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
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
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.

DYK Check

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

Yes, in the past week I added Good Article detection to DYKcheck.

The Good Article detection code is related to, but independent from, the "10 days" logic. The 10 days code hasn't changed since DYKcheck was first rolled out five years ago. So why 10 days and not 7 (or previously, 5)? The 7-day "rule" applies to the time between when the article was created/expanded/Good Article'd to the time it was nominated for DYK. Noms often sit around for a few days though between nomination and "promotion" to a set, and during this time, someone might run DYKcheck. So the extra few days allows some wiggle room for the time it takes to review the nom. If there's consensus to change this logic, I can tweak it.

2251 days is how much time has elapsed since the article was created/expanded/Good Article'd according to DYKcheck. Shubinator (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. — Maile (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, if 10-7=3 days is what's being allowed for review of DYK noms, there's a serious communication problem somewhere. EEng (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It used to be 10-5=5 days, which was a reasonable window when DYKcheck was first created. I agree that 3 days is too short, especially these days; feel free to suggest a more accurate number. Even before though, inevitably the oldest nominations would be more stale than DYKcheck's window, DYKcheck also displays the actual number of days so a human can make the call. Shubinator (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if that came across as critical of you -- wasn't meant to be. I don't know what would be right. I've always said this whole idea of rewarding work done in a rush is idiotic. EEng (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries. In this case I don't think DYKcheck is affecting review times; I'm guessing that if I changed it to a 100-day window, the average review time per nom would stay the same. Shubinator (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 3

• I've made some changes to the Hamish Peacock article, but seriously, the article is really poor, the hook was too; I adjusted the hook just in case it makes it to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In fact, is this hook remarkable at all? Most successful athletes participate in youth, junior and senior competitions, they don't just suddenly arrive at the Olympics without working their way there. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    • @User:The Rambling Man you chose that hook so if you secretly think that it is not good you should of chosen one of the other hooks. Also, wikipedia is not for making defamatory comments behind someones back but for improving the encyclopaedia. NickGibson3900 (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
      • @NickGibson3900: No, I fixed the garbage hook that was there in the first place. Are you making a legal claim against my actions, by the way? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
        • @User:The Rambling Man Sorry, i went over the top their didn't i and it isn't a legal claim. I just think that you should of said what you said on my talk page. "but seriously, the article is really poor" isn't the nicest thing you could of said. NickGibson3900 (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
          • If you don't like honest appraisals of an article with which you have some kind of involvement, perhaps Wikipedia isn't the project for you. It needed (and still does need) serious attention. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
            • @User:The Rambling Man Just as a side note you can take won of the three other hooks on the page if you think they are better. Page: Template:Did you know nominations/Hamish Peacock NickGibson3900 (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Great British Meal" - firstly the hook doesn't use the same nomenclature as the article (where it refers to the concept as "Great British Meal Out"), secondly, if anyone bothered reading all the references, the claim is highly disputed, so the overall hook is not great either. Other sources state that curry was the most popular "meal out", and other sources claim the whole thing is bollocks. This is neither interesting nor appropriately written/sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have tweaked the hook, but contrary to your claim, I read all the sources and they virtually all support the hook - even the one that mentions curry as the favourite meal states that it is arguably the favourite meal now but that it used to be prawn cocktail and etc. No "dispute", no claims that the whole thing is "bollocks". If you want to check nominations, fine - but please don't make false claims as you only waste the time of other reviewers by doing so. Gatoclass (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Of course, the sources in the article itself would naturally support the article itself, I wonder if anyone counter checks these "it is claimed" style hooks, it could be equally suggested "it is claimed that curry was the most popular meal out". And claiming that something was "dubbed Britain's favourite of the 1980s" with a hook that's referenced by something referring to an annual survey by a trade magazine which made no such claim, other than the "cooked dinner type meal prevailed, often in the form..." of this meal type. But hey, let's just make stuff up as we go along. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You already made a bunch of transparently false claims about the sources for this article, so I don't intend to waste any more time on this. The hook states that this was "dubbed Britain's favourite dining out meal of the 1980s", which it clearly was by a number of sources. Your speculative claim that maybe some other source somewhere said different does not change the fact that the hook as stated is correct. Gatoclass (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not dubbed as you claim at all. And the inline reference apparently supporting it doesn't claim that either. But let's not let veracity get in the way of a dull hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Thanks for the info. That set is still under review so I'll take a close look at that hook when I resume. Gatoclass (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I appreciate it. It's essentially as wrong as something like "in the Bible, John the Baptist is criticized for betraying Jesus to Herod" when that is only one regional folk tradition. 174.88.8.213 (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I restored the original reference to the Sita Puranamu but it's a little inaccessible to non-experts as we don't have a link for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

More updates needed!

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

Gatoclass Ping, Prep 4 has all its buns in the oven for you. — Maile (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Maile66, sorry I didn't get back to it in time, but I have to sleep sometimes :) Gatoclass (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 4

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

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

• Okay, unless this is dealt with, I'll pull the hook in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Pulled now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

... "that's a remake"

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

What TRM's complaining about is

* ... that Mr. Burns, a Post-Electric Play retells an episode of The Simpsons that parodies a movie that's a remake of another movie which is based on a book?

DYK "violates" MOS in many ways, including addressing the reader with a rhetorical question (Did you know...?), and knowingly employing phrasing which is ambiguous or misleading in a harmless way. The informality of a contraction is entirely consistent and appropriate to DYK's "gestalt". To fuss about this when there are things actually wrong with DYK makes me want to cry out, "TRM, get off my side!" EEng (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, we follow MOS wherever possible, and here, it's possible. I don't care if you want to "cry out". Do it in your own time, in a room of your own with your own comfort aids. This is Wikipedia, not EEng's play tool. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

MOS itself says, Use common sense in applying ... will have occasional exceptions. So in using common sense to identify an appropriate exception we are following MOS.

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

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

Not really, my post was to mean that it'll be picked up at ERRORS as a MOS fail, whether it's me or someone else who does it. Just better to fix it beforehand to help DYK's improving error statistics. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, I think it would be better to see what other editors think. EEng (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, sure, but again, it'll be raised at ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

... "but had a son who became"

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

The hook now in prep is

... that Romanian linguist Alexandru Philippide championed science and disdained literature, especially poetry, but had a son who became a poet?

TRM wants it to read [1]

that Romanian linguist Alexandru Philippide championed science and disdained literature, especially poetry, but whose son who became a poet?

-- which is patent nonsense. EEng (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

So we delete the last "who" and we all chill out. (done) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You most recently proposed [2]

that Romanian linguist Alexandru Philippide championed science and disdained literature, especially poetry, but whose son became a poet?

-- which is still nonsense. In all seriousness, TRM, you seem to be running off the rails. I mean it. There's something going on with you recently and it's not good. EEng (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

In what sense is that nonsense? Step me through the nonsense, one step at a time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Removing irrelevant phrases one at a time

that Romanian linguist Alexandru Philippide championed science and disdained literature, especially poetry, but whose son became a poet?

that Romanian linguist Alexandru Philippide championed science and disdained literature, but whose son became a poet?

that Romanian linguist Alexandru Philippide championed science, but whose son became a poet?

I wonder if what you mean is but his son became a poet ??? EEng (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if you like, that's also a massive improvement on the hook you edit-warred on to keep. Thanks for thinking it through and coming up with your own and better solution! I suggest you implement it post-haste and give yourself some well-earned pats on the back. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I was only speculating on what you might have meant. In fact it's not better since "but his son" implies he only had one son, and we don't know that. I think it's best if we wait for others to give their opinions. EEng (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you need to "speculate", it was pretty clear. Your rewrite is better. And at the article corroborates the phrasing (e.g. "he was saddened to see his son adopt it as a profession", not "he was saddened to see one of his sons adopt it as a profession"). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK eligibility

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

If it's within 7 days you can nominate. The name of the nomination doesn't matter, you could have it at Template:Did you know nominations/July 4 2014, but you just need to fill it in right. Something like 'Article (2nd nomination)' will probably be fine. Thanks, Matty.007 20:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Matty.007:  Done at Template:Did you know nominations/Olivia Pope (2nd nomination). Thanks! MJ94 (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the explanation was poor, well done on understanding. Looks to be done correctly. Thanks, Matty.007 20:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Admin help needed

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

I took a shot at fixing it. I'm not too familiar with the structure of the nom pages, so it would be great if someone could double-check my work. Shubinator (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you did, it worked. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem :) Shubinator (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

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

More updates needed

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

I can live with that! What do you think about #Comments_on_the_redux? EEng (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't paid much attention to that discussion, for a variety of reasons. I'm not sure what you're actually asking me to comment on, but with regard to the respective responsibilities of reviewers, updaters, and queue promoters, which I have raised elsewhere, I'm considering making a concrete proposal of my own about that sometime in the next few days. I just need a little more time to think about it. Gatoclass (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The struck-out text you see when following the link proposes a division of responsibility very much along the lines of what you outlined above. Sorry for the strikeout (I decided I was diverting the conversation too much) but I'd be interested to know what you think. EEng (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with most of it, in fact I already proposed much the same thing myself in this thread. Gatoclass (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

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

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

• And image protected locally, as it hadn't been protected on Commons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong credits

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rewrite of the nomination instruction pages (plural) needed

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

Similarly to the preparation instructions issue, which I hope isn't being forgotten before it gets fixed, the "three other instruction pages" are from the Wikipedia:Did you know/Learning DYK system, which was originally intended to unify our rules, not add another set. There are 3 pages because my philosophy was that newcomers would be overwhelmed, confused and lost by too much irrelevant information on a page. The first page above is an overview of nomination, with links to each subset including the second page above. Similarly, that page describes several sets including a link to the third page (not mine; it came with the software). Other editors, perhaps including Maile66 above, thought the Learning DYK system was "too many places", and hence we have Wikipedia:Did you know/Onepage – but even the uncontroversial improvements were never implemented, although some of them were independently adopted later, one at a time. Art LaPella (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

What we need is all the rules on one page, I frequently have to go looking for them, and then a simplified version for new DYKers. Thanks, Matty.007 16:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Which sounds like an endorsement of Wikipedia:Did you know/Onepage. Art LaPella (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the fact it hasn't been updated for 4 years. Perhaps keeping the basic format of it then updating it all, maybe shortening it a bit... Thanks, Matty.007 16:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir was going to revamp Onepage, but that was a long time ago. Onepage is fine, but it doesn't include instructions on filling out the nom template. I took a whack at rewriting Onepage, thinking (ha...ha...ha) it could be shrunk, and came up with DYKCheatsheet. I have no objections to Learning DYK staying in place. Just perhaps some good thinkers could come up with a way that all the pages, including "Onepage", have identical instructions. I guess it bears mention that "For simplified instructions, see Quick DYK 2" is also on the nominations page right below "To nominate an article". — Maile (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about creating a new page with the aim of simplifying it all for new DYKers? If everyone at DYK had a look/helped, it would get done quickly and hopefully to everyone's liking? Thanks, Matty.007 17:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

In a perfect world. You've come up with enough good ideas here to know what getting a coordinated effort, and/or consensus, is like. I have a fondness for Tabbed page headings, such as in use at WP:GA or WP:MIL. And a for instance, where WPMIL has "Academy", we could have "Learning DYK". Also, what DYK has in the little upper right-hand infobox would be Tabs instead. Tabs would be so much easier on the newcomer, big and at immediate eye level, very simple to navigate. Even if we kept the rules we can figure out just the way they are, this project could stand a revamp on the visuals and ease of accessibility to information. — Maile (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Let me know if you come up with something. It's going to take more than one person working on this. A suggested starting place on userspace would be a list of all the individual DYK information pages that exist, and then start figuring it out from there. Art LaPella might be a good help on what info pages are in existence. — Maile (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

What's in existence? My stuff is Category:Wikipedia Did you know rules, {{DYKbox}} has some well-known links, and the contents list shows all Did You Know subpages (ignore everything after about 1 1/2 screenfuls, where it no longer says Did You Know.)

Wow, these links are very helpful. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"a way that all the pages, including "Onepage", have identical instructions." That's built in; Onepage includes all (well, almost all, and easily changed to include all) the other Learning DYK pages in one big page. Hence the Onepage edit page is under 10% as long as its text: include this, include that, include ... Any updated version could use the same idea. Art LaPella (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Moving credit templates out of userspace

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

Just to note, I think there's an update in 55 minutes. Thanks, Matty.007 16:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, there's one coming in a bit under two hours. I should be done, complete with a bot update, by then :) Thanks for the reminder. Shubinator (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Scott, I remind you that the Klingon vessel will be within disruptor range in less than 30 seconds. EEng (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

At this point everything except the bot code has been updated, headed off to tweak the code next. Let me know if you spot anything amiss. Shubinator (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Bot code updated, at this point everything should be back to normal. Shubinator (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! Thanks, Matty.007 17:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

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

• I've filled Prep 1, if there are any takers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Prep 1 error

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

•  Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

On the Corfu hook (Prep 1)

Copied from my Talk EEng (talk)

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

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

As I said in my edit summary the final settlement had multiple shells being shuffled around. Without agreeing or disagreeing with what you say, if what you say is true, then "settled with" is just as wrong as "satisfied using". The fact is my first impulse was to pull this from prep because the article's discussion is so confusing, and I think I should have gone with the impulse. I have to run out for a bit so I'll post a pointer to this at WP:TDYK. EEng (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As to the phrasing, my intended meaning of "with" was that the ICJ judgment was satisfied at the same time as the Albanian claim. So I suppose I meant "settled along with". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

And my meaning with the judgment not actually being satisfied was that arguably Albania's payment didn't even come close to compensating the time value of the money (as indicated in the article, the £843,947 judgement is equivalent to well over £20 million currently). As to the complexity of the situation... I agree, it is quite complex; it's a matter that lasted decades and involved another ICJ case with Italy. The relevant paragraph containing the hook is the third of the "Satisfaction of debt" section. It's not completely correct to say the claim satisfied the debt, because $2M also changed hands. Perhaps put more simply (though not precisely so in the sources): the UK gave some of the gold to Albania, Albania gave $2M to the UK, and both parties dropped their monetary claims. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

How about this [3]? My ride is here, might be back soon or way late. EEng (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Good with me. Safe travels! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

DYKs for blocked or banned users

We've tackled this in the past, but I think that it is worth revisiting. Looking at the description of DYK, it leads with "The DYK section publicizes new or expanded articles after an informal review. This publicity rewards editors for their contributions.". This raises a question for me. In cases where a banned or blocked editor has created an article using socks in violation of their ban, should their articles be eligible for DYK, especially if they have not been substantially edited by another editor? Under policy we can accept their contributions in spite of the ban or block if an editor in good standing chooses to take responsibility for the contributions. However, while there is a case to be made that doing so is a compromise between enforcing a ban and furthering the aims of the project, where on balance there is arguably a greater benefit to be gained from keeping their contributions over discouraging socking, the balance seems different in DYK. Having an article on the front page doesn't further the projects aims in the same way that simply accepting the content does, and the notion of "rewarding" a banned editor for violating their ban is certainly problematic.

This isn't a hypothetical question - currently we have to accepted nominations for articles created by User:Russavia after Russavia was community banned a week or so ago. Neither has been substantial edited by other contributors. But the issue, of course, is broader than one user. I'd suggest that one of the requirements for articles to be accepted for DYK is that the primary contributor of the new content must be in good standing. - Bilby (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Certainly for a block other than indefinite things should proceed as normal, since the assumption is that the user will be back, and more, um, ... compliant after the compulsory lobotomy we now administer to anyone blocked for 1 week or more.

For indefinite blocks, or bans, I'm not sure we need to fuss either. Just let the machinery play itself out, and as far as I'm concerned the appearance of the DYK "credit" on the user's Talk is a bit of a reminder of how contradictory can one editor's behavior. My only caveat would be that, if the block/ban is for anything resembling hoaxing or fakery, a very high level of scrutiny should be brought to bear. EEng (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't read guidelines often, so didn't know about "This publicity rewards editors for their contributions." Perhaps we should change that? I at least am only interested in publicity for the facts, not the editors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with keeping contributions related to short-term blocks, although if the article was created by socking in violation of the block then there is some concern. However, I think a stronger stance is warranted for a banned editor, especially given that these situations normally arise when editors are gaming WP to make a point about their ban. The only previous situation I can think of was one of copying text written by a banned editor into an article. In this case it is more direct, as the article was created by a sock, so we have the problem of the article being written counter to policy to begin with. - Bilby (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

One of the two that triggered this has been promoted, and I won't object. But I think we need to address this - if an article is known to have been made by a sock, in violation of a ban, then highlighting the article on the front page and rewarding the banned editor is not in the project's interests. I think there is room for flexibility in regard to blocks, and the previous 2010 discussion accepted appropriately licensed text written by a banned editor that was not posted by them, but socking seems to be the point where we should draw a line. Is there a way of wording this that would be viable? - Bilby (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The promoted article in question is a good one with no apparent defects. Given that text effectively becomes PD once posted on wikipedia, it doesn't "belong" to the originator and we are entitled to use it as we please, so I'm not too bothered if something originated with a sock. What I will say though is that I think anyone who tries to hoax or misuse DYK itself has forfeited their right to participate here. Gatoclass (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we can us it as we please, but we don't have to use it for rewarding the banned editor for socking. This isn't the same as keeping the content - this is about a process designed and intended to reward contributors for their work. It makes no sense to specifically reward people for violating a ban. Keep the content by all means, but don't reward them for their actions as well. - Bilby (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

To some extent I sympathize with your views - I could hardly fail to do so, given that I have argued the same thing myself here on a number of occasions - but I never got much support for my views and I tend not to worry about it now. If it was a sock who had a reputation for submitting problematic content, I would say, strike the nomination on sight, but if the user is adding useful content, perhaps it's not so important. Gatoclass (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty, even if we did topic block for banned users, DYK has no list (such as convenient category) for anyone to go by. And those who will sock are sometimes adept at slipping past the guard shack: One, Two. — Maile (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure "topic ban for banned users" is correct wording, as by definition they are banned from the project, and if they nominated an article I imagine that the nomination wouldn't stand. I know this won't be perfect, and many will sneak through. But in cases where it is known that the primary editor of the article was a banned or indef blocked editor, using socks, we simply don't accept the article. If someone else rewrites it, or a different editor does the required expansion, then all is good and we run with the nom. But if not, we exclude the article so as not to be seen to be rewarding socking. - Bilby (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The text of an article does not become PD once posted on the Wikipedia. It is still copyright of the originator. It is under a CC BY-SA licence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

He said "effectively" PD, which to a first approximation is accurate enough for this discussion. EEng (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Queue 6

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

While we're at it can we please have

annual jogging event in Stockholm where participants -->

annual jogging event in Stockholm in which participants

graduates including John Kalili as circuit judges -->

graduates, including John Kalili, as circuit judges

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

If you think two Australians is repetitive, look at Prep 3 and count the "for/fours" in the Kylie hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the four for/fours are for, but they should be removed forthwith. EEng (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR in a single set of hooks

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

No. EEng (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

So you think it's a good thing to have two hooks next to one another written in different variations of English? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Rambling Man, have you ever heard the expression "like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic"? EEng (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

A historical vignette...

First mate: Captain, we've struck an iceberg!

Captain Smith: Have the radio room broadcast distress signals!

The Rambling Man: Captain, radio is an Americanism. This is a British ship. You should say

ALT1 Have the wireless room broadcast distress signals!

Captain Smith: <smacks Rambling Man with nightstick>

The Rambling Man: nightstick is an Americanism. What you should do is

ALT2 <smack Rambling Man with truncehon>

EEng (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Since the quality of the hooks going to main page has been improving steadily given more thorough "gate reviews", it doesn't harm anyone or anything to just check these things off as they happen. But thanks for your constructive input on this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, laughter is the best medicine. There's obviously never going to be a decision to make MP all American or all UK, so it's going to be a mixture no matter what we do (unless, I dunno, we go Brit on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, American on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, and Pidgin on Sundays). I can't think of a concern more trivial. EEng (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I think you missed the point, ITN for instance ensures that blurbs are consistent with one another, if common phrasing, terms etc are present at any one time. It's a simple task and one that is encouraged in the instructions. I'm glad you see it as trivial, hopefully you can stop commenting on it and allow someone else to get a word in edgeways now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Come to think of it, Did You Know has a rule (sort of) that promotes the opposite of consistency. Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1 for instance, in edit mode, says: "NOTE: Since a preponderance of hooks on the suggestions page are U.S. related, it is usually appropriate to have several hooks on U.S. topics in any given update, though never more than half, rounding up. Thanks." There is also an informal history of yielding to nationalist demands that the language variety of a hook should match its subject matter (U.S. English for a hook about George Washington). That should result in a mixture, not consistency. Art LaPella (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, okay, no problem. It should and will result in a mixture. If that's what DYK wants and is happy with, that's fine. Seems very strange to me, but hey, let's be consistently inconsistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting question, this one. Personally I'd say that as long as hooks themselves are consistent, it's alright, although we should preferably aim for a more neutral variety of English where possible (which is why ITN uses constructs like "X competition ends with y team winning the gold medal" or whatever). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Dirty rotten shame

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

Perhaps take to GA? Thanks, Matty.007 18:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Look at Prep3 right now (reordered):

... that although the Kampoeng Rawa tourist attraction (dock pictured) was meant to raise awareness of the ecology of Lake Rawa Pening, it has been criticised for potentially damaging the ecosystem?

... that Frederic Bonney took photographs of the Paarkantji People, whom he respected for their loyalty and integrity?

... that the MMPL Kanpur is a rare example of an aircraft designed and built by a national air force for its own use?

... that the Texas pocket gopher examines its own fecal pellets, selecting some to consume and rejecting the rest?

... that the music video for Kylie Minogue's 2004 single "Chocolate" features a 40-second ballet routine which took the singer four days to rehearse?

... that Simone Kues was a member of the silver medal-winning team at the 2014 Women's World Wheelchair Basketball Championship in Toronto?

... that Australian actress Zoe Tuckwell-Smith made her major television acting debut playing Bec Gilbert in Winners & Losers?

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

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

Agree with this 100%. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Prep 3

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

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

Like a stopped clock, TRM is right twice a day, and this is one of his for today. EEng (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Just kidding, TRM -- you're right more than twice a day.

Well, I have to make sure at least 1% of my edits are usable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: perhaps you'd like to sort this one out? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal - broaden 2x expand criterion to all articles not just BLPs?

Was thinking about this - we have articles on some topics where material has been added but are wholly lacking in references, that makes it a hard 5x expand - these are almost always more accessible and less esoteric articles. Examples are Apple corer and Chocolate syrup.

Might it be worthwhile to broaden 2x expand criterion to all articles not just BLPs in the interests of (a) cleaning up articles with bits of text randomly added, that otherwise have little incentive to clean up, and (b) opening up some topics that may be more interesting/accessible for readers? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

How about just completely dropping the expansion and newness requirements, and make it plain and simple: GA (maybe with some double-check)? That would encourage real improvement. In addition, the nomination would start with just the hook being proposed, and we'd vote (yes, vote) on whether it's hooky enough to be used. If it passes that test then the article gets its double-check for GA. This would improve the interesting-ness of hooks, and remove the nonsense rush to nominate articles which clearly aren't ready yet, etc. EEng (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No. DYK should not be reformed into a child of GAN. Also, there are several articles that qualify for DYK that could probably never become GAs due to coverage issues and whatnot. Standards for DYK should be decently high but not that high. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Well chocolate syrup and apple corer are only around 600 characters; this would mean a 5x expansion would make it around 3000 characters which is certainly feasible. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussed and rejected before. — Maile (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That makes no sense. For GA and even FA it's only required that coverage be as good as reasonably possible given the sources that exist. As for "decently high but not that high", the weird thing is that some around here seem to think DYK has higher standards than GA. The fact is DYK standards aren't higher or lower, just randomly different, and a huge amount of effort is put in, here, to meeting them for no apparent purpose. A good example is the obsession with banishing and tags -- even GA doesn't care about that, requiring only (WP:Good_article_criteria):

in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons

But if you think GA is too strict, I think B-class (WP:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment) would be fine too. But for God's sake let's use a set of criteria that can be related to the rest of WP. EEng (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Some old time Wikipedia owl once remarked to me that anything below GA has no meaning except to the projects. i.e. Many, if not most, projects are limping along and even effectively dead. Below A-class, any editor can self-assign any rating they want to their own article. Except for a really active project, there is nothing to prevent someone from assigning a B-class to a barely-above-start article, just because they can. Anything below A-class is truly meaningless for DYK to use as a measuring rod. A-class is assigned by projects, only if the project has a process for that. WP:MILHIST is really active and has a process to deal with backlog of articles, a process for assigning A-class ratings, etc. Their articles would be in better shape and probably engulf DYK. What about other subjects that don't have a project support group? — Maile (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying we should adopt the B or GA criteria (or maybe something in between -- call it "B+"), not that we should take anyone's word that those criteria have been met. EEng (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. And I'm also saying we drop the newness and expansion requirements in favor of a "hook is actually interesting" requirement -- see #Dirty_rotten_shame.

But ... but ... that would destroy our power as gatekeepers if anybody could understand DYK rules!!! </sarcasm> Art LaPella (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

So, the truth comes out, eh, Art LaPella? All our suspicions and conspiracy theories were not unfounded, eh? :-) — Maile (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

B-class is too tough. Most DYK articles just don't have that level of comprehensiveness, for instance. I suppose C-class could be okay (but that should be judged in the nomination page, not by looking at the talk page, since there are those who mass-tag articles without really assessing them against the criteria [not naming any names]). --Jakob (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• A major problem with judging based on class and not absolute length is that the class rating is subjective. Gagak Item has passed the FAC process, yet someone unfamiliar with the topic were to try and judge it (99% of them simply use length, rather than comprehensiveness) I doubt they'd give it higher than a C. The ratings are completely arbitrary, and as such should not be used as a measuring stick. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Every time we have this discussion it gets derailed by confused comments like this.

• We can have or not have a minimum-length requirement -- that's of little concern. But a minimum-length requirement alone is meaningless as a measure of quality.
• I just said I'm not saying we would rely on anyone else's evaluation of whether a given article meets "the" criteria, whatever "they" end up being. What I have said is that we should use the C-B-GA-FA ladder as a touchstone, and have a good reason for departing from it.
• Of course determining whether a given article meets criteria is a subjective judgment, as almost all worthwhile judgments in life are. If we eliminate all criteria requiring subjective judgment, then we'll be left with a bunch of criteria which are, yes, objective, but meaningless (such as a length requirement).

EEng (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• You may consider comments such as that derailing the conversation, but I beg to differ. I think we have to remember that all laws (and rules, by extension) are expected to be at least somewhat objective, at the very least as a starting point, so that they can be applied consistently. A lack of consistency is simply going to frustrate reviewers and nominators, and also can make them feel as if they are being treated unfairly. There's a reason why murder in the first degree has a minimum sentence in many jurisdictions, and there's a reason why we generally try to use more objective criteria at DYK. Fine, look at the C-B-GA-FA ladder, but don't use it as the basis of any meaningful decisions (in the context of DYK, reviews). Look at the article itself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Back to Casliber's proposal, I don't think it's a good idea right now, owing to the large number of proposals and possible changes in the near future. There may be merit there, particularly as it relates to more general articles, but I'm not sure the time is right to discuss it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, I've long thought the x5 requirement is too high for all but the shortest articles; the rule really needs some refinement but as you say, there are probably more important fish to fry at DYK ATM. Gatoclass (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's revisit it after the current chaos subsides. If it ever does... (I'm frankly wondering why we still have the unreferenced BLP rule at all any more, since I can't recall seeing one that qualifies in a very long time indeed, but quite a few that didn't. It seems to cause more bad feelings than anything else at this point.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As Crisco suggested

Prompted by Crisco's suggestion that subjective criteria are a bad idea, I propose what we strike the following from the rules:

There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress. Therefore, articles which include unexpanded headers are likely to be rejected. Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. For example, an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, but contains only a bio of the author and some critics' views, is likely to be rejected as insufficiently comprehensive.

Though I'm taking Crisco's suggestion as an opportunity to raise this, I am serious. The "not work in progress" criterion has been the root of all kinds of trouble -- since every article below FA is a work in progress, this cannot mean what it purports to mean, and has become a cover for reviewers to impose personal pet requirements, such as "you can't have tags". As I've said a million times, if we want DYK articles to be exemplary in some way, then we should adopt GA (or higher) as the standard. Otherwise, we should just be up front that these are new articles needing work, and stop trying to dress them up as "not in progress." EEng (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@EEng: the hell? You think we should show thousands of viewers coming from our main page an article full of tags? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

We needn't be embarrassed about that that if we are clear, up front, that these are new articles which need work. The fact is that most DYK articles do need work (including clarification and expansion) -- the only question is whether we admit that up front, or embarrass ourselves, as we do every day, by making it look like we don't realize they need work. Even GA doesn't forbid or even tags, which are simply honest statements that improvement is needed.

Here's a great example: a recent article, quoting a reliable source, narrates that some escapees stopped at "the Graham farm" in County C. Now, I don't know where the Graham Farm was, so I tagged it . What I was hoping is that when the article made its DYK appearance some interested reader would see the and say, "Oh, I know where that is" and suddenly we have a new editor!

Or maybe that wouldn't happen. But we'll never know because someone insisted that the article can't have tags, so the "Graham Farm" mention was simply removed.

Fellow editors, read that all again and tell me: is that what we want to happen at DYK? EEng (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I think a requirement of "the article must be comprehensive" should be imposed; I disagree with all these quality checks. I've never seen DYK as an "exemplary articles!" showcase, but a "new content" showcase, and that's what it's meant to be at its core. This is why all this talk about mandating GA-class is worrying - while that may lead to better hooks and less pullings, it would also probably lead to a lot less hooks being proposed in the first place. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

"Comprehensive" is a very high requirement -- how can we expect that within seven days of an article's creation? I think the last two posts (by ed and TT) very well exemplify the split-mind of DYK: one person wants and article free of even templates, and the other wants few requirements. Personally I would like the latter, with (I repeat) a disclaimer letting readers know that these are new articles needing work -- "Click here if you'd like to help!" EEng (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we really expect comprehensiveness in 7 days; it takes longer than that just to understand the red tape. We expect to exclude anyone who hasn't gone through the wringer often enough to know the user-space evasion of that limit; see F3. Art LaPella (talk) 11:35 pm, Today (UTC−4)

One must not only understand it but keep it in mind, lest one accidentally foreclose a good opportunity by running afoul of the seven days. Sadly, the world may be forever denied the delicious hook

... that Harvard Cop #1 Charles R. Apted identified the dynamite-wielding intruder who shot J. P. Morgan, Jr. as wife-poisoner, US Senate bomber, and deranged former Harvard German instructor Eric Muenter?"

because I, in an unguarded moment, created a short article on Apted, and left it for a few months, instead of craftily developing it offline and springing it on the world like Athena from the brow of Zeus. Too bad. EEng (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Unexpanded headers" is reasonably objective (there's either text under a header or there isn't). "Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected." could be illustrated with a couple more examples to make the degree of subjectivity less influential (the current example is okay, but not necessarily applicable to all articles on written works - what if it's a lost book or manuscript known only through mentions in other sources?). I agree, we can make these more objective, and include tags such as "citation needed" and maybe "clarification needed".

Also, little point of contention regarding "every article below FA is a work in progress": even FAs are works in progress, as the prose can still be polished a bit more etc etc.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, yeah, "unexpanded headers" is objective, and also something that's never been observed as a problem -- we may has well have a rule warning against "long strings of repeated charactersssssssssssssssssssssssssss".

Giving a lot of examples of what you mean by a criterion doesn't make it less subjective; rather, it proves how subjective it really is, which is why the examples are needed.

Of course we all understand that even FAs are subject to additional editing, but it's also understood that the rough idea of an FA is that it is about as complete and polished as one could reasonably expect -- you can keep adding to it and polishing it, but it doesn't need that.

Please explain what you mean by "we can include" cite-needed and clar-needed tags -- include them in what's OK, or in what's not OK?

EEng (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you are quite wrong about that - we used to regularly get submissions with unexpanded headers, and clearly unfinished articles - that's why the rule was added in the first place. All those rules in the "supplementary" category were added because of recurring issues that had to be dealt with. Gatoclass (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, fine. We can say that articles shouldn't have easily-remediable formatting and layout problems such as unexpanded headers, broken templates, etc. I believe you that each rule was added in response to a recurring problem, but I'm beginning to think (see your comment below and my response) that the "not a work in progress" prohibition was really meant to be more like the "not half-finished" idea, but its unfortunate phrasing has let it morph into something way beyond what was meant. EEng (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Subjective criteria in a wiki environment are as a general rule not ideal, because they are bound to be applied inconsistently which frustrates nominators. However, subjectivity can never be totally eliminated from the process; for example, someone has to decide whether or not a hook is "interesting" enough. I think the meaning of "not a work in progress" ought to be clear enough however; it means articles shouldn't look or read as half-finished, like something you might find in a sandbox. In other words, it's not enough that an article merely have lots of sources and be 1500 bytes long in order to qualify, it also has to give adequate coverage of the topic, and that is not necessarily something you can or would want to "objectively" define. Gatoclass (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

GC, that's it exactly! We don't want things that look half-finished, but it's OK if they obviously can be expanded, improved, clarified, refs added. EEng (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

it's OK if they obviously can be expanded, improved, clarified, refs added. IMO, that's just stating the obvious. Gatoclass (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It ought to be obvious, but apparently it's not -- if so we wouldn't have reviews criticizing "too many short sentences" like this one: Template:Did you know nominations/Wanlip Hall, or a complaint about comprehensiveness (which I don't even think would be a problem at GA) like this one: Template:Did you know nominations/Nossa Senhora da Graça incident EEng (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's rare to find reviewers trying to impose too high a standard at DYK though, the problem is usually the opposite. Occasionally a reviewer will need a little guidance to get them in line with prevailing standards, but IMO that's not really an issue that is likely to be effectively addressed by a rules change. Gatoclass (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Adding another opposition to EEng's proposal. This particular rule has been very useful in making it clear that 1500 prose characters is necessary, but in some cases not sufficient: articles should deal adequately with the topic, and DYK should continue to require same. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you and Crisco take a few moments to resolve the discrepancy between your requirement that articles "deal adequately" and his dislike of the subjective? EEng (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Waiting for his suggestion. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Dislike =/= 100% should not have. I could have sworn I've already said we should minimize the influence of subjectivity. Minimizing is, by definition, leaving some in the process. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbor-treeish break

• How about we strike the and not some sort of work in progress part of that paragraph? The sentence would then read There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete. Would that address the concerns raised here? Shubinator (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a good start, but I still dislike "appear to be complete". I particularly dislike any provision that the article must "appear to be" something instead of actually being that thing. EEng (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the "not some sort of work in progress" phrase should probably stay; IMO the meaning of that should be clear enough from the following sentence which talks about blank sections. The "appears to be complete" phrase is arguably vague and redundant and might perhaps be eliminated without undue harm. Gatoclass (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

<rubs hands gleefully> So far we seem to have

Articles should not give the appearance being some sort of work in progress -- for example, with unexpanded headers. Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. For example, an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, but contains only a bio of the author and some critics' views, is likely to be rejected as insufficiently comprehensive.

Can we take it a bit further?

Articles should not give the appearance being some sort of work in progress -- for example, with unexpanded headers. An article should also include, at least in outline, readily available factual material one would normally expect to find in such an article. For example, an article about a book should at least briefly summarize the book's contents along with author information, but might or might not include critics' views.

EEng (talk) 05:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but "deal adequately" removal is a deal breaker for me. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

EEng when I am editing and overseeing articles, there is a 'production line' sense to it that I think is a good thing to preserve - a bit like the four award in that we get stub to DYK to GA to FA, with PR sprinkled in somewhere at an opportune moment. We need some carrot for the arly bits....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep your carrot away from my arly bits or you're gonna regret it! EEng (talk)

OK, everyone, I've struck it. How about this?

An article should not give the appearance being a work in progress seem "half-finished" -- for example, with unexpanded headers. It should deal adequately with the subject, including, at least in outline, readily available facts one would normally expect to find in such an article a basic article on the subject. For example, an article about a book should at least certainly briefly summarize the contents and give author information, but might or might not include critics' views.

But is there something better than "deal adequately"? Or some way of explicating what we mean by that? It's so open-ended. Remembering that we're talking about new articles, it seems to me that we want something far from "comprehensive" -- I'm thinking we want to capture the idea that the reader shouldn't say, "Um, couldn't they at least have told me ..." (Feel free to strike and rewrite the text above.) EEng (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

No, an article about a book should as a rule include critics' views, why did you remove that? Gatoclass (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, an article on a book should include critical reviews. But does it need to have that for DYK? For some books those might not be easy to find. EEng (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's quite confusing, because on the one hand you characterize yourself as a proponent of higher standards at DYK, while on the other one finds you proposing lower standards in practice. Yes, IMO a review section is critical to book articles, because an encyclopedic entry about a book should not simply describe what it says, but should explain something about the significance and meaning of the book and its contents. Otherwise, you don't have an encyclopedic entry but a database entry. Gatoclass (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm a proponent of honest, realistic standards consistently enforced, and when you get down to individual requierments details that means strengthening some things (like the hook MUST be "ironclad" because it appears on MP) and weakening others (like so what if the article needs improving in various ways -- so do most WP articles). I'd like to say more now but I really, really have to get to bed. EEng (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Coming to the discussion late, rubbing eyes: isn't the concept of Wikipedia that every article - even a FA - is a work in progress? Can we find a different wording?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes all articles "are work in progress". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I changed it to "shouldn't seem half-finished". (And a few other changes.) Thoughts? EEng (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-finished? Makes sense but you can suggest a lot better. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I really need to get to bed but I'm glad we're getting somewhere. Are you suggesting "semi-finished", or what? EEng (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

"Half-finished" is a recipe for wikidrama, I can practically guarantee that any rule which mentions a fraction will be relentlessly wikilawyered by irate nominators on the basis that the fraction of expanded sections in their nomination is higher than that mentioned in the rules. Some of us have been around DYK a while and know precisely why these rules were phrased as they are and what kind of behaviours they were designed to, and indeed did, eliminate; the same unfortunately cannot be said of some of the proponents of "improvement" in this section. Gatoclass (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

GC, it was YOU that said a few posts ago, "it means articles shouldn't look or read as half-finished, like something you might find in a sandbox". How about if we said "shouldn't look 'under construction'". I like the sandbox image too. EEng (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

So how about:

An article should not seem "under construction" -- for example, with unexpanded headers. It should deal adequately with the subject, including, at least in outline, readily available facts one would normally expect to find in a basic article on the subject. For example, an article about a book should briefly summarize the contents and give author information, but might or might not include critics' views.

EEng (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

"Under construction" might work - the other changes proposed in the above I would have to reject. Gatoclass (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh goody, you're still here. Can you write a new version patching back things you want to keep? EEng (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The current wording is as follows:

• There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress. Therefore, articles which include unexpanded headers are likely to be rejected. Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. For example, an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, but contains only a bio of the author and some critics' views, is likely to be rejected as insufficiently comprehensive.

I can probably accept something like:

• An article should not appear to be under construction -- for example, with unexpanded headers. Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. For example, an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, but contains only a bio of the author and some critics' views, is likely to be rejected as insufficiently comprehensive. Gatoclass (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This looks good to me. Shubinator (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

As you know I love economy -- I think this says exactly the same thing. Can we all get behind it?

An article should not appear to be under construction -- for example, with unexpanded headers -- and should deal adequately with the topic. For example, an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, but contains only a bio of the author and some critics' views, is likely to be rejected.

EEng (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That's splitting the second point over two sentences in a way that arguably obscures the meaning somewhat. I would suggest ending the first sentence at "unexpanded headers". Gatoclass (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Your wish is my command:

Articles should not appear to be under construction -- for example, with unexpanded headers. Articles should deal adequately with the topic; for example, an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, but contains only a bio of the author and some critics' views, is likely to be rejected.

EEng (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's an improvement. I'll have to think about it. Gatoclass (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's take a break while GC thinks about it

bump Gatoclass EEng (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC) BUMP Gatoclass EEng (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Prose quality

While GC adjusts the thinking cap, I have been drawn to this discussion by the comments of EEngat Template:Did you know nominations/Wanlip Hall.

The is a 3-article nom, and when I reviewed the 3 articles (Sir Charles Palmer, 2nd Baronet, Wanlip, Sir Charles Palmer, 2nd Baronet) I found them rather raw. The very diligent editor who created them had clearly their usual done good and conscientious research, but a lot of copy-editing was still needed to get to the point where the text explained its facts with some clarity.

I am not looking for highly polished prose, but I do think that if we are going to put an article on the front page it shouldn't be as raw as those pages were. If I understand EEng's view correctly, EEng thinks that I should have omitted any criticism of the state of the prose.

While E7 is under discussion, I think I should throw this into the mix. Should there be any quality control of a DYK article's prose? If so, how do we define what is required? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I really hope others will take a minute to look at these three articles. With all respect to BHG, I think this illustrates that extremely wide variability in the standards applied at DYK. However much some of us might transform them if we were to copyedit them, all three of these articles' English is far above that of most that end up on MP under DYK. EEng (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

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

Updates please!

Can somebody please fill a prep or two so I can verify and queue them in time for the next update? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I did one hook. Every little bit counts. Where are instructions for how to add a first-slot-with-img hook? I've been afraid to do that. EEng (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• You just copy the image and the formatting on the line above it and below it into the prep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• I.e., this (from Template:Did you know nominations/Kampoeng Rawa) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

<div style="float:right;margin-left:0.5em;">

[[File:Panoramic view of dock at Kampung Rawa, 2014-06-21.jpg|100x100px|Dock at Kampoeng Rawa]]

</div>

Don't I have to do something about protecting the image? EEng (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

No, that's for the promoting admin to worry about. Shubinator (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh goody. I feel so competent now. EEng (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

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

Prep 3

"he was hailed as "the seventh goswami" (renounced ascetic)?" in the Bhaktivinoda Thakur hook.

If we have to explain terms in the hook in the hook, it's not a good hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no rule against it. Perhaps it would be a good idea to come up with a hooks manual of style where we can agree whether or not to allow terms to be explained in the hook. Prioryman (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mention it breaking any rules, I simply argued for common sense, that if our hooks are to be "hooky" they should not need explantory text placed parenthetically posterior to the main text. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Not much choice when dealing with foreign languages. Gatoclass (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course there is, that's what wikilinks are for. Or else we re-write the hook so it makes sense to our English-reading audience without the explantory notes. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I can see an argument for permitting it, if one is using specialised or non-English terminology, though I agree that it's a bit clunky. My point is that it is not something that we have any collectively agreed position on that I'm aware of. I think it would be a good idea if we did. But we're not going to come up with one instantly, so I would suggest letting this one go. It may be a little clunky but it's not wrong, and that's what matters most. Prioryman (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, run it without the parenthetical. Let the reader think, "Hmm.. I wonder what a goswami is" and click to find out. EEng (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 4

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

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

These look like fair catches to me. I'd recommend amending the hook. You can do that yourself, can't you? Prioryman (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know which variation of billiards is being mentioned, I don't have access to the refs. And I'm not aware if "game rules" is inherently USEng, so that's why I brought it here. If you checked, I have amended other hooks. Thanks for your ongoing commentary. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest checking with the article's creator in that case. S/he would surely be best placed to advise. Prioryman (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The wrong hook was used for that nom - I forgot to strike when reviewing it. I have since replaced it with the alt. Gatoclass (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) If you can read the ref, you can change the hook to not point at what is essentially a disambiguation page. It would be useful if you could do something to help rather than just offer more free "advice". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Defining the purposes of DYK

DYK was established 10 years ago this year. While I think most contributors have a pretty good idea of what its purposes are, we do not actually have a clear statement of the project's aims and objectives on WP:DYK. I think it would be a good idea to be explicit about what DYK is, what it aims to achieve and what it is not, to ensure that the project has a clear direction and to reduce the scope for disagreement and confusion over how it is managed. To that end, I've drafted the following proposed text. I'd appreciate feedback. Prioryman (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK provides a window into the stream of new and improved content on the English Wikipedia. Over 700 new articles are created and many more expanded each day. It showcases this content by presenting a series of notable facts ("hooks"), some of them accompanied by images, which link to selected new and improved articles. The hooks appear for a limited period in the "Did you know...?" box on the Main Page. Editors whose articles appear in DYK will receive an acknowledgement on their user talk pages. The choice of articles is subject to a series of criteria (see DYK rules below). Editors may nominate their own or someone else's work for a DYK appearance.

DYK aims to achieve the following five goals:

• G1: To showcase new and improved content, illustrating to readers the continuous improvement and expansion of Wikipedia's corpus of articles;
• G2: To highlight the variety of information on Wikipedia, thereby providing an insight into the range of material that Wikipedia covers;
• G3: To present notable facts about a range of topics which may not necessarily otherwise receive Main Page exposure;
• G4: To acknowledge the work that editors do to expand and improve Wikipedia, encouraging them to continue their efforts and thereby contributing to editor retention and ongoing content improvement;
• G5: To encourage readers to edit articles that appear on DYK or start their own, thus facilitating the recruitment of new editors.

DYK is not:

• X1: A smaller-scale version of either Featured Articles or Good Articles, though selected Good Articles do appear in the DYK box. Articles must meet the basic criteria set out on this page but do not have to be of very high quality. It is fine for articles to be incomplete (though not unfinished), to have red links, to be capable of being expanded or improved further, etc. DYK's main purpose is to showcase new and improved content, just as the In The News box showcases articles concerning current events and On This Day showcases articles relevant to the current date. It is not expected that articles in any of these sections would be considered among the best on Wikipedia.
• X2: A collection of general trivia. The articles featured are specifically new and improved ones which meet the criteria set out below.
• X3: A means of promoting commercial or political causes. It is not appropriate to use DYK as a platform for advertising. While it is fine to cover topics of commercial or political interest, care should be taken to ensure that it does not cross the line into providing inappropriate advantage for such causes (e.g. during election campaigns or product launches).

• Comparison to ITN/OTD quality is inaccurate. ITN's "Purpose" number 2: "To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events." OTD's "criteria" number 8: " it should be a good example of Wikipedia content". Sure, not considered among the best, but certainly there's much more serious quality control hinted at in the other processes. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, there is no general level of quality required of articles appearing on the Main Page. Maybe there should be. But in the meantime the level of quality for each of the Main Page projects is up to each of those projects to define. In the case of DYK, it's important to note that featuring quality content would only be one of the project's objectives. There are others, such as promoting editor retention and new editor recruitment, which are equally important. The key thing is to get a proper balance. It's pointless sacrificing editor retention for the sake of quality control, as that would cut off the supply of quality articles in the first place. Likewise it's pointless sacrificing quality control for the sake of something else, as the project's credibility suffers if the articles we promote are unacceptably poor. Getting the balance right is critical. Recognising that there's a balance to be struck in the first place is also critical. Prioryman (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • My comment was simply to address the erroneous comparison with the quality expectations of both ITN and OTD. You're better off focusing on what DYK is trying to provide, not what other parts of the main page do. I know for a fact that ITN items are invariably of higher quality than most non-GA DYKs. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• I must say, having an explicit mission statement / definition of what DYK is should hopefully cut back on a bit of drama. I agree with the gist of the proposed definition, though we could possibly polish the text a bit more. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - A mission statement is long overdue. Dare I say it?-Prioryman, you did good here. — Maile (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggest under "DYK is not" changing "Featured Articles" to "Featured content", since both Featured and DYK also present lists, pictures and sounds.— Maile (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Good work. I'd say the hooks are "interesting facts", not "notable facts". Binksternet (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is much what I've thought - also a bit of a carrot to nudge folks buffing up stubby stubs. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Crisco; this looks good. I'd rather not put "interesting facts" in the mission statement because what's interesting to one person is boring to another. "Notable facts" seems fine, but if someone can refine it further... Shubinator (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• Call a spade a spade, these are "referenced facts", neither always notable nor interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope no one minds -- I labeled each point for reference EEng (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Remember, this will all be forgotten in a few months; we can't even document our current queue updating procedure. Art LaPella (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I often forget to remember the forgotten. I mean, um,... EEng (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• The proposed mission statement looks good to me. On the first read through, I felt that it could be edited a bit, but on the second, I think it reads just fine as is. I am One of Many (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• How about "notable, interesting, or well-referenced facts"? Gamaliel (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• Prioryman, if the wording is to be changed from "notable facts", I would agree on Gamaliel's wording. I actually have no problem with "notable facts". And of all the talk page subjects we have been discussing ad infinitum, most of which don't stand a snowball's chance during a Texas heatwave, this is the one that seems the most important to me. It's Step One - detail the Mission Statement of DYK. The only objections so far are only minor changes to the wording. No one seems to be objecting to publishing a Mission Statement (under whatever name you want to call it). Can't we please get this passed and go on to the next issue? — Maile (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Begin from the beginning... once we polish this up, we should include it on WP:DYK. I think Gamaliel's suggestion may be worth including. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hopefully it will be kept out of the way of anything that matters. Wikimedia:Mission statement has been viewed 8 times in the last 30 days. Art LaPella (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I dare say WP:DYK has a few more views. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
      • 4445 views, which is why I hope those 4445 readers won't give up trying to find some rule while wading through things like mission statements. This estimate is oversimplified, but the Wikipedia page gets 850027 views, the Wikimedia mission statement gets .00001 times that much, so .00001 times 4445 = .04445 people per month (less than 1 a year) actually looking for and studying the DYK mission statement. Art LaPella (talk)
        • As there's not even a screen of text here, I don't think we need to push the mission statement onto its own page. WP:DYK is fine. We have a table of contents so that people can skip it if they want. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry to be a wet blanket but

• Since DYK has been entrusted with an extremely valuable Wikipedia asset -- a section of main page -- the philosophy of how that asset will be invested need to be discussed at Village Pump and not just here, IMO
• I counsel in the strongest possibly terms the removal of G1, and of the "new and improved" phrases of X1 and X2. All the other stuff -- attracting and retaining editors, showcasing the breadth of content, etc. -- are worthy goals. But the emphasis on "new" content has nothing to do with anything, except as an artificial way of anointing a small segment of articles as qualified to appear. A huge amount of time is wasted here pulling new articles into acceptable shape under a vague but indeterminate time pressure, for no reason I can see (except some sort of adrenaline rush, I suppose).

EEng (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Why would this go to the VP, exactly? Are you saying people at DYK are not capable of determining their own goals / mission statement, and that it should be dictated by a wider community that is unfamiliar with the process? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• EEng, this is a statement of what DYK is. Not what you think it ought to be, which is another issue entirely, nor what it will be in future. You've been pushing for changes large and small pretty much since you showed up, and maybe some will happen and maybe they won't. This isn't about future goals, but what DYK is and has been. And from its beginning, new content has been at its core, as is clearly evident from its "new and recently improved content" header on the main page (which itself was only very recently modified to accommodate GAs). BlueMoonset (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

A mission statement isn't a statement of what DYK is, it's a statement of what it is supposed to be (whether it is now, or isn't). Somewhere there was a decision to dedicate a chunk of MP to DYK, and when that happened there was undoubtedly project-wide discussion of why that was being done. That was the mission statement, and we should be looking at that as our starting point for this discussion. If that discussion is lost in the mists of time, and we feel the need for our missin to be defined, then we should go back to the owners of the MP i.e. the whole WP community, for clarification, not making up our own "mission" matching what we're doing now, so that if anyone suggests a change we can point and say, "See -- we're carrying out our mission!"

Separately if we are indeed discussing what should be in the mission statement, I think the newness fetish should be dropped. But first there needs to be an appropriate venue for the discussion. EEng (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

EEng, you can't rewrite history. DYK has always been about new content. [4] is the earliest surviving set of DYK rules that I can find, dating from September 2004, which states: "This section is only for items that have been listed on "NEW PAGES" since the last update of DYK." A 72 hour limit was soon imposed [5], which was eventually lengthened to the current time limit. So in fact DYK is doing now what it has always done for the last decade, and the mission statement simply reflects that. What you're saying amounts to making a fundamental change in the project, which - let's be realistic - isn't going to happen. Prioryman (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Until it's clear what parts of current practice are intention, what parts accident, and what parts inertia, I feel it's highly inappropriate to back-create a "mission statement" which tautologically justifies everything about how DYK currently works as being how it should work. EEng (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you denying that there has been a continuous decade-long association between DYK and new content? The very first DYK from April 2004 ([6]) links to the new content page. The very first archived version of a predecessor of this page (Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 1) repeatedly talks about new content criteria. There's simply no reasonable doubt that new content was intended to be showcased right from the start. Prioryman (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You're trying to monumentalize practice into its own justification. If we're gonna make a grand statement of why we're here we need to ask those who put us here -- the community that has set off a part of MP for DYK. Ten years later is a good time, actually, for the community as a whole to take stock of experience and revisit the question of what exactly it expects from DYK. I don't think we here should do it ourselves, since (as must be obvious from this discussion) we'd just define our objectives as being (surprise!) to do exactly what we're already doing. EEng (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This is completely obtuse. Please stop wasting people's time. I don't propose to spend any further time on your objections. Prioryman (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing you spend any more time on them either, so we've reached consensus! EEng (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it's reasonable to put the brakes on this right now, even those involved from the start of DYK are saying "We should instead be asking others to help design DYK's replacement, with the goal of retiring the old system and all the baggage that came with it. Fresh start. That would be my first choice. My second choice would be to shut it down. My third option (it would never be a choice) is to wait it out until it implodes". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• The lead of WP:DYK already summarises the project: "Wikipedia:Did you know (DYK) is the project page for the "Did you know" section on the Main Page. The DYK section publicizes new or expanded articles after an informal review. This publicity rewards editors for their contributions." I'm not seeing the need for a wordier version of this. As the project has its 10th anniversary coming up, a history page might be better - recounting the genesis and evolution of the project and featuring notable highlights, such as the early examples above. Andrew (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The "genesis and evolution"? What, are you some kind of Scientific Creationist? EEng (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, mission statements are very hip these days. I was in a bakery the other day that had a mission statement.

"Hey Joe, remind me what we're doing here at 4 in the morning..."

"Well, Bob, our mission is to provide the community with yummy baked goods that are fresh and wholesome, while leveraging our synergies."

"Oh yeah. Hey, do you think these Leverage Loaves need more synergy?"

EEng (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• That's a reasonable point. My answer is simply that the current wording leaves too much unanswered. It doesn't explain why DYK publicizes new or expanded articles. It gives the false impression that it's all about "rewarding editors". It doesn't mention any of the other purposes which DYK currently contributes towards, like encouraging article creation (that's why there's a "Start a new article" link in the DYK box) or promoting topics which wouldn't otherwise be seen on the Main Page. With all due respect to the merits of Indonesian films, for instance, there's not much chance that we'll see many of them in any of the other areas of the Main Page. My proposal aims to explicitly tie what DYK does currently to specific goals. My hope is that we can then start to think more systematically about how we can tweak DYK to help it deliver better in each of those areas. I'll have some follow-up proposals on that score once we've agreed this mission statement. Prioryman (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• "With all due respect to the merits of Indonesian films" - I get the point you're making, but poor example. Darah dan Doa was OTD on 30 March 2013, and Bencherlite has a whole section at User:Bencherlite/TFA_notepad#Media for Indonesian film FAs that have yet to run on the MP. That nit being picked, I agree that we should begin from the beginning, use a systematic approach to improve the DYK ruleset (both in letter and in practice). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough - I stand corrected. Where do you suggest we go from here? The proposed text evidently has a lot of support; do we need to go to a !vote or shall we add it to WP:DYK now? Prioryman (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Well if you're going to add it straight away, at least correct the false claims that OTD and ITN admit articles that are as low quality as most DYKs, that's patently untrue. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• There's no such claim. Prioryman (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• There's still the unnecessary just as the In The News box showcases articles concerning current events and On This Day showcases articles relevant to the current date. It is not expected that articles in any of these sections would be considered among the best on Wikipedia claim. It's just not required. DYK stands alone amongst the main page by admitting borderline stubs plastered with maintenance tags. As far as I know, both ITN and OTD preclude that kind of crap getting to the main page. Time you faced up to it. It's worth noting that if this "mission statement" is published as-is, I will summarily remove any false claims or incorrect comparisons with other sections of the main page which exercise considerably higher levels of quality control than DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

TRM, do you have to be so confrontational all the time? EEng (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

EEng, do you have to indent your comments so far all the time? And in answer to your "question", I reiterate that I will remove false claims against other parts of the main page. Simples. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No, but I like to overindent comment which are, or are likely to be, branches off the main line of discussion. EEng (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Re: "DYK's main purpose is to showcase new and improved content, just as the In The News box showcases articles concerning current events and On This Day showcases articles relevant to the current date.", can't we just drop the "just as ... current date" bit? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone for the feedback. I think we pretty much have a consensus now. I've added the new material to WP:DYK with amendments as suggested by various people. Prioryman (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Bravo

Bravo and thanks. — Maile (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, now back to your regular schedule, and time to improve the process. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Bohl

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

I had been trying to fix the hook text, since it hadn't worked well grammatically, but should probably have dug further. Would this work: ... that "No Kohl without Bohl" was used to describe the close working relationship of Friedrich Bohl, former head of the German chancellery, to chancellor Helmut Kohl? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC) (Note: "the phrase" can be added after the initial "that" if you think it necessary; I thought it could be dropped.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

That seems much more elegant, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. I've just made the edit (and without including "the phrase"). Thanks for the quick reply, Gerda. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Tweaked it a bit myself, hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Animation now in prep 1 gives error?

Maybe it's just me (IE 11.0.9) but when I click the "Play" arrow I get "Your security settings [something] [something] [something] ". Anyone else? EEng (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Video never has worked for me in IE, works well on Firefox though. Thanks, Matty.007 16:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Video without sound in Firefox and Google, nothing in Explorer ("For a better video playback experience we recommend an HTML5 video browser", whatever that is.) Art LaPella (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It is an intentionally silent video, for what that's worth. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 18:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

We understand that, thanks. But if it really won't work on IE, I wonder if we shouldn't pull it until that's resolved. I don't think we should be knowingly posting content that won't work with the current version of one of the major browsers. Also, since the error message says "Security warning" I fear we'll get a flurry of panic that we've hosted a virus or something. EEng (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It worked great in Chrome and Firefox, but I got the "untrusted application blocked" warning in IE with no instructions on how to make it a trusted application. I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand we don't want to feature an item on the main page that won't work of a chunk of users, on the other I'd hate not to feature such a clever widget just because Microsoft makes a shitty browser. Gamaliel (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Like it or not it's the shitty browser used by a lot of our readers. I think the "virus panic" point I made just above justifies pulling this at least until we can figure out what the best way to handle it is. Another way of seeing this is: is it fair to this hook that we present it in a way that a big chunk of reader's can't enjoy it? EEng (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If the issue is that it won't work with IE, that's unlikely to change. Rather than pull it, why not move it to another prep area as a non-lead hook? There's no requirement that it be a lead hook to start with, and if the video is problematic, then make it a non-lead. Simple and far less disruptive. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll move it. If the nominator or others involved would prefer to pull it while looking into technical problems, they should do that. EEng (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

What does (animated) (with italics) mean with nothing left to click? So I edited it again. Art LaPella (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 1

"... "Asia Minor" was banned by the BBC because it parodied classical music?... " in the Asia Minor (instrumental) hook.

I checked both references which attempted to substantiate this specific claim, one was a website called "rockabilly.nl" which demonstrates no hope of being considered a reliable source, and the other called "waybackattack.com" which appears to be a personal website, which, in any case, states "despite being banned by the BBC (maybe they felt the classics shouldn't be messed with)." and doesn't definitively support the hook. Do reviewers and posting admins check that sources are compliant with our policies? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what to say about this. I remember checking the hook back to the sources myself and deciding it was solid. My memory is that the Independent article directly supported this but now that I look at it I don't know how I concluded that. I've been saying for some time now that perhaps we should require the hook-supporting source to be quoted on the nom page and I'm more convinced than ever. Too much time is wasted like this. Maybe it should be pulled, I dunno. Maybe the promoting admin saw a source I'm missing now. EEng (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

No, the Indy source doesn't mention anything about this work. The hook is "referenced" unreliably. Not the best work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

"... that Jaratkaru insisted on marrying someone named Jaratkaru?...." in the Jaratkaru hook.

But he actually didn't. So the hook is somewhat misleading because he married Manasa. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Insisting doesn't mean you always end up getting your way, or that you don't relent or think better of it later. This is about a myth, so I don't think lawsuits are a worry here. EEng (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The hook is misleading, it should, at the very least, explain that he actually didn't. I don't recall anyone mentioning lawsuits, just reasonably phrased hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, adjusted it myself. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with it. It's actually quite a good hook, as it conveys an element of the unexpected - always good as it challenges and provokes the reader, and hopefully stirs them into clicking through to find out the rest of the story. I'm afraid your preferred version is unnecessarily windy and verbose, so I've taken the WP:BOLD step of revising the hook further. Prioryman (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Whatever, it's better than it was, and that's the point, despite your ongoing point-scoring exercise. Oh and well done with not helping on the billiard link by the way, really pointed "editing". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to get between you two snarling dogs, but what's there now

... that Jaratkaru insisted on marrying a virgin with his own name but was unable to find one?

ain't so good in my estimation. "A virgin with his own name" -- whose own name? This isn't helped by the fact that most readers won't know the gender of Jaratkaru. How about

... that Jaratkaru insisted on marrying a virgin also named Jaratkaru but was unable to find one?

I'm just going to leave that suggestion with you two. Now when the bell rings come out swinging! EEng (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

"... 22-by-32-foot (7 by 10 m) ..." in the West Somers Methodist Episcopal Church and Cemetery hook.

I know, from above, that consistency isn't a priority here, likened to worrying about the deck chairs arrangement on Titanic, but presumably we'd like this to be consistently hyphenated and non-breaking-space formatted? Don't worry if this is considered trivial, it's just another attempt to bring some continuous quality to some of these hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

See the table at WP:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Unit_names_and_symbols -- the last row in the "Format" section: a hyphen is never used between a numeric value and a unit symbols (a unit symbol is e.g. m while a unit name is e.g. meter). And before you ask, spelling out the full unit name for the primary unit, but using a symbol for the parenthetical unit, is one of several acceptable standard choices (the others being name-name and symbol-symbol, but not usually symbol-name). EEng (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Excellent research, and thanks. The reference still needs to follow the claim in the article (per the rules, directly after the claim) and sadly all of my browsers are missing a plug-in that allows me access to that source. Can you access it? I'm unable to see it on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Do you have a cached version of it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

No luck on IE either. Anyone else (this is the NRHP cite)? EEng (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggest it's pulled until this reference is (a) put in the right place in the article and (b) verifiable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Concur on pulling this since this document is cited 33 times in the article. I went to the NRHP's website to see if they had a copy of this documentation, but they don't have it digitized yet. Gamaliel (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you do this? My pulling fingers are all chapped. What about the nonfunctional vid mentioned in some thread near here? EEng (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't read this discussion beforehand, but I already pulled the "Asia Minor" hook as I thought the source looked dodgy. With regard to the West Somers hook, I'm not going to pull a hook over a technicality. Gatoclass (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's argue about hyphens!!!

No, really, I don't want to, but I think this was a mistake [7] See discussion earlier in this section. EEng (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

What part of that edit do you think inconsistent with the above discussion? Gatoclass (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean this in a grouchy way, but I wish you'd just believe me. On MP right now is

the 22-by-32 foot (7-by-10 m) West Somers Methodist Episcopal Church

Absolutely 22-by-32 foot should read 22-by-32-foot. That's certain. It's a little harder to explain why (7-by-10 m) should read (7 by 10 m) but in the end, it comes down to something a lot of people have a hard time accepting, which is that much of typesetting has to do with what looks good, not obeisance to some programming-like syntax. If you want you can make it (7-by-10-meter) but it absolutely can't be (7-by-10 m) -- that makes no sense at all, and looks awful. I myself have a fetish abour bad linebreaks, so if I may continue being a control freak here, the two complete possibilities are:

{{nobr|22-by-}}32-foot {{nobr|(7 by}} {{nobr|10 m)}}

{{nobr|22-by-}}32-foot {{nobr|(7-by-}}10-meter)

But if you don't wanna, I understand. EEng (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. I spent about 6 months completely refactoring MOS:Dates and Numbers so I really know this stuff.

I generally try to reserve my memory cells for something more important than what MOS has to say about the use of hyphens in unit ranges. But if you really want me to do something about this, you will have to point me to the relevant policy - though it will probably be quicker for you to just put in a request at WP:ERRORS. Gatoclass (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Not worth it -- too many pieces to sew together. If someone wants to back me up, please do. EEng (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I know now that some of the DYK hierarchy are more than happy for us to publish low-quality articles, i.e. the lowest quality on the main page, but I was wondering what guidance we give reviewers on the use of reliable sources? Many, many articles I see on the main page in the DYK section appear to use dubious sources which, generally speaking, a normal Wikipedia review process like WP:GAN or WP:ITN/C would query. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The rules are followed just like elsewhere. When I supported/commented above I meant about size really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Some rules are reiterated above, some are ignored entirely. Many actual hooks are being referenced from crappy blogs and sources without demonstrable reliability. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Since we're engaged in rewriting the rules, when we get to the relevant rules covering reviewing the hook, then we should make whatever language in there explicitly state that the reviewer should insure that the source for the hook meets all Wikipedia requirements for reliability. Gamaliel (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

We have lots of rules about reliability (WP:Did you know/Citation and WP:Did you know/Reviewing guide) which both link to WP:Identifying reliable sources. I don't think making those rules longer would help. Art LaPella (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've returned Katsudō Shashin to prep 4 with a still instead of the film. Once TRM's issues are addressed this should be ready to promote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• What are The Rambling Man's issues with this set, Crisco 1492? It's filled again, and we're currently overdue. It would help if an admin knew what to look for when promoting to queue... BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, Gatoclass has just promoted prep 4 to queue 4. If there are any issues, they'll have to be identified quickly or on the main page errors page. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• The "Asia Minor" hook which was just pulled. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Then I guess we're good. Thanks for the quick reply. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

We're low on reviewed hooks right now: only 14 of 206 are approved for promotion, and no queues and only one prep set are filled—we can barely fill another two preps.

I've compiled a new set of 35 older nominations that need reviewing. Thanks to everyone who reviews.

• April 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Jean Berko Gleason
• May 19: Template:Did you know nominations/One Million Plan
• May 23: Template:Did you know nominations/400 SW Sixth Avenue
• May 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Video gaming in Bangladesh
• June 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Ringo
• June 14: Template:Did you know nominations/United States Custom House (San Ysidro, California)
• June 14: Template:Did you know nominations/The Cockroaches
• June 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Francis Hill Coley
• June 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Principality of Nitra
• June 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Aquos Phone SH-06D
• June 15: Template:Did you know nominations/T. Rantula
• June 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Coppery-tailed coucal
• June 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Rape during the Congo civil wars
• June 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Horatio Chriesman
• June 16: Template:Did you know nominations/White-striped dorcopsis (four articles)
• June 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Chiltern Firehouse
• June 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Homage to Cézanne
• June 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Budd (three articles)
• June 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Galau
• June 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Allan Kournikova (two articles)
• June 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Head of Nefertem
• June 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Cushing
• June 18: Template:Did you know nominations/John V. Farwell & Co. (two articles)
• June 18: Template:Did you know nominations/No Mediocre
• June 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Joshua Kekaulahao
• June 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Michel Disdier
• June 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Amy Allison
• June 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Frank J. G. Cunningham
• June 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Johanna Frändén
• June 19: Template:Did you know nominations/John Johnstone (East India Company)
• June 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Sri Temasek
• June 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Adrian P. Thomas, Scenes of a Crime (two articles)
• June 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Su Rong
• June 20: Template:Did you know nominations/J. Mohammed Imam
• June 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Cebrennus rechenbergi

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) 03:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 1

"that Yale neurologist Steven Novella, in addition to being an author, television personality, professor and skeptic, has also authored Dungeons & Dragons expansions?"

You don't need "in addition" plus "also" here, and if he's "an author, ..." why is it such a "hook" that he authored D&D expansions? And why repeat "author" here? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That hook could definitely use a copyedit - I will probably give it one a little later, but it's still five hours before the next update is due. As for the hook focus - I often think nominators are too focused on finding some oddball angle when a simple statement outlining the most notable thing about the subject would be more interesting and informative, but I don't think this particular example is too bad. Gatoclass (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• "... that a Yale neurologist, the skeptic Steven Novella, has authored Dungeons & Dragons expansions?", perhaps? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe: "... that Yale neurologist and skeptic Steven Novella has authored Dungeons & Dragons expansions?" Gatoclass (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Even better. The contrast between the "down to earth" and "fantasy" aspects of the hook works wonderfully. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed, bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done - thanks all for your input. Gatoclass (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Gatoclass (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 2 (ITN "recent deaths" section & DYK)

Rule 1e of DYK states: "Articles that have been featured on the main page's In the news section are ineligible" so the current hook about Johnny Leach should be pulled as he was featured in the RD section of the main page on 12 June, as described on the article talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: please pull the hook and reject the nomination.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Question: Unless I'm mistaken, Leach was in RD and not the subject to a blurb. Do we have consensus on whether or not such articles are acceptable at DYK? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

[RD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The full wording of the rule is "Articles that have been featured on the main page's In the news section are ineligible. If an article is linked to at ITN but not the featured ITN article, it is still eligible for DYK." The reasoning seems to be that the same article shouldn't get main-page attention in ITN and DYK. Here, Leach was the subject of a featured link at ITN, even if per house style that link wasn't in bold (as the other featured ITN items are). Or, put another way, the article wasn't something that was merely incidentally linked to without being featured. As a featured ITN item, I think the current wording of the rules excludes Leach's article, and the rationale behind the rule supports this too. However, ThaddeusB did mention that it had appeared already at ITN when nominating it at Template:Did you know nominations/Johnny Leach, although he said "Per precedent, as a non-bold link this does not disqualify it from appearing on DYK." I don't know what precedent he's referring to, and the wording of the rule doesn't talk about bold or non-bold links but featured ITN articles. Template:Did you know nominations/Johnny Leach is the discussion, btw. Bencherlite^Talk 11:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Indeed, that's why I said in my opening comment "he was featured in the RD section of the main page". There appears to be no flexibility in that DYK rule, so either the rule changes or the hook is pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Agree that under current rules we should pull this, but I recommend putting it on hold while we figure out whether RD is the level of attention necessary for disqualifying article (rather than a full blurb). Anywho, I need to go: wife's birthday dinner tonight. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This situation is somewhat unclear as ITN's practice of using stickies for recent deaths and ongoing news was put in place in in October 2012 while DYK's rules are originally from December 2007 and last modified in October 2010. That being said, I believe that a link to an article that appears in the recent death section of ITN focuses attention on that link and should be treated as a bolded link in a regular ITN blurb and not as an incidental link to a non-featured article. --Allen3 ^talk 12:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, that's my current view (and reading) of the rule. So the hook should be pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Pulled the hook, reopened the nomination and left a with a link to this discussion. Bencherlite^Talk 12:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• RDs are not bold links and as such have always been accepted on DYK before. When I asked about this last May, Mandarax told me as a non-bold link it was still eligible. More importantly, I believe allowing RDs is consistant with the spirit of the rules. A typical RD posting on ITN requires very little work. However, rarely an article needs to be greatly expanded. It isn't double counting the work (which I presume to be the basis of the rule) - the work necessary to get on ITN RD is typically adding "he died", updating the tenses, and often adding a few refs. Expanding the article is not a typical part of RD listings, unlike normal ITN listings. Furthermore, an RD posting only gets two words, not a full listing on ITN. The precendents I referred to are here, approved by Gerda Arendt and Amberrock, and here approved by Muboshgu. I also happened to see this one due to my involvement in ITN. I imagine there are other examples, that I didn't see. As far as I know, RD has never been sufficient to reject a hook before. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you know ... that some people are wondering what RD stands for? EEng (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"Recent deaths". I was once amazed to find that ITN has "Death Criteria". Belle (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Do they have a section on brain death? We could use that here at DYK. EEng (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I've passed this nomination again, as ThaddeusB has produced some precedent to indicate that the rules are unclear enough that similar nominations have been put through in the past. Let's not pull the hook again (although the irony of an article on a table-tennis player playing ping-pong in the queue does appeal to me) but if we do want to tighten up the rules to explicitly disallow articles that have appeared in ITN's RD section, let's do it before the next one comes through (please can nobody with a stubby article die until we've sorted this out, thanks). Belle (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Please make a minor adjustment to the DYK rules to allow article which had featured at RD to appear at DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• "As subject of a blurb in" instead of simply "in" the ITN section? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Quick, change it before anybody else gets involved. Surprise is the best weapon (other weapons are available and in other scenarios may be more suitable, I am not connected with or sponsored by surprise) Belle (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 2 panorama view on lead hook

The panorama image is not always breaking as it should. If I go directly to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2, or "See how this template appears on both today's Main Page" (or tomorrow's), the image is above the lead hook on the right-hand margin, with a white space gap to its left, and the lead hook below all that white space. Changing my zoom cannot resolve that. If I look at it on the Queue page, it reads "... that" then a line break and "Caroline" then the image on the right-hand margin, and a huge gap of which space on the left. Below that white space follows the rest of the hook. I have Firefox. If I zoom to a smaller view, it evens out but only as far as the Queue view is concerned. Is there an adjustment to even this out for all browsers when it goes to the Main Page? — Maile (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Not working on Safari either. Suggest the image is pulled if it's going to be pushed to main page by a bot. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Also troublesome in Internet Explorer 11, unfortunately. The lead blurb covers 8 lines with 2–4 words per line. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 19:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Its in a prep, not a queue, so no danger of accidental main page promotion right now... The image should be fixed to show up as intended or replaced with a different one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's do what we did with the animation yesterday i.e. just use one frame with the hook. EEng (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

If someone can crop it to show the leftmost panel of the eight-panel image, upload it, and put it in the prep, that would be ideal. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Fixed - I think I fixed the image to display correctly. It works for me on Firefox, IE, and Chrome. --ThaddeusB (talk)

(edit conflict)I think I can do that. Stand by 5 minutes. EEng (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Well, it's the thought that counts. Looks TB's version works fine for me (IE 11.0.9) EEng (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks good on my browser now. Thanks for the quick fix. — Maile (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems okay on Safari. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Figures TRM uses Safari. He probably wrestles naked with the lions and tigers. Rarrrrrr! EEng (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no issue with lions and tigers, but it'd be difficult to wrestle with them together as they occupy different continents. P.S. I have no issue with nudity. I'm not American. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say nude. I said naked. Jeesh. EEng (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, looks perfect on IE11 as well. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I already said about IE 11 -- you find some other browser to report on. Browser-grabber! EEng (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

D'oh! I realised I could never call myself observant, either the third or the fourth time I went to work with my jumper on back-to-front... Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

More updates please!

Prep area is empty again. Gatoclass (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Bergman

There's only one article in a prep or queue now, and still I succeed in having a quibble with the hook. Go figure... @Yakikaki, Redtigerxyz, and EEng:

• ... that filmmaker Ingmar Bergman chose to be buried in the cemetery of Sweden's Fårö Church (pictured)?

Reading the article (both the Faro one and the Bergman one), and the source for the hook, it becomes clear that Bergman chose the exact spot on the cemetery where he and his wife would be buried. He didn't really choose the cemetery though, it is the cemetery of the town he lived in for years until his death. It is not even clear to me whether Swedes can actually chose the cemetery they are going to be buried in, or if they are always buried in their hometown; but ignoring that, the focus of the source is not that he chose the cemetery, but that he chose the exact spot of his grave. I don't know why the promotor of the hook changed the actually reviewed hook to this one, eliminating the independent check hooks get before promotion. Fram (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed by returning it to the approved hook (EEng gets carried away with his improvement powers sometimes; if the admins wait until the hooks are in the queues they can change them back and EEng's powers will be nullified so he can do nothing but return to his job as a mild-mannered reporter at the Daily Wiki and wait for the next hook in peril) Belle (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, one can always trust EEng to cast his critical eye over it. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to be pedantic, the hook was changed back to very nearly the original one. Personally I find "Sweden's Fårö Church" to sound less nice than "Fårö Church, Sweden". I would also like to know why it was promoted from the special occassion holding area, where it was put for display on 30 July, Bergman's death date. It's a minor thing, but I find it would have been rather suitable, and I find it incomprehensible as to why all these changes were made to this DYK nomination? Wasn't it pretty straightforward from the beginning? Yakikaki (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It's too bad that the special occasion request for 30 July wasn't honored. We'll have to ask User:EEng why he went to the trouble of digging this out of the special occasion holding area to put it into the prep area. It was the only hook that he added to the prep area, and there was no reason for those of us who worked on the prep set thereafter to notice that this hook had been pulled from special occasions. --Orlady (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it is too bad, but I didn't (as my esteemed colleague hyperbolically relates) "go to the trouble" of "digging this out". Trawling the gigantic concatenated page of noms for green ticks is a blinding process, and apparently the fact that this was a special-occasion hook got lost in the sea of section headers, subsection headers, sub-sub-section headers, and other debris. It might be a good idea for special-date-holds to be noted along with the green tick -- ironically in this nom Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of the Bahamas I did just that, and got gently chided for it. Let's add this as clause ix to section B in Part 4 of Article II(bis) of the WP:official flowchart of DYK processes.

Beyond that... if Bergman chose the specific spot within that cemetery, then at the same time he must have been choosing to be buried in that cemetery, since (unless Sweden compels those dying within its borders to be buried in prescribed places against their will) he obviously could have elected to be buried instead in some other country, to be cremated, or to have his remains fed to penguins (see The Seventh Seal). Perhaps I should have resisted the impulse to embellish, but hooks routinely must be modified on promotion for being flat-out nonsense or illiterate, and that leads to prep-builders becoming drunk with power. I make a point of noting, on the nom page (Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Fårö_Church) when I modify a hook during promotion, precisely in case I've inadvertently caused a problem. I have many times proposed a waiting period during which green-ticked hooks would be exposed to wider scrutiny (either for correction or improvement) but have been repeatedly shouted down.EEng (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

What a curious answer. But there you go, I suppose strange things start happening when one gets drunk with power on Wikipedia - a notion both unsettling and strangely pleasing, at once. But I understand perfectly well that one makes mistakes every now and then - we all do, naturally. You must however on this occasion have been truly blinded by all your work, for the tick was never green to start with, but a rather beautiful silverish grey. And the Special occasion area is marked rather clearly. I must say, it's slightly worrying that you should find the work both "blinding" and consider yourself "lost in the sea of section headers" and still engage in it with such brio that it gives you the sensation of being drunk with power. But then again, a mistake can happen to anyone, and at least there was an explanation. Yakikaki (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand User:EEng's reply to mean that because he is faultless, when he commits an error involving DYK, that error must be blamed on the DYK regulars. --Orlady (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Were did I say anything like that? EEng (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

EEng, you are obviously quite a smart and witty fellow, but your sarcastic tone as in the edit summary for this last comment ("Poor Orlady with her funhouse-mirror view of everything") could be read as suggesting that you intended to attack Orlady's intelligence or good faith. I know that wasn't your intent, but please try to avoid rhetorical flourishes that are more likely to generate heat than light. Cbl62 (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Though vividly stated, there was no sarcasm. Her good faith I don't doubt, though if you look at [8] you'll see that the courtesy isn't returned. And if you read back in that same thread, you'll see one of the many reasons I have no hesitation in saying that, more often than not, Orlady's comments in matters of controversy bring serious doubt on her judgment. Don't hold your breath for her answer to my challenge to back up her "understanding" of my earlier comment. EEng (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As predicted, when pressed to explain her funhouse-mirror comments, Orlady falls silent. EEng (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) EEng, if you had simply admitted you'd inadvertently made an error in selecting the hook from the special occasion area—we all make mistakes, and it's never fun to have them pointed out—it would have been fine. Instead, you blamed it on the nominations page itself and its "sea of section headers". Perhaps, if you're having such trouble understanding the page and how it works, you might eschew making promotions until you're sure you wouldn't make such a mistake again. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes you people can be so weird. Of course I made an error -- that's perfectly obvious and I didn't deny it (though I did deny the always-amusing Orlady's goofy hyperbole that I "went to the trouble of digging this out", as if I'd opened some special vault to get at it). It's also perfectly obvious that it's easy to overlook that a particular nom is designated for a special date, especially since very few noms have that attribute. Noting, when making the green tick, that there's a date preference would be an easy way to fix this, but for psychological reasons not hard to discern after enough time here, some people are more focused on blame and confession than on understanding the systemic causes of errors and how to prevent them in future. EEng (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Poor old EEngie, it seems that, unlike Ingmar, you've really lost the plot. But folks are still quite keen to see you buried. We're all AGF, I'm sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Noting that, as predicted, Orlady still has failed to back up her funhouse-mirror claim that I said some ridiculous thing I didn't say. EEng (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 4

"Disturbances"

We have a hook which says "... 161 "disturbances" ...". The meaning of "disturbance" and its appearance in quotes is not really explained in the article (nor phrases like "riprap" which appear in the hook). In the reference it's not used in quotes, and in the reference, I can't find the number "161" (of course, if the reference had a page number accompanying it, that would help). This hook needs to be examined more closely and pulled if not improved because right now it can be easily verified. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Would be nice if you'd put a link in once in a while so editors can easily see what you are talking about: East Branch Chillisquaque Creek. And maybe ping those involved to give them a chance to respond. Reviewer Mattythewhite could possibly explain his review comment about how he figured out the 161 referred to in the hook. Also, perhaps nominating editor Jakec could comment here. — Maile (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Would be nicer if hooks didn't get this far without being properly checked. If you want an easy way to inform creators/reviewers of their shortcomings, you should create one, goodness knows we need one. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, sir, the short way is to ping those involved. More likely to see a user page notification alert than constantly checking this talk page. — Maile (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Then make it trivial to find out who was involved. Better still, create a template which says which editors and reviewers took part which is auto populated when a hook is approved, and then we can let everyone know what's happened. It shouldn't be down to last minute checks and checkers running around asking people why they did what they did. This is supposed to be the "ready for main page" area. Don't you see that? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Page 10 of the source has a table called "Summary of Disturbances Along Chillisquaque Creek" with a section for the East Branch, which lists the number of disturbances of various types. Add them up and they come to 161, not counting the "left bank" and "right bank" rows which are obviously not mutually exclusive with the other rows (look at the percentages). I'm quoting "disturbances" because it's not my own wording. Riprap doesn't appear in the hook. If you pull this for whatever reason, please put it back in the nomination area; I have an alt hook in mind. --Jakob (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Having to do the math and make the assumptions makes it a poor hook. I suggest pulling it and doing your alt version. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd assume that WP:CALC applies here. --Jakob (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd assume not. You have assumptions above, based on summations of %s etc, it'd be best to ensure our readers reference these things easily, without having to make assumptions about what is and what is not included in calculations. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It's obviously verifiable as Mattythewhite did verify it before promoting. Anyone want to give a 3rd opinion? --Jakob (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. Sign of the times I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I pulled it, as there were no other comments forthcoming. Please suggest an alt blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Asia Minor

I've pulled Template:Did you know nominations/Asia Minor (instrumental) from the same prep area. This is the second time that that article has been pulled, and basically for the same reason... But at least the throne has been polished, who cares that the realm is collapsing at the same time. Fram (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy pings to nominator Launchballer, reviewer Storye book, and Gatoclass, by the below comments, seems to already be aware of this. — Maile (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I had already noted my pull at the template, so the people you pinged should have been aware already. No harm done with your pings, but not really necessary either. Fram (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Homage to Cezanne

Another hook that was promoted by the same admin and was pulled moments later was from Template:Did you know nominations/Homage to Cézanne. Good thing it was pulled, as it was simply wrong. The Nabis were started as a "secret society", but were quite public by 1890-1891, and claiming that the 1900 picture "depicts key figures in the secret brotherhood" is thus highly misleading. It's like calling Jeremy Clarkson a key presenter at the radio station BBC. Yes, he is a key presenter, and yes, the BBC was started as a radio station, but...Fram (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Pulled by Orlady an hour and a half before this post, so I'm not sure why this is listed here. Orlady, by pulling this and stating why on the nomination template, has already given both nominator and reviewer a chance to respond on the template. I'm not sure the purpose of parading this on this talk page.— Maile (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Because it is more evidence of the problems we have at DYK? If 2 out of 7 hooks need to be pulled, then there may be more than an occasional problem. But we can only see such things by listing them here, not by having them mentioned at the individual templates only. Fram (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Sweeping the bigger picture under the template carpet is precisely what we should not be doing. There's manifestly still an issue here, noting all the problems in one location is a great way of keeping track of it all. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You guys want more scrutiny of updates, but when it's provided, that's more proof the system isn't working? That doesn't make any sense. Gatoclass (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

What Gatoglass said. If a mistake is caught and fixed before it hits the mainpage, that is evidence the system is working not that it is broken. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

As long as all the mistakenly promoted hooks have had all nominators, reviewers and promoting admins notified that they allowed something problematic to pass to the main page (or close to it), so they actually learn something, then there's no issue. Right now, because of the convoluted and appalling template manner in which DYK is run, the process of picking out the nominators, promoting admins, reviewers etc is time-consuming and won't happen. Until we can make that easier, the people that are getting it so wrong won't learn. Someone somewhere mentioned a checklist of things to run through before promoting a DYK. Sounds like a good idea to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• I believe Tony1 prepared something, way back in 2011, but it didn't catch on. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• You mean this? User:Tony1/The_art_of_the_hook. It's just a thought-bubble, a mock-up to see whether a series of of show-and-tell exercises might be useful to people. I wondered whether that first example might be better not first, since it encompasses several hook-writing skills at once. Tony (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• No, I don't think that's it. If I remember correctly you had a template with the different criteria and the ability to check it off. Or was it Rjanag? Been too long. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Crisco 1492 and Tony1, could you be referring to this from a conversation earlier in June :{{DYK review checklist}} or {{DYKrev}} ?— Maile (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, those things! July 2011, that's the right time frame. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Also, ThaddeusB suggested Template ready for testing on June 27, but I think it got buried in a lot of other threads on the page. The Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:DYK checklist show it was only tried on 5 nominations.— Maile (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If too many incorrect hooks hit the preps, then the system isn't working (hence my proposal to have at least two independent reviewers instead of one). Hooks pulled from prep area's should be an exception, not something that everyone believes is normal. Considering that the most frequent creator of queues thinks having things in the prep area for only two hours (and the replaced hooks for a lot less) is normal and not rushing things, which means that very few people will actually have the chance to check the preps, makes this worse. So yes, to me this is evidence that things are still badly wrong. The final check should only occasionally find problems, not constantly. Fram (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I might have suggested a checklist—unsure—but I don't think I have quite the background to do it. Anyone care to list some pre-draft checklist points here? Wouldn't it make the system easier and less error-prone? Tony (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Well, you did some edits to {{DYKrev}} (History), but anywho... here's what they look like

{{DYKrev}}

Please add a comment and signature (or just a signature if endorsing) after each aspect you have reviewed:

Hook

• Length, format, content rules –
• Source –
• Interest –
• Image suitability, if applicable –
• ALT hooks, if proposed –

Article

• Length –
• Vintage –
• Sourcing (V, RS, BLP) –
• Neutrality –
• Plagiarism/close paraphrasing –
• copyvio (files) –
• Obvious faults in prose, structure, formatting –

Comments/discussion:

{{DYK review checklist}}

Length	Newness	Cited hook	Interest	Sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism/paraphrase

Ah, all that. People hated it. Pity. Tony (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• If things calm down I may bring these up. Right now it would just get lost again in the other threads (some on topic, some off). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Rush

The rush to promote articles because DYK is overdue! is again causing the usual problems of dubious or incorrect hooks. Nothing earth-shattering (luckily), but not good either. Fram (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, please, regulars, CALM DOWN and take it slowly. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Symptomatic for this problem is a note at the top of Template:Did you know/Queue, which Gatoclass added some months ago and now doesn't want it to be removed again without further discussion.[9] As we have seen time and time again, the problem isn't "overdue updates to the main page" (one new queue every 24 hours would still be acceptable, so we have quite a good margin), but "rushed updates to the queue" to avoid DYKupdatebot and the likes. Removing an instruction that institutionalizes this rush and its accompanying problems is a small step in the right direction, but sadly even this immediately gets reverted. Fram (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That is absolute nonsense. I have personally verified all but about four sets over the last two weeks, and I haven't been in a "rush" to do it. Far from there being a rush to promote, on the few occasions when I haven't been there to promote to the queue, updates have been languishing in prep until they are 8, 10, 12 hours or more overdue. Nobody is in a "rush" here, anything but. That is precisely why the note you have been removing is needed - because administrators are continually neglecting to update the empty queues.

You guys will need to get consensus to remove the note as you did here.[10]. Gatoclass (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD it's you that needs consensus. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The note was added some weeks ago and nobody has challenged it until now - on the contrary, I have had support for it, so I don't believe you have consensus for this change, but I guess we will find out soon enough. Gatoclass (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the regulars who see no problem will clamour for its return while doing nothing to fix the process, just the shiny bits around the outside. How refreshing. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Noting for the record that Gatoclass has made suggestions on changing the process. In general these have been well received. Shubinator (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Everything is recorded here, no need to reiterate that. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

As an example, you filled the queue from Prep 3 on 13:23[11]. This prep was filled on 11:11, so just two hours earlier[12]. In those two hours, two hooks were pulled and replaced, most others were adjusted; the prep area finally had been stable for a full 24 minutes before you moved it to the queue. That's rushed in my dictionary. Fram (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Fram/User:The Rambling Man, can you explain how the note at Template:Did you know/Queue was causing rushed updates? I'm not following the logic. Shubinator (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Simple, trying to ensure there's a prep ready to go to prevent "overdue updates" is rushing things. If a prep isn't ready, it's not ready. It needs more time. The bizarre rapid turnaround at DYK is one of the root causes of the many, many low quality items being posted there. So, in summary, slow down. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't provide evidence that the note was causing the rush, but it sure wasn't helping things, as it encouraged the rush. Fram (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No, you can't, but I provided clear evidence to you that it wasn't causing a "rush". But I guess evidence doesn't matter to you, since you clearly made your mind up about DYK long ago. Gatoclass (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Your "clear evidence" being your own claim that you were not in a rush. Oh, and that the one that inserted and defended the note, is the one that makes the fastest prep-to-queue turnovers, while other people waited much longer before moving prep areas to queues. Yes, that's about the level of evidence I have gotten used to at DYK. You ahev basically damned yourself here with your own "clear evidence", thanks for that! Fram (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Fastest prep-to-queue turnovers" - LOL, if only. The users who are mostly too quick on the draw around here are those like you who constantly jump to unwarranted conclusions based on preconceived prejudices. Gatoclass (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

And BTW, in relation to the charge that I have been "rushing" update promotions: I have verified more than 250 hooks for promotion to the Queue in the last couple of weeks, of those, I believe just one has been pulled. If that's your evidence of "rushing", it couldn't be any thinner. Gatoclass (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the quality of DYK is increasing, but only because you have so many eyes on the queues. This is abnormal because DYK has been so high profile in embarrassing itself and Wikipedia. Slowing down will prepare you and DYK for a time when the current level of scrutiny isn't available to ensure the quality we're recently seeing. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I wish I could believe that "slowing down" the process will create a better quality end-product, but I very much doubt it will. What will happen is that contributors will simply reduce their contributions proportionately. There may be methods of improving quality control, but IMO, "slowing things down" is not one of them. Gatoclass (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Making people rush into creating a queue can only be have a negative impact on quality, no matter what you think. Reducing the contributions would be a great thing, so the few reviewers have fewer reviews to conduct, there's less of a backlog, the time could be spent on more thorough checks. Sounds like a win-win-win to me. But no, you and the DYK illuminati wish to churn the main page three times a day. Why??! I often miss a whole queue being on the main page because (if I'm lucky) I've slept through the whole thing. What's the point of that? No other part of the main page does it, and no other part of the main page has had so many issues with quality control. Time to wake up and slow down. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) User:The Rambling Man, can you show that the specific note was causing the process to be rushed? User:Fram, as Gatoclass noted above, we don't have many admins performing queue updates. Those few admins are DYK regulars, and I'm guessing they don't read the note at the top of the queues. So I don't think that note was contributing to the rush. Shubinator (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

See Fram's comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure which comment you're referring to. Fram's latest comment says that there's not enough evidence to conclusively say that the note was not contributing to the rush. That comment itself is not conclusive evidence to say that the note was contributing to the rush. Shubinator (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

More input requested

To resolve the issue of consensus, can we have some more comments here about whether the note[13] should go or stay? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose the note. Let the prep areas fill up at the rate that quality reviews and re-reviews allow. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support the note. It's documentation of process best practices. The regular DYK admins are aware of these best practices, documentation like this makes DYK more accessible to non-regulars. I support documentation. Shubinator (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Not best practice when the process that's filling the queues is flawed. Very much bad practice. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support the note. As stated in my comments above, the evidence clearly shows that queue promotion here is being serially neglected rather than rushed - which is precisely why the note is needed. Gatoclass (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support I know that all of you are aware that these silly debates are not encouraging help. We do not want the impressive quality (and quantity!) of Nupedia. Gatoclass (et al)'s efforts reflect our mission and need to be supported. Victuallers (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • THERE IS NO PROBLEM! (repeat). The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• .... now I think you are jumping to conclusions ... and shouting a bit loud... maybe? I think you will find that all people who disagree with you are either half-arsed, crazy, etc etc .... but other views exist. And I am of the opinion that there is a big problem. But I'm not shouting about it. Victuallers (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Nor are you doing anything to solve it. Bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That make two of us working hand in hand on this one. :-) Victuallers (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Hardly. I don't see you checking hooks, checking articles for suitability. Just moaning about those who are brave enough to take on the DYK illuminati who keep chanting "there is no problem". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Oh are you not my best friend at DYK? :-) I'm not doing very much at DYK of any value at the moment. But I'm not sure if I'm making more of a contribution?? Stop shouting, being insulting and others may return to help DYK do something more positive. Look around you, you still have a few valuable collaborators. (Treat them well and they will become many.) Victuallers (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Heh, I'm fixing hooks, fixing DYK articles, noting errors, meanwhile the "collaborators" are just that, collaborating to assert there's no problem! Step up and do something pro-active rather than just moan about those trying to fix things. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment From the comments above it seems we only have a few admins performing the updates, they know what needs to be done, they probably don't read the note. The presence or absence of the note is therefore unimportant. This discussion is boring. Discussions should be hooky and less than 200 characters long (or come with free gifts for participants. I'd like the speedboat or, failing that, the giant teddy from the top shelf. What?!? Money-off vouchers for shoe repairs and multi-pack yoghurts? No thanks.). Belle (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You are our first returning customer! Take the teddy! Victuallers (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • You are so getting fired when the owner gets back and sees that you've given the giant teddy away. Belle (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support the note. — Maile (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As this isn't a vote, could you provide a tangible reason why this note will help the one or two editors who fulfil this task? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• This has been "resolved" by User:Victuallers who pays no heed to discussion whatsoever, and has declared this particular debate moot after some three hours with this reversion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• TRM's comment immediately above mine was originally his closing note; I'm reopening the discussion. I have no opinion about the note, but do not feel that this discussion should be closed by an involved admin, and certainly not closed on the grounds that another admin who should know better decided to further an editwar. TRM, please feel free to refactor or remove your closing comment that I've moved down here, but please don't reclose the discussion. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This is fine as long as the note is removed. If the note remains, then the discussion is moot anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

So, Gatoclass, you created this queue[14], of which I have removed one hook and have noted below that one other hook should not have run like that either (but could no longer be bothered to remove that one as well, as that would start to be noticed in the layout too much); both concerns were supported by another editor after I noted them here (one later remark I made was contradicted correctly by that same editor). Any reason for this sudden lapse? Fram (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Seriously?

... FFS, are people seriously editwarring over a note on top of a DYK queue? @Victuallers:, @The Rambling Man:, @Gatoclass: - stop. I obviously can't protect the queue to forcibly stop the editwar, but all three of you are longtime admins and should know better than to editwar over, of all things, a DYK queue note. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

From your apparent surprise you don't spend much time here at DYK. EEng (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no edit war. It was removed by User:Fram because it seemed to serve no purpose. It was variously removed and replaced by me and Victuallers. We then had a grown-up discussion which Victuallers bypassed by re-adding it. I closed the discussion because it seemed pointless to continue as Victuallers had overruled anything the discussion may have brought within three hours of it starting, and the notice has been replaced. The story is closed. Thanks for your "intervention", but too little too late. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

There's really no set of circumstances I can think of where multiple admins should conduct that many back and forth reversions on a fully protected page in that period of time (you also forgot to mention Gatoclass.) All edits involved occurred within the last day, and one within the last 45 minutes. There's no urgency involved in the situation, and it can easily wait for a talk page discussion to finish instead of having that many admins editwar on a fully protected page. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Quite, well since Victuallers acted entirely on his own to bypass the discussion I felt it better we just move on and let him have his way, which ultimately I'm sure he and the DYK cronies will in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Now hours overdue: admin still needed, and preps are available for promotion. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

How many times do I have to remind you people: Wikipedia is not a means of promotion? EEng (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done The beast has been fed for another 8 hours, but will soon be clamouring for more. Still two preps waiting to be reviewed and loaded into the queue. Gatoclass (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hook removed from main page

I removed a hook from the current main page[15]. The hook was sourced to a website in the article, but the current research seem to contradict that information.

• ... that the eggs of the coppery-tailed coucal are probably incubated only by the male of the species? (Template:Did you know nominations/Coppery-tailed coucal)

This 2012 handbook on all cuckoos states that "both parents carry out nesting duties, but perhaps more by male". The website used to reference the original hook gave as its own reference "", but the copy I found online for this bird[16] does not include the "male only" information. Fram (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• That particular hook remova' was an over-reaction (at best) -- actually it was not appropriate to remove it. It's not at all clear that the hook is wrong. The source cited in the article supports the hook. It states "It lays 2-4 eggs, sometimes before the nest has been completed, and are probably incubated by the male" (also: "It lays 2-4 eggs, sometimes before the nest has been completed. They are probably incubated by the male only."). The other source that Fram found does not actually contradict that; in fact, it says "Both parents carry out nesting duties, but perhaps more by male". IMO, that hook was and is supported by a source; it deserves another run in DYK. --Orlady (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Supported by a source (website), but not included in the reference used by that source, and contradicted by a recent book (how does it not actually contradict it?). The hook is dubious at best, so I don't see why it should deserve a re-run. "by both parents, but perhaps more by male" is not really the same as "probably incubated only by the male"... Fram (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the source cited in the article for the hook fact is a website -- a website maintained by the Museums of Capetown. That website cites as its source Hockey PAR, Dean WRJ and Ryan PG (eds) 2005. Roberts - Birds of southern Africa, VIIth ed. The Trustees of the John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town, a book that is not one of the four sources cited in the Wikipedia article.

You are saying that the guidebook "Cuckoos of the World" contradicts the hook fact. The word "contradicts" means "denies the truth of" or "asserts the opposite". That is not the case here. "Cuckoos of the World" does not indicate which sex of parent incubates the eggs of this species. It does contain that statement about "nesting duties" that has been quoted above. The only other information it provides about the incubation of eggs is "Incubation: Begins with the first egg, sometimes before nest complete; chicks hatch at intervals." None of those statements denies the truth of, nor asserts the opposite of, the information in the hook fact. Not every source is going to include every known fact about a topic; the fact that the bird guidebook that Fram found does not specifically mention which sex incubates eggs does not somehow invalidate the source that is cited in the article. Furthermore, the statement in that same guidebook that "Both parents carry out nesting duties, but perhaps more by male", is generally consistent with the statement that incubation (which is certainly one of the "duties" of "nesting") is "probably" done only by the male. --Orlady (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What you consider "generally consistent" may at most be described as "not necessarily contradictory", if you want to be optimistic about the hook. Note also, like I said above, that the "Roberts - Birds VII" source does not support the website, as it doesn't mention this fact at all. Fram (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You removed the hook with a declaration that it was wrong, when in fact you had no indication that it was wrong and you had found another source that was generally consistent with it. And yes, I was slow in figuring out the meaning of your gave as its own reference "" statement. You found a webage that includes some information from the Roberts book cited on the website. That page is not a complete copy of the book's information about this bird, but rather is a selection of a few facts from the book. That page states (in part): The description for the Coppery-tailed Coucal (Latin name Centropus cupreicaudus) can be found in the 7th Edition of the Roberts Birds of Southern Africa. The Centropus cupreicaudus can be quickly identified by its unique Roberts identification number of 389 and the detailed description of this bird is on page 217. You will find a picture of the Coppery-tailed Coucal on page 209. The fact that the owner of the website that you found (a man named Gareth Roocroft) did not include all of the same details given on the Museums of Capetown website doesn't somehow prove that the Museums of Capetown is wrong. (Anyway, who anointed Gareth Roocroft as a more reliable source than the Museums of Capetown?) --Orlady (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Your insistence that the book is "generally consistent" with the hook seems more based on a dseire to defend the hook than on reality. "Not necessarily contradictory" is the best possible reading when comparing "both share nesting duties" from one source with "the male only does the incubation" from another, but calling that "generally consistent" is wishful thinking. Fram (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

When you removed this hook, you stated that the hook was "incorrect", and you cited page 172 of the Cuckoos of the World guidebook. As I have stated repeatedly here, that book does not contradict the hook or otherwise indicate that the hook fact is not correct. Moreover, the relevant information that it contains is generally consistent with the hook. --Orlady (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Are "nesting duties" and "incubation" synonymous? (When I'm sitting on eggs I like somebody else to take care of making sure the nest is warm and cosy. Or was that a dream I had?) Belle (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, good question. The source I gave does discuss the incubation (period) but doesn't mention the male-female division here separately from the generic "nesting duties", which I took to mean the same. Perhaps someone can access the Payne 2005 source given by the book, to see whether that one discusses the incubation separately as well. Fram (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Incubation is a scientific term that was used in the source cited in the article. "Nesting duties" is an informal, nonscientific term that was used in the bird guidebook that Fram found; as noted above, incubation of eggs is certainly one of the duties of nesting. --Orlady (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Cwmhiraeth (creator of the article in question) should be made aware of this discussion. --Orlady (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, the article was bot-created by Polbot in 2007. But no problem with pinging her. Fram (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I deeply regret my mistake in calling Cwmhiraeth a "creator" when in fact she was merely the user who is responsible for almost all of the article's content -- and who nominated it for DYK. I frequently make the mistake of thinking of that sort of person as the content creator, forgetting that an article's creator is narrowly understood to be the person who created the page with the article title.

Thanks for your kindness in saying it's OK to let her know that the hook was pulled off the main page. --Orlady (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Another good example of why noms should stay open for 48 hours after an initial green tick, so this kind of scrutiny can be brought to bear without prepping and pulling, and so the discussion can occur where it belongs -- on the nom page.

Meanwhile, someone (ahem) says above that the hook shouldn't be pulled because "it's not at all clear that the hook is wrong". Here we have a top contender for the what's-seriously-wrong-with-this-picture-at_DYK competition. Hooks are allowed to run when it's clear they're right, not when it's not clear that they're wrong. EEng (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Please recall that WP:Verifiability does not require us to prove that Wikipedia content is actually true -- that would be nice, but it is an impossibility. Rather, content needs to be supported by reliable sources and those sources need to be cited. Consistent with that, the DYK rules state that The hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation to a reliable source. This hook fact still meets the standard of verifiability. When Fram removed it, he said it was "incorrect." The fact that two online sources, not cited in the article, that Fram found did not contain this particular bit of information does not demonstrate that the hook fact isn't correct. It's important to expunge erroneous information from the main page, but when administrators remove hooks just because they couldn't find additional sources for the hook fact, their actions are just disruptive. When I first saw the edit summary for the hook removal, I assumed that someone had complained about this hook at WP:ERRORS, and I was surprised to find that was not the case. I was even more surprised when I looked at the document he cited in his edit summary and found nothing that contradicted the hook fact. This hook met the verifiability standard -- and it still does.

As for timing, this content had been in the article, and the nomination had been on the noms page, for 3-1/2 weeks. That was a significant opportunity for users to scrutinize the situation; four users (other than Cwmhiraeth) commented on the nomination during that time. Although the final "approval" was added to the nom only a few hours before it was moved to the prep area, it was in the prep area for almost 10 hours before being moved to the queue, during which time no fewer than 9 users edited the contents of the prep area. That history helps to demonstrate that no minimum number of reviewers and no minimum holding period can ever be long enough to create absolute certainty that no issues will arise once an item reaches the main page. --Orlady (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Duh, thanks for the lecture on what we all know, which is that by "right" we mean "verifiable". But verifiability always means that, where, apparently reliable sources conflict, we intelligently resolve that conflict. For MP material that's especially imperative.

As for timing, it's obvious that there are just a handful of people who are willing and able to act as a final barrier keeping nonsense off the main page, however well-intentioned QPQ reviewers may be. Those few people cannot monitor all the developing nom discussions and nip all the nonsense hooks in the bud -- for one thing, much of the nonsense does get fixed during the review and it's enough work as it is fixing the remainder which do get through without also attending to the material which would end up being fixed anyway during the nom.

Your strawman of "absolutely certainty" is typical nonsense. No one's aiming for that. We just want a lighter-weight process for green-ticked hooks to get that extra scrutiny without all this pulling. There being no established process for that, we're doing the best we can by randomly spotchecking, uncoordinated, which means duplication of effort while at the same time not everything ends up getting checked in time, as in this case. EEng (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If this nomination had gone ahead with the hook I originally proposed (said to be boring) we would not have had this splendid altercation. However the source Fram has now produced has more information than I had previously found so I will further expand the article to incorporate it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hook not removed from main page

...and let me just add that I haven't pulled

• ... that after he and his family escaped Nazi Germany, Manfred Kirchheimer made a documentary film about graffiti on New York subway trains?

but that this is a kind of hook that should be avoided at all costs, combining two separate facts which have nothing to do with each other (or at least not explicitly so in the article)? "... that after going to primary school, X became a pensioner" would be an equally correct hook, but in that case it would be obvious to all that it would make an unnaceptable hook unless X became a pensioner immediately after leaving school. Why then it is correct to have a hok that combines two facts separated by 44 years, and only linked by happening to the same person? "That he did X and later did Y" would be perhaps acceptable, but the way it is written gives the impression of a connection, a causality, that simply isn't there. Fram (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

And by the way, AFAIK, in 1936 Jews were still allowed to flee Nazi Germany, so they technically didn't "escape" from it but just left. "Escaped" gives a more sensationalist but ultimately incorrect flavour to the hook. Fram (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Fram. I fully agree with the first two points you made, but believe you are applying a much too narrow scope for the term escape. Firstly, nearly all dictionaries mention escape as synonymous with flee. It is certainly true as well that those who did leave Germany, before their exodus was hindered in 1939, escaped a peril the likes of which they could likely not have imagined; but they escaped that peril no less. A very excellent book that chronicles this fact is Letters from the Lost, a highly recommended read, and one that does use escape and flee interchangeably, which I feel is proper.—John Cline (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. If they are commonly used interchangeably in these circumstances, then I have no problem with the use of "escape" here anymore. Fram (talk) 10:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Escape doesn't have to mean freeing oneself from direct constraint. It is frequently used more figuratively, as in "And to think you almost married that awful woman -- what a narrow escape!" or "John escaped death when a traffic jam made him miss the flight which crashed on takeoff." EEng (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Here, "escape" was also not used in the sense "freeing oneself", unless we assume that compositions have a self ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

"To quit the program, please press the Escape key". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Newsflash! Existance of body cells known since c. 800, not discovered in 1665 as usually thought!

Now in Queue 4:

• ...that Ali al-Ridha tacitly mentioned the body cells and characterized the complicated system of body organs in his Al-Risalah al-Dhahabiah around 1200 years ago? (Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Risalah al-Dhahabiah)

Source for the claim: a translation of the work, which is deeply placed in the tradition to claim that some religious works or religiously inspired works contain all current and future scientific knowledge, but that it as expressed in the words of the time. So we need to read "Do you think that you are a small body, while the greatest world has folded itself in you" as "the body is made of cells" apparently. Can we take care not to propagate this kind of religious Nostradamus-like propaganda? Create a hook that highlights the true and impressive qualities of the work and the author, but don't add some re-interpretation that may be fashionable in some circles, but has no place here. Fram (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Changed to focus on age and "Golden Treatise". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Need a hyphen in 8th-century. EEng (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Done. Time to lock my mop in the closet for the night. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget to put the key under your pillow this time. [17]. EEng (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC) (broom, mop, whatever!)

‎Crisco 1492, EEng I self nominated this hook derived from the mentioned article. It is going to be in the main page in 1 hour. But, the hook is not what I had proposed and it was changed. The current hook is not suitable and attractive because "Golden Treatise" is just the translation of Al-Risalah al-Dhahabiah Can it be changed? I'd like it to be changed as such:

• ...that Ali al-Ridha likened the human body to a kingdom whose king is the heart, in his medical treatise called Al-Risalah al-Dhahabiah almost 1240 years ago? Mhhossein (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Clue: we need to stop re-factoring hooks if they're discovered to be erroneous. Pull them and start again. No harm done. Just a few days delay while we resolve the issue. Remember, there's no deadline. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man It is not erroneous. I'm just suggesting to enhance the hook. The fact presented in the current hook is completely right, but not interesting to me. Mhhossein (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about the reason for the original hook to be pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The original hook is based on reliable source, used in the article. Mhhossein (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps I'm confused, but the original hook was pulled, and since then you've suggested a different hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If it's not already running for God's sake pull it from the Q and send this back to the nom page. We should not be resolving this here under time pressure, especially since there's concern about the reliability of the translation. EEng (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The hook that caused so much consternation was replaced a long time ago (before a lot of the above discussion) by a totally different hook, which is now on the main page. It says "that the c. 8th-century medical text Al-Risalah al-Dhahabiah, attributed to Ali al-Ridha, is also known as the "Golden Treatise"?"

For the future reference of people anxious to call attention to something in a queue, there's an easy way to generate short-cuts to queues and preps: {{queue|5}} produces Queue 5 and {{prep|2}} produces Prep 2. --Orlady (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Mhhossein - The reason the original hook was changed was because the "ref" was a highly ideological forward to a new edition. Yes, in Islamic scholarship those worlds within worlds are often identified as cells, just as the "chewed gum" (that's the translation someone showed me) is often identified as fetuses. But lucky guesses / divine revelations / multi-interpretable statements are not the same as tested scientific truths. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that 1300 years ago he, at least, was aware that how complex the body was and that the body was consisted of many parts each a world it self. Showing that some one is aware of sth based on his speech which is recorded in many WP:RSs, doesn't need scientific proofs, does it? Many of his claims are discovered now and are understood only by modern equipment and devices. However, I meant to mention the very concept of his knowledge in medicine, but they changed the hook without even informing the nominator! who could help removing the doubts. I wanted to emphasize on the scientific character of Ali al-Ridha by the hook. You may read the treatise and understand what I mean. Time is passed and nothing can be done, Mhhossein (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• The body is complex =/= cells. That's very basic. The book also relies on four humours. Make of that what you will. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Queue 4 nonsense

I have to run out, but someone please look at

that Ali al-Ridha tacitly mentioned the body cells and characterized the complicated system of body organs in his Al-Risalah al-Dhahabiah around 1200 years ago?

• "the body cells" -- huh???
• Cells were not known until the 1600s (there being no microscope until then)

EEng (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear EEng You are right! there were no microscopes by then, I didn't say that he directly said "cell", I said that he tacitly mentioned that, by regarding "the greatest world in body". I used this interpretation from one of the references. However, his treatise is somehow interesting in considering that he said those words in 8th century. Mhhossein (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there's a bit of a language problem here. If you are bilingual you can be a valuable bridge between the non-English sources and English-speaking readers of DYK, but we need to be really sure that what the hook says makes sense as English and is accurate. In English the greatest world in body makes no sense at all. Unfortunately the "safe" hook is already on MP so the opportunity has passed. EEng (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact I use English as my foreign language. It is better if they inform the page creators or DYK nominators when such non sense phrases are found. I wanted the DYK to exhibit the scientific aspect of the book and the author but they changed it without informing me. However I'll use the experience for next DYKs! In fact Ali al-Ridha says in his book to some one (here, not important who he is): "Do you think that you are a small body, while the greatest world has folded itself in you" Mhhossein (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I woke up late and have had to attend to real life chores. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Great minds think alike

See the two sections just before this one. EEng (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

THERE IS NO PROBLEM. Repeat. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

But then... small minds seldom differ. EEng (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Or fools. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

What is pictured

Trout Inn, Lechlade (now in Queue 6) raises a general question: what is pictured in such a case? It looks like Lechlake, but should be Trout Inn. I have no answer.

Once I am here: do you think general readers know in absentia? (now in Prep 1) If not, at least a link? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Dealt with the first one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think in absentia is needed at all. However, there is a problem with that hook because there is no citation in the article to say that Gauguin is represented by the Cézanne he had once owned; the only source that mentions his representation [18] in the painting says he is represented ("evoked") by works of his own that appear in the painting. Belle (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I added some additional inline citations so that the sources supporting the hook fact are explicitly connected to the hook fact. Apparently the citations became disconnected when concern arose over the need to document when Gauguin permanently left Paris.

In absentia is a Latin phrase that is widely known in the United States (although less-effectively-educated people often pronounce it "in abstentia"). I can't say how well known it is in other parts of the English-speaking world; however, as a legal term derived from Latin, it is likely to be widely recognized. --Orlady (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I knew the term but wondered about others, thinking that many readers of different languages will look at the English Wikpedia because of its broad range. For this particular hook, I think it adds nothing, rather makes for more difficult reading at least for me. A link, even if not needed as you say, would structure the sentence a bit, - "in" is not easily recognozed as a foreign language term, even with italics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The additional citations do not explicitly state that Gauguin is represented by the portrait he used to own; they mention that he used to own it, the interpretation that he is represented by it is a leap in the hook. The Musee d'Orsay piece explicitly says he is evoked by his own work in the background of the painting.

In absentia is not necessary in the hook: if he is represented by something or somebody we would not expect to see him in the same location (which is more unexpected: "...Paul Gauguin was represented in absentia by a painting.." or " Paul Gauguin was represented by a painting even though he is present"? ). Belle (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

A quick question

How many articles you can nominate a day, is there any limit? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Any number that prompts this question is too many (unless it is idle curiosity. And we all know what that did to the cat. Watch out Kitty!) Belle (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Kept it on its toes? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with Belle. If you have to ask that question, you're probably going too far. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• .. or you've got a direct debit arrangement with User:EEng's Swiss bank account. TRM's Trustee Savings Bank pocket money account. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Can't you post anything anymore without mentioning me? It's beginning to get creepy. EEng (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Am I Evil? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• I know of no limit, especially if you nominate for others, - you have to know your own limits ;) - My own record in writing biographies was 11 (needed for a list), but not all of them went to DYK (yet), and the ones who did were spaced, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)