Wikipedia talk:Did you know

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

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

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

Editors interested in improvement drives

DYK has developed a large following of editors interested in improving content. I wonder if perhaps some of you might be interested in participating in our weekly improvement drives over at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement. Our goal each week is to improve one article up to a GA class or higher, and to have it featured as a DYK. We have a core group of editors, but are looking for other like-minded individuals to join our group. Even if you are not explicitly interested in working on our collaborations, you can still help with project coordination by helping us nominate articles to improve and select future articles from a weekly pool of 10. We are also seeking ideas on other ways the two projects might be able to ways to develop a relationship. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, NickPenguin, (I see you got the standard rush of warm greetings from DYK) you might be interested in the two proposals below, both of which are aimed at getting more improved rather than just new articles on DYK. Belle (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes Belle, I was overwhelmed by well wishes. Taking a quick glance at the proposals, I'm not really sure how they would relate to TAFI. Our improvement drives run for 7 days, so they would qualify under the 7 day rule, and I suspect the number of articles previously featured as a DYK to be very small. It is also likely the case that not all of our weekly drives will meet the other DYK criteria anyways. What would be helpful is if TAFI could be exempt from QPQ system, since it is a group and not individual achievement.

Really though, what I was hoping for was either some editors chiming in that yes, they would be interested in sharing the glory and wikilove that a DYK can generate. Or that someone might have an excellent idea on how to attract the same kind of dedicated following that DYK has. DYK can show casual readers that Wikipedia is a happening, and that they can have a spotlight shine down. I would like people to feel the same way about TAFI. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Feeling guilty that you got so few replies. I used to take part in TAFI for simple:wiki but I did find that there was little acknowledgement. (DYK is pretty good at this). Have you thought about identifying an article that would fit in with DYK expansion rules .... e.g. Odessa Cathedral and that might attract DYKers to do their thing and work together for DYK and TAFI? (Good for both projects) They are good at collaboration when they want to be. Other suggestion is borrow the points system (good for your project) or one of our more uncivil members (the last suggestion would be very good for our project and you would have a lot og gratitude! ) Victuallers (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Help

File:Lauren bacall promo photo.jpg

Apparently due to my technical backwardness, I got lost in the DYK template when I tried to create at DYK for Lauren Bacall. It would have said:

• ... that actress Lauren Bacall, who died Aug. 12 at age 89, was a cousin of Shimon Peres, the ninth president of Israel? Sca (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sca (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sca, Bacall is not eligible for DYK: nominated articles must either be new, expanded by a factor of five within the past week, or listed as a Good Article within that time period. The article is over ten years old, was just over 15K prose characters before her death and is still basically that size (it would need to be over 76K, which isn't feasible or appropriate). If the article should be brought to GA quality, submitted (see WP:GAN for instructions), and approved (which can take weeks or months), then you can resubmit it to DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I take that back: Bacall won't ever be eligible, because the article is now featured at In the News (ITN) on the main page. Once it is featured with a bold link at ITN, it can never subsequently run at DYK. The advantage to ITN is that the article stays on the main page longer than for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Sca (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Allowing former DYKs to be re-run if expanded

The discussion above reminds me of something I've been thinking about for a while. One of the DYK supplementary guidelines (namely D1) prohibits articles that have appeared on DYK from ever being re-run: "Items that have been on DYK before (pre-expansion, for example) are ineligible."

I think this rule needs to be modified, particularly bearing in mind the aims and objectives of DYK that we collectively agreed a few months ago. As it stands, D1 has some unhelpful implications. Many DYK articles are fairly short and in a lot of cases there is room for significant expansion and improvement. However, D1 is not helpful in encouraging expansion of articles that have previously run on DYK. It has the perverse effect of enabling the recognition of the work of an editor who has contributed a 1,000 word article, but preventing any recognition of the work of an editor who has subsequently turned that brief article into a much more useful 5,000 word piece.

I think a balance has to be struck between D1's apparent objective of preventing retreads on DYK and the overall goals of DYK in promoting article expansion and improvement. At the moment, D1 focuses entirely on prohibiting retreads and does not give any recognition to former DYK articles which have been expanded.

I therefore propose to amend D1 to allow articles to appear again on DYK, provided some reasonable period of time has elapsed - I would suggest at least a year, perhaps two, and there should be a different hook. There aren't likely to be many articles that would fall into this category and allowing an expanded former DYK to appear a second time with a new hook wouldn't cause any harm. A revised supplementary guideline D1 that meets these goals could look something like the following:

D1. Items that have been on DYK before may only be nominated for DYK again if their prose portions have been expanded at least fivefold within the last seven days, if they have not appeared on DYK within the last [year/two years], and if they have never appeared in the Main Page's in the news section. A hook that has been used before may not be reused.

I'd be interested to know what others think of this idea. Prioryman (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• I would support this. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support, but six months or one year is fine (but with a different hook). --Jakob (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support I guess an article could appear at 1.5KB and then at 7.5KB and then at 37.5KB of prose. Each article would still be mostly new. Also an article that was on the main page as an ITN should also be eligible again if it is a 5x expansion. 1 Year is fine.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Not sure, except for GAs, which would be fine. 1 year certainly. If we don't watch out some people who now write good length DYKs might just do the minimum, with the rest after the wait period is expired. And all too clearly, many articles don't have one good hook in them, never mind two. Johnbod (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Not sure either OK I agree with almost everything Johnbod said. The 7-day rule is already a problem as users au fait with the system develop articles in userspace and then move them just before the DYK nom, so there is really nothing new about them. I can see some editors developing their "complete" article in user space, cutting it back to 1500 characters for DYK and then rolling the full version out six months later for a second bite (I don't know why bite jumped out as the appropriate word; haven't had my breakfast; I don't want to bite anybody; fava beans and a nice Chianti anyone? [licks lips]). Repeating an article that has been improved to GA might be OK, though that too has possibilities for gaming. Belle (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that particular situation really only becomes a problem in the WikiCup where someone could create and submit something in January, wait 6 months then put it in again for double points in June. That's something that can be dealt with at the WikiCup page. As for the rest, I wouldn't see any reason why people would want to do all the work but have to wait 6 months for full credit. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think there are a lot of awards and pseudo-awardsthat take DYK into account, so I think Prioryman's suggestion below of amending the rule to prevent the same person nominating more than once is a btter solution. Belle (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – this was already discussed less than a year ago last November. My argument is the same – allowing multiple DYK appearances for a single article will lead to gaming and promotion not seen since the Gibraltarpedia fiasco. No thanks. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• What has changed since the discussion a year ago is that we now have an agreed set of objectives for DYK, of which the following two seem the most relevant to this discussion:

- To showcase new and improved content, illustrating to readers the continuous improvement and expansion of Wikipedia's corpus of articles;

- 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.

By definition, at least 80% of the content in an article that has been 5x expanded will be new and in practice you would expect it to be a complete rewrite. It is functionally a new article. If a former DYK has been 5x expanded, it's still "new and improved content". Secondly, it's easy to envisage a situation where an editor writes an article that appears on DYK, then a second editor expands that article 5x. What makes the first editor worthy of acknowledgement but not the second editor? The second editor has, after all, put in considerably more work than the first one.

I think the objections about gaming being raised here could be dealt with quite simply by adding a clause to state something like The same editor may not nominate the same article twice. That would prevent the scenario people are envisaging where an editor could get multiple bites at the cherry by repeatedly nominating and expanding an article. Prioryman (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it would have to exclude credit for the work too (so "may not nominate or receive credit for the same article more than once"), otherwise the editor could just get their friend to nominate it (or somebody else as part of some quid pro quo underworld plot: "You didn't need a friend like me. Now you come and say "Belle, give me a DYK nomination." But you don't ask with respect. You don't offer friendship."; that sort of thing) Belle (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Belle: I saw the movie 3 days ago. Today I read articles related to the Corleone Family. Is this just a co-incidence?--Skr15081997 (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Once an article has been featured on DYK, the purpose is served. Better to make room for other articles to be featured. Cbl62 (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• What do you consider "the purpose" to be? 31.49.197.251 (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per what I said last time - "the fact that GAs have been allowed has already opened up enough new possibilities for articles; we don't need to start recycling DYKs as we clearly aren't running out of any." Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think we need to resort to recycling articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - no need for a further softening of the rules, they're lenient enough already. Manxruler (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Scrapping the 7 day rule

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

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

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

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

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

(basically like getting it ready for GA)

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

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

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

I see where you're coming from, and agree that first and foremost we've got to put article improvement as the top priority. I think where we've ended up today is that DYK nominations have to meet some of the GA criteria. It should definitely meet 1 ("well written") though I might cut some slack for the lack of a lead in short articles, 2 ("verifiable with no original research"), 4 (NPOV) and 5 (stable). It doesn't need to be broad in coverage necessarily, or with images. I think we should move towards crediting people who do substantial work, and just getting core articles like piano, oak, house and Poland to B class is a major effort which ought to be rewarded here if we can find an easy and quantifiable way to recognise the work done.

One issue I have with the "5x expanded" criteria is it means I can't take a badly written and unsourced article and rewrite it to a higher quality, because invariably I'll struggle to end up with more prose than I actually started with, let alone 5 times as much. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Then I suppose you could make the case for the 2x expansion to apply to all unsourced articles or all articles under C class status. (minor comment: We have allowed a bastard on DYK before.) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of bastards here, some of which would make fine DYK nominations once improved. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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

But the "new" requirement is effectively scrapped already. An article can spend months (years? is there any limit?) in userspace and months on the nominations page. This wouldn't prevent new articles being posted, but would allow improved (not just arbitrarily expanded) articles to be featured too. Belle (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There's already a route for "improved" articles - GA. Gatoclass (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the "how new is new?" question, though I suppose I drifted off topic first; my point is that the 7 day rule (or any time limit) favours the experienced DYK editor who knows not to write an article in mainspace, and hinders any new contributors in getting their contributions in the spotlight. Now I know we are all about the content and not the contributor, but this rule makes DYK a bit cliquey. Belle (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It's self-correcting: a new editor should only run afoul of the seven-day deadline once, after which they know about it and can plan with it in mind. If they aren't too far beyond the seven days when they nominate, reviewers frequently make an exception for first-timers just because they hadn't known. For a "clique", it's awfully easy to join... BlueMoonset (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That's an argument for not having the 7 day rule, as with it the progression for a new editor would be: create an article, find out too late about DYK and the 7 day rule, create all further articles in userspace and avoid the 7 day rule; the only function of the 7 day rule there is to disqualify the editor's first article(s).Belle (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose scrapping the newness rule but open to the idea of extending it a bit further. Cbl62 (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: two months ago today the change from five days to seven was implemented. There was clear opposition to scrapping the five-day rule entirely, so I don't understand why the matter is being revisited so soon after consensus for seven was seen. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  I don't think there was clear consensus not to scrap the time limit, as that wasn't presented as one of the options. Belle (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry Belle, I think this is too soon. I think the rule, although there is a long tail, still promotes "newness" or "newlyexpandedness" and that is a good thing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  But it doesn't; it encourages DYK regulars to spend as long as they like creating an article in userspace. Over the past few weeks I've seen articles created in userspace in January qualifying as "new" DYKs. Belle (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: There's no point in constantly moving the goal post until someone has figured out a way to eliminate the goal post altogether. I keep seeing comments that it's getting around the rules to develop an article in user space and then moving it to main space when completed. Isn't that why user space exists? Shouldn't WP as a whole be encouraging this method of article creation diligence? Is the suggestion that the clock should start ticking the date and time the first word of a new article is saved on user space? Maybe there's something I'm missing. Who really creates an article in main space in one sitting on one day, completely cited and error free? Most articles are a work in progress. It takes time. — Maile (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  It's quite surprising to see an "Oppose" followed by an argument that seems to be saying that the time limit is pointless. Belle (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do not misinterpret what I just said here. WP:MAINSPACE defines an article as being in main space. Period. User pages in and of themselves are not articles. — Maile (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• I could potentially, just about, conceive (enough caveats?) an argument for extending the rule beyond the current limit but if the point of DYK is to encourage new/improved content I don't believe there are many editors who start writing/expanding an article and can't reach 1500 characters within 7 days, whether they know the rules and cliques of DYK or not; nowhere in the rules does it say a DYK article has to be thoroughly complete (I think?). Therefore the possible advantage I see for an extended limit - and this is where I think I disagree with the opion of Maile above - is that useful, part written articles may not spend extensive time hidden hoarded in userspace until they can be made ready for DYK. Personally I believe that if you can write even part of a properly referenced article it should be in the main space and available for others to read/add to etc. Getting back in my box now. - Basement12 (T.C) 23:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I really like Belle's thinking on this matter, and I would encourage people to be a little bit more open minded about whether they would consider accepting it with caveats. Unfortunately, I suspect that opposition to Belle's proposal has more to do with maintaining the status quo rather than moving DYK forward. If there's a DYK regular (not me) who is sympathetic to Belle's idea, please consider working with the user to iron the bugs out and polish the proposal. I think it has merit and could possibly improve DYK by opening it up to more editors. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  Thank you, but I fear this proposal is doomed as it isn't easy for people to change from a bolded oppose even if they do reconsider. The DYK weltanschauung seems to be that "new to mainspace" is "new" regardless of how old the article really is. That's just weird. Belle (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. One of the big benefits of DYK's newness criteria is that it quickly, efficiently, and objectively filters the millions of articles currently residing on the English Wikipedia down to a semi-manageable quantity. Can you image a situation where everyone with the ability and interest to submit a nomination was lobbying for their pet subject of the day and it required a prolonged debate to make a decision? A fast and simple means to weed out a majority of the frivolous nominations that does not generate lots of WP:DRAMA is important. While not perfect, the newness requirement eliminates 99+% of the articles on the site from consideration, can be calculated in seconds (there are even automated tools to do most of the work), and does not generate the level of debate a subjective criteria would produce. This proposal if enacted would have the consequence of turning DYK into a general trivia section and greatly increasing the workload needed to keep it running. --Allen3 ^talk 10:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Having a random number generator arbitrarily designate 1/100th of all articles created as eligible for DYK (should someone choose to nominate) would also "quickly, efficiently, and objectively" limit nominations as well, although the 7-day rule isn't all that objective -- what it does is reward a minority who happen to know the move-to-namespace and other silly tricks.
• Yes I can imagine a situation in which all articles (or, at least, a much larger group) are eligible. No drama and no lobbying needed to select among many nominations. Straight voting (voting, not consensus -- every editor of 6-month's standing and 500-plus edits gets one vote per day). Period. Simple.
• I don't see how "if enacted would have the consequence of turning DYK into a general trivia section" -- it's a general trivia section already, just one which allows undeveloped, often-really-bad articles to suddenly be in the spotlight, often with the more desperately dull hooks. Dump the newness requirement, let people vote on what's interesting, and it would be no more "trivia" than it is now, but at least it would be what a majority who case see as interesting trivia, and we wouldn't be rewarding editors with a knack for developing slapdash articles in a rush.

EEng (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Allen. Much more eloquent than what I had written and am now letting fade into oblivion because of the edit conflict. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose because the existence of the time limit maintains the premise that DYK showcases new content and encourages some users to aim for quality in their new content, as well as the reasons given by Allen3. Also, the rule does not unduly restrict contributors because (1) DYK is traditionally lenient to newbies who didn't understand the rule and (2) the ability to bring articles here after achieving GA provides an opportunity for DYK to show the work of users who improve articles without achieving a 5x expansion in a required time frame. --Orlady (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think this is needed quite yet. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I thought sometimes nominations were allowed through as long as they aren't older than the oldest nomination on the nominations page. Is that correct?--¿3family6 _contribs 18:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Before the rule change to allow GAs the deadline was frequently extended. Now, to encourage people to improve the article to GA, the deadline is not often extended. This compels an editor to improve an article to GA to apply for DYK.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose You just have to get it on the nom page soon enough, and not everything languishes for months, it is the marginal stuff that needs responses that hangs around. If we were extending I would suggest 5→7→14 (not ∞)Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support because the idea that DYK encourages new editors is a charade -- I'd be surprised if more than 20% of creators/expanders/GA-ers of nominated articles are "new" editors by any sensible definition. It's mostly a small group that's learned how to turn out often-boring just-barely-more-than-stubs. Plus see my points just above. EEng (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I suppose a support should also come with an alternative solution to keep the in floods under control. If we allow all articles, new or old to be eligible, something else has also got to be changed in the criteria. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of that's given in my comments a few posts up -- limit nominations per editor to X per day/week/month; straight voting on which hooks are worth putting on main page (i.e. actually interesting) -- no discussion, just a straight popularity contest. Those that "win" then move on to the stage of checking that the article is up to snuff. EEng (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – per Maile and Allen. I don't see any problem in refining and perfecting new articles in the userspace. And scrapping the 7 day rule could lead to phony "expansions" completed over several months (or an entire year), defeating the purpose of having new content featured. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

What does it matter how long an expansion took? And who's ever said, "That article's much more interesting because it's new -- not like all those stale articles that have been around a while." WP's so big that almost everything's new to any given reader, since any given reader almost certainly hasn't seen it. This "showcasing new content" idea seems to be entirely self-justifying: "The mission of DYK is to showcase new content because the mission of DYK is to showcase new content." But why? Why is that useful or good or fun? Certainly not because it encourages new editors -- the bulk of DYK submission are hoary old hands cranking out one submission after another. EEng (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

EEng, I'm not against reform but whilst what you suggest above may get rid of the "hoary old hands" it will quickly generate a new set; they'll trawl through old articles on their pet topic, those which already meet whatever quality criteria are set, nominate them on a drip-feed system (dependant on how many nominations they're allowed) and get like minded users to vote them in (lobbying a guarantee). DYK would remain a selection of random, sometimes dull, trivia but now no one has to generate any new material (whatever your definition of new is) to fill it. The main argument I'm seeing in favour of change is that only a small group of editors contribute (let's ignore for a second the fact that they are the ones creating most of the content anyway) so surely we need is to attract new blood by raising awareness of how to nominate/submit an article for DYK and some effort to make the whole thing less intimidating for new users. - Basement12 (T.C) 17:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Eliminate lobbying by having a random sample of 1000 editors each day get a popup that says, "Which of these two hooks would you be more likely to click on" -- simple, and based on those statistics tomorrow's hooks are selected.
• I don't think the way to get new editors is to try to get them to create a new article -- too steep a learning curve. IMO the best way to get new editors is to get them attracted to making a small change to an existing article, such as one featured at DYK that they're interested in. Then get them to further expand/improve the article. That's why I've also said we should worry less about article quality at DYK -- we should be frank that they're still works in progress -- "If this fact interested you, click here to help improve the article" -- now you've got a new editor!
• Here's an idea I just thought of -- each DYK article could have a Things to Do which is displayed at its top, so when someone clicks through from main page, he sees "Glad to see you're interested in this topic. If after looking at this article you want to help improve it, here are some things it needs: blah blah blah; click here." Sometin' like that.

EEng (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – newness is important, use usespace (or do as I do, work off-line) if that's a problem. Manxruler (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Tell me again why newness is important? EEng (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, it's keeps the number of noms at a manageable level, instead of a deluge. Now tell me why people interested in the DYK project can't simply work off-line or in userspace? I never use userspace myself, and only some of the time work off-line, yet I have never missed a deadline for DYK. If one is really interested in contributing, then the 7-day limit is absolutely no problem at all. It only creates a quite small hurdle, which prevents willy-nilly noms from flooding the project. Manxruler (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The "deluge" problem has been well-answered at several points above. And working offline is really not a good thing, in my opinion -- as an article develops others should be able to jump in if they want. Very few good articles (even early versions) are developed in one go by one person -- even just two bouncing thoughts off each other, without an arbitrary rush deadline is more likely to result in an DYK-acceptable article ready for nom without a lot of reworking. EEng (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel it has been well-answered, so we'll have to agree to disagree there. You're of course also free to feel whatever you like about off-line writing, but I disagree with you there too. I wrote most of a GA off-line a while back, which worked out just fine. When writing on-line, in mainspace, seven days is plenty enough to write a Start, C or B class article. And, if one is not able to do that for some reason or other, there's userspace. There really is no problem with the current system, and loads of serious potential issues with the change you support. Manxruler (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose (somewhat reluctantly) As the editor who proposed extending the 5-day rule (which led to the 7-day rule), I'm in sympathy with Belle's broad intentions. I would certainly support a 14-day rule. And EEng is right, DYK does not particularly encourage new editors. Nonetheless, our recent Feminist Film Editathon at ICA London has generated several DYK noms, most at least started by new editors. However, DYK does encourage the creation of new content, and to my mind anyway, that is its most important role - our readers don't care who created it. Having said all that, we do need more varied and clickable hooks, and some competition there might be no bad thing. Edwardx (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I think there's material in this thread for a more carefully considered proposal for change. I propose we regroup in a few months. EEng (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - It was pretty good to have this rule. 5 days were somewhat less, 14 day rule seems pretty good though. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Gunung Ambang Nature Reserve

Is it necessary that the hook fact be found in every article of a multi-article hook. The above nomination has been reviewed. The only issue is that the hook fact is not present in some of the articles.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't have to be in every article, but at least one of them. At least, that's how it's always been when I've had my own multis reviewed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

For that particular nomination to become a multi-article hook, each one of the species articles needs to mention that the bird is found in the Gunung Ambang Nature Reserve. --Orlady (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Two conflicting replies, but I will add the information anyway. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Lists and tables

Seeing as you all loved my last idea (I'm still working through the backlog of thank you letters for all the gifts and kind words), I thought I'd try for opinions on scrapping another rule (just part of one this time though, so you can at least partially unravel any knickers that you were starting to get in a twist).

We currently rule out anything in a list or table from counting as part of the prose size; this is silly. Excluding straight unexpanded lists and tables is fair enough, but when somebody has included explanatory text in a table or list and used the list or table format merely to present the information in a more reader friendly format, it is just a masturbatory adherence to the rules to exclude the article on length. The argument frequently put forward to counter this is that it shouldn't be hard to add the appropriate number of characters to the "prose" (outside the list or table) portion, but this is just another example of insisting the article fit the DYK rules rather than the encyclopaedia. Thoughts? (Why not be radical and forego bolding a one word summary for the benefit of the attention span impaired; for the same reason try not to add pictures of kittens or shiny objects.) Belle (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

We can already make exceptions to the rule on lists (see WP:IAR) when circumstances warrant. However, the vast majority of articles that are created in list format would not warrant such an exception. The rule itself isn't a problem, but we shouldn't encourage "masturbatory adherence to the rules". --Orlady (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring all rules is fine until another reviewer comes by and quotes the rules at you, and then we get into the time/life-draining discussion again. We get, or are getting, more articles that need this rule ignoring than articles that need it enforcing, which suggests it might be time to retire it. Belle (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

What current nominations are you concerned about? By identifying the specific issues here, you will get more eyes on them.

As for the general rule, I don't want to scrap it because I don't want DYK to be overrun with new articles that consist of little more than an infobox and a list of bulletized incomplete sentences, submitted by people who can't understand why those aren't decent articles. --Orlady (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Normal text which has been organized into bullets for ease of reading and understanding is totally different from a bullet-list of nonsentence "items". (Of course, like all mindless policies this one just encourages people to adhere to the letter but not the spirit: "OK, I'll just run the list into a long sentence with semicolons between items -- now it counts!"). I fear the real problem here is that requiring an intelligent evaluation of the material would mean an end to clicking that mindless "DYK Check" button and getting The DYK Oracle to do the "thinking" for you. EEng (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Marian Lutosławski

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

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

There's indeed something weird going on there, though I can't tell if it's as innocent as mistakenly copy-pasting wikisource. I'm summoning our biggest gun Bluemoonset to kick asses and take names. Don't worry, nothing will be decided about the nom until this is sorted out. EEng (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

p.s. at least one confusing this is that a comment got moved from one nom to another. [1] EEng (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I moved comment of User:Poeticbent in which he used Template:DYK?again to point to their comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Marian Lutosławski. Since this template is used "...to indicate that a DYK nomination is ready for re-review after earlier concerns were addressed" I thought that it belongs to the Marian Lutosławski nomination so I moved it there. If I was wrong I sincerely apologize.--Marian Lutosławski (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Expressions of remorse are empty if one does not follow up on them. You have forged my signature, faked my edit, and so far, you have not removed even one word from your revisionist rant with no relation (whatsoever) to our QPQ requirements and no reasonable grounds in Polish history. Poeticbent talk 15:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Lo and behold, a new account was created today called Ustallaretevjeter (talk · contribs) and approved Template:Did you know nominations/Jovan Albanez submitted by User:Antidiskriminator using Template:DYKtick as: "Good to go" with a short note: "all fine". That's it. — User:Ustallaretevjeter also reverted me at Marian Lutosławski with the summary "tough luck..." etc, claiming that Lutosławski was born in the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria. However, the so-called Kingdom existed from 1872. Lutosławski was born in 1871. Go figure. Poeticbent talk 17:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Poeticbent, I have done a turn-around tick on that nomination. It would appear from this new user's contributions that this redlink user is approving Antidiskriminator's nomination on the one hand, and then backing you on the Marian Lutosławski template . Please be advised that you have Wikipedia:CheckUser and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations available to you if you feel this might be the case. There does appear to be something odd, but it could be neither of the two of you.— Maile (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Maile66 for trying to help, although the brown stuff will not come off on its own until Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs) gets the drift. The good-faith attempt by Ustallaretevjeter (talk · contribs) simply backfired. Poeticbent talk 16:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed "cruise control"

User:EEng has proposed that the nominations I have been making on fossil ant genera/species need to be "cruse controlled" see initial discussion here Template:Did you know nominations/Apterostigma eowilsoni. I feel that at an average rate of less then two articles a week, it is not only unnecessary, but seems to be targeting a very minor subtopic, when there are current nomination topics that are similar or more prolific, that have not had this suggestion made for. Railroad, japanese, and WWI/WWII units topics do not have this proposal, as far as I can tell, and are of similar article nom rate, while biography topics are more prolific with no suggestion of this. What does the greater DYK community think?--Kevmin § 23:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say they "need" to be, just that it might be a good idea. I think it's in your interest, if your interest is people learning about ants, not to numb their curiosity. I happened to be moved to say something as I was looking at one of your noms, but perhaps I should have said that the same idea might be well thought of for railroads, baseball players (definitely), and several other things. Oh yeah -- Boat Race. Look, I'm saying this in the hopes it will increase click-through, but you seem to see it as an attack. I've said over and over it's something you might want to consider, not something that should be imposed on you. Just think about it, won't you? EEng (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

WHY? Ive been creating and nominating fossil articles since 2010 and I have yet to see the problem that you are describing. I have not seen it happen except with the MOST prolific of topics, where there are dozens of nominations on the same topic in a week. Fossil articles are currently running at 2 a week, we are currently on a 4 queue per day rotation. That means in one 168 hour week there will be maybe 12 hours (7.1% of the week) where a fossil ant is on the main page. --Kevmin § 00:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, don't think about it. EEng (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@EEng: As for baseball articles, I've had nine baseball player articles featured on DYK in the past month, which, not surprisingly, I don't see as excessive. It certainly doesn't appear to have negatively impacted clickthrough rates if you look at Emil Gross (26,000), Charlie Bennett (19,500), Deacon McGuire (15,700), Ned Hanlon (6,400), and Tip O'Neill (5,000). That gosh-darned Joe Quest hook we fought about last month would likely be a good one, too, if it ever gets reviewed ...  ;) Seriously, though, people naturally go through phases of high productivity in particular areas, and we ought not to discourage that unless the quantity is truly overwhelming or the quantity of the articles/hooks is poor. While we definitely need/want variety, our focus should be on ensuring quality hooks, regardless of the topic. Cbl62 (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I produced a series of half a dozen articles on wheelchair basketball players in rapid succession. It's in the nature of things that the content creators do a series on a topic area. In assembling the prep areas, I have deliberately distributed the subjects, so there is only one baseball player per prep area, and we've been staging the pictures so flags, people, birds etc cycle to provide variety. The prep areas still represent the diversity of the Wikipedia as a whole! I've been very much enjoying the fossilised ants! Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

In the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the Three Wise Men, and all the Apostles! What part of

I didn't say they "need" to be [on "cruise control"], just that it might be a good idea. I think it's in your interest, if your interest is people learning about [whatever subject], not to numb [the reader's] curiosity. ... I'm saying this in the hopes it will increase click-through ... I've said over and over it's something you might want to consider, not something that should be imposed on you. ... I'm not saying you need to slow down article creation if you're on a roll, just maybe suggest at TDYK if you could put approved noms somewhere to be metered out at a regular rate.

-- don't you guys understand? It's just a suggestion. Take it or leave it. No need to be defensive. EEng (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What? Defensive? I'm not being defensive! How dare you accuse me of such a thing! Offensive maybe, but never defensive. Cbl62 (talk)

Well someone's being defensive, and it's certainly not me! If it's not you, then maybe it's him, or him, or HER. Certainly neither of us. I hate it when people say that. EEng (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm in rodent mode so look out for an advancing horde of rats and mice. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that for defensive purposes you're best off hoarding your horde. EEng (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect hook in Prep 3

The hook for De Materia Medica (nomination), now in Prep 3 is not supported by the reference cited [2] which says only that it "became the most central pharmacological work in Europe and the Middle East for the next sixteen centuries" (and the hook is also oddly phrased: "became the precursor"). I didn't want to pull it as it would mess up the completed prep and it might be fixable before it hits the main page (or I could come back later and find this ignored so end up having to pull it anyway and look like a right fickle cow, so thanks a bunch if you ignored this, you are going on my enemies list; alternatively, if you didn't ignore it and sorted the problem out, I'm going to give you a big sloppy kiss; no tongues though) Belle (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so nobody wanted a kiss (frankly, that hasn't happened since I was about 7 and suspected of being infected with pigelus, so it hurts, but it's your loss); I've returned the hook to the nominations page and attempted to replace it in Prep 3 with another approved hook, but since it is my first time I might have done something wrong (looks fine to me) Belle (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Belle, thanks for your conscientious work. The source indeed says "This five book study focused upon "the preparation, properties, and testing of drugs" and became the most central pharmacological work in Europe and the Middle East for the next sixteen centuries.

As was the case with many Greek medical texts, De materia medica was treated as dogma for many years. By the mid-16th century, however, his message that investigation and experimentation were crucial to pharmacology began to emerge and modern research into medicines began."

This does basically say 'it's the major precursor' but obviously not in so many words. The key claim the source makes (and the one everybody writing about Dioscorides and De Materia Medica would want to make) is that it was the main pharmacological sourcebook for sixteen centuries, so I suggest we make the hook and the article say this. I'll boldly hope everyone is happy with that and tweak them accordingly, but am entirely open to constructive suggestions and improvements. Thanks again, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Leigh Leigh hook

"... that no one really knows who killed Leigh Leigh?"

Currently in Prep 1. Obviously the person or persons who killed her do, so this should be appropriately amended. Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

As you say, it's obvious, so we can rely on our readers' native shrewdness to interpret it appropriately. Would you want us to say instead, "that no on really knows who killed Leigh Leigh (except of course the murderer or murderers, should he, she, or they still be alive)?" Also, maybe the murderer forgot, or didn't know whom it was he killed, or ... EEng (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This hook should be removed. Someone has confessed and is convicted for the murder, and no retrial is happening (at the moment). While the article describes possible problems and doubts, there seems to be little to no doubt that the one who was convicted really did murder her, only that there may have been others involved as well. The hook badly misrepresents the case for the sake of quirkiness and drawing in the reader. Fram (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Fram about the hook being wrong. I'm replacing it with the original hook, which was approved, but later struck in favor of this one. (I don't see any reason why it should have been; there's nothing wrong with the promoter selecting between two presumably valid hooks rather than a reviewer.) It doesn't look like this hook, which was ALT1, was actually reviewed properly; nothing was said about checking sources, for example. BlueMoonset (talk) 11:15, 20 August 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) 10:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Administrator still needed; the prep to queue promotion is long overdue. Many thanks if you can take this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I posted a request to the Administrators' noticeboard. [3] Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Abortion hook in Prep 2

"that although abortion is illegal in Sint Maarten, it is legal and accessible "just a walk away across the border" in Saint Martin?"

Actually, abortion isn't illegal in Sint Maarten (as it says in the article) if carrying and/or giving birth to the baby endangers the life of the mother. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The body of the article explains that it is illegal with no exceptional circumstances as written in law, but a life-threatening pregnancy can essentially be used as justification to break the law. I've changed the wording in the lead to reflect this. 97198 (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of thing that can be very embarrassing if it's even a bit off (abortion + legal advice, arguably). I urge it be pulled and really nailed down, but I'll wait to see what others think. EEng (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I would agree, pull it. It's hardly DYK stuff really, in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

With the last set of unreviewed nominations recently archived, I've compiled a new set of 35 older nominations that need reviewing. Many of these may look familiar. Thanks to everyone who reviews.

• June 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Foreign policy of Narendra Modi
• June 18: Template:Did you know nominations/John V. Farwell & Co. (two articles)
• June 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Russell Wilson (mayor)
• July 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Vladimir Gaćinović
• July 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Lena Nyadbi
• July 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Jeff Dexter
• July 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Ștefan Baciu
• July 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Childcare infection
• July 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Genes, Brain and Behavior
• July 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Ponte Conde de Linhares
• July 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Walter W. Law
• July 18: Template:Did you know nominations/The Beatles (album)
• July 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Shopping for Fangs
• July 20: Template:Did you know nominations/50 Carnaby Street
• July 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Minor White
• July 21: Template:Did you know nominations/José Carlos Cocarelli
• July 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Ghassan Alian
• July 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Ferhat Akbaş (needs someone with Turkish language skills)
• July 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Aphaenogaster mayri
• July 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Maynard (broadcaster)
• July 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Dick Burns
• July 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Squaw Island (Canandaigua Lake) (two articles)
• July 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Short Term 12
• July 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Tessa Hughes-Freeland
• July 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Islander (band); Violence & Destruction (one article)
• July 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Indianapolis Traction Terminal
• July 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Hkonmaing I of Onbaung–Hsipaw
• July 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Antonio Iranzo
• July 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Transformer
• July 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Church of All Saints (Sutton Courtenay)
• July 28: Template:Did you know nominations/What I've Been Looking For
• July 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Databending
• July 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Pride parades in South Africa
• July 28: Template:Did you know nominations/William Henry Strahan
• July 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Jim Manning (baseball)
• July 29: Template:Did you know nominations/The Harrowing (Inside No. 9) (experienced DYK reviewer requested)

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for these continuing updates! Would it be possible to automate this? It would be helpful to have a "dashboard" that has just the titles and the most recent bullet for all open nominations, like an expanded version of Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 07:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Posting your own hooks

Eeng has asked (via an edit summary) about choosing your own hooks and deciding which position to put them in .... not a good idea is my view. Are we really short of hooks to choose? I don't think you should do this unless there is no other choice. Thanks for asking Victuallers (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

What EEng was doing was replacing the original hook, which had not been approved by any reviewer yet promoted anyway, by the approved ALT2 hook, which he had proposed (it was another person's nomination, and that person greatly preferred EEng's ALT2). It's still a bad idea to do such a replacement yourself: post a request here if you think the wrong hook has been promoted and you have a COI (which you have, if you've created the hook you think should be promoted instead).

As it happens, I've pulled that particular hook because so far as I could tell, none of the nomination's hooks were supported by an inline source citation after the hook's key fact. So Prep 3 will need a new quirky hook... BlueMoonset (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Dogs in the United States

Hi my friends, I am experiencing great trouble in co-operating with the nominator of the above nomination. The article's content under the "status" section seem to be closely paraphrased with this source's pages=120-121 and 285-286. The 3rd, 6th and 7th para of the mentioned section have close paraphrasing issues. When I raised these issues the nominator made a few edits to these sections and added sources to these paragraphs to make the objections appear void. I had asked him to rephrase the paragraphs but he says that all of my objections are have no base and 100% wrong. Please help me.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Let us recall what you have written, "The whole 2nd last para under the "status" section is directly lifted from the book", though it is from Fox, Dr. Michael W. Dog Body, Dog Mind: Exploring Canine Consciousness and Total Well-Being. Globe Pequot. ISBN 978-1-59921-661-4.. I am wondering that how your objection aren't 100% wrong. About 3rd paragraph, most of its part refers to Soul Reflections: My Poetic Journey and Animal Breeding, Welfare and Society. Same for the 6th para which refers to the original source of USDA[4], NIH and others.[5], the whole 7th paragraph is not even referring to the book. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, please read the comment again "The whole 2nd last para under the "status" section is directly lifted from the book". Check the cited source and you will find why I am not wrong.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Skr15081997 Thanks for clarifying but the 2nd last para is of only 2 lines and they are referring to Dog Body, Dog Mind: Exploring Canine Consciousness and Total Well-Being, if you were talking about the bigger para, which is 3rd last or 7th that you referred then you may want to recheck. It comes from USDA Compliance Inspections, "Final Rules: Animal Welfare; 9 CFR Part 3 - Animal Welfare Information Center"., although the book source was no more needed so I had removed it, just like I have mentioned above. Recently mentioned about the section number. [6] Remember that this paragraph is totally rid of that book. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I raised a concern long ago with this nom which hasn't really been addressed: I'm not sure "Dogs in the United States" justifies a standalone article. But beyond that, the very serious language and organization problems remain: as of now the lead opens, "Status of dogs in the United States has been widely acknowledged by the number of observers. Notably, many dogs in the country have safely received vaccination on annual basis." And so on. EEng (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Addressed, but you haven't responded, so I am copying the same answer that I had given to you previously, you were told that Street dogs in Moscow was also a DYK. Looking this way it is clearly that we have already passed that stage. I have changed the lead and made new section about vaccination. Looks like there is nothing left to discuss here anymore. Consider writing on the DYK nomination. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion belongs back on the nom page, but note that the reviewer came here out of desperation in dealing with you. There are very serious problems here. (As to "Street dogs in Moscow", see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.) EEng (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@EEng: It seems that Skr15081997 had doubt which has been resolved. I am looking forward for others,(if there are) but for now I have to review some DYK nom first. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Kweilin Incident in Prep 2

I think the hook needs to be reworked. First, the article doesn't state that it's the first civilian aircraft to be shot down, but first civilian passenger aircraft to be shot down. I'm not sure if the former is also true, but it's not what the article says. Secondly, it says that the aircraft was rebuilt only to be shot down again. That's also not quite right: the second "shootdown" happened on the ground, when the aircraft was strafed by Japanese fighters. In fact, technically speaking, I'm not sure I'd even call the first incident a shootdown rather than the plane being fired on, forced to land on a river, and then strafed until it sunk. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I moved this hook to Prep 1 at the bottom, until it can be looked at. I think the review on Template:Did you know nominations/Kweilin Incident needs to be revisited. It seems lacking to me, but other editors might have different opinions. — Maile (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

So who is going to reopen? Pinging Hawkeye7 because he had accepted. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I've pulled it from the queue. You can continue the discussion on its page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 21 August 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) 21:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Now overdue. Looking for an admin to promote very soon; while this prep doesn't have special occasion hooks, the next one does, and it would be unfortunate if its hooks didn't run starting midday (UTC) on August 22. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone checked these hooks? One of the hooks is mine so can someone request me to do this, otherwise wait for another admin? Victuallers (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK - Olga Limburg

Unfortunately, the reported fact that "Olga Limburg starred alongside Heinz Rühmann in 49 films", which is currently featured on the main page under "Did you know", appears to be incorrect and the result of a misreading of this source. The source itself states unambiguously that Limburg had acting parts in 49 films in total throughout her acting career, including merely four alongside Rühmann: "zwischen 1919 und 1955 insgesamt 49 Filme (vier mit Heinz Rühmann)".

As I am unfamiliar with the DYK processes and don't wish to upset anything, I'll refrain for the moment from editing the article itself and am asking for guidance here on how to proceed.
-- Svenman (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - fixed. Do fix the article - thats how we work. We trust you. Victuallers (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I've edited the article in the meantime. After having read up on the rules, I was just about to report the error on WP:ERRORS, but now everything is ok.

-- Svenman (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

To link, or not to link

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

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

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

BTW, you misspelled "beanery". EEng (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

• In almost all of the examples here, the non-target articles were topics that needed to be linked, IMO. The exception was the Walt Disney studios hook -- the hook probably didn't need to link to the list. There's an art to crafting hooks to draw as much attention as possible to the target article rather than non-target articles in the hook. Most of these hooks were worded so as to draw attention to the target articles; if there's a problem here, it's in the choice of hook facts that rely on a secondary topic to grab the reader's attention.

I wouldn't see the Sea of Trees example as a failure -- the target hook did garner more than 5000 hits. --Orlady (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, show us how it's done. How would you re-"craft" these three of the OP's examples --

... that on its 2012 centenary, the Rio de Janeiro cableway was honored with a Google Doodle in Brazil?

or

... that the film Sea of Trees, now in production, is about the Japanese "Suicide Forest"?

or

... that in later life, baseball player Dan Casey claimed he was "Casey at the Bat"?

-- to avoid a "choice of hook facts that rely on a secondary topic to grab the reader's attention"? EEng (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I said the hooks were worded appropriately (Most of these hooks were worded so as to draw attention to the target articles). I said that if there was a problem with these hooks (note that I didn't say there was a problem), it was that the chosen hook facts relied on other article topics to draw attention to the target articles. --Orlady (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine. How would you recommend re-crafting these hooks to draw attention to the target articles, without "relying on other article topics" to do so? EEng (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• We've been doing this a long time and I don't see the problem. Driving eyes to the article... huh? Who said we're trying to do that?? We feature the article on the main page and that's all you get; if readers want to see the article they can (and many will) and if they want to click on other links, fine. The point beyond that is to drive readers into the Wikipedia generally, I guess. And adding limks makes for a better hook that's more useful/fun/interesting to the reader and gives them more stuff to do. And if you just have the link to the article itself, well some of these articles are pretty dull or of highly specialized interest. I look to put links into other articles in the hook on purpose to give some happy time to more, and a wider range of, readers. As to driving more readers to the article because it's new and here's a good chance to get people to improve it, dunno. Maybe. But I never heard that one, although it makes some sense. Herostratus (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support The point of DYK is to highlight the new content, not to link to topics in a general and/or random way. Also, as a technical point, note that superfluous blue links are a nuisance when using a touch-screen device such as a tablet because they tend to cause misclicks. Here's some more examples of overlinking from the current batch:

• ... that Cicero's lost Consolatio (45 BC) is widely accepted as the distinct work that transmitted the earlier consolatio literary tradition to the Romans of the late Republic? — Here we have consolatio linked twice when one is a specific example of the general style. Details of the author and period will obviously be found in the target article too and so, if anyone wants to know more, they should be going to the target article to get the context.
• ... that Charles de Visscher, a Belgian judge of the International Court of Justice, was orphaned at age twelve? — linking orphan here seems ridiculous.

Andrew (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Amen. EEng (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Nothing for you to be embarrassed about -- you were just following the usual practice of linking hooks pretty much the same way article text is linked. I think you're wrong the cableway article would get clicked second -- my guess is that very few readers return after clicking off to whatever link catches their interest first e.g. Goggle Doodle. When reading your statement that "it can be helpful to link catchy terms", it occurred to me that in a way the linking acts as a kind of highlighting which perhaps attracts interest to the hook overall, even as those same links tend to "siphon" some of that interest away from the primary article. EEng (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• I want to mention another reason for linking sparingly. There's a lot of effort put into ensuring that DYK articles meet at least minimum standards, but absolutely all of that effort is directed at the primary "bolded" article. There's no attention at all given to the quality of the other articles linked from the hook, and they're often absolutely awful. And if we're worried about being embarrassed by an article being linked from the main page, I don't think readers will recognize that secondary links "don't count" and give us a pass -- a serious BLP or other violation, linked from a hook, will come down hard on DYK regardless of what flavor the link was. EEng (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

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

Proposal: Links should be added to hooks sparingly, primarily only where needed to avoid misleading the reader.

Support Don't everyone rush to weigh in at once. EEng (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support. Cbl62 (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis and hook creation

What do the current rules say about WP:SYNTH and hook creation? Recently, I reviewed a DYK that appeared to interpret and synthesize a hook from the source material rather than cite an easy to verify fact. This was made even more complicated by the fact that the nominator relied upon foreign language sources and expected reviewers to AGF rather than to verify the hooks in English. Putting aside that example, which the nominator disputes and which was passed by his close friend rather than a neutral party, I would like to discuss the problem in general; that is to say, how does DYK currently review and filter out synthesis in nominated hooks? Speaking from my own experience in both reviewing and nominating hooks, I consider a hook free from synthesis when the hook can easily be verified in the source material without interpretation, and without combining separate unrelated passages to create the hook. In other words, hook nominators should not be creating novel formulations from the source material. Due to the dispute mentioned above, it appears some nominators strongly disagree. I would like to hear feedback from the community on this matter. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis in a hook is no more acceptable than in any other form of encyclopaedic content - I'd have thought that went without saying... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Do we have explicit rules that discuss how to identify synthesis in hooks? According to at least one nominator, many of our hooks are synthesized from the source material, rather than stating facts directly. I disagree with the nominator's interpretation of our hook creation process, but he has a point, in that some editors may think synthesizing hooks is acceptable as long as the material appears in the source. Nevertheless, IMO, this is a novel formulation of material. Hooks, IMO, should be easily sourced, to the point where anyone can verify the fact at hand. I'm arguing that this may not be the case and that we may need to explicitly rule out synthesis in our hooks. Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Either a hook complies with Wikipedia policy concerning synthesis or it doesn't. Why do we need to explain the same policy again just for hooks? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. So then, let me clarify in response to the above. How much is a hook allowed to differ from the cited hook in the article? According to the same nominator, the hook can differ quite a bit. However, I thought (at one point) this was against the rules and that the hook should match the content in the article. Viriditas (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean? A hook has to be based on article content, obviously. And that content in turn has to be properly cited, and without synthesis. Certainly a hook can summarise an aspect of the article, that isn't a problem. What it can't do is state (or imply) a conclusion not supported directly by a source. The mere fact that the hook is on the main page, rather than in the relevant article, makes no difference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

For what I mean, see this discussion, where all of these points are raised by the nominator. I have no problem with summarizing an aspect of an article, but when the nominator picks and chooses what to summarize from the source material, in order to formulate a novel claim, then I have a problem. Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

From a quick look at the discussion, the nominator is stating that the 'novel claim' is in fact made in the source cited - which therefore isn't synthesis. Or rather, it is synthesis, by the author of the source material, who drew different facts together to reach a conclusion - but we expect the authors of our sources to engage in synthesis. That is a significant part of what academic writing is about. Anyway, I should have gone to bed hours ago, and I'm in no fit state to read through the whole thread in detail, and even if I do, I'm not sure why anyone would take my opinion as any sort of definitive answer. Both you and the nominator of the disputed hook seem to agree that hooks shouldn't contain synthesis, and accordingly your original question seems moot. As to whether this hook does contain synthesis by the nominator, perhaps you could ask at WP:RSN - only a single source is being cited, so the question comes down to whether it is RS for the hook. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Full preps and empty queues - Admin needed

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

1 done Victuallers (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Victuallers, you probably should have done 2 because those two queues were built at about the same time. Also, when the queues are overdue in the wee hours in the U.S. there are a lot less admins to promote a set.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Some are still awake :-) Victuallers (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Victuallers, I don't understand why you keep moving just one set. Also, what went wrong with the update? The prep areas did not rotate.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and advice. It takes time Tony, but its always a pleasure :p I don't understand why you are trying to puzzle out my motives, but I'm pleased that you contribute, and thats enough for me. I'm not sure why the prep areas didnt rotate. Is that my fault as well? Victuallers (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Rotation is not automatic. But anybody can make it happen. Right above the top prep area is this line "NOTE: The next prep set to move into the queue is prep [number] "update count" So clicking on "update count" and then changing the Prep number manually rotates it. — Maile (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Prep 4

The lead hook has 216 char (not including "pictured"). Yoninah (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I made some cuts to the open-crotch pants (strange as that may sound). EEng (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Any chance of a quick review to meet a centenary

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

Might be helpful if the reviewer knows some French. EEng (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

baby buttcrack

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

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

Probably helpful to have the template: Open-crotch pants. — Maile (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that the queue be updated and that Gerber Reservoir become the top item, using the much more pleasant image you see to the left. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Strongly support this. The main page should make at least some attempt to not have pictures like that on the front page. (then again, the reservoir could offend a lot of people...) --Jakob (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I also support the beautiful image of the Gerber Reservoir. — Maile (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel somewhat ashamed about this because I copyedited the hook [7] and didn't even register what the image showed. We only have an hour, so I'm pinging every DYK admin I can think of. Crisco 1492 Victuallers Casliber The Rambling Man Fram Orlady Graeme_Bartlett Beeblebrox EEng (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oh for the love of... changed. Not censored is fine, but when something pushes the boundaries like this one would expect a bit more discussion beforehand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank God. I was just about to post to AN and MP Errors. My fingers were overheating. EEng (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

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

You have to be an admin to do that and if you're an admin, why wouldn't you just fix the queue? --Jakob (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Christ, you're right -- you have to be an admin. So much for that idea. EEng (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre and unintentional comic relief

As a final indignity, we have the following text in the article [8]:

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

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

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