Matty.007 20:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

As it's a festive hook, involving reindeer, how about switching it with something in Queue 3? Thanks, Matty.007 20:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. I was reading off London times. Should I move them all back a prep? Thanks, Matty.007 20:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

There we go, I moved the Prep back one so that there is more room for Christmas hooks. Thanks, Matty.007 20:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The Saint Wenceslas Church image is quite nice, and it would run from 0200 to 1400 local time December 26 if you leave it where it is. The Die Singphoniker and Basil Valentine could move to Prep 3 quite easily, and the former would have eleven of twelve hours on local December 26, and would leave plenty of room for the remaining Christmas hooks in Prep 2. One of the plant-based ones could go in Prep 1 if necessary; you could hold it for Sam Bailey, but that would leave the last two hooks (and four out of seven) as music-based, which is a bit much. On the other hand, it is Christmas, and Prep 1 is the last that will run on Christmas Day in the UK and Europe. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I've done the moving, but I can't do any more promoting today I'm afraid. Thanks, Matty.007 21:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Last minute Christmas nomination - review requested for Nativity (Christus)

I posted about this but to no response so pulled the post. Anyway the nom is Template:Did you know nominations/Nativity (Christus). Still working on it, but the hook is cited to an online source. I'll do a review when finished with this. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm curious why this is the only one moved from the special holding area? Please advise whether it will or will not be appropriate for xmas. If not, I'll stop working on it. Victoria (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Victoria, only hooks that are approved are supposed to be in the Christmas area. (I'm leaving the one unapproved one that's already there because Gatoclass will go looking for it there, and I want to be sure he finds it where he left it.) We are keeping an eye on this one under its December 23 entry, and when you tell us it's ready we'll be happy to review it. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for explaining. Have you looked at it? I wouldn't have nominated unless I felt it was ready for the main page, and at this point I've done as much as I can in a single day. The page will grow significantly but only after lots of research - I would think as it is it meets the criteria? Anyway, I've written one and reviewed another and so now have done all I can. Sorry for bothering you. Victoria (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• I can review this when I'm home tonight, if no one gets to it first. Hopefully we can still get it into the Christmas queues. The Interior (Talk) 21:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Done it Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Johnbod! I think the Xmas muse hit a little late - hopefully it will get in, but no biggie if not. Victoria (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion requested on image Copyright Law

Two editors have weighed in on DYK Chain Reaction (sculpture). The article's author, who is also the person who took the photos, challenges that publication of those photos violates the copyright law. Can we please get another opinion on the template? — Maile (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not "take" of the photos in this article. I uploaded them from Flickr. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for that error. — Maile (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for all of the good work you do. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Last minute Christmas period

Hi, would someone be able to have a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Joy (Steven Curtis Chapman album) please. I think we will miss Christmas, but maybe in the few days after Christmas... Thanks, Matty.007 10:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

And again please. Thanks, Matty.007 13:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The article has sufficient issues—and the hooks as well—that it will almost certainly have to wait until the days after Christmas. Sorry, but sometimes these don't finish getting fixed up in time. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead hook in Queue 5

The lead hook in Queue 5 is as follows:

• ... that the serving of twelve mazurek cakes (pictured) at the holiday feast would not have been out of line in Poland?

I've approved the hook set, and promoted it from the prep into the queue, but the more I read it, the more I think the wording is clunky and inelegant. For one thing, from my reading of the article, the cakes are still a common feature of Christmas (even though they are more commonly associated with Easter), so the past tense seems misleading. The hook will feature Christmas Day afternoon, so not necessarily after the "holiday feast", meaning that even in the short-term the past tense isn't particularly appropriate. I'm not against leaving it as is, but I wondered if anyone had any suggestions that might tidy it up, or if I'm just making a mountain out of a mole hill, and we should just leave it alone? Harrias ^talk 10:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

What strikes me as misleading is the implication that this serving of a dozen mazurek is done at Christmas. The source—based on the translation supplied—is saying that the dozen is traditional for Easter; the hook's piped link at "holiday feast" strongly implies this is for Christmas, which is simply not supported by the source. It's a bit odd, with the article turning "If the tradition is to be followed, there should be 12 mazurek cakes at Easter" into "would not be entirely out of line traditionally". In my experience, "should be" is much stronger than (and quite different from) "would not be entirely out of line". Getting back to the hook, I do think that something must be done—I suppose replacing "would not have been out of line" with something like "is known" would be okay or even with "is traditional" or "is a tradition", so long as "holiday feast" is delinked. Or something different entirely:

• ... that mazurek cakes (pictured) are traditional in Poland at the Christmas and Easter seasons, with twelve differently flavored ones being served together at the latter holiday?

FN6 would need to be added after the sentence about the different flavors if the new hook is chosen, and I'm wondering whether "traditional" early in the hook carries enough weight to serve as context for the final clause. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've put a notice on Poeticbent's talk page about this discussion. — Maile (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Maile for leaving a note for me. I just added two more citations in English explaining that Mazurek cake is very much a Christmas tradition, not just Easter. I like what BlueMoonset suggested about grammar but the "holiday feast" part is now supported by reference and no-longer needs to be delinked. The article reads: "At Christmas, the emphasis on a symbolic number twelve is closely related to the Twelve Apostles at the Last Supper.[8]" Thanks, Poeticbent talk 18:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

While it's clear that Mazurek cake is a Christmas tradition as well as an Easter one, there is still no direct evidence that the 12 cakes served together is part of said Christmas tradition. Indeed, the sources militate against it: while there may be 12 dishes, FN8 not only says "some families present twelve dishes for the twelve Apostles", but then goes on to specify soup, fish, etc., so this clearly isn't the 12 cakes of the hook. Nor does FN1 help, since in this case it's the fruit compote being made of "twelve dried fruits" that's the link to the Apostles. The newly added statement to the article about the emphasis on the symbolic number twelve is a red herring, as it's irrelevant to the subject at hand, the cakes. And I respectfully disagree with Poeticbent about keeping the holiday link to Christmas if the original hook is retained, even with slight grammatical adjustments: the subject of the hook is "twelve mazurek cakes", and retaining a Christmas link for the practice of serving twelve remains unsupported, if not WP:SYNTH. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

How about the simpler:

• ... that mazurek cakes (pictured) are traditionally served in Poland during Easter and Christmas?

I recommend that we try to get this tidied up one way or the other tonight, as it is unlikely that too many admins are going to be around tomorrow to get things changed and uploaded! I certainly won't be... Harrias ^talk 20:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• The article says exactly what the reference says, which is that the number twelve is "symbolic of the twelve Apostles" period. The article does not say that the twelve cakes are related to the twelve Apostles in a similar manner, because the second quotation originates from a different source which makes no such claim. To summarize: the tradition of serving twelve cakes as well as the number "symbolic of the twelve Apostles" are both supported independently, but WP:SYNTH is what comes out in our heads. If you want to pull the plug on it, you can put these two statements further away from each other, but I don't really see a major problem in here. I added a new citation. The ariticle reads now: "At Christmas, the emphasis on a symbolic number twelve is closely related to the Twelve Apostles at the Last Supper,[8] celebrated by Catholics by twelve different food offerings.[9]"Poeticbent talk 21:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Harrias, I like your new simpler hook text, it's supported in the article, and I think you should use it to replace the current hook text, which—as I've noted—has issues. Please make the change to the queue; it's better to get it done right away. There's no need to talk about twelve cakes: the picture is of more than that, and there isn't a directly sourced association between twelve cakes and Christmas. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Harrias ^talk 23:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Sam Bailey hook in Queue 5

Should the word "screw" link to prison officer, in case people assume it refers to a screw, or even to sexual intercourse? –anemoneprojectors– 10:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Harrias ^talk 10:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Great. I wasn't sure if it would be necessary! Thanks. –anemoneprojectors– 10:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive

Hi, this page is getting rather long, does a bot archive it, or is it manual? Thanks, Matty.007 11:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

A bot archives it, but only threads in which there has been no activity within 7 days. The page is quite active across multiple threads at the moment, hence the length. Harrias ^talk 11:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It was actually trimmed earlier today: the bot sent seven sections to the archives a few hours before this section was started. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Christmas gifts

Late Christmas gifts: Template:Did you know nominations/Les cadeaux de Noël, written by Voceditenore on request, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

review in process, thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The review is complete, and the nom is in the Dec 25 holding area.— Maile (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, raised sourcing issues. Thanks, Matty.007 13:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I doubled one source, you could take almost any other also, if needed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Good now, all we need is someone to move it to a Prep. Thanks, Matty.007 14:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Anybody uninvolved can do that, only the queues need an admin ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It was promoted, right about the time of Gerda's above post. — Maile (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Typo in next set

I just noticed my own error in a hook in Queue 6: Die Singphoniker recorded Singphonic Christmas (not Singphonik), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. --Allen3 ^talk 23:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

December 28 special occasion hook

I've just now moved the nomination for Template:Did you know nominations/Thermal Man into the special occasion holding area for December 28; it's for an article about a character that Stan Lee created, and the 28th is Stan's birthday. I think the recently filled Prep 3 (which will become Queue 5) is the ideal placement for it, but the currently empty Prep 4 would give five to eight hours of birthday coverage here in the U.S. One of the hooks currently in P3 could be moved to P4; in fact, P3 has four bios, one more than the typical 50% max, so it could displace one of those to P4. Just a thought. (I can't do it myself since I put the final tick on the nomination.) Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thermal Man is now on P3. --PFHLai (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated, PFHLai. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, PFHLai and BlueMoonset -- Excelsior! THAT AMAZING GUY (Give your friendly bro a love note or two!) 12:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to take this off MainPage, because [1] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thermal Man and [2] the page creator is now a banned user. See also #Queue 6 below. --PFHLai (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Next set linking issue Comment

Why is Kenya linked but not Argentina - surely neither of these well-known countries should be linked? Edwardx (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Queue 6

The article for Asbestos Man has acquired a speedy deletion template. Could an Admin check it please? It's due to move onto the main page in about five hours. Actually I think the article has just been deleted. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The article has been deleted, apparently because it was created by a sock. That same sock also created and nominated Template:Did you know nominations/List of Doctor Strange supporting characters, et al and Painter (comics). Maybe those pages will be deleted also. Does that negate the reviews done by this sock? — Maile (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

His articles seem to be being deleted at a rate of knots now the sock account has been confirmed. Another concern that may need urgent Admin checking is the hook for the article Hellcow which is currently on the main page. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The DYK nomination template itself: Template:Did you know nominations/Painter (comics) has been nominated for speedy deletion. I have contested it on the basis that it would more properly be dealt with by having DYK reject the nomination, or not. Is it justified for an editor to request Speedy Deletions for DYK nomination templates? — Maile (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

My reading of the rules on the nom page seems to indicate that it is possible for it to be deleted, but I think a fail is just as adequate. Thanks, Matty.007 19:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Reported the one already on MP here. Thanks, Matty.007 19:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I had already removed Asbestos Man from Queue 6 because there is no longer an article for it to introduce. You might want to replace it with another hook, assuming the article deletion is uncontroversial. Art LaPella (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The same user requested a speedy deletion of DYK nomination List of Doctor Strange supporting characters, et al, but without the CSD template. I have removed the CSD template from the Painter template. And on both templates, have suggested that DYK should deal with this by having a discussion on the templates, and reject the templates if necessary. I do not believe CSD is how DYK nomination templates should be handled. DYK should have the rejected templates as an archive record, not deleted from the system. Where do we draw the line if users can request speedy deletion of nomination templates? — Maile (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Art LaPella: I replied on MP errors. In the Queue, an admin needs to add a hook, and remove The Amazing Guy's credit below. Thanks, Matty.007 20:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Another good reason for consistency in handling DYK nominations by rejecting them, not deleting them from the system. This didn't happen in this situation, but it could at any point. Let's say an editor does a legitimate review and uses that for a QPQ. And the nominator later turns out to be a blocked user. If the nomination is removed from the system, there is no way do prove the QPQ. These are unique in that the articles will probably all be deleted. However, Template:Did you know nominations/Pricasso made it all the way to the Main page, and the nominator was (and still is) blocked. The blocking situation was discussed on that template, and it was promoted anyway. So, just because an editor is blocked does not mean the template should be deleted. — Maile (talk)

• Can an admin please move a hook from one of the preps to Queue 6 to replace the one deleted? I suggest that it not be a bio hook since that would mean two bios end the set, and something at least vaguely quirky would be nice, since the hook eliminated was in the final, quirky position. (I also agree with Maile; Jakob should not be attempting to delete DYK nomination templates; we can reject them in the usual way, as happens with articles that are deleted via AfD. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Neil Combee from P2 is now in Q6 to fill the slot vacated by the deleted article. --PFHLai (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Do we have to do anything with Template:Did you know nominations/Asbestos Man? I'd leave everything as is, but I suspect someone might want to revert the promotion and reject it with an orange cross. --PFHLai (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2014 WikiCup will begin in January. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, 106 users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Review by a sock

The review for Template:Did you know nominations/BK grilled chicken sandwiches was done by a now-blocked sockpuppet of Bonkers The Clown (talk · contribs). Is the review still eligible? Thanks, Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It needs another review. Just a quick glance of the article shows all the Trademark sources in the Notes section are external links, and there are not supposed to be any External links used as sources. I've noted it on the template and ticked it for a new review.— Maile (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Re-looking at those external links, I think the nominator used citation templates, but it does not take me to permalinks for those individual trademarks. I'll leave the "needs a new review" on the template, but I've removed my remarks about the external links. I think I erred on that point. — Maile (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I did a QPQ check for the submitter and found no previous credits (Pinging @Jerem43: out of courtesy), but there is a DYK listed on his user page and posted to his talk page here. If this is the only credit then QPQ is not an issue but I don't understand why QPQ check found nothing. Am I missing something obvious? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not the QPQ issue, as such. The review of the BK grilled sandwiches was done by That Amazing Guy, a now-blocked sock of Bonkers The Clown. Taylor Trescott is questioning if the review is invalidated because it was done by a sock puppet. Personally, I don't know if any DYK rules cover this situation. The article in question just got qualified as GA, so it's probably in pretty good shape. — Maile (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand that a new review has been called for on the basis of the sock's review being invalid. Part of a review is a QPQ check, whether one is required and if so, if it has been done. The link I provided should show previous DYK credits, but does not, and I don't understand why. Based on Jerem43's user page, I doubt there is a QPQ requirement but the new reviewer(s) need to check it. More broadly, if the QPQ tool is not showing all previous credits then the project has a problem that needs resolution. EdChem (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

See WT:Did you know/Archive 98#QPQ check. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 04:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The most recent list hasn't seen much action in the week it's been up, but it's so far up the page I think most people just aren't seeing it. I've compiled a new set of 37 nominations that need reviewing, almost half of which are relistings. At the moment, we're falling further behind: we have 253 total nominations, up 42, of which only 17 are approved, up 7. Thanks as always for your reviews.

• October 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Ernest Yarrow
• November 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Violence against doctors in China
• November 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Thigh gap
• November 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Osvaldo Civile
• November 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Church Clothes 2
• November 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Macey (three articles)
• November 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Serafín Zambada Ortiz
• November 26: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Apostolic Nuncios to China
• November 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Linn Isobarik
• December 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Dan Tan Seet Eng
• December 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Beaverton Health & Science School
• December 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Murdoch Smith
• December 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Noodles Hahn
• December 4: Template:Did you know nominations/West House (Chelsea)
• December 5: Template:Did you know nominations/J. H. Hobbs, Brockunier and Company
• December 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Mis amigos de siempre
• December 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Death of Nelson Mandela
• December 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Musikhjälpen
• December 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Golf in the Philippines
• December 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Venetian arsenal, Gouvia
• December 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Volleyball in the Philippines
• December 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo
• December 8: Template:Did you know nominations/1981 Iraqi embassy bombing
• December 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Aurora Film Corporation
• December 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Sex141.com
• December 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Horseracing in the Philippines
• December 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Crossover experiment (chemistry)
• December 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Hussey
• December 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Stefan Vladislav of Serbia
• December 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Aquilo (steam yacht)
• December 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Herbert Thomas Johnson
• December 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Sutton High Street (two articles)
• December 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Iosif Vulcan
• December 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Katowice historic train station
• December 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Infante Francisco de Paula of Spain
• December 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Stephen Rubin
• December 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Balawat Gates
• December 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Lufsig
• December 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Edward George Sydney Paige
• December 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Estelle Ramey
• December 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Anomaly (Star Trek: Enterprise)

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) 04:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Efkan Ala, Lütfi Elvan, İdris Güllüce, Fikri Işık, Ayşenur İslam, Emrullah İşler, Akif Çağatay Kılıç, Nihat Zeybekci

After my nomination of "Template:Did you know nominations/Efkan Ala, Lütfi Elvan, İdris Güllüce, Fikri Işık, Ayşenur İslam, Emrullah İşler, Akif Çağatay Kılıç, Nihat Zeybekçi", I realized that the article "Nihat Zeybekçi" was corrected to "Nihat Zeybekci". So, I changed my DYK nom accordingly renaming everything associated with it. However, now I saw that the "Review or comment" link on the new template connects to the old template, which was already deleted. Then, I recreated this initial template as a redirect page. But no success at all. Please someone help to clean that mess for me. Thanks. --CeeGee 02:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I had actually noticed the problem and fixed it a few minutes before you posted the above note. For future reference, the name of a nomination template does not matter, so there was no need to move it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, for the hint as well. --CeeGee 09:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

After New Year's Day, revert back to three sets per day?

We have a WikiCup filling in too many nominations and growing verified hooks. I think we should go back to three sets per day. If so, six (18) or seven (21) hooks per set? --George Ho (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say 3 lots of 7, especially given that the WikiCup starts at midnight GMT which means there will be a huge influx of nominations in the coming months. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Given we have 14 nominated today, I would strongly suggest an admin put it back to 3 lots of 7. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed it to 8 hour cycles, but the key to this is to keep on top of the reviews: all the WikiCup entrants (myself included) need to be aware that the only way we will churn through the updates is by getting reviews done, not just by nominating lots of articles. Harrias ^talk 21:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Simple nominations of other people's expansions don't qualify for the WikiCup, so most of us will be nominating our own work, and most of us are aware of the QPQ requirement. For my own part at least, I'll be zero-sum at the very least. At least one review for every nom. Resolute 21:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

May I strongly suggest that whoever just changed it to three a day revise the next time for promotion so it's midnight UTC? Otherwise, the hooks will spend the next few days resetting themselves 15 minutes later until it is, and the times the hook sets switch will be unpredictable until then. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Reset? I think? That bit confuses me a little. Harrias ^talk 21:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Please consider delaying the current hook set on Q3. It was meant for a much later time frame. Perhaps the hook sets currently in P2 and P1 should go first. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Last minute Epiphany nomination – We Three Kings

Trying to get this famous carol nom (Template:Did you know nominations/We Three Kings) slotted in for January 6, the feast of Epiphany. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Done it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Extra opinion requested

There has been a request for another opinion at Template:Did you know nominations/Fermanagh Mallards F.C. about the wording of the hook on whether the football club should have "the" preceeding it in the hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

AfC

Three of my nominations:

• {{Did you know nominations/Brian Davies (activist)}}
• {{Did you know nominations/Aaron McDuffie Moore}}
• {{Did you know nominations/The Civil Affairs Staging Area}}

have been marked as ineligible, because they were started (as drafts) in November, even though I only published them, via WP:AFC on 27 December. I've commented at each review, but should I do anything else? Do we need to modify the guidelines to make this point more clear for future reviewers? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

They should be fine now. I put the turn-around tick on all of them. The confusion was about those articles being in AFC space before you moved them out on Dec 27. Even though that point is clear in the DYK rules, people still get confused on it. I did, too, when I first started reviewing.— Maile (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The guidelines are pretty clear. I note that all three reviews were carried out by The C of E, and I suspect that user simply missed the fact that they had been transferred: once one is missed, it is easy to assume the same for the rest of them. Given that these reviews are clearly erroneous though, it would not be appropriate to use them as QPQ reviews. Harrias ^talk 23:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The thing that misled me was that they were marked as being "created" instead of being "moved to mainspace". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If you use DYKcheck, it tells you when something was moved to mainspace if it started elsewhere. Since the "created"/"expanded" field is notorious for not being filled in properly—and the instructions are pretty poor in terms of help—reviewers should determine what actually happened rather than trust that the field correctly reflects what happened. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Formatting and bullets

The template used to generate each nomination uses the wiki-code :* to indent various items. This is not good practice, and should be replaced using single asterisks, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Review quality - request third opinion on one

Hi, if we see a review saying a simple "looks good to me", "good to go", and so on (I suspect we may see an influx of such reviews in the Cup, what should we do? Thanks, Matty.007 10:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You would be within the spirit of DYK to ask for more details. I've been following the lead of BlueMoonset in doing just that. In some cases, you might get resistance from the reviewer. But so what? If an editor wants credit for a QPQ, they should at least give some details on what they checked. I would think any admin that has to approve a Prep area and move it to a queue would yank any nom where the review had no details. I figure any reviewer who really checked the necessaries should be able to provide that. — Maile (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought, but wanted to check. Best, Matty.007 13:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Matty and I asked for more specifics than just "good to go" with no details, on three nominations by the same reviewer. These were used as QPQs for a triple nomination. Looks like we got resistance on the Holy Knights, A Gate Through the Past, Between Daylight and Pain triple nomination template. Would anyone else here care to weigh in on the QPQs used on that template? — Maile (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've posted on the three-article nomination where QPQ credit was claimed for the three "good to go" reviews. As I pointed out, T:TDYK#How to review a nomination states that the review should start with the appropriate icon and then indicate all aspects of the article that have been reviewed; there's no way that "good to go" can be said to do that. A list of what was reviewed can be very revealing by what is not included: I rarely see people mention BLP, neutrality, close paraphrasing, and so on. While anyone promoting a hook to prep should spot check all areas, the ones not mentioned at all deserve special attention before an approved nomination is promoted. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you. I've also just noted on that template that the histories on the 3 templates involved show they were signed off on within a total of 16 minutes - for all of them.— Maile (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

25 DYKs

Given that I now have 25 DYKs, am I supposed to add myself to the list or wait for someone else to do it? Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Depends if they are all either self noms or all non self noms: you can add yourself, but you need 25 of one kind (make sure to add yourself to the right table, there is one at the top, one at the bottom). Best, Matty.007 16:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Am I understanding you to say that the 25 need to be all one kind, whichever kind it is? I'm missing on that page where it conveys that. And, who actually hands out the awards? Is this something you stick on your own talk page, or somebody actually puts it on your talk page?— Maile (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. So you can get DYK credits for self noms. That is the top table. You need 25 self noms to go on the list. The bottom table is non self noms, of which you need 25 of to go on the list. You can add yourself, or (unlikely, I think) someone will add you. Awards are handed out by kindly souls I think... Matty.007 16:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

So, you have to separate them? Right now, I have 24 DYKs to my credit. They're not all one type. So, I have to separate these out, and can only put them in one table or the other if I sufficiently rack up 25 of one type or another? They can't be combined? Well, bah humbug. — Maile (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep. I have 25 non self noms, and about 23 self noms. Race you to 75 total? Matty.007 16:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Nah. Never gonna happen. I'm not that stuck on getting the DYKs. It's been over a year since I created an article that would have qualified - I got turned off by trigger-happy over-zealous types whose sole reason for being on this planet is to move multitudes of pages the second "Save page" is clicked, and all without the courtesy of a talk page discussion. Wikipedia has editors that do that all day long, click, click, click. I don't expand all that much, either. Guess I'm not that competitive. Now, if they gave out awards for actual reviews, I think I might qualify for something or other. — Maile (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah well. Maybe your approach will get there first anyway? Matty.007 16:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that list is way out of date for a lot of editors. Heck, it still has me listed at having 42 DYKs which I surpassed that mark in 2007. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

These are self-maintained lists. It's up to you to update your own entry on those lists. (And if you don't want to be on the list, that's your choice.) --Orlady (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, I think you are misreading the two lists. The top list is for editors whose DYK articles have appeared on the main page. The bottom list is for editors who nominate other people's articles. (Projects like the WikiCup award points to DYK nominators, so this is where they get credit.) If you have 25 nominations, Jakob and Maile, you should create a subpage on your userpage to list all those DYK boxes that the bot puts on your talk page. (See my user page for an example.) Then add yourself to the top list on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. As for the 25 DYK award, I think an administrator will post it on your page. You can always ask here afterward if you don't get it. Best, Yoninah (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the top list is for DYKmake credits you've earned -- articles you created or expanded, regardless of who nominated them. The bottom list is for DYKnom credits -- hooks that appeared because you nominated some other user's work. --Orlady (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That's what I tried to say. not sure if it was read as such. Best, Matty.007 18:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That's what I thought you meant |Matty.007, but then I had the advantage of already knowing how it worked! Harrias ^talk 19:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Error in current prep 4

I've raised concerns about the accuracy of the wording of the hook at the bottom of Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 at Template:Did you know nominations/List of currencies in North America. I'd suggest that this be pulled for now. Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, sorry. Matty.007 08:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

QPQ

There have been a few discussions regarding QPQ recently, specifically, the fact that for non self noms, no QPQ is required. This seems to have been (I wasn't around when the rules were written) best summed up by Struway2 in his statement “where someone nominates the work of a creator who already has 5+ DYKs, then the nominator should have to do a QPQ just like a self-nom would”. However, this seems to be failing at present, there are many (myself included) nominators who don't do QPQ because it is not required, but leave a note first on the article creator's talk page asking them for permission. This should be the bare minimum, but personally I feel that something more strict, perhaps QPQ required after 5 non-self noms, would function better, and help with the amount of nominations. I may (depending on the amount of replies) begin a RFC on this soon. Best, Matty.007 19:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You'd want an RFC done correctly, and I'm not the one to ask about that. Except to say what you have quoted above is too wordy. Something more concise like "QPQ is required of anyone who has nominated more than 5 DYKs." Give more than one option in there. It would be good to have an idea of how anybody would keep track of who has nominated more than a set number of DYKs. However, before proceeding with an RFC, I think you should directly solicit some input/advice about how to put it together from DYK editors whom you believe could give you some guidance on the structure of the proposal.— Maile (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. (For people who like wordy quotes, I cut "If someone nominates the work of a newcomer to DYK, and the nominator takes a couple of minutes to leave a note on their talk explaining what DYK is and encouraging them to nominate their own article next time they create one, then that should equate to a QPQ.") Matty.007 20:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, sorry, I missed the last part of your reply. Please feel free to revert if you want. Sorry, Matty.007 21:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Requiring a QPQ for nominations if you have made more than 5 might be self-defeating, since I know people nominate the work of new authors who might not otherwise be aware of the DYK process. However, I would be strongly in favour of requiring QPQ if the creator has 5 or more DYKs - this seems logical to prevent gaming of the system.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like the best idea. Matty.007 11:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Quid Pro Quo, Hmm.. recently in one of my DYK reviews an article written by a first-timer was nominated by his mentor and per the rules of QPQ it did not require one. That was pretty frustrating as that QPQ would have resulted in one-less DYK. I think QPQ should be made mandatory for all those who have more than 5 noms irrespective of the fact whether its a self nom or not. Soham 12:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

We have delegates now? ;) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that QPQ should be done, but it's not fair to require the noms to do wiki detective work and find out how many submissions someone had. I know that at GAs the number of reviews is counted automatically; could we also display such counts (# DYKs one has authored and reviewed) here? The data is somewhere there... perhaps Wikidata could help us (isn't it supposed to deal with stuff like that?) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Soham: it is already mandatory for self noms, but you have effectively and eloquently summed up what we were trying to get at. Matty.007 12:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• I know its already mandatory for self-noms, what I am referring to is the non-self noms. Talking about self-noms one gets to nominate 5 DYK's QPQ free and then do the sixth one with a QPQ? Soham 12:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. Matty.007 12:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Excellent, then I still have room for one DYK without a QPQ. Soham 12:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• I support a process that engages serial nominators in the QPQ process more fully, to help decrease any backlog . As I noted on Dec 20, some 50 nominations were done this way by one lone nominator and no QPQ was happening. I believe the serial nominations are continuing. There's also those who effectively game the system with the serial round-robin of individuals in a group taking turns nominating each other so nobody has to do a QPQ. These are holes in the system that need to be adjusted, so the burden does not fall on others to dig out from a massive list of backlog. — Maile (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Shall we have a vote? Matty.007 12:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

When you do the RFC, I would suggest getting all your points in place - the QPQ issues, and whatever else you have in mind. List them point-by-point for a vote. But do it all together. But, yeah, if you could, please include a process fix about the serial nominators. — Maile (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Matty, if you have not already done so, you might want to have a look at Implementing QPQ Nov 2010 and QPQ discussion Dec 2010 RFC discussions of QPQ. — Maile (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the links, read. By "list them point-by-point. But do it all together", do you mean a vote on each individual point, or one big one? Matty.007 13:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Each point should have it's own subsection for Support, Oppose or Comment. — Maile (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: extend the five day limit to one month for first time self-nominators

Rationale: to increase recruitment of new DYK submitters. It is too tough to expect newbies to self-nominate themselves that quickly; it may take days before we discover their work (I do it through Article New Feed which I check every week), and then days again before they read the message and take action. It is discouraging to them when after learning complex (for the newbie) procedure of how to submit a DYK nom they are told "you were a few days too late". And it's not like we would be swamped - we get such newbie noms every few days at best. So I suggest that we apply the philosophy of WP:BITE and WP:IAR and allow older than five days self-noms from first time nominators (who should be cautioned that next time they have to nominate quickly). I'd like to think that this change will increase the newbie friendliness of DYKs and in the long run result in the much needed increase of active editors (reviewers) here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I can see the logic, a month seems excessive. How about 15 days, or a fortnight? Matty.007 12:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support above proposal by Matty.007. Soham 12:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• I have no problem with 15 days (3x current time), if that's what's going to be more popular. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 15 days. There should also be a set limit on response time to the review, such as 1 week, so newbie nominations don't hang around on the nominations list indefinitely. Yoninah (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - In reality, we have always been willing to relax/ignore the arbitrary 5-day rule for newbies (and other contributors who give a good excuse). Setting a different arbitrary time limit won't eliminate the need to sometimes ignore the rule. --Orlady (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC on QPQ for non self noms

OK, for those of you who dislike abbreviations, QPQ is short for 'Quid pro quo', which is described as "a favour or advantage granted in return for something", in the DYK project, it refers to the fact that when you nominate your own article, you need to review someone elses. DYK, as most people know, refers to the 'Did You Know' section of the main page. The abbreviation 'noms' refers to nominations. Recently, we have seen lots of drive by nominations of other editors' work, the first they hear about it is when they get the credit on their talk page. The general consensus of the discussion seemed to be that something had to be done to stop drive by nominations of other editors work, or even nominations of another editor's work with their permission, with no QPQ required. Listed below are short summaries of various possibilities, please comment, and vote if you so wish in the appropriate section. Please support/oppose/comment on as many as you like, and feel free to add solutions. Matty.007 14:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

QPQ for any nomination

Solution 1: that any nomination from an editor who has over 5 DYK credits requires QPQ. Easy to check. Matty.007 14:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Votes

Please vote, with a comment if you want, in either support or oppose. Please number votes!

Support

1. I have done a number of nominations of others' work since the QPQ was instituted and in each case, such as here, noted in the nomination that I was exempt as a third-party nominator but did the QPQ anyway because I think it's good for the process and is not a heavy burden, especially for people already well familiar with it having done more than five in the past. However, I do foresee one problem. There may be some individuals who do just a lot of these, multiple per week or even day, and it would be unfair and a burden to make them do a review for each one. Accordingly, I was thinking of an escape valve, a carve out, such as that if you have nominated more than one article for DYK in the past seven days, the meeting of the QPQ requirement for the first nomination covers (or exempts one from the requirement for) all nominations made during the subsequent seven-day period.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
2. The level of effort involved in finding and nominating a work is similar to that involved in the creation and nomination of a new work. The assertion of undue burden does not seem to have been supported so far.--Kevmin § 16:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Per the above. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
4. As proposer. Matty.007 16:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - The QPQ rule was created because of contributors who appeared to be more interested in self-aggrandizement than in contributing to Wikipedia. These were people who nominated their work for DYK, didn't lift a finger to help run the DYK process, and in some cases created chronically bad nominations and/or complained bitterly if their hooks weren't approved (or weren't displayed exactly as they thought they should be displayed). The rule isn't perfect, but it ensures that self-nominators make at least a minimal contribution to the DYK process. In contrast, there's no glory in nominating other people's work. Not only is the effort of nominating another user's article similar in magnitude to the effort involved in doing a review, but the majority of people who nominate other people's work appear to do so for selfless reasons -- and voluntarily involve themselves in administering DYK (for example, by reviewing noms without taking QPQ credit, by building prep sets, or by promoting prep sets to the queues). For such users, the requirement to do QPQ reviews for non-self-noms would be an annoying bit of bureaucracy; adding bureaucracy doesn't benefit either Wikipedia or the DYK process. --Orlady (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose - The greatest DYK editor in my opinion is the person who has done a 1000 nominations of other people's work. As long as no one is forming a club to just nominate each others work then (AGF) we should encourage the nominations of other people's work. I would feel particularly strongly that nominating the work of a newbie should never require any addition load on the nominator and certainly not on the newbie. We need new (and returning) editors. Victuallers (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose We should be encouraging people to nominate others work at DYK. It is in my experience a great way to welcome newbies and get a more diverse set of content at DYK. We should not put an additional burden on those who are nominating other people's work. Quid pro quo is itself an anomaly amongst Wikipedia processes and should not be extended to put a greater burden on those who help others to DYK. ϢereSpielChequers 20:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose This is too narrow and would discourage the casual editor who sees the main page invitation to nominate an article. It would also require someone with no working knowledge of the DYK criteria to do a review, one that would almost certainly have to be double-checked by more seasoned editors. — Maile (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose Gaming the system (e.g. what Victualler's talking about) is inappropriate, but as long as people are nominating others' work in good faith, there's no good reason to require that nominators review another one. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

QPQ for nominations of others' work if they have more than 5 credits

Solution 2: that QPQ is required for nominations of others' work if they have more than 5 DYK credits. Again, easy to check. Matty.007 14:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

This proposal doesn't make much sense to me, if you want to propose QPQ for non-self nominations, then surely the five-DYK threshold should apply to the nominator rather than the creator, because the nominator is the one required to do the QPQ review. Gatoclass (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I also need clarification. Is this for the nominator having more than 5 DYK credits or for the editor/creator of the article being nominated having more than 5 credits? As I said in my support comment for the status quo, while I have no problem restricting who qualifies for the no QPQ, I think its vital that we still encourage editors to scour the new pages list to seek out work by new editors who have previously not been involved with DYK. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, this proposal was that QPQ was required if you nominated another editor's work, and the other editor had over 5 DYK credits. Matty.007 17:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is if you nominate the work of someone who already has DYK credits. (i.e. if you nominated an article I wrote, one of us would have to do a QPQ review)--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

As noted this is for those nominations that are of DYK regulars/veterans. There doesn't seem to be any indication that this will generate a larger burden then is already required of a self nominator when looking at article creation plus QPQ review.--Kevmin § 17:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It is just about reasonable to expect an editor to know how many DYKs they have written. Is it reasonable to expect them to check someone else's account(s) to see how many DYKs they have before nominating an article they've written? ϢereSpielChequers 21:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The QPQ check is available from any nominated DYK template: all you need to know is person's username. It's a good indication of whether the creator has received DYK credits in the past, and takes a matter of seconds. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Votes

Please vote, with a comment if you want, in either support or oppose. Please number votes!

Support

1. This prevents gaming of the system, and in any case the point of nominating someone elses work is to get them into DYK and encourage their work, which if they already have 5 DYK credits, wouldn't be the case.--Gilderien Berate|List of good deeds 17:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Support. Matty.007 17:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per Gilderien (allthough I don't really know how you check how many DYK credits a user has) Iselilja (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

   The DYK checker. Matty.007 20:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

   Um, it's called the "QPQ check" on our DYK nomination template pages, not the "DYK checker". (The page refers to itself as "User cont[r]ibution", and searches for notifications of main-paged DYKs.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

4. Support - The nomination is intended to be for new and returning editors. Lets encourage our gamers to find newbies and bring them to DYK Victuallers (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Support. There's no acceptable reason that an article created/expanded by an experienced, multi-DYK user should be exempt from the QPQ requirement, unfairly shifting the reviewing burden to others. A QPQ should be acceptable from either the nominator or the creator. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
6. Support — Maile (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
7. Support. Agree with Mandarax that a QPQ should be accepted if supplied by either nominator or creator (or, I suppose, even by a third party if one wishes to do the work involved). BlueMoonset (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Non self nominations require no QPQ

Solution 3: this is how it is at present, if you nominate any other editor's work, with or without their permission, no QPQ is required. Matty.007 14:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

In response to Tentinator, Orlady's comment of "Hunting down other users' good-quality new articles, reviewing them, and nominating them here is a fairly selfless contribution to DYK that should not require quid pro quo" doesn't really stand with Wikipedia's development. It takes all of a few minutes to find an article in this list, and nominate it. Matty.007 15:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think New pages is another place people search for new articles. — Maile (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

If it takes you only a few minutes to find an article on that list and nominate it, you probably are creating bad nominations. In my experience, nominating other users' articles that appear on that list means that I have to check for eligibility (a lot of articles on that list aren't long enough), read the article carefully, check the sources cited to make sure the source information is properly represented in the article, check for BLP and POV issues, check for copyvio and close paraphrasing, and look at the other Wikipedia articles that are linked in the article. It's also helpful to look at the article creator's history to see if they have a history of problems with copyvios, POV, or other issues. I often do a bit of rewriting before I get to the point of drafting a hook (and sometimes I do some rewriting even though I've decided the article isn't suitable for DYK). In spite of all that effort (which generally exceeds the effort required to do a typical DYK review), sometimes a DYK reviewer will find serious issues that I failed to identify because I wasn't sufficiently familiar with the article topic. People who habitually nominate other people's work without doing the appropriate homework are likely to find themselves under attack from other DYK regulars. --Orlady (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Tentinator, can you expand on the comments you have linked to from 3 years ago in light of the current situation. How is there a distinct work load increase over the creation of an entirely new article plus review of an article?--Kevmin § 16:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Votes

Please vote, with a comment if you want, in either support or oppose. Please number votes!

Support

1. Support per The Bushranger and Orlady's comments here.   Tentinator   15:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Support - If you think that's a simple one minute nomination thing, you're mistaken. The results include articles which are too short, or don't have enough references, or aren't neutral, etc. Personal experience suggests that maybe 10–20% of the articles on that list are readily DYKable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Support - the nomination requires sort of a review. If someone wants to do a voluntary extra review, even better. I recommend to place the link to the nomination on the article talk page, - that should notify everybody interested including the author(s). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Support - One of the last vestigial remnants of DYK's original raison d'être in encouraging new articles and new editors. While I have no problem with limiting DYK nom/no QPQ to nominators of work by editors who have not been previously involved in the DYK process, I think it is vital to the life blood of DYK to encourage veteran editors to review the new pages list and nominate work from new editors or those previously uninvolved with DYK. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

   Well that is the problem, Agne, many nominations are simply being plucked from this list, no article reviewing done, and nominated. Matty.007 17:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

5. Support - Mostly for reasons already stated above. Additionally, I submit that people who mindlessly crank out quickie nominations of articles plucked from the new-article lists shouldn't be asked to do additional QPQ reviews, since their QPQ reviews probably won't be any better in quality than their nominations. Honest reviews of their nominations should be a much more effective way to discourage that behavior. --Orlady (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
6. Support at New page patrol I look at, categorise, delete, tag for deletion, or simply say meh and leave for others well over a thousand articles for every one which I nominate for DYK. I can just about understand putting a QPQ obligation on those who nominate their own work at DYK, though I note that FAC does not work that way. But I do not accept that we should put an additional burden on those who nominate others work? ϢereSpielChequers 21:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: this isn't working, there are lots of nominations, not doing QPQ isn't going to make them any smaller. Matty.007 14:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose: The number of noms of others work has at times in the last few months overwhelmed the number of self noms, creating large backlogs with very few reviewed hooks. This should not be the case, and i dont feel that the effort of finding another's nomination in anyway outweighs the effort of creating an entirely new article. They are a similar amount of work and should be treated the same.--Kevmin § 16:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose. There isn't a huge difference between an article you wrote and nominated and an article you simply nominated. There's no reason to be QPQ exempt; the main purpose of QPQ is to avoid backlog, so there's no reason to say "oh, you don't need to do it for THAT." Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose: — Maile (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Non self nominations require no QPQ, but creator/expander needs notifying

Solution 4: if you nominate another editor's work, you must invite them to the DYK project, and request their permission (perhaps a lengthening of the 5 day nomination period would need examining as well, for slow replies). Matty.007 14:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

This would possibly help get more people involved in DYK. Matty.007 14:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Why don't we do this automatically - i.e. like the GA process, when a nomination template is created, a bot finds the creator of the page, and sends them a message saying "this page that you created has been nominated for WP:DYK. See the nomination and comment here."--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • That would probably work, perhaps something which tells them what DYK is, and how to stop it being nominated if they don't want it to be. Matty.007 15:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    • If we use bots, I'd rather the bots not notify self-nominators. Waste of everyone's time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I was thinking it should probably not notify if the creator had a certain amount of nominations as well, since they are probably aware it was nominated. Although maybe not, for 5-times expansions at least, since last year when I did one the original creator had more sources than I did and was able to assist in the expansion.--Gilderien Chat|What I've done 17:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Votes

Please vote, with a comment if you want, in either support or oppose. Please number votes!

Oppose

1. Oppose When you contribute to Wikipedia, you accept that your contributions are in the public domain to be utilized by anyone as they please, so I don't see a need for permission and it would just mean more complication and instruction creep. Notification can be encouraged as a courtesy but I don't think we need to go further than that. Gatoclass (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Not quite public domain, but every page explicitly states "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." in the edit window. That is a statement which editors implicitly agree to when clicking "Save Page" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose WP:OWN. I do like Gilderien's above idea of a bot. There is no way anyone can stop their work from being nominated for anything. — Maile (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Article creators don't own their contributions. Furthermore, the main reasons for nominating other people's contributions at DYK are to enhance and diversify the quality of DYK and to encourage new contributors. Neither of those objectives is advanced by asking the article creators for "permission". --Orlady (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose this would not be a nice way to treat the rare newbie who writes a DYK worthy article. ϢereSpielChequers 21:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Notifying the other user is an optional courtesy which should not be made mandatory. The only valid reason I can think of for asking permission would be to see if they intended to nominate it themselves; again an optional courtesy. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ageing three-article nomination

As it's looking like no-one's ever going to review my three-article nomination Frank Macey, does anyone think it'd help if I split them into two separate nominations. One for Frank Macey and one for the 1925 and 1926 FA Charity Shields, each with a new, simple hook referenced to online sources? I realise it won't do anything about all three articles having a fair amount of content sourced to old newspapers, which makes it a problem checking for copyvio/close paraphrasing unless the reviewer has access to the relevant archives, but people might well be more willing to review a single or a double hook than the current triple. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I reviewed them, all checks out fine. Good work on the articles! Harrias ^talk 14:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, much appreciated. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Check the queues

I may be overreacting but I think that Queue 3's order should be rearranged because I don't think it looks right sandwiching a hook about a sex site between two Christian based hooks. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you're over-reacting. That Queue is the one that will move up during the Christian observance of Epiphany (holiday). — Maile (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

So you agree there should be some moving around of the hooks then? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Not only moved around, but the sex hook should be moved to appear on a different day so as not to offend during a global religious observance.— Maile (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hear hear. Admins, sort it out! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I've rearranged the order of the hooks in the set, but I don't see the need to remove it from this schedule. Pretty much every day of the year is a religious feast of some kind, and while I appreciate that Epiphany is more major than some, Wikipedia is not censored, and I don't think we should feel the need to make such editorial decisions. That said, I won't object if another admin does switch it out of this set. Harrias ^talk 21:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK Swedish Nuclear Weapons Program

The article itself was moved by a page mover. That individual also moved the nominations template. As a result, when you click on "Review of Comment", it opens to a blank edit window. Here's the history on the template renaming. The move also did something funky with the article in that the DYK Check does not work correctly on it. The editor who did the move, and also had a hand in editing the article before it was nominated, is also the one reviewing it on the new template. I think there's a conflict of interest in the review. — Maile (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The template has been fixed—I was just able to edit it, and made some additional fixes (such as bolding the hook)—and DYKcheck worked on the article when I used it just now. People are reminded that DYK nomination templates should not be moved, even if the article is moved. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)